Innovation, it is now widely acknowledged, is the key driver of long-term growth even survival in the technology sector. As each invention, service or product reaches maturity and saturation, the next phase of growth can only come from a radical change, an innovation. This does not have to be limited to a product: in fact, exciting innovations often take place in processes or in business models.
An example is the on-site and offshore business model of the Indian IT industry. It involves doing some work in the customer's premises abroad (on-site), while the rest is back-ended to India (off-shore). This was truly a disruptive model, which dramatically altered the landscape of the global IT industry. Another example, equally disruptive, was Dell's direct-marketing approach to sell PCs. Examples of innovative products include the Sony Walkman and the Blackberry, while the Apple iPod is a classic of innovative design and marketing.
Of course, innovation is not a guarantee of success. There are countless examples of innovations that failed to make a mark. In fact, the pioneer, the original inventor, sometimes fails while the late-mover succeeds. The Apple Mac PC comes immediately to mind. Yet, as in biology where evolution and adaptation are essential for survival in a changing environment in technology too, the alternative to innovation is, most often, extinction.
However, for innovation to move from the general to the specific, from societal to organisational, it must be channelised, refined and packaged. Only then can it be marketed and monetised, even if it is for societal rather than commercial gain. For this to happen, the microenvironment of the organisation is as important as the macro environment of society.
Therefore, if we are to capitalise on the inherent advantage of a hugely diverse society, it needs to be mirrored within organisations too. This requires a conscious policy; otherwise, the tendency is to have standardised filters and tightly pre-defined criteria, which result in considerable homogeneity.
Industries like IT are well placed: the nature of work and the age-profile of employees (an overwhelming majority of very young people) ensure minimal hierarchy and bureaucracy. However, acquiring quality certifications has required an emphasis on process, on following procedures strictly without deviation. Therefore, success in achieving reliability and quality has resulted in a degree of mental straitjacketing. This may not be conducive for innovation.
Another concern is the lack of opportunities for cross-fertilisation. Innovation often occurs by taking ideas and models from one discipline and applying them in another, or by fusing two disciplines. This happens quickly and easily when people from different disciplines work together. Excessive specialisation and increasing isolation militate against such inter-disciplinary interaction. The trend towards self-sufficient campuses and uni-product SEZs (both particularly strong trends in the IT industry) may inhibit innovation.
It would be very worthwhile if policy interventions by the government were to encourage through appropriate incentives such clustering. The government could itself make a start by ensuring that new research facilities and educational institutions are co-located with existing ones, and are cheek by jowl with industry. One wishes that the SEZs and proposed special investment areas had been structured in this manner. Nasscom has proposed knowledge townships that would seek to bring such institutional convergence. This is an area that is ripe for a joint government-industry initiative, and could create an innovative India.
(The author is president of Nasscom. Views are personal)
Source: NASSCOM
|
