Published in 2012 by the Center for Knowledge Societies in New DelhiCopyright 2012 Aditya Dev SoodAll rights reserved by the author
No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopied, recorded or otherwise without the prior permission of the author.
Additional copies ofthis book may be requested by emailing [email protected].
INDIA INNOVATION 101
What is Innovation?
Perhaps there is no one term or concept that has so fully captured the contemporary imagination in India as the word innovation. It therefore also follows that different people mean subtly varying things by this term, which then floats along contemporary discourse on the wings of loose and variable signification. My intention in writing about innovation in India is not merely to fix its meaning, once and for all, nor is it only to understand and speak to these different ways in which the term is being used. I would also suggest that a particular way of thinking about innovation may be better than other ways, and that such a way might serve larger collective and public interests of people in this region and in other similar regions of the world.
The term innovation is derived from the Latin root nova, new. It means, therefore, to bring something new into the world, which changes the way people live, work, interact with one another. But the world is always changing, never the same, and so there must be something memorable about this newness, which allows it to be valued, noted, remembered, preserved. An innovation must be a kind of newness which is useful or beneficial in some way, such that it be celebrated in newspapers, protected through patents and registrations, distributed quickly and efficiently to the largest numbers of people for their benefit and to bring about general welfare and the public good.
The Indian government recently identified the decade 2010 - 20 as India’s ‘Decade of Innovation.’ One observes steadily growing investments in R&D across the country, the setting up of national and state innovation bodies, as well as the introduction of government-sponsored innovation funds. There have also been several conferences and debates on innovation and how to best promote and accomplish it in India, and a number of articles on the subject, written for newspapers and magazines, as well as more informal platforms like online forums and blogs. Despite these longer-term trends, I also often encounter a tremendous amount of uncertainty and confusion about this term, as well as some anxiety that although one should be involved with innovation, one’s place of work or business does not, in fact, allow such activities to actually be undertaken. Innovation is also sometimes understood as a kind of cognitive leap that cannot be predicted or controlled, much like Archimedes’ famous Eureka! moment. One of my main goals in writing this account of innovation in India is to show how forms of innovation have in fact grown more and more systematic and complex over time, and that this process has a characteristic shape and contour in a country such as India.
Permit me an analogy to explain my case. One hears, from those who study these things, that agriculture came about more or less by accident. Our early ancestors found fruits and berries, corn, edible plants and other vegetation and ate the good parts, discarding the seeds without thought, here and there, or in the garbage. In other cases they ate the seeds, which passed through them to find themselves in newly fertilized ground. In this early period, one would have to conclude, agriculture was not yet routinized, its science was not well established, and it was not a predictably reliable means for creating socio-economic value, even though it came to be later on. In much the same way, even though innovation is being practiced in scattered and unorganized ways around us, we are still in a very preliminary phase of being able to actually understand what is going on, how exactly it yields us benefit, and what parts of the process are critical to its success in different social contexts, sectors of industry and world cultures.
Innovation, Capitalism, Industrialism
Without actually using the term innovation, Joseph Schumpeter provided the classical framework for thinking about innovation in economic and productive terms. He wrote that “the function of entrepreneurs is to reform or revolutionize the pattern of production by exploiting an invention, or more generally, an untried technological possibility for producing a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way, by opening up a new source of supply of materials or a new outlet for products, by reorganizing an industry and so on.” Capitalism, for Schumpeter, is driven incessantly forward through the destruction of older forms of value creation at the hands of new forms, which will in turn be replaced by other newer ones in time. Novelty and a concept of forward movement in time are therefore intrinsic to Schumpeter’s conception of how capitalism works. He calls this process ‘creative-destruction,’ a concept he evidently derived from German Indological readings of Sanskrit texts, particularly Saiva theology, which offers up the concept of adi-anta, the simultaneous beginning and end of things and the forward movement of time on account of this process.
Schumpeter listed several different kinds of changes that could be brought about through entrepreneurial activity. These included the discovery and creation of new markets, the development of new methods of production and distribution, as well as new forms of industrial organization, and new kinds of consumer goods. All these different kinds of entrepreneurial activity require creative thinking, resourcefulness, planning, forethought and continuous compensatory action. In other words, they require that specifically human ability for intentional social or material change, a faculty which we may also call ‘design.’
However, of all the different dimensions of entrepreneurship identified by Schumpeter, there is one, which seems to have a greater impact on our collective consciousness, which seems to shape culture, and which may in fact create greater value than all the others. This is the last area of innovation listed above, the creation of new kinds of consumer goods. For in creating a consumer good, one is also already creating new kinds of experiences, new propositions about how to experience and live in the world, and one may be instantiating and imbuing into a product or service new ideologies about what is good and valuable. There is therefore, a larger role for design in this particular area of innovation, which necessarily encompasses the different ways in which a
product or service is experienced, including its very brand, identity, packaging, color, finish and materiality, form, user experience, all of which come to bear cumulatively on the underlying technology and platforms through which it may be delivered.
175
Innovation in an Emerging Economy
The key challenge for India and for many other similar regions of the world is that for both better and worse they have had no deep and sustained experience with industrialization. For this reason they were, until very recently, described as ‘industrially underdeveloped,’ and then ‘developing’ countries. In the post-socialist era, we have seen the term ‘emerging market economy’ to be used to identify those nations among these, which adopted market-friendly policies and showed corresponding growth in national income and productivity. By the late 1980s, many of these regions were still largely agricultural economies, although they were beginning to adopt terrestrial and then satellite television networks. Beginning in the late 1990s and then accelerating through the last decade, however, many parts of Asia and Africa began sprouting cellular communications towers that connected their citizens through increasingly swift mobile networks, providing them sophisticated voice as well as data connectivity. From the point of view of their dominant modes of production, therefore, one might characterize them as ‘agricultural-informational societies.’
Alternatively, I would like to propose that we flip our terms and definitions around and recognize that all those regions of the world that are called emerging economies are also those which have experienced an explosion of media, communications and informational networks, despite limited or partial industrialization. That is to say, what an emerging economy is, by this definition, is a region of the world experiencing infromationalization without a great deal of industrialization preceding it. India, China, Indonesia, Egypt, South Africa and Brazil are all imperfect examples of this paradigm, but note how starkly they contrast with Iran, Iraq, Russia, Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. In the latter group, the reverse process has taken hold and they are industrializing — through extractive industries — while limiting or controlling informationalization.
How can and should an Emerging Economy approach the challenge and possibility of innovation? This is the significant question to which no compelling answers have yet been seen. There are, of course, some precedents, in particular, Joseph Schumacher’s idiosyncratic but oracular arguments that the approach to technology necessary for developing countries is different from that pursued in Europe, almost from the time that Adam Smith studied efficiency gains due to the systematization of labor in a needle-making factory, or Charles Babbage observed that an array of minute mechanical improvements in industrial manufacturing was vastly reducing the human effort and labor necessary for the
176
creation of the same kind of finished good. Schumacher argued that such radical reductions in the need for human labor were actually hurting the economies and societies of Asia, and that another approach to technology, which he first called ‘intermediate’ and later called ‘appropriate’ was necessary. This might offer light electrification and mechanization, but would still involve significant levels of semi-skilled artisanal or tradesman labor.
The great value of Schumacher’s intervention is that he was actually thinking about how technology and society could or should interact with one another, particularly in the non-industrialized nations of the world. One of his other big ideas, that economic policy should be directed towards the happiness of the larger numbers of society rather than merely towards the expansion of their productivity, has also proved resilient and has been resuscitated in various ways in more recent times. But in Schumacher’s times, just a generation ago, no one was preoccupied with the question of innovation, and so his writings do not really speak to how different approaches can lead to an acceleration of benefits deriving frominnovation, either to consumers and other members of society. That is the larger purpose of the current work.
Taming the Fire of Innovation
Peter F. Drucker, the famed management theorist from the latter part of the last century, was the first to argue that innovation must be viewed as a form of organized, systematic and rational work. He understood that innovation involved both perceptual and conceptual dimensions, and that it needed to be market-oriented and market-driven. Drucker’s systematic approach to innovation helped bring about the programs of research and development funded by large American companies like Kodak, Dow Chemical and General Electric. In this approach we observe a kind of early turn towards innovation undertaken by large industrial conglomerates, especially in Europe and the United States. In a parallel line of development, kaizen approaches to continuous innovation were seen in Japan, for example in Toyota’s assembly lines and in other Japanese business flourishing in its post-war period of peace and reconstruction. Kaizen, kanban and related continuous quality and innovation practices were eventually brought to India through the establishment of automotive production and design facilities in India beginning with the Maruti-Suzuki joint venture in the 1980s and then with the growth of India’s own automobile corporations, including Tata and Mahindra.
But there is another arc to this story, which may even be the more important one: the founding and creation of an enterprize on the basis of a foundational innovation. While this approach emerged organically in Silicon Valley over thesecond half of the twentieth century, its possibility may have been anticipated by Joseph Engelberger, the noted engineer and theorist who thought of innovationin more technical and technological terms. He famously reduced innovation to a question of well-defined need, a working group with the relevant technical competencies, and the requisite financial resources to support them. In some sense, Engelberger had already theorized the key elements of today’s globalizing venture capital networks, who are similarly looking to identify the right ‘team, dream and machine,’ which might therefore command venture funding investments.
For most people alive today, it would be obvious that our lives and experiences have been dramatically shaped by technologies, services, and new kinds of consumer goods that could not have even been imagined just a few years before they came about. Those goods have been widely adopted, those who conceptualized or distributed or otherwise supported them have grown more wealthy, and those who had invested in their companies have also prospered. But
177 178
where, in the words of author Steven Johnson, do those good ideas come from? Since Thomas Edison built Menlo Park in 1876, we have imagined that those ‘inventions’ come from Science Buildings, R&D Centers, Laboratories of some kind. That’s not entirely wrong, of course, for that is where most intellectual property is in fact created around the world, but that intellectual property is often productized through licensing agreements and special purpose vehicles that leave their inventors behind in the labs in which they are most comfortable. New entrepreneurs with game-changing ideas aren’t most at home in laboratories — they mostly live in the real world, out here with the rest of us.
Since Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak built Apple Computers in 1976 out of the Jobs family garage, it has become more widely recognized that start-ups need space and support of some kind in order to realize their vision. And so, over the past two decades, we have witnessed the rise of incubators, first attached to educational institutions and then in the private sector, funded by venture capitalists who seek, in some way, to farm the innovativeness of a whole cohort of young entrepreneurs, on whom they have placed bets of varying sizes at varying stages of their growth. At first these clustered around the Bay Area of San Francisco, but then migrated to the greater Boston area and New York City, but now can be found in practically every city of the world with aspirations to host what Richard Florida calls the ‘creative class.’ Such centers can now be found in Bombay and Bangalore, not to mention Pune, Kanpur, and other university towns across India.
The idea that young people need a desk and a place to get coffee while they come up with the next big thing makes sense, but they do tend to take rather long going about it — in fact, if you give them a year, they’ll take a year or two. Isn’t there any way to speed this process up? A small group of investors put together a program called Y-Combinator five years ago, which pulled together a cohort of seed entrepreneurs for a boot-camp of just about three months, in which they had to pull everything together or face the axe. The continuing success of the program has made everyone in the venturing community sit up and take notice: it isn’t all about the space, but about the kinds of inputs that go into a cohort of entrepreneurs that can make for success. The metaphor of the hatchery has given way to that of a cyclotron: investors shouldn’t be waiting around for nature to take its course, but speeding particles up to light speed and then shooting them out into the market.
The kind of approach to innovation that one observes in the context of start-up innovation may appear very different from the activities of a laboratory or studio environment. The personalities involved, the kinds of education they might have
received, their relationship with and orientation to the market may all be quite different. And yet, what binds them, it seems to me, is that their varied forms of life are all oriented towards increasingly regular and organized modes of collaboration and interaction with one another, which moreover, come to be more and more reliably productive in their market effects. All these forms of life, therefore, represent alternative approaches to innovation, which must be studied together, under a single conceptual framework in order for us to be make sense of the question of innovation.
Innovation and Design
It is striking that neither management studies nor engineering is able to offer any account of the inner dynamics of innovation. Rather, they tell us only about the physical, organizational and social elements, resources and conditions might be necessary for innovation. This is to say, these accounts of innovation operate almost exclusively from the outside of people’s thoughts, impressions, sensibilities and consciousness. This is necessary, but not sufficient. In order to understand innovation in subjective and interior terms, we must have recourse not only to sciences of the interior, such as psychology and cognitive science, but also applied disciplines which teach subjects how to organize ideas, to synthesize thoughts, and how to move them along, from abstract concept through prototype and on towards a solution. The name for that still-emerging discipline is Design.
If, as Schumpeter more or less says, innovation describes the business or economic dimension of the forward movement of society under capitalism, then the immanent, cognitive or mental aspect of this forward movement can be captured by the term design. It is the multivariate, parallel, sometimes collaborative process of finding solutions to problems that have no obvious and available answer. Whereas the language of design gained prominence in the Industrial Age as a means for the rendering of surfaces and finishes for the more effective marketing of consumer products (‘posters and toasters’), the concept has far wider application in the present. The most effective practitioners and users of design in contemporary times have proved, time and again, that a multidimensional approach to design that encompasses all levels and aspects of the user experience, including the making and reinforcement of meaning and value for the user, also yields the greatest success in the market.
The history of industrialism and Fordist manufacturing in the few urban centers of world where we have seen it established since the end of the nineteenth century suggests that mass manufacturing becomes possible and predictable on account of a highly specific form of planning, thinking, visualization, annotation and drawing that come together as the discipline and practice of design. As has been abundantly documented even by its critics, this is a result of further specialization and a division of labor between those who conceptualize manufactured wares and those who actually build and make those objects. Think of, for example, a toaster.
A parallel line of development traces block-making and print-making through increasingly powerful means for four-color offset printing and other means for the
mass production of billboards, hoardings and other means of mass communication. Fontography, color theory, and the increasingly powerful juxtaposition of image and text as means to induce understanding on the part of the viewing spectator are therefore the object of communications and visual design, which may be used to create, for example, posters.
The creative methods and embodied knowledges and skills required for creating posters, toasters and other classic objects of industrial mass manufacture, however are not what we now mean by the word design. In the context of the contemporary globalized, informationalized and services-oriented economy, people rather have in mind forms of ethnography and user studies, conceptual diagram making, services-strategy creation, use case analysis, prototyping, user interface design and user experience enhancement. All of these activities, may be in some sense derived from classic industrial industrial and communications design methods, but they have since moved far beyond them. In this sense the term design is being used in an extended or metaphoric way, to refer to the kind
of creativity and multivariate problem-solving that one has known in the past to have been successfully use for the design of things and surfaces, but which must now be used to design complex services, systems, interactions and experiences.
One of the great challenges involved in the creation of any sophisticated consumer good, be it product, service or system, is its complexity, owing to the multiple dimensions of meaning and possible value, each of which needs to be aligned to the consumer’s needs and expectations, and also to all the other dimensions, so as to create a harmonious and integrated whole. It often seems nearly impossible for any one intellect to hold together in his or her mind all these different requirements, variable options, possible alignments and points of misalignment at once. At the same time, when different functional teams try to come together to develop a new version of a consumer product, we may encounter the trend towards mediocrity and even stupidity that is known as‘design by committee.’ Clearly, leadership is required for innovation to arise, and at the same time there must be some way for the distinctive insights and knowledges of different specialist teams come together and contribute towards this more complex whole which is the new consumer good. In trying to address this question, much has been made of so-called ‘design thinking’ over the past few years, which has perhaps been best addressed by Tim Brown in a series of books and essays.
Brown defines design thinking in a variety of different ways, including as a human-centered approach to innovation that draws from the designer’s toolkit. The problem with this definition really is how to distinguish design thinking from design. We must necessarily consider design an intellectual act, albeit with diverse physical, social and interactional manifestations, for example, drawing, making post-its, writing things down, maybe even measuring and calibrating, talking to people and frequently scratching one’s chin. Where does that leave design thinking? Well, it is all of these actions, only done by someone who doesn’t think of himself as a designer. As Socrates might point out, if someone draws from a designer’s toolkit to act as a designer then he is indeed acting in virtue of his power to design, and is indeed the designer. The term ‘design thinking’ seems to have come about on account of a wide-spread misunderstanding of what design is — that it is something concerned with the surfaces of things rather than their total meaning and every layer and dimension which contributes towards it. The confusion also arises out of the need to mark territory and to distinguish between ‘professional designers,’ who putatively design, and others who may be capable of thinking like designers. But this distinction is untenable. All managers, engineers, entrepreneurs, decision-makers who think synthetically about the data available to them in order to solve problems are designing.
The question really is how well they are doing so. Are they capable of handling complex, multivariate and recursive problems and arrive and something new and hitherto unimagined? Or do they keep reaching for the shelf for tried-and-tested modular solutions? As discussed above, one definition of design is that it is the means through which difficult, intractable and wicked or recursive problems are solved. The verb form of that process is designing, and it applies to anyone, professionally accredited to draw on a whiteboard or not.
Technical, conceptual and strategic forms of design are all involved with the process of innovation at various levels and form a necessary part of it. But innovation as a whole cannot be reduced to design. This is because innovation is also a business process and a mode for the production of value in an economy. It represents that elusive and difficult synthesis and harnessing of the unstable and unpredictable flashes of creativity and inspiration within a larger arc of repetition, iteration and routinization. It harnesses the fire of human creativity to larger organizational and social purposes.
An Emerging Economy turns to Innovation
In the absence of a long experience of industrialization, India’s approach to innovation has proceeded along a substantially different path. In particular, it would appear that artisanal, folk and street approaches to creativity and problem solving have served as one of the dominant metaphors through which people have tried to come to terms with the concept of innovation. Anil K. Gupta’s Honeybee Network, for instance, documents and promotes rural innovations devised in different regions of India. The National Innovation Foundation similarly supports such rural innovators and explores ways in which to productize and scale up their innovations. Such innovations have included, for instance, many ingenious contraptions that reduce drudgery in domestic or artisanal agri-process-ing tasks through the application of pulleys, gears, and other simple machines, either attached to cycle pedals or else to a basic internal combustion engine. These ingenious homemade technologies sometimes resemble pre-modern Dutch windmills or else the post-apocalyptic vision of the Madmax movie, wherein remaindered and used industrial technologies are refitted and refurbished to new purposes.
The efforts of rural and street innovators in India are widely perceived to represent the phenomenon of jugaad, which is understood to be a uniquely Indian approach to ingenious problem solving, often through the quick assembly of other ready-to-hand objects or artifacts. The word jugaad means something like
jury-rigged, or a quick-fix form of problem solving, not to be confused with conventional forms of artisanal or craftsmanlike joinery. The term is derived from the Sanskrit √yunj (yunakti) and is therefore cognate with the modern English words union, joint, and yoke.
Alongside its many enthusiasts, however, jugaad also has its critics. Many industry leaders in India, for instance, have pointed out that jugaad cannot be scaled up and precisely because it represents a quick-and-dirty homemade solution, it can command no higher value in the marketplace. From this perspective, jugaad may represent a starting point for innovation, but it signifies the past rather than the future of innovation in India.
Another approach to innovation that has entered into wide currency in India is so-called ‘frugal innovation.’ In its mid-term assessment of the eleventh five-year plan, the National Planning Commission stressed the need for innovation inIndia in order to ‘accelerate its growth and ... to make growth more inclusive as well as environmentally sustainable.’ The document went on to say that ‘Indianeeds more frugal innovation that produces more frugal cost products andservices that are affordable by people at low levels of incomes without compromising the safety, efficiency, and utility of the products. The country also needs processes of innovation that are frugal in the resources required to produce the innovations. The products and processes must also have frugal impact on the earth’s resources.’
The late management guru C. K. Prahalad, along with innovation thinker R.A. Mashelkar, have postulated what they call the More-from-Less-for-More (MLM) theory of Innovation, which advocates a focus on innovations that allow for more production using less resources but benefit more people. The authors argue that such an approach to innovation is most appropriate for Indian industry as well as for the Indian economy, which must be able to quickly show the benefits of investments in innovation to both industry and society.
A second stage of innovation can be distilled from the work of the eminent management thinker R. A. Mashelkar of the National Innovation Foundation, who defines innovation as the search for new solutions that do more with less for more. That is to say, they should provide more value using less inputs, be they cost, energy, effort or time, and serve more consumers and users than was hitherto possible. This kind of approach to thinking about innovation for India and similar world regions was pioneered by the late management guru C. K. Prahalad. If we think about innovation in this way, several success stories from India immediately come to mind.
Consider the Tata Nano, a small car that uses less materials and more inexpensive inputs than regular cars, that is cheaper to manufacture, which sells for less, and which therefore can reach a larger potential market than any other existing car. Consider the Tata Swach, possibly the world’s cheapest and most widely available water filtration system, which will ensure that no matter what kinds of impurities exist in the water near your home, you can always have access to cheap, plentiful drinking water. And consider Tata’s chain of Ginger hotels, which guarantee a lower cost business hotel experience that will be clean, reliable and affordable, and which is now growing across India at an astonishing rate. With these several successes under its belt, the Tata Group may well claim to have a head start and perhaps even a growing lead in India’s future innovation story.
I was recently asked to adjudge the innovation awards of another Indian conglomerate. Over the course of the day I sat with other members of the review panel to witness some sixteen presentations from an extraordinary variety of teams. These included automobile designers, interface designers, automotive engineers, software and strategy teams, user-interface design teams, intrapreneurs in the area of farm technology and agricultural businesses and other innovative propositions I could never have imagined. The quality of innovations also varied substantially. In some cases we did tell the team members that in our view they didn’t really have an innovation case to present — they were simply doing their job, and really well at that! There was lots of technical innovation, hidden entirely from view from the customer, but improving engineering performance, reducing
weight, and improving the durability and life-cycle of the engineering part. There were several ingenious user-interface innovations, both mechanical or electro-mechanical as well as in the form of software, which allowed users to better understand what was going on with the technology they were using. There were some extraordinary new visions for how rural businesses could be managed, using technology and new rural networks. And in one bright case all these things came together: new fundamental science, a mash-up of new and existing technologies, a new business case and a tremendous competitive advantage emerging on account of all these things together — disruptive, entrepreneurial innovation that brings us into a new world, a new social and economic threshold, a new state of being.
Impressive though these examples are, how do they stack up against the most important innovations of the last decade? Here we should think of things like online search, social networking, personal media devices, personal mobility solutions. We have yet to encounter anything like India’s Google, Facebook, iPad (or iPod, take your pick), or Segway, which is to say, a technology-enabled experience which fundamentally transforms the way one can experience reality,live one’s life, interact with one’s peers, traverse the city, or make new things. Unfortunately, we have not really reinvented the car, or water or a hotel room-night, but just made it more accessible to more people by making it cheaper.
Impressive though these examples are, how do they stack up against the most important innovations of the last decade? Here we should think of things like online search, social networking, personal media devices, personal mobility solutions. We have yet to encounter anything like India’s Google, Facebook, iPad (or iPod, take your pick), or Segway, which is to say, a technology-enabled experience which fundamentally transforms the way one can experience reality, live one’s life, interact with one’s peers, traverse the city, or make new things. Unfortunately, we have not really reinvented the car, or water or a hotel room-night, but just made it more accessible to more people by making it cheaper.
I recently asked Sam Pitroda if he was concerned that India’s approach to innovation seemed to be limited to these thirteenth century fixums or else to de-engineering and price-pointing, in the form of so-called frugal innovation. He told me he was not worried about this, because in a poor country like India, innovations had to be within the financial reach of the people. But this requires
187 188
189
us to think more carefully about costs of innovation as opposed to costs of production or consumption. It is only when we conflate these that parsimony prevents us from discovering new solutions to the everyday life problems and challenges of our people. This might include, for example, better ways of warding off mosquitoes and pests from one’s home. Cheap yet customizable pharmacological and nutraceutical products that promote good health for all. Alternative energy solutions that come to be integrated into our building technologies, construction practices and regulatory codes. Radically new ways of effective waste and water treatment right within the home to promote water recycling. Collapsible-folding living space and transportation solutions. Ways of controlling urban sound pollution, either at source, or else through personal or domestic envelopes. More user-friendly, calmer, and more efficient urban mass transit and transportation solutions.
We need to start thinking about innovation in terms of being able to do things that were hitherto not only not possible, but not even conceivable. This is a considerably higher benchmark to work towards. And it is sobering to acknowledge that if we use this higher benchmark, we have not yet been architects of innovation in a true sense. I take heart in the fact that this new horizon seems possible and available to us, in a way that it never did before, even just a decade ago.
The absence of an established culture of innovation is intrinsically linked to many of the most intractable problems facing India as a nation. These include poor delivery of government services, inadequate systems of personal identification and the absence of widely available financial services for rural poor, health and sanitation failures. This list can go on. Cumulatively, the inability of India as a nation, society and economy to adequately provide for its own population no longer reflects a failure of implementation, but rather of a failure of innovation, for there are not immediately-available, off-the-shelf solutions that would make it possible for these grand challenges facing India to be redressed.
190
The Four Stages of Innovation
To summarize the claims made in the preceding section, allow me to reiterate.
There are four kinds of approaches to innovation that one encounters in an emerging economy such as India, which we also encounter as a series of steps or stages:
First there is Jugaad. The most basic, unstructured and local expression of innate human ingenuity, but triggered on account of the intersection between industrial and agricultural modes of production.
Then there is Frugal Innovation. The direction of that very same human ingenuity by mercantile parsimony towards the lowering of cost without any increase in value.
Then there is Product Development. Diverse techniques for routine, incremental, internal innovation may have been imported from Japan (automotive sector) or may have been adopted from northern Europe (telecom and mobile devices) or else from Silicon Valley (software and web services).
And finally there is Truly Disruptive Value-Creating Innovation. This is a bit of a black swan that isn’t yet barking, inasmuch as we all want to see this happen in India, but the evidence is not there yet, that it is really there to be had. But this is the disruptive market-creating discovery of new value on account of multiple different alignments of product, technology platform, partner network, user-experience refinements, and other mash-ups of multiple other innovations that then goes on to define our social and economic life in a tremendous new way. These are the innovations that are likely to transform the current state of India’s economy and society in unprecedented ways, and which have the best chance of truly ameliorating the lifestyles and livelihoods of the most impoverished people in our society.
These four approaches to innovation are not, of course, equal — some are much more effective than others, while also requiring vastly higher thresholds of talent, competence and capacity. But they are, in some sense, sequential, in that time and again we have observed organizations, individuals, small groups in India approach the question of innovation and arrive at these sequential stages of innovation in a
191
predictable series, rising to a higher threshold only after they have come to terms with a more primary stage. Perhaps for the same reasons, higher thresholds of innovation assume information and competence already resident in lower stages, while the reverse does not hold — there is nothing in jugaad or frugal innovation that is not also to be found in more complex approaches to innovation. Higher forms of innovation hold that much greater promise for addressing and solving the grand challenges facing this society and other similar societies.
As we have discussed above, if a non-industrialized economy proceeds on the path of innovation it will necessarily trace a route at considerable variance from that undertaken by an industrialized economy. One of the markers of this variation is in fact the use of the concept of design in to think about or describe processes of innovation. Societies that have industrialized and massified are comfortable using the terms and concepts of design, while for emerging economies this language has limited reference, relevance and meaning, and concepts like jugaad and cost-cutting prove more appealing and persuasive as means for beginning the journey of innovation. Both sets of terms serve here as only metaphors for the real object of our inquiry, innovation.
A deeper understanding of what is meant by innovation, an appreciation for the varying approaches to innovation and their likely benefits are all preamble for our larger objective: the use of innovation approaches to actually benefit everyday people through the redressal of the large outstanding challenges of our age, including, for instance our urban and built environment, our energy ecology, our means of food production and distribution, and our systems of water and sanitation management. These are the problems to which innovation must now be applied.
A Glossary on Design,Innovation and the Public Interest
From the time of the Siva-Sutras through to the Hobson-Jobson Dictionary and thetechno-futurist writings of J. G. Ballard, definitions and redefinitions have served ascritical means through which to establish new discourses and constitute new communities.Our Glossary on Design, Innovaiton and the Public Interest, therefore, falls somewherebetween the Amara-Kosha and the Devil’s Dictionary of Ambrose Bierce.
In this glossary you will find a number of terms that are often used by designers andinnovation specialists. We have also addressed key terms related to governance, statecraftand the public interest. We hope you will find these entries to be useful for reference before, during and after the Conclave.
Where we have found good definitions ready-to-hand, we have specifically cited the authors or institutions who have provided them. In all other cases these definitions have been developed in collaboration with colleagues at the Center for Knowledge Societies.
208
Apple An American corporation thatreigns as the current organizationalembodiment of Design, Innovation,and User-Centered thinking, creatingproducts that seem to anticipate Users’ expectations and desires before they are even aware that they have them.
See also: Consumer Value
Brainstorming A collaborative activityin which small groups work together togenerate as many new ideas or solutions to a problem as they can in response to particular kinds of stimulusand a particular framing of the problem. Ethnographic data is often the best form of stimulus. Large formatindex cards or post-it notes are goodways for participants to express theirideas. Team members should seek tobuild upon one another’s ideas and toexpress them visually, so far as possible.
Co-creation“...increasingly, the joint efforts of the consumer and the firm - the firm’s extended network and consumer communities together - are cocreatingvalue through personalized experiencesthat are unique to each individual consumer. This proposition challenges the fundamental assumptions about our industrial system - assumptions about value itself, the value creation process, and the nature of the relationshipbetween the firm and the consumer. In this new paradigm, the firm and the consumer co-create value at points ofinteraction. Firms cannot think and act unilaterally.”
— Prahalad, C. K., and Venkat Ramaswamy. The Future of Competition: Co-creating Unique Value with Customers.Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2004.
See also: Crowdsourcing
Concept Design The description ofa possible Design solution in words,diagrams, and other forms of textand visualization to communicate animminent possibility that does not yetexist. Concept Design is the first andfundamental stage of design, fromwhich the proposed solution may come to be described to increasing levels of fidelity.
Consumer Value The benefits andadvantages experienced or perceived bya consumer beginning well before themoment of purchase, at the point ofretail sale, extending through the product’s lifetime and period of use, and beyond into the memory and imagination of the consumer as and when she should have occasion to reflect on the myriad ways in which the consumer good in question has impacted her life, style, values and livelihood.
Convergent Thinking“The ability to narrow the number of possible solutions to a problem by applying logic and knowledge.”— “Convergent Thinking.” Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group, 2001.
See also: Divergent Thinking
Creative Destruction“The opening up of new markets, foreign or domestic, and the organizational development from the craft shop to such concerns as U.S. Steel illustrate the same process of industrial mutation—if I may use that biological term—that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. This process of Creative Destructionis the essential fact about capitalism.”— Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 2nd edition. Mansfield Center: Martino Publishing, 2011
Crowdsourcing The inclusion oflarge groups or the public at large intospecific forms of decision making orsolutioneering using public platformssuch as websites, wikis, mobile me-dia or other mechanisms that allow members of such groups to contribute ideas or propositions and for others to validate, ratify or improve them.
Design 1. Any expression of intention-alityor purposiveness by an agent,including for example the scratchingof one rock against another. 2. Theprocess or path through which a finalsolution comes about. 3. The iterativedescription of a proposed solution, using language, gesture, text, visualization, plastic modeling, and any other form of human expression, to
increasingly higher degrees offidelity, until it approximates the object of design itself. 4. To see the world other than it is, to see it as it could or should be.
design An increasingly fragmentedset of visually-related competencies,acquired more through apprenticeshipthan through formal training, thatsubserve the needs of post-modernconsumer capitalism.
Design Analysis 1.Ways of thinking,conceptualizing, imagining, andenvisioning solutions to problems that(i) redefine the fundamental challengeor task at hand, (ii) develop multiplepossible options and solutions in parallel, and (iii) prioritize and select those which are likely to achieve the greatest benefits in terms of, for example, impact, viability and cost. 2. A collective and social process, that allows small and large groups to work together in relation to collected and available information about a complex challenge, that can lead to innovative ideas, to new insights, and to new actionable directions for organizations. 3. A process through which the express and latent needs of Users can be married with the technical capabilities of a complex product or service in a systematic and organized manner. 4. A set of replicable, teachableskills, which can be employed notonly within the private sector, but alsowithin government, within the publicsector and the social sector.
Design Engineering The technicaldevelopment of a Concept Design,beyond its visual, formal and strategicarticulation, towards a working prototype that will nearly resemble the final product, by employing the tools and technologies of material, electronic, informatic or other dimensions of Engineering.
Design Research All forms of datacapture, research, intelligence gathering, and insight generation that may serve to inform the design and development of any product, service, system or solution. Methodologies commonly employed in the course of Design Research may include Ethnography, User interviews, Usability tests, and other interactive and immersive means for engaging with and observing prospective Users.
Design Strategy An overarchingapproach and systematic policy ofexpressing, associating or otherwisealigning the physical and aestheticvalues of a product or service withthe expectations and needs of Users(based on underlying conceptual, social, psychological or other factors) so as to advance the commercial interests of the manufacturers or providers.
Design Thinking Thinking like adesigner, while overtly doing somethingelse, for instance Ethnography, marketresearch, business strategy, training orthought leadership.
“Design thinking is a human-centered approach to innovation that draws from the designer’s toolkit to integrate the needs of people, the possibilities of technology, and the requirements for business success.”— Tim Brown, President and CEO,IDEO, <www.ideo.com/about/>
Divergent Thinking“The ability to develop original and unique ideas and to envision multiple solutions to aproblem.”— “Divergent Thinking.” Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group, 2001.
See also: Convergent Thinking
Fifth Estate Civil Society, Non-Governmental Organizations, People’sGroups. The set of social forces thatself-consciously identify as being dedicated to the achievement of societal benefits as distinct from economic or political gain.
See also: Fourth Estate and Estatesof Society
Fourth Estate That column of societywhich preeminently styles itself asdedicated to and focused upon thePublic Interest.
See also: Fifth Estate and Estates ofSociety
Ease of Use“[Usability/ease of use] has been defined in a very broad and inclusive manner as “the quality of use in context.” However, the practice has focused heavily on task-centered thinking. If a given user accomplishes a given task quickly and without mistakes, the product is usable. Understanding the user is in effectunderstanding how that person performs the relevant tasks. What particularly characterizes the discipline is just how detailed this understanding has to be. The tasks to be evaluated are deconstructed into the smallest piecesimaginable.”— Lindholm, Christian, TurkkaKeinonen, and Harri Kiljander. MobileUsability: How Nokia Changed the Face of the Mobile Phone. New York: McGraw- Hill, 2003.
Estates of Society 1. Discrete loci ofdistinct forms of power to which variant kinds of interest, purpose and Intentionality then aggregate, cohere and align. 2. A European concept cognate with the Hindu varna.
Ethnography“Ethnography involves the researcher’s study of human behavior in the natural settings in which people live. Specifically, ethnography refers to the description of cultural systems or an aspect of culture based on fieldwork in which the investigator is immersed in the ongoingeveryday activities of the designated community for the purpose of describing the social context, relationships andprocesses relevant to the topic under
consideration. Ethnographic inquiryfocuses attention on beliefs, values, rituals, customs, and behaviors of individuals interacting within socioeconomic, religious, political andgeographic environments.”--American Anthropological Association, <www.aaanet.org/stmts/irb.htm>
Experience“Experience is limited by all the causes which interfere with perception of the relations between undergoing and doing. There may be interference because of excess on the side of doing or of excess on the side of receptivity, of undergo-ing. Unbalance on either side blurs the perception of relations and leaves the experience partial and distorted, withscant or false meaning. Zeal for doing, lust for action, leaves many a person especially in this hurried and impatient human environment in which we live, with experience of an almost incredible paucity, all on the surface. No one experience has a chance to completeitself because something else is entered upon so speedily. What is called experience becomes so dispersed and miscellaneous as hardly to deserve the name. Resistance is treated as an obstruction to be beaten down, not as aninvitation to reflection. An individual comes to seek, unconsciously even more than by deliberate choice, situations in which he can do the most things in the shortest time.”--Dewey, John. Art as Experience. NewYork: Balch & Minton, 1934.
211 212
Governance The practice and processof administration, management, regulation, organization and coordination of the machinery and apparatuses of the state.
“The word yogakshema is a compound made up of yoga, the successful accomplishment of an objective and kshema, its peaceful enjoyment.Thus, peaceful enjoyment of prosperity, i.e. the welfare of the people, is given as muchimportance as knowledge, self-control, and observance of dharma.”— Kautilya, The Arthashastra of Kautilya.Translated by L. N. Rangarajan.Penguin, 1987.pp. 70-71.
Innovation 1. Bringing newness intothe world; making and remaking theworld anew. 2. The transformation ofinsight into actionable knowledge thatcan make new use of the social andmaterial technologies already availablein the world.
Innovation Cycle A process devisedat the Center for Knowledge Societiesto integrate three distinct componentsof Design Thinking into a formalinnovation process, including: (i)Understand: the use of ethnographyto describe the context, behaviors,needs and preferences of users in theireveryday environment, (ii) Develop:the conceptualization, creation, development, detailing and specification of multiple possible solutions, and (iii) Enhance: thetesting, trialing, and refinement of
proposed solutions through interactions with end-users either in the field or laboratory conditions.
Innovation Workshop A specializedenvironment in which small groups ofspecialists work together in a highlychoreographed and coordinated way.Through audio-visual stimulus andinstructions, they create new options,possibilities or solutions using techniques of data review, role-playing,concepts generation, wordplay, notetaking, visualization, and solutioncreation (among many others).
Intentionality“Intentionality is the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs. Intentionality is a pervasive feature of many different mental states: beliefs, hopes, judgments, intentions, loveand hatred all exhibit intentionality.”— Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Kaizen Japanese for “improvement”or “change for the better,” refers to the continuous improvement of processes in diverse organizational systems.It refers to activities that continuallyimprove all functions, and involvesall grades of personnel from the headof an organization to its frontline staff.It can also apply to processes suchas purchasing and logistics that crossorganizational boundaries to becomepart of an entire industry, supply chain, or national economy.
Planning A fusion of the individualpsychological and cognitive process ofimaginative forethought with the socialand organizational process of arrivingand agreeing to a plan. Planning is aided by having rich accurate data about the facts on the ground, insightful representations of thatinformation in the form of maps, charts and other kinds of diagrams, and social organizational techniques which allow groups to organize their thought collectively.
“In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”— Dwight D. ‘Ike’ Eisenhower
See also: Innovation Workshop
Public That external horizon which isthe culmination of diverse individual,private, or local interests, projects andgoals, but which remains superordinateto them all.
Public Interest That static, possiblyunknowable quantity which arisesupon the integration of all the vectorforces operating within a society, whichrepresent individual, private, or localinterests.
Public Sphere“The public sphere is . . . a metaphorical term used to describe the virtual space where people can interact. . . . The World Wide Web, for example, is not actually
a web; cyberspace is not a space; and so with the public sphere. It’s the virtual space where the citizens of a country exchange ideas and discuss issues, in order to reach agreement about ‘matters of general interest”— Jurgen Habermas, The StructuralTransformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought). English ed. trans. by Thomas Berger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991.
Social Change A significant alterationin the existing social order of asociety, which may be driven by cultural, religious, philosophical, economic, scientific or technological forces. It can be endogenous (driven by internal factors) or exogenous (brought about by external factors) or a combination therein. It can be either uni-directional, or cyclical, as in the case of the business cycle.
Service Design“Service design is a design specialism thathelps develop and deliver great services. Service design projects improve factors like ease of use, satisfaction, loyalty and efficiency right across areas such as environments, communications and products – and not forgetting thepeople who deliver the service.”— Engine Service Design, <http://www.enginegroup.co.uk/service_design/>
State 1. A social organization capableof making war, peace and politicalalliances so as to enlarge the territoryunder its authority (Kautilya). 2. Theultimate expression of human rationality (Hegel) 3. That entity which holds a monopoly over legitimate violence (Weber). 4. The vector sum of all lines of power in a society (Foucault). 5. That institution which is ultimately and cumulatively responsible for the equity, upliftment and welfare of its members(Ambedkar).
Usability“The design has been optimized for human usage with respect to task completion, speed, accuracy, self-evidency (minimized training requirement), satisfaction, and safety. This does not mean that every user will be able tooperate the offering in a flawless way (or even avoid lethal mistakes). It means that care is taken to optimize the design so that the overall usage by the target population of users is effective.”— Schaffer, Eric M. and Susan Weinschenk. Certified Usable Designs: Products, Applications and Web Sites. Human Factors International, 2010.
Use Case 1. The counterform of theproduct or service offering. 2. A narrative example that captures the specific instance in which a real or imagined product or service offers value or meaning to its User.
“A particular form or pattern or exemplar of usage, a scenario that begins with some user of the system initiating some transaction or sequence of interrelated events.”— Jacobson, Ivar (et al). Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. Addison-Wesley, 1992.
User-Centered Approaches or strategies that focus on and proceed from an understanding of the expectations and needs of the User of a product, service or technology, as distinct from the possibilities of technology, market forces, media, or any other set of social or organizational factors. User Experience Design An approachto the Design of things andenvironments which seeks to envisionhow their ultimate User mightencounter and interact with that artifact or system; the purpose of the Design is to have made possible a particular quality or character of experience for most if not all of those end-users.
Visualization The transformation oflinguistic, textual, numeric or otherwise symbolic information into a diagram, map, or other form of graphic illustration so as to express or provoke a new kind of understanding of the same information.
User An individual agent or subjectiveself who uses linguistic, cultural,symbolic and material technologies tomanipulate or navigate the world inwhich she finds herself.
Wicked Problem 1. A subclass ofproblems for which there is no ready to-hand or off-the-shelf solution, butwhich can only be addressed throughDesign (with a capital ‘D’). 2. Allcomplex problems of state and societyin which different stakeholders haveradically different world views anddivergent frames for understanding theproblem, which moreover, may changeover time. 3. Problems which have noformulation, owing to which the definition of the problem turns out to be a Wicked Problem.
“The search for scientific bases for confronting problems of social policy is bound to fail because of the nature of [wicked] problems...Policy problems cannot be definitively described. Moreover, in a pluralistic society there is nothing like the indisputable public good; there is no objective definition of equity; policies that respond to social problems cannot be meaningfully correct or false; and it makes no sense to talk about ‘optimal solutions’ to these problems...Even worse, there are nosolutions in the sense of definitive answers.”— Rittel, H.W.J. The Reasoning of Designers. Stuttgart: Institut fur Grundlagen der Planung, 1988.
215 216
A Bibliography on Design,Innovation and the Public Interest
A. Cereijo-Roibás, M. Vanderbeeken, N. Clavin, J.C. Zoels “Engaging developing markets,” Interfaces: 81, Winter 2009.
Bason, Christian. Leading Public Sector Innovation: Co-creating for a Better Society. Bristol, UK: Policy Press, 2010.
Berger, Warren. Glimmer: How Design Can Transform Your Life, and Maybe Even the World. New York: Penguin Press, 2009.
Bichard, Lord Michael. “Overcoming Obstacles.” Design Council.<http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-work/insight/public-services-rev-olutionor-evolution/service-design-in-the-media/overcoming-obstacles/>
Brown, Tim. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2009.
Brown, Tim, and Jocelyn Wyatt. “Design Thinking for Social Innovation.” Stanford Social Innovation Review. Winter 2010. <http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/design_thinking_for_social_innovation/>
Castells, Manuel, et al. Mobile Communication and Society: A Global Perspective: a Project of the Annenberg Research Network on International Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009.
Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: Norton Publications, 1999.
218
Hill, C., Crampton Smith, G., Curtis, E., Kamlish, S. Designing a Visual Database for Fashion Designers. Human Factors in Computing Systems: Adjunct Proc. INTERCHI. New York. 1993.
Hippel, Eric von. Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005.
Holloway, David. Stalin and the Bomb: The Soviet Union and Atomic Energy, 1939-1956. Yale University Press, 1996
“How Does Social Innovation Help Government Benefit Society?” Public Innovators. <http://publicinnovators.com/se/gov_benefit>
Johnson, Steven. Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innova-tion. New York: Penguin Group, 2010
Kadri, Meena. “Interview with Anil Gupta.” Design Observer Group: 2 August 2010. <http://changeobserver.designobserver.com/feature/finding-inno-vation-in-everycorner/ 12691/>
Kautilya, The Arthashastra of Kautilya. Translated by L. N. Rangarajan. Penguin, 1987.
Kelley, Thomas. The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, America’s Leading Design Firm. New York: Doubleday, 2001
Kelley, Thomas. The Ten Faces of Innovation: IDEO’s Strategies for Defeating the Devil’s Advocate and Driving Creativity Throughout Your Organization. New York: Doubleday, 2005
Latour, Bruno. A Cautious Prometheus? A Few Steps Toward a Philosophy of Design (with Special Attention to Peter Sloterdijk). Keynote lecture. Cornwall, 3 September 2008. <http://www.bruno-latour.fr/articles/article/112-DE-SIGN-CORNWALL.pdf>
Leadbeater, Charles. We-Think: Mass Innovation Not Mass Production. Profile Books. 2008.
Dewey, John. Art as Experience. New York: Balch & Minton, 1934.
Duggan, William. Strategic Intuition: The Creative Spark in Human Achievement. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007.
Dziersk, Mark. “Design Thinking....What is that?” Fast Company: 20 March2006. <http://www.fastcompany.com/resources/design/dziersk/design-thinking-083107.html>
Gates, Melinda. “Leadership + Innovation = Lives Saved,” Huffington Post, Nairobi: 14 February 2011.<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melinda-gates/leadership-innovationliv_b_822993.html>
Gaver, W., Boucher, A., Pennington, S., and Walker, B. Cultural Probes and the Value of Uncertainty. Interactions: Volume XI.5, 2004.
Gupta, Akhil. Postcolonial Developments: Agriculture in the Making of Modern India. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998.
Gupta, Anil K. and Wang, Haiyan. Getting India and China Right: Strategies for Leveraging the World’s Fastest Growing Economies for Global Advantage. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 2009.
Habermas, Jurgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought). English ed. trans. by Thomas Berger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991.
Jacobson, Ivar (et al). Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. Addison-Wesley, 1992.
Heidegger, Martin. The Question Concerning Technology: and Other Essays. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1982.
Pallister, Stuart. “Question Everything: The Search for a New Innovation Paradigm,” INSEAD Knowledge: Sam Pitroda, 25 January, 2011.<http://knowledge.insead.edu/insead-knowledge-sam-pitrodaon-innova-tion-110114.cfm?vid=51>
Papanek, Victor. Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change, 2nd edition. Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers, 2005.
Pitroda, Sam. Vision, Values and Velocity. 2001.
Prahalad, C.K. and Krishnan, M.S. The New Age of Innovation: Driving Cocreated Values Through Global Networks. Tata McGraw Hill, 2008.
Prahalad, C. K., and Ramaswamy, Venkat. The Future of Competition: Co-creating Unique Value with Customers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2004.
Prahalad, C. K., and R. A. Mashelkar. “Innovation’s Holy Grail.” Harvard Business Review. 2010.<http://www.indiaat75.in/pdf/hbr_Mashelkar+CK_MLM.pdf>
Press Trust of India. “Innovation key to solving poor’s problems: Pitroda,” Chicago: Financial Express, 2 May 2011.<http://www.financialexpress.com/news/innovation-key-to-solving-poors-problems-pitroda/784229/0>
Radjou, Navi, Jaideep Prabhu, and Simone Ahuja. “More for Less forMore: How to Disrupt in the Age of Scarcity.” Harvard Business Review. 22 Feb. 2010. <http:// blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/02/more_for_less_for_more_how_to.html>
Rittel, H.W.J. The Reasoning of Designers. Stuttgart: Institut fur GrundlagenderPlanung, 1988.
Rogers, Everett M. and Scott, Karen L. “Diffusion of Innovations Theory,” New Mexico, 10 December 1997. <http://nnlm.gov/pnr/eval/rogers .html>
Leadbeater, Charles and Hilary Coton. The User-Generated State: Public Services 2.0. <http://www.charlesleadbeater.net/archive/public-services-20.aspx>
Lindholm, Christian, Turkka Keinonen, and Harri Kiljander. Mobile Usability: How Nokia Changed the Face of the Mobile Phone. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003.
Lindsay, Greg. “Thus Spake Nano.” World Policy Journal. October 2011.<http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/fall2011/thus-spake-nano>
Maira, Arun. Remaking India: One Country, One Destiny. New Delhi: Sage, 2004.
Margolin, Victor. Design Discourse: History, Theory, Criticism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989.
Mashelkar, R.A. “Launching the Indian Innovation Movement.” Award Lecture: All India Management Association, New Delhi: 21 February 1999. <http://www.nif.org.in/launching_the_Indian_Innovation_Movement>
McDonald, Rob. “Jevons Paradox: When Doing More with Less Isn’t Enough.” The Nature Conservancy. 1 Sept. 2011. <http://blog.nature.org/2011/09/jevonsparadox- when-doing-more-with-less-isn%E2%80%99t-enough/>
Miller, Richard, Nic Marks, and Juliet Michaelson. “Innovation and Well-being.” NESTA, Sept. 2008. <http://goo.gl/Upq7j/>
Munshi, Porus. Making Breakthrough Innovation Happen: How Eleven Indians Pulled off the Impossible. Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India: Collins Business, 2009.
New, S. J. “Celebrating the Enigma: The Continuing Puzzle of the Toyota Production System,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 45, 2007
Norman, Donald A. The Design of Everyday Things, 2nd Edition. New York: Basic Books, 2002.
Tufte, Edward R. Envisioning Information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics, Press 1990.
Verganti, Roberto. “User-centered Innovation Is Not Sustainable.” Harvard Business Review, 19 March 2010. <http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/03/user-centered_innovation_is_no.html>
Vezzoli, Carlo, and Ezio Manzini. Design for Environmental Sustainability. London: Springer, 2008.
Visvanathan, Shiv. Organizing for Science: The Making of an Industrial Research Laboratory. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Visvesvaraya, M. Planned Economy for India. Bangalore: Bangalore Press, 1934.
Zoels, J.C. “Deep Places – Mobile 2.0 and Spatial Experiences.” Mobile Nation: Creating Methodologies for Mobile Platforms. Eds. M. Ladly and P. Beesley. Riverside Architectural Press, 2008.
Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition. New York: The Free Press, 2003.
Rosen, William. The Most Powerful Idea in the World: A Story of Steam, Industry and Invention. New York: Random House, 2010.
Sanders, E. and Stappers, P.J. Co-creation and the New Landscapes of Design. Co.Design: Volume 4. Number 1, March 2008.
Salwi, Dilip M. M. Visveswaraya: Engineer & Nation-Builder. New Delhi: Rupa & Co., 2003.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Transaction Publishers, 1982.
Scott, James C. Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999.
Simon, Herbert A. The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.
Skibsted, Jens M. “User-Led Innovation Can’t Create Breakthroughs; JustAsk Apple and Ikea.” Fast Company. 15 Feb. 2011. <http://www.fastcode-sign.com/1663220/user-led-innovation-cant-create-breakthroughs-just-ask-apple-andikea>
Thackara, John. In the Bubble: Designing in the Complex World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005.
Thomas, Emily, ed. Innovation by Design in Public Services. London: SOLACE Foundation, 2008. <http://www.solace.org.uk/documents/sfi/SFI%20%20Innovation%20by%20design%20in%20public%20services.pdf>
223 224
About the Author
Aditya Dev Sood is a leading expert on innovation, particularly its relationship to Design, Entrepreneurship and Social Change. He is the founder of the Center for Knowledge Societies, which uses ethnographic research, design anlysis and user experience modelling to make new things possible.
![PROFIBUS DP bus interface, PROFIBUS DP [BU 2700] · PROFIBUS DP bus interface – Supplementary manual options for NORD - Frequency Inverters 4 BU 2700 EN-4116 Pos: 4 /Allgemein/Steuer](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5d61725488c993f8688b50ec/profibus-dp-bus-interface-profibus-dp-bu-2700-profibus-dp-bus-interface-.jpg)
