600 word essay (excluding Reference)

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256059869

How Disruptive is Frugal?

Article in Technology in Society · February 2013

DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.03.003

CITATIONS

60

READS

620

1 author:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sustainable Manufacturing View project

Frugal Design and Frugal Engineering View project

Balkrishna C Rao

Indian Institute of Technology Madras

59 PUBLICATIONS 638 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Balkrishna C Rao on 20 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

How disruptive is frugal?

Balkrishna C. Rao*

Department of Engineering Design, Indian Institute of Technology-Madras, Chennai 600036, India

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history: Received 14 February 2012 Received in revised form 28 February 2013 Accepted 14 March 2013

Keywords: Frugal-innovation Disruptive innovation Global warming Financial crisis Sustainability

a b s t r a c t

Global warming and the recent !nancial crises have prompted a rethink among businesses on the production of cost-effective products and services. Frugal-innovations, with their genesis mainly in India, are accordingly becoming popular in emerging and developed economies due to their lower costs and no frills structure. By studying a variety of frugal- innovations, this effort brings out the features of these innovations and also examines their disruptiveness vis-à-vis other innovations. Furthermore, this paper has formalized the frugal-innovation process based on examples covered in this effort. Such a formalization will aid in the metamorphosis of an ordinary innovation into the frugal type.

! 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In recent years, there has been a growing awareness among companies of innovating with limited resources. Industry bellwethers, such as GE and Tata Sons, have suc- cessfully tapped into frugal-innovations to satisfy the needs of consumers at the base of the pyramid encompassing the low-income group of people. The Economist [28] has de!ned a frugal-innovation to be cheap, tough, easy to use and developed with minimal amounts of raw materials. Even some companies in Estonia, member of the European Union, have tapped into “minimalist” products to tide over the recent recession and, which they now successfully export [29]. According to Srinivas & Sutz [25], a scarcity- induced innovation is realized under scarcity in any one or combination of the following inputs: knowledge, in- stitutions and socio-economics. Henceforth, this paper will refer to a scarcity-induced-, minimalist- or reverse- innovation as a frugal-innovation.

The use of frugality in emerging markets was !rst reported under “frugal-engineering” by Carlos Ghosn, CEO of Renault [39]. Since then frugal-innovations pos- sessing a no frills structure have been developed for the thrifty consumer under constraints of developing coun- tries. These innovations are realized under conditions that are not conducive for innovating in the rich world. The genesis of frugal-innovations is mainly ascribed to India and, China to a lesser extent, where improvisations are widely sought after for living under frugal conditions [28,30]. A quintessential example of frugal-innovation is Jugaad, a concept that has been adopted in management philosophy [13,23]. The Jugaad signi!es a makeshift cart assembled in north India, under scarce resources, for handling routine chores. The growing signi!cance of frugal- innovation is also attested to by its inclusion in the top ten management ideas of the millennium [11], with Immelt et al. [9] forecasting their export from China and India to the rest of the world.

The dawning of the 21st century has been accompanied by globalization along with natural and man-made-crises. First, independent institutions such as the Intergovern- mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have identi!ed

* Tel.: !91 044 22574660; fax: !91 44 22574732. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected].

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Technology in Society

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc

0160-791X/$ – see front matter ! 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.03.003

Technology in Society 35 (2013) 65–73

climate change as a serious threat to our way of life [7,8,15], which is supplemented by other threats including losses- in-bio-diversity and scarcer resources [24]. At the very least, these natural crises beg for a spartan lifestyle to preserve our complex ecosystems for the betterment of current and future generations. Man-made threats such as the dot-com bubble [14] and the recent !nancial crises [37] in particular, are also prodding the global populace toward thrift. Second, globalization is expanding the ranks of the working class in emerging economies, whose desire for higher standards of living [2,38] is putting a strain on our resources. Moreover, perturbations due to the above mentioned threats will get aggravated due to the forecasted explosion in world population [36].

The prospect of the global population turning abste- mious, against the above backdrop, is dim due to the as- pirations of an expanding middle class in emerging markets and also rich nations shrugging to opt for simpler lifestyles. An appealing solution to this dilemma is the use of frugal-innovations with cutting edge technology to create low-cost and no frills products. The adoption of frugality entails design principles that advocate minimal use of re- sources for realizing ef!cient functioning of products. Other than minimal amounts of raw materials, the economizing of resources would also involve the reuse of components and simpler designs that result in products without extra accessories. The no frills nature of frugal products makes them “lean” when compared to their “ordinary” counter- parts, which are bulky due to consumption of relatively large amounts of resources. Consequently, aiming for a no frills product helps maintain lower costs with a positive impact on sustainability because of lesser resource consumption.

The importance of low price and sustainability is borne out by current trends. On the one hand, natural threats are empowering governments world over to enact stringent regulations on emissions and energy ef!ciency. This is exempli!ed by the adoption of carbon trading schemes and/or energy ef!cient technologies and/or emissions limits by various economies of the developed world and the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China) [1,16,17]. On the other hand, cost-conscious consumers in emerging markets are demanding quality products and services at a discount for better lifestyles. Hence, companies will have to adopt the principles of frugal-innovations to achieve pro!tability against both cost-conscious consumers and regulations for sustainable-development.

By economizing the usage of resource-use and aiming for simple products and services, albeit sometimes using cutting edge technology, frugal-innovations have a lot to offer for sustainable-development. As a result, rich coun- tries, such as the U.S., whose technological growth in recent years has "attened [4] should join the frugal bandwagon to give a boost to technological growth that will impact both economic growth and employment. Even export powerhouses like Germany with its legendary Mittelstand will have to embrace these innovations to cater to cost- and environment-conscious customers of the future.

However, systematic studies of frugal-innovations are scarce despite their signi!cance against the current

backdrop. The effort by Prahalad and Mashelkar [22] describes frugal-innovations, under the banner of Gan- dhian innovation, but does not address the need to optimize ordinary innovations into the frugal type. This paper is an attempt in that direction, which lists the important features of frugal-innovations and also exam- ines their disruptive potential. This effort also proposes a methodology for either creating frugal-innovations from scratch or transforming an arbitrary innovation into the frugal type.

2. Discussion

Tables 1–3 list some of the popular and not-so-popular frugal-innovations developed to date the world over. The terminology used in these tables furnishes as complete a set of features as possible, with simple technology comprising any or combinations of simple design, low part count, ease of assembly and other features. In contrast, sophisticated technology entails the use of cutting edge technologies to make frugal products. The term indepen- dent business team refers to the creation of an independent organization by either a company or an entrepreneur to engender a structure and culture conducive to frugal- innovations. Lastly, sustainable design refers to the reuse of existing components.

2.1. Features of frugal-innovations

The frugal products and services listed in Tables 1–3 are priced lower than their ordinary counterparts, which were designed by following standard design procedures. Table A-1 presents the cost and features of some ordinary products and services to aid in this comparison. The bamboo microscope, listed in Table 2, is another classic example of frugal-innovation, which at $4 is cheap enough for use as a teaching aid and also one instance of basic research in India [21]. The theme of lower costs runs through the entire gamut of products and services dis- cussed in this effort.

Besides the Tata Nano" and GE’s Mac 400" and portable ultrasound, well known frugal products in engineering, the foray of frugal-innovations into the hi-tech sector is note- worthy. In particular, the electronics for the robotic hand at Sandia Laboratories were built from components found in cell phones [18] and the radio telescopes for the much vaunted Square Kilometer Array (SKA) project are satellite dishes retro!tted for use in astronomy [19]. This eye for frugality has resulted in signi!cant cost savings as is evident from entries 9 and 10 in Tables 2 and A1, respec- tively. The frugal speech synthesizer, Avaz", employs cut- ting edge technology for supporting multiple languages as opposed to the single language limitation of its pricier counterpart from the U.S. [26]. Even the U.S. Navy has developed low-priced Spike missiles, entry 11 in Tables 2 and A1, that are at par in performance with their pre- mium counterpart, i.e., Javelin, in destroying targets such as armed trucks [34].

Despite their frugal nature, many of the products reported in this paper are also good in their quality.

B.C. Rao / Technology in Society 35 (2013) 65–7366

The Bamboo Bicycle’s ride comfort has been reported to exceed that of its metallic counterpart [12]. The good quality of the portable electrocardiogram, the portable ultrasound and the robotic hand are re"ected in their good performance. In fact, GEs portable products are widely used in developed and developing countries [9] and Sandia’s robotic hand has been reported to perform intricate tasks thus making it suitable for critical appli- cations [18]. The malfunctioning observed in a few of the frugal products, i.e., the Tata Nano" [33,35] and the telescopes in the SKA project, is no cause for concern. These malfunctions were limited to a few cars in the case

of the Tata Nano and just one radio telescope in the SKA project. The Tata Nano 2012", a second generation frugal product, is a reliable and improved version of the original concept and the breakdown of the telescope boils down to the non availability of spares. In general, frugal prod- ucts and services will improve with successive genera- tions and, the few concerns in terms of design and spares seen in some of the current versions will be ironed out in the future.

Frugality has also in"uenced the !ght against dis- eases, with researchers at Stanford University in the U.S. having developed a novel compact probe for detecting

Table 1 Popular examples of frugal-innovation.

No Company/ organization

Country Name of product Type of product Frugal features Reference

1 Tata Motors India Tata Nano" Car a. Lower cost b. Sophisticated

technology c. Ease of use d. Independent

business team

[28]

2 Tata Chemicals Limited

India Tata Swach" Water Puri!er a. Lower cost b. Simple

technology c. Ease of use d. Portable

[28]; http://www.tatachemicals.com/ products/tata_swach.htm

3 General Electric U.S. (Lab in India) Mac 400" and Mac 800"

Handheld Electrocardiogram

a. Lower cost b. Sophisticated

technology c. Portable d. Ease of use e. Robust f. Independent

business team

[28]

4 General electric U.S. (Lab in China) – Portable Ultrasound

a. Lower cost b. Sophisticated

technology c. Portable d. Ease of use e. Robust f. Independent

business team

[9]

5 General Electric U.S. (Lab in India) Well Baby Bassinet"

and Infact Warmer Systems" (IWS)

Bassinet a. Lower cost b. Sophisticated

technology c. Portable d. Ease of use e. Independent

business team

[9]; https://www2.gehealthcare.com/ portal/site/usen

6 Nokia Finland Nokia 1200" Mobile Handset a. Lower cost b. Sophisticated

technology c. Robust d. Ease of use

[28]; http://www.nokia.co.in/!nd-products/ products/nokia-1200/technical-speci!cations

7 Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing

India ChotuKool" Refrigerator a. Lower cost b. Sophisticated

technology c. Portable d. Ease of use

[28]; http://www.chotukool.in/

8 Bharathi Airtel India – Mobile Services Operator

a. Lower cost b. Large-scale

outsourcing c. Independent

business team

[28]

B.C. Rao / Technology in Society 35 (2013) 65–73 67

Table 2 Not-so-popular examples of frugal-innovation.

No Company/ Organization

Country Name of Product

Type of Product Frugal Features References

9 Sandia National Laboratories

U.S. – Robotic Hand a. Lower cost b. Robust c. Sustainable design d. Sophisticated technology e. Ease of use

[18]

10 South Africa South Africa Square Kilometer Array

Radio Telescope a. Lower cost b. Robust c. Sustainable design d. Sophisticated technology

[19]

11 Naval Air Weapons Station

U.S. Spike Missile a. Lower cost b. Robust c. Sophisticated technology d. Ease of use

[34]

12 Lunar Design U.S. – Bone Drill a. Lower cost b. Robust c. Simple technology d. Ease of use e. Start up

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1664799/ stanford-!nds-hints-for-the-future-of- us-medical-design-in-india; http://www.lunar.com/a-new-model- for-medical-device-development/

13 Columbia University (Earth Institute)

U.S. – Bamboo Bike a. Lower cost b. Robust c. Simple technology d. Ease of use e. Start up

[12]

14 Tata Consultancy Services (TCS)

India Home Infotainment Platform (HIP)"

An information and communication platform providing internet gateway on a television set.

a. Lower cost b. Tough or robust c. Sophisticated technology d. Ease of use

[28]; http://www.tcs.com/resources/ brochures/Pages/Home-Infotainment- Platform.aspx

15 MittiCool India MittiCool Fridge"

Refrigerator a. Lower price b. Zero maintenance cost c. Simple technology with

zero energy consumption (earthen pot principle)

d. Start up

[5]; http://www.mitticool.in

16 Jodo Gyan India – Bamboo Microscope a. Lower price b. Simple technology c. Start up

[21]

17 RanBaxy Laboratories Limited

India – Generic drugs a. Lower price b. Sophisticated technology

[27]

18 Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospital

India Health City" Healthcare a. Economies of scale (large volumes of surgeries)

b. Low price surgery c. Specialized or

sophisticated surgery

[10,28]

19 Wockhardt Hospitals

India – Beating Heart Surgery

a. Economies of scale (large volumes of surgeries)

b. Low price surgery c. Specialized or

sophisticated surgery

[27]

20 Aravind Eye care System

India – Eye care a. Low price surgery b. Economies of scale (large

volumes of surgeries) c. Sophisticated technology

[27]

21 Columbia Asia U.S. – Health care a. Low price services b. Sophisticated technology

using healthcare information technology (HIT)

[27]

22 First Energy India OORJA" Stove and Fuel a. Lower cost b. Lesser energy

consumption and emissions

c. Simple technology d. Start up

[28]; http://www.pciaonline.org/!rst- energy-private-limited

B.C. Rao / Technology in Society 35 (2013) 65–7368

tuberculosis (TB) [20]. This highly ef!cient probe comprising a mobile phone camera and light box detects smaller numbers of TB bacteria in a small sample when compared to existing testing procedures that are not cost effective.

In addition to lower costs, sustainability and ease of operation, a bulk of the products in these tables has been realized from cutting edge technology. Accordingly, the product-based features of a frugal-innovation based on the discussion above are: low price, compact design with a no frills structure, use of limited raw materials or reuse of existing components, ease of use and use of cutting edge technology, where possible, to achieve lower costs. An in- dependent organizational structure with a culture pro- moting frugality is also evident in the creation of these innovations.

2.2. Are frugal-innovations disruptive?

Ordinarily businesses improve their pro!tability by undertaking various cost cutting measures. Traditionally these post design measures are directed at minimizing the cost of a given product by streamlining the various pro- cesses that go into its realization. In contrast, cost cutting is built into the initial design process of a frugal-innovation, thereby producing products that are cheaper than the cheapest ordinary products. Moreover, the good quality of a majority of the frugal products and, the quality improvement seen in some second generation products, puts frugal-innovations in a formidable position to disrupt their incumbents. This subsection examines the disrup- tiveness by applying the principles propounded by Chris- tensen [3] on disruptive innovations.

Table 3 Frugal-innovations in the making.

No Company/organization Country Name of product Type of product Frugal features References

29 Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College

U.S. 300$ House Housing for the poor a. Lower cost b. Simple design c. Minimum features for

living with dignity.

[6,32]

30 Stanford University U.S. – Probe for Detecting Tuberculosis

a. Lower cost b. Simple design c. Portable

[20]

Table 2 (continued )

No Company/ Organization

Country Name of Product

Type of Product Frugal Features References

23 A Little World India – Rural banking through mobile phony

a. Lower cost b. Sophisticated technology c. Portable d. Ease of use e. Robust f. Start up

[28]; http://www.alittleworld.com/

24 Invention Labs India Avaz" Speech synthesizer a. Lower cost b. Sophisticated technology c. Supports multiple

languages d. Portable e. Ease of use f. Robust g. Start up

[26]

25 Indian Government India Aakash UbiSlate 7"

Touchscreen Tablet Computer

a. Lower cost b. Sophisticated technology c. Portable d. Ease of use e. Robust

http://www.ubislate.com/; http:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south- asia-15180831

26 Mindray China – Healthcare products such as monitoring and life support, diagnostics and imaging.

a. Lower cost b. Sophisticated technology c. Portable d. Ease of use e. Robust f. Start up developed into a

full-"edged company

[28,31]

27 BYD China – Lithium-ion Battery a. Lower cost b. Sophisticated technology c. Start up developed into a

full-"edged company

[28]

28 Dachangjiang China – Motorcycle Lower cost through "exible supply-chain network

[28]

B.C. Rao / Technology in Society 35 (2013) 65–73 69

According to Christensen [3], a disruptive innovation is cheaper, smaller, simpler and convenient to use. Aside from these product-based features, Christensen [3] also lists characteristics pertaining to the relevant markets, organizational structure and resource allocation. In addition to lower costs, most of the products listed in Tables 1–3 are compact in their design and/or smaller and have all been noted for ease of use. However, prod- ucts such as the Mac 400" and Mac 800" extend the concept of Christensen’s disruption by being sophisti- cated in their technology.

A crucial distinction between Christensen’s disruptive innovation and the frugal type involves the evolution of performance attributes. The former starts with a product attribute such as compactness or ease of use and ends with lowering of price through product commoditization. The latter however, is based on low prices and would evolve in the future by optimizing other attributes. The emphasis on lower cost restricts the designer from using resources in excess of that required for a frugal-innovation. Each subse- quent optimization of other features, such as quality, streamlines the frugal-design process. The end result is a product comprising bare minimum of components, which functions at par with, or even better than, the traditional counterpart. In addition, the precedence of lower cost gives a head start and, more time, to a frugal-innovation to evolve into a full-"edged lean product with good functionality. In contrast, a traditional product might not mature into a leaner version.

The rubric of lower cost running through the examples of Tables 1–3 make it a crucial factor aiding disruption of ordinary innovations in the future. With the continuing growth of emerging economies, the ranks of their frugal consumers will continue to swell. Therefore, in light of weaker demand in most western economies, companies worldwide will seriously consider these disruptions by frugal-innovations and vie with each other to capture larger shares in emerging markets. In other words, a variation of Christensen [3] idea can be observed where consumers in"uence mainstream companies to adopt frugality into their value networks.

Besides lower price, the no frills aspect of frugal- innovations lends itself to the needs of sustainability for tackling the planetary crises of our time. The factor-of- safety traditionally applied in designs typically leads to greater consumption of resources. However, the factor-of- frugality inherent in frugal-innovations would result in signi!cant savings of resources when manufacturing many of these innovations for mass consumption. The economic utilization of resources has a positive impact on society and would aid in preserving resources for future generations. Another positive impact on sustain- ability would be the foreseeable improvement in the quality and, life, of frugal products thus optimizing con- sumption. Overall, the lower cost together with no frills design and good quality will create hoards of frugal products and services in the future that are bene!cial from the perspective of both cost and sustainability. Frugal products will raise the living standards of society at large by making their good quality performance affordable at lower costs. The powerful combination of

low-cost, quality and simplicity makes mass consump- tion of frugal products a sustainable solution for a better tomorrow. Therefore, frugal-innovations are a signi!cant disruptive force.

3. Methodology for undertaking frugal-innovations

The frugal-innovation process, as carried out in emerging markets, typically involves tenacious entrepre- neurs working against a backdrop of scarce resources such as knowledge, raw materials, personnel and a rule of law conducive to innovations, at least in the past. The process description that follows presents a suitable methodology for formalizing the frugal-innovation process that can aid in developing these products in various sectors including engineering and science. While there is interaction be- tween the individual steps, the discretization clari!es un- derstanding of the methodology and also facilitates its systematic application to a problem. It should be noted that this section uses design and innovation interchangeably since a frugal variant of an existing product quali!es for an innovation.

3.1. Modeling of functionality

The !rst step of the proposed methodology is the detailed design process using classical analyses. A classical analysis refers to the use of traditional scienti!c, engi- neering and other relevant techniques generally used for designing products. Besides understanding the viability of making a product frugal, such a study would serve as a reference for optimizing the basic design for frugality. Even products in critical sectors, where “diluting” a design might have disastrous consequences, should avail of classical an- alyses to determine the feasibility of undertaking the frugal-innovation process. Such a study should list all the parameters in"uencing the functionality of a given product along with their suitable values.

3.2. Frugal product feasibility

The second step of this methodology is examining the feasibility of creating a frugal version of a given product. In particular, results of the study undertaken in the previous step would be utilized for inferring the impact of frugality on the functionality of a given product. The functionality of some products in critical sectors, such as aerospace, defense and even healthcare, might not lend itself for alteration due to the superior and reliable performance expected in these sectors. However, apart from such cases, the majority of goods and services available for consump- tion are ready for frugality.

3.3. Optimization of basic design

The third step concerns the optimization of a given innovation against constraints of frugality. With reference to Fig. 1, a given innovation should be optimized for lower cost against a !xed constraint of functionality or perfor- mance, as determined in step 1 and, variable constraints

B.C. Rao / Technology in Society 35 (2013) 65–7370

such as basic design, production, quality, robustness and ease of use. The rationale being that optimization of the basic design for lower cost would result in a product syn- thesized through ef!cient utilization of resources, i.e., a frugal-innovation.

Each of the variable constraints could be controlled, in turn, through a wide range of factors. For instance, pro- duction encompasses manufacturing processes, process parameters, labor, supply-chain logistics and other relevant manufacturing variables that could be optimized for achieving lower costs. Furthermore, as depicted in Fig. 2, multiple iterations of variable constraints would be required in the general case for creating a frugal- innovation.

The objective could be extended to include sustain- ability to account for the product’s impact on environment. Sustainability could also be built into the model as a !xed

constraint comprising sustainable materials, such as bamboo etc. and, sustainable-design principles. However, any redundancies arising from the implicit inclusion of this factor in the optimization process should be avoided.

The three-step methodology developed above could be “hardwired” into the innovator who will evaluate the constraints continuously during the innovation process. The rural frugal-innovators of India are the representatives of this approach. Alternatively, an innovative design or idea could be optimized, through this formalization, after its conception but well before production.

Yet another strategy for companies to engender frugal- innovations is maintenance of close proximity with the base of the pyramid. In other words, companies should direct a portion of their research and development budget to monitoring the lifestyles of both the low-income people and poor. These associations with the thrifty would spawn new products and services, improve existing products and services and, maybe, lead to newfangled concepts and models for frugality-based businesses.

4. Conclusions

Globalization together with an expanding population is straining earth’s natural resources while also contributing to climate change. This paper has highlighted the signi!- cance of frugal-innovations against this backdrop. The development of no frills products and services has been showcased with thirty examples in a range of sectors including healthcare, banking, engineering and computer, to name a few. The strong tendency of frugal-innovations to disrupt incumbents was demonstrated through speci!c examples. A methodology was also presented for the sys- tematic development of frugal-innovations. This method- ology would aid companies in harnessing frugality and improving their pro!tability in a world conscious of both cost and sustainability.

Appendix

The features and prices of selected ordinary products are listed in this appendix for comparison with their frugal counterparts. These products are listed in the same order, i.e., same serial number, as in Tables 1–3 to facili- tate comparison. All columns refer to the ordinary products except for “Frugal Cost”, which lists the price for the corresponding frugal entry in Tables 1–3. The costs of these ordinary versions are primarily based on existing literature where available and complemented by current prices, based on current exchange rates, procured from India’s popular on-line shopping sites !ipkart and naaptol.

The performance of frugal products, with reference to Table A1, is at par or better than their ordinary counter- parts. The descriptions of some of these superior, i.e., better quality, frugal products are given in the section on discus- sion. Moreover, the column on features lists only the rele- vant characteristics that make these ordinary products distinct from the frugal type.

Fig. 2. Converging iterations of multiple variable constraints in the opti- mization process for creating a frugal product or frugal-innovation. Note: Each shrinking oval represents convergence towards optimal value for a given variable, with a total of 5 iterations shown here for clarity.

Fig. 1. Optimizing the basic design or innovation to frugal type. Note: Functionality (performance) is the !xed constraint while basic design, pro- duction, quality and usability and robustness are variable constraints.

B.C. Rao / Technology in Society 35 (2013) 65–73 71

References

[1] Barbier EB. A global green new deal: rethinking the economic re- covery. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2010.

[2] Bordo MD, Taylor AM, Williamson JG. Globalization in historical perspective. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2003.

[3] Christensen CM. The innovator’s dilemma: the revolutionary book that will change the way you do business. New York: HarperCollins Publishers; 2003.

[4] Cowen T. The great stagnation; how America ate all the low- hanging fruit of modern history, got sick, and will (eventually) feel better. Penguin E Book; 2011.

[5] Entrepreneur (2010) Potter power: son of the soil December 2010. [6] Govindarajan V. The $300 house: go, go, go! Harvard Business Re-

view Blogs April 20, 2011. [7] IPCC. Climate change 2001: the scienti!c basis. Contribution of

Working Group I to the intergovernmental panel on climate change. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2001.

[8] IEA. World energy outlook. Paris: International Energy Agency; 2009. [9] Immelt JR, Govindarajan V, Trimble C. How GE is disrupting itself.

Harvard Business Review 2009;87(10):56–65. [10] Khanna T, Kasturi Rangan V, Manocaran M. Narayana Hrudayalaya

Heart Hospital: cardiac care for the poor. Harvard Business School Case N9-505-078, June 14th 2005.

[11] Kirby J. The decade in management ideas. Harvard Business Review Blogs January 01, 2010.

[12] KPMG. Bamboo bicycles in Kumasi, Ghana. USA: KPMG; 2008. [13] Krishnan RT. From Jugaad to systematic innovation: the challenge

for India. The Utpreraka Foundation; 2010. [14] Lowenstein R. Origins of the crash: the great bubble and its undoing.

Penguin Press; 2004. [15] MA. Ecosystems and human wellbeing. Millennium zssessment.

Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005. [16] Ministry of Finance. Union budget & economic survey: budget

2010–2011. India: Ministry of Finance. http://indiabudget.nic.in/ ub2010-11/ubmain.htm; 2010.

[17] Nature. News brie!ng: Indian budget, 464:12–3. [18] Nature. News: Four-!ngered robot can replace "ashlight batteries,

488.

[19] Nature. News: Recycled dishes form telescope network, 488. [20] Nature. News: The TB test you can do at home, 489. [21] Nature Medicine. Science on a shoetring: Microscopes made from

bamboo bring biology into focus, 13:1128. [22] Prahalad CK, Mashelkar RA. Innovation’s holy grail. Harvard Busi-

ness Review 2010;88(7):132–41. [23] Radjou N, Prabhu J, Ahuja S. Jugaad: a new growth formula for

corporate America. Harvard Business Review Blogs January 25, 2010. [24] Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS, Lambin E,

et al. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society 2009;14(2):32.

[25] Srinivas S, Sutz J. Developing countries and innovation: searching for a new analytical approach. Technology in Society 2008;30: 129–40.

[26] Technology review The next generation of technology: 35 in- novators under 35. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; October 18–19, 2011.

[27] Health care in India: lessons from a frugal innovator. The Economist April 16th 2009.

[28] First break all the rules: the charms of frugal innovation. The Economist April 15th 2010.

[29] Baltic economies: Estonian exceptionalism. The Economist July 14th 2011.

[30] Frugal healing: inexpensive Asian Innovation will transform the market for medical devices. The Economist January 20th 2011.

[31] Asian medical innovation: how China and India can help cut western medical bills. The Economist January 20th 2011.

[32] Schumpeter: a $300 idea that is priceless. The Economist April 28th 2011.

[33] Tata’s Nano: stuck in low gear. The Economist August 20th 2011. [34] Rockets Galore: cheap smart weapons. The Economist September

29th 2012. [35] Tata Motors investigating nano !re incident. The Economic Times

March 25th, 2010. [36] United-Nations-Population-Division. The World at Six Billion. ESA/

P/WP.154. New York: United Nations; 1999. [37] World Bank. The global economic crisis: assessing vulnerability

with a poverty lens, policy note. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2009.

Table A1. Ordinary products and services

No Product/service Ordinary cost Frugal cost Ordinary features References

1 Small Car (Model: Figo for the Indian market)

$7370 $2900 Higher cost http://www.zigwheels.com/

2 Water puri!er $270 $23 a. Higher cost b. Intricate design

http://www."ipkart.com/

3 Electrocardiogram (Marquette series)

$2000 $800 a. Higher cost b. Intricate Design c. Bulky

[28]

4 Conventional Ultrasound "$100,000 $15,000 a. Higher cost b. Intricate Design c. Bulky

[9]

7 Refrigerator (lower capacity) $185 $70 a. Higher cost b. Intricate Design c. Bulky

[28]; http://www."ipkart.com/

9 Robotic Hand $250,000 $10,000 a. Higher cost b. Intricate design

[18]

10 Radio Telescope >$6 million <$2.5 million Higher cost [19] 11 Javelin Missile $147,000 $5000 Higher cost [34] 16 Microscope (educational &

some basic research) $15 (single lens) $4 a. Higher cost

b. Intricate Design [21]; http://www.naaptol.com

18 Heart Surgery $20,000–$1,00,000 $2000 Higher cost [10,28] 24 Speech Synthesizer $5000–$10000 $800 a. Higher cost

b. Supports only one language

[26]

25 Tablet Computer (iPad) $570 $80 Higher cost http://www.ubislate.com/, http:// www.apple.com/in/ipad/

29 Affordable housing $3000 (in the U.S.) $300 Higher cost [6,32]

B.C. Rao / Technology in Society 35 (2013) 65–7372

[38] World Bank. Globalization, growth and poverty: building an inclu- sive world economy. Washington, DC: Oxford University Press, New York & the World Bank; 2002.

[39] Carlos Ghosn. Now is the time for the electric car. Knowledge@Whar- ton, http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid#2364; 2009 [accessed 28.10.09].

Balkrishna C. Rao is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engi- neering Design at the Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India. Professor Rao’s research interests include innovations, sustainability and green manufacturing. He received his Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Purdue University, USA.

B.C. Rao / Technology in Society 35 (2013) 65–73 73

View publication statsView publication stats