Nirmalya Kumar Indias invisible innovation

Translator: Thu-Huong Ha
Reviewer: Jenny Zurawell

Over the last two decades, India has become

a global hub for software development

and offshoring of back office services, as we call it,

and what we were interested in finding out was that

because of this huge industry that has started

over the last two decades in India,

offshoring software development and back office services,

there’s been a flight of white collar jobs

from the developed world to India.

When this is combined with the loss of manufacturing jobs

to China, it has, you know, led to considerable angst

amongst the Western populations.

In fact, if you look at polls, they show a declining

trend for support for free trade in the West.

Now, the Western elites, however, have said

this fear is misplaced.

For example, if you have read — I suspect many of you

have done so — read the book by Thomas Friedman

called “The World Is Flat,” he said, basically, in his book

that, you know, this fear for free trade is wrong

because it assumes, it’s based on a mistaken assumption

that everything that can be invented has been invented.

In fact, he says, it’s innovation that will keep the West

ahead of the developing world,

with the more sophisticated, innovative tasks being done

in the developed world, and the less sophisticated,

shall we say, drudge work being done

in the developing world.

Now, what we were trying to understand was,

is this true?

Could India become a source, or a global hub,

of innovation, just like it’s become a global hub

for back office services and software development?

And for the last four years, my coauthor Phanish Puranam

and I spent investigating this topic.

Initially, or, you know, as people would say, you know,

in fact the more aggressive people who are supporting

the Western innovative model, say,

“Where are the Indian Googles, iPods and Viagras,

if the Indians are so bloody smart?” (Laughter)

So initially, when we started our research, we went

and met several executives, and we asked them,

“What do you think? Will India go from being a favored

destination for software services and back office services

to a destination for innovation?”

They laughed. They dismissed us.

They said, “You know what? Indians don’t do innovation.”

The more polite ones said, “Well, you know, Indians

make good software programmers and accountants,

but they can’t do the creative stuff.”

Sometimes, it took a more, took a veneer of sophistication,

and people said, “You know, it’s nothing to do with Indians.

It’s really the rule-based, regimented education system

in India that is responsible for killing all creativity.”

They said, instead, if you want to see real creativity,

go to Silicon Valley, and look at companies

like Google, Microsoft, Intel.

So we started examining the R&D and innovation labs

of Silicon Valley.

Well, interestingly, what you find there is,

usually you are introduced to the head of the innovation lab

or the R&D center as they may call it,

and more often than not, it’s an Indian. (Laughter)

So I immediately said, “Well, but you could not have been

educated in India, right?

You must have gotten your education here.”

It turned out, in every single case,

they came out of the Indian educational system.

So we realized that maybe we had the wrong question,

and the right question is, really, can Indians

based out of India do innovative work?

So off we went to India. We made, I think,

about a dozen trips to Bangalore, Mumbai, Gurgaon,

Delhi, Hyderabad, you name it, to examine

what is the level of corporate innovation in these cities.

And what we found was, as we progressed in our research,

was, that we were asking really the wrong question.

When you ask, “Where are the Indian Googles,

iPods and Viagras?” you are taking a particular perspective

on innovation, which is innovation for end users,

visible innovation.

Instead, innovation, if you remember, some of you

may have read the famous economist Schumpeter,

he said, “Innovation is novelty

in how value is created and distributed.”

It could be new products and services,

but it could also be new ways of producing products.

It could also be novel ways of organizing firms and industries.

Once you take this, there’s no reason to restrict innovation,

the beneficiaries of innovation, just to end users.

When you take this broader conceptualization of innovation,

what we found was, India is well represented

in innovation, but the innovation that is being done in India

is of a form we did not anticipate, and what we did was

we called it “invisible innovation.”

And specifically, there are four types of invisible innovation

that are coming out of India.

The first type of invisible innovation out of India

is what we call innovation for business customers,

which is led by the multinational corporations,

which have – in the last two decades, there have been

750 R&D centers set up in India by multinational companies

employing more than 400,000 professionals.

Now, when you consider the fact that, historically,

the R&D center of a multinational company

was always in the headquarters, or in the country of origin

of that multinational company, to have 750 R&D centers

of multinational corporations in India

is truly a remarkable figure.

When we went and talked to the people in those innovation

centers and asked them what are they working on,

they said, “We are working on global products.”

They were not working on localizing global products

for India, which is the usual role of a local R&D.

They were working on truly global products,

and companies like Microsoft, Google, AstraZeneca,

General Electric, Philips, have already answered

in the affirmative the question that from their Bangalore

and Hyderabad R&D centers they are able to produce

products and services for the world.

But of course, as an end user, you don’t see that,

because you only see the name of the company,

not where it was developed.

The other thing we were told then was, “Yes, but, you know,

the kind of work that is coming out of the Indian R&D center

cannot be compared to the kind of work that is coming out

of the U.S. R&D centers.”

So my coauthor Phanish Puranam, who happens to be

one of the smartest people I know, said

he’s going to do a study.

What he did was he looked at those companies

that had an R&D center in USA and in India,

and then he looked at a patent that was filed

out of the U.S. and a similar patent filed out of the same

company’s subsidiary in India,

so he’s now comparing the patents of R&D centers

in the U.S. with R&D centers in India of the same company

to find out what is the quality of the patents filed

out of the Indian centers and how do they compare

with the quality of the patents filed out of the U.S. centers?

Interestingly, what he finds is

— and by the way, the way we look at the quality of a patent

is what we call forward citations: How many times

does a future patent reference the older patent? —

he finds something very interesting.

What we find is that the data says

that the number of forward citations of a patent filed

out of a U.S. R&D subsidiary is identical to the number

of forward citations of a patent filed by an Indian subsidiary

of the same company within that company.

So within the company, there’s no difference in the forward

citation rates of their Indian subsidiaries versus

their U.S. subsidiaries.

So that’s the first kind of invisible innovation coming out of India.

The second kind of invisible innovation coming out of India

is what we call outsourcing innovation to Indian companies,

where many companies today are contracting

Indian companies to do a major part of their product

development work for their global products

which are going to be sold to the entire world.

For example, in the pharma industry, a lot of the molecules

are being developed, but you see a major part of that work

is being sent to India.

For example, XCL Technologies,

they developed two of the mission critical systems

for the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner,

one to avoid collisions in the sky,

and another to allow landing in zero visibility.

But of course, when you climb onto the Boeing 787,

you are not going to know that this is invisible innovation

out of India.

The third kind of invisible innovation coming out of India

is what we call process innovations, because of an injection

of intelligence by Indian firms.

Process innovation is different from product innovation.

It’s about how do you create a new product or develop

a new product or manufacture a new product,

but not a new product itself?

Only in India do millions of young people dream

of working in a call center.

What happens — You know, it’s a dead end job in the West,

what high school dropouts do.

What happens when you put hundreds of thousands

of smart, young, ambitious kids

on a call center job?

Very quickly, they get bored, and they start innovating,

and they start telling the boss how to do this job better, and

out of this process innovation comes product innovations,

which are then marketed around the world.

For example, 24/7 Customer,

traditional call center company, used to be a traditional

call center company. Today they’re developing

analytical tools to do predictive modeling so that before

you pick up the phone, you can guess

or predict what this phone call is about.

It’s because of an injection of intelligence into a process

which was considered dead for a long time in the West.

And the last kind of innovation, invisible innovation

coming out of India is what we call management innovation.

It’s not a new product or a new process

but a new way to organize work,

and the most significant management innovation to come

out of India, invented by the Indian offshoring industry

is what we call the global delivery model.

What the global delivery model allows is, it allows you

to take previously geographically core-located tasks,

break them up into parts, send them around the world

where the expertise and the cost structure exists,

and then specify the means for reintegrating them.

Without that, you could not have any of the other

invisible innovations today.

So, what I’m trying to say is, what we are finding

in our research is, that if products for end users

is the visible tip of the innovation iceberg,

India is well represented in the invisible, large,

submerged portion of the innovation iceberg.

Now, this has, of course, some implications,

and so we developed three implications of this research.

The first is what we called sinking skill ladder,

and now I’m going to go back to where I started my

conversation with you, which was about the flight of jobs.

Now, of course, when we first, as a multinational company,

decide to outsource jobs to India in the R&D,

what we are going to do is we are going to outsource the

bottom rung of the ladder to India, the least sophisticated jobs,

just like Tom Friedman would predict.

Now, what happens is, when you outsource the bottom rung

of the ladder to India for innovation and for R&D work,

at some stage in the very near future you are going to have

to confront a problem,

which is where does the next step

of the ladder people come from within your company?

So you have two choices then:

Either you bring the people from India into

the developed world to take positions in the next step

of the ladder — immigration —

or you say, there’s so many people in the bottom step

of the ladder waiting to take the next position in India,

why don’t we move the next step to India?

What we are trying to say is

that once you outsource the bottom end of the ladder, you –

it’s a self-perpetuating act, because of the sinking skill ladder,

and the sinking skill ladder is simply the point that

you can’t be an investment banker

without having been an analyst once.

You can’t be a professor without having been a student.

You can’t be a consultant without having been a research associate.

So, if you outsource the least sophisticated jobs,

at some stage, the next step of the ladder has to follow.

The second thing we bring up is what we call

the browning of the TMT, the top management teams.

If the R&D talent is going to be based out of India

and China, and the largest growth markets

are going to be based out of India and China,

you have to confront the problem that

your top management of the future

is going to have to come out of India and China,

because that’s where the product leadership is,

that’s where the important market leadership is.

Right? And the last thing we point out in this slide,

which is, you know, that to this story, there’s one caveat.

India has the youngest growing population in the world.

This demographic dividend is incredible, but paradoxically,

there’s also the mirage of mighty labor pools.

Indian institutes and educational system,

with a few exceptions, are incapable of producing students

in the quantity and quality needed

to keep this innovation engine going,

so companies are finding innovative ways to overcome this,

but in the end it does not absolve the government

of the responsibility for creating this educational structure.

So finally, I want to conclude

by showing you the profile of one company, IBM.

As many of you know, IBM has always been considered

for the last hundred years to be one of the most

innovative companies.

In fact, if you look at the number of patents filed over history,

I think they are in the top or the top two or three companies

in the world of all patents filed in the USA as a private company.

Here is the profile of employees of

IBM over the last decade.

In 2003, they had 300,000 employees,

or 330,000 employees, out of which, 135,000

were in America, 9,000 were in India.

In 2009, they had 400,000 employees, by which time

the U.S. employees had moved to 105,000,

whereas the Indian employees had gone to 100,000.

Well, in 2010, they decided they’re not going to reveal

this data anymore, so I had to make some estimates

based on various sources.

Here are my best guesses. Okay? I’m not saying

this is the exact number, it’s my best guess.

It gives you a sense of the trend.

There are 433,000 people now at IBM, out of which

98,000 are remaining in the U.S.,

and 150,000 are in India.

So you tell me, is IBM an American company,

or an Indian company? (Laughter)

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. (Applause)

译者:Thu-Huong Ha
审稿人:Jenny Zurawell

在过去的二十年里,印度已

成为我们所说的软件开发和后台服务外包的全球中心,

而我们有兴趣发现的是,正

因为如此

在过去的二十年里,印度开始了巨大的产业,

离岸软件开发和后台服务

,白领工作

从发达国家大量涌入印度。

当这与制造业工作岗位流失到中国相结合时

,你知道,它在西方民众中引起了相当大的

焦虑。

事实上,如果你看一下民意调查,就会

发现西方对自由贸易的支持呈下降趋势。

然而,现在西方精英们却说

这种恐惧是错误的。

例如,如果你读过——我怀疑你们中的许多人已经读过

——读过托马斯弗里德曼的书

《世界是平的》,他说,基本上,在他的书中

,你知道,对自由贸易的恐惧是 错误的,

因为它假设,它是基于一个错误的假设

,即所有可以发明的东西都已经被发明了。

事实上,他说,创新将使西方

领先于发展中世界,发达国家

正在完成更复杂、创新的任务,而发展中国家正在完成的任务不

那么复杂

,容我们说是苦差事

.

现在,我们试图理解的是

,这是真的吗?

印度能否成为创新的源头或全球中心

,就像它已

成为后台服务和软件开发的全球中心一样?

在过去的四年里,我和我的合著者 Phanish Puranam

一直在研究这个话题。

最初,或者,你知道,正如人们所说,你知道

,实际上支持西方创新模式的更激进的人会

,“如果印度人如此聪明,那么印度的谷歌、iPod 和伟哥在哪里

? " (笑声)

所以最初,当我们开始研究的时候,我们

去见了几位高管,我们问他们,

“你怎么看?印度会不会从

软件服务和后台

服务的热门目的地变成创新的目的地 ?”

他们笑了。 他们解雇了我们。

他们说,“你知道吗?印度人不做创新。”

更有礼貌的人说:“嗯,你知道,

印度人是优秀的软件程序员和会计师,

但他们不能做有创意的事情。”

有时,它需要更多的时间,伪装成复杂的外表

,人们会说,“你知道,这与印度人无关

。实际上是印度基于规则的、受管制的教育体系

扼杀了所有的创造力。”

他们说,相反,如果你想看到真正的创造力,

那就去硅谷,看看

像谷歌、微软、英特尔这样的公司。

所以我们开始考察硅谷的研发和创新

实验室。

好吧,有趣的是,你所发现的,

通常你会被介绍给

他们可能称之为创新实验室或研发中心的负责人

,而且往往是印度人。 (笑声)

所以我马上说,“嗯,但你不可能

在印度受过教育,对吧?

你一定是在这里受过教育的。”

事实证明,在每一个案例中,

他们都来自印度的教育体系。

所以我们意识到,也许我们问错了问题,

而正确的问题是,真的,

来自印度的印度人可以做创新工作吗?

于是我们就去了印度。 我认为,

我们去了班加罗尔、孟买、古尔冈、

德里、海得拉巴等十多次旅行,以检查

这些城市的企业创新水平。

我们发现,随着研究的

进展,我们确实问错了问题。

当你问:“印度的谷歌、

iPod 和伟哥在哪里?” 您正在对创新采取特定的观点

,这是针对最终用户的创新,

可见的创新。

相反,创新,如果你还记得的话,你们中的一些人

可能读过著名的经济学家熊彼特,

他说,“创新是

价值创造和分配方式的新颖性。”

它可能是新产品和服务,

但也可能是生产产品的新方式。

它也可能是组织公司和行业的新颖方式。

一旦你接受了这一点,就没有理由将创新——

创新的受益者——仅限于最终用户。

当你对创新进行更广泛的概念化时,

我们发现印度在创新方面有很好的表现

,但印度正在进行的创新

是一种我们没有预料到的形式,我们所做的是

我们称之为“无形的创新” 。”

具体来说,

印度有四种无形的创新。

印度的第一种无形

创新就是我们所说的商业客户创新,

它由跨国公司领导

,在过去的二十年里,

跨国公司在印度设立了 750 个研发中心

拥有超过 400,000 名专业人员的公司。

现在,当您考虑到历史

上跨国公司的研发中心

总是设在该跨国公司的总部或该跨国公司的

原籍国时,在印度拥有 750 个跨国公司的研发中心

是 真是一个了不起的人物。

当我们去与那些创新中心的人交谈

并询问他们在做什么时,

他们说:“我们正在开发全球产品。”

他们并没有致力于为印度本地化全球产品

,而这是本地研发的通常角色。

他们正在开发真正的全球产品,

微软、谷歌、阿斯利康、

通用电气、飞利浦等公司已经

肯定地回答了这个问题,即他们能够从班加罗尔

和海得拉巴研发中心生产

产品和服务 世界。

但当然,作为最终用户,您看不到这一点,

因为您只看到公司的名称,

而不是它的开发地点。

我们当时被告知的另一件事是,“是的,但是,你知道

,印度研发中心

的工作无法与美国研发中心的工作

相提并论。 中心。”

所以我的合著者 Phanish Puranam 恰好是

我认识的最聪明的人之一,

他说他要做一项研究。

他所做的是他查看了那些

在美国和印度设有研发中心的公司,

然后他查看了

从美国提交的专利以及从同

一家公司在印度的子公司提交的类似专利,

所以他现在正在将美国研发中心的专利与

同一家公司的印度研发中心

的专利

进行比较,以了解从印度中心提交的专利质量如何,

与它们的质量相比如何 从美国中心申请的专利?

有趣的是,他发现的是

——顺便说一下,我们看待专利质量的

方式就是我们所说的前向引用:

未来专利引用旧专利多少次? ——

他发现了一些非常有趣的东西。

我们发现,数据表明

美国研发子公司

提交的专利的前向引用数量与该公司内同一公司的印度子公司提交的专利的前向引用数量

相同。

因此,在公司内部

,其印度子公司

与美国子公司的远期引用率没有差异。

这是第一种来自印度的无形创新。

第二种来自印度的无形创新

是我们所说的将创新外包给印度公司

,如今许多公司都与

印度公司签订合同

,为其全球产品进行大部分产品开发工作,这些产品

将出售给 全世界。

例如,在制药行业,许多分子

正在开发中,但您会看到这项工作的主要部分

正在发送到印度。

例如,XCL Technologies,

他们

为新的波音 787 Dreamliner 开发了两种关键任务系统,

一种用于避免空中碰撞

,另一种用于在零能见度下着陆。

但是,当然,当您登上波音 787 时,

您不会知道这是

来自印度的无形创新。

来自印度的第三种无形创新

就是我们所说的流程创新,

因为印度公司注入了智慧。

工艺创新不同于产品创新。

这是关于你如何创造新产品或

开发新产品或制造新产品,

而不是新产品本身?

只有在印度,数以百万计的年轻人

梦想在呼叫中心工作。

会发生什么——你知道,在西方,这是一个死路一条,

高中辍学生会做什么。

当您让数

十万聪明、年轻、雄心勃勃的孩子

从事呼叫中心工作时会发生什么?

很快,他们感到无聊,他们开始创新

,他们开始告诉老板如何更好地完成这项工作,

从这个过程中创新产生产品创新

,然后在全球销售。

例如,24/7 Customer,

传统的呼叫中心公司,曾经是传统的

呼叫中心公司。 今天,他们正在开发

分析工具来进行预测建模,以便在

您拿起电话之前,您可以猜测

或预测这个电话的内容。

这是因为将情报注入

了一个在西方长期以来被认为已死的过程。

最后一种创新,

来自印度的无形创新就是我们所说的管理创新。

这不是一种新产品或一种新流程,

而是一种组织工作的新方式

,印度离岸外包行业发明的最重要的管理创新

就是我们所说的全球交付模式。

全球交付模型允许的是,它允许

您将以前位于地理核心位置的任务

分解为多个部分,将它们发送到

存在专业知识和成本结构的世界各地,

然后指定重新整合它们的方法。

没有它,你今天就不可能有任何其他

无形的创新。

所以,我想说的是,

我们在研究中发现的是,如果面向最终用户的产品

是创新冰山的可见一角,那么

印度在创新的无形的、大的、

被淹没的部分中得到了很好的体现 冰山。

现在,这当然有一些含义

,因此我们开发了这项研究的三个含义。

第一个是我们所说的下沉技能阶梯

,现在我要回到我

和你开始谈话的地方,关于工作的流失。

现在,当然,当我们作为一家跨国公司第一次

决定将研发工作外包给印度时,

我们要做的是

将阶梯的最底层外包给印度,这是最不成熟的

就像汤姆弗里德曼预测的那样。

现在,发生的事情是,当您将阶梯的最底层外包

给印度进行创新和研发工作时,

在不久的将来的某个阶段,您将

不得不面对一个问题,

即下一个在哪里

阶梯式的人来自贵公司内部?

所以你有两个选择:

要么把印度人

带到发达国家,在阶梯的下一步——移民——中占据一席之地,

要么你说,有很多人在阶梯的最底层

等待接受 下一步在印度,

我们为什么不把下一步搬到印度呢?

我们想说的是

,一旦你外包了阶梯的最底层,你——

这是一种自我延续的行为,因为下沉的技能阶梯,

而下沉的技能阶梯就是

你不能成为的点 一个

没有做过分析师的投资银行家。

没有学生就不能成为教授。

如果没有研究助理,你就不能成为顾问。

因此,如果您将最不复杂的工作外包,

在某个阶段,必须遵循阶梯的下一步。

我们提出的第二件事是我们所说

的 TMT 高层管理团队的褐变。

如果研发人才将位于印度

和中国之外,而最大的增长

市场将位于印度和中国之外,

那么您必须面对

未来最高管理层

将面临的问题 走出印度和中国,

因为那是产品领先地位所在,

那是重要的市场领导地位所在。

对? 我们在这张幻灯片中指出的最后一件事

是,你知道,对于这个故事,有一个警告。

印度拥有世界上最年轻的人口增长。

这种人口红利令人难以置信,但自相矛盾的是,

还有强大劳动力资源的海市蜃楼。

印度的机构和教育系统,

除了少数例外,无法培养出保持创新引擎运转

所需的数量和质量的学生

因此公司正在寻找创新方法来克服这一点,

但最终它并不能免除政府的责任

创建这种教育结构的责任。

最后,我想

向您展示一家公司 IBM 的概况。

正如你们许多人所知,过去一百年来,IBM 一直被认为

是最具

创新性的公司之一。

事实上,如果你看看历史上提交的专利数量,

我认为它们

在美国作为私营公司提交的所有专利中处于世界前列或前两三名的公司。

以下是

过去十年 IBM 员工的概况。

2003 年,他们有 300,000 名员工,

或 330,000 名员工,其中

美国 135,000 人,印度 9,000 人。

2009 年,他们有 400,000 名员工,

此时美国员工已达到 105,000 人,

而印度员工已达到 100,000 人。

嗯,在 2010 年,他们决定不再透露

这些数据,所以我不得不根据各种来源做出一些估计

这是我最好的猜测。 好的? 我并不是说

这是确切的数字,这是我最好的猜测。

它让您了解趋势。

IBM 现在有 433,000 人,其中

98,000 人留在美国

,150,000 人在印度。

所以你告诉我,IBM 是一家美国公司,

还是一家印度公司? (笑声)

女士们,先生们,非常感谢你们。 (掌声)