Innovation with Perfection: When Parts Become the Whole

Innovation is seen as the hallmark of creative development while perfection is seen as the surrogate of supreme quality. Customer delight arises from a combination of innovation and perfection. Innovatively designed products that are made to perfection surprise, delight and inspire customers. From an economic point of view, a combination of innovation and perfection results in greater productivity and sustainability. The beauty of this combination is that it is applicable not only to products and services but also to processes. Generally, however, innovation and perfection are seen to be somewhat antithetical to each other, with innovative products running the risk of failure and perfect products being a result of highly standardized inputs and processes, proven in millions of repetitive cycles. This intriguing reality has probably a socio-economic behavioural causation too; one can wait for innovation but not eternally and one can seek perfection but not at the cost of immediate needs.

While innovation could be a result of spontaneous intuition or diligent serendipity, and perfection could be a result of a mind-set steeped in conformity and quality, in most cases innovation and perfection are highly organized activities requiring time and effort. In principle, the greater the time and effort expended on innovation and perfection, the greater is the possibility of innovation and perfection. The pathway to innovation on which time and effort are spent is often dictated by the target of innovation. The pathway to perfection on which time and effort are spent is dictated by the level of specifications on one hand and usage feedback on the gap between specifications and requirements on one hand and the gap between specifications and performance on the other.  The targets of innovation and perfection are, themselves, set somewhat subconsciously by what humans as the experimenters see as the limits for innovation or perfection. As this process is complex, practitioners seek optimality which ironically could be sub-optimization.

Substrates

In reality, innovation that we see in products or services is invariably preceded by innovation in basic technologies. The innovative televisions of today are made possible because of innovations in display screen technologies such as OLED that were seeded a few years ago for palm size screens. When several innovative technologies become available novel products incorporating such technologies get to be developed, albeit with a lag. Strange as it may seem, rarely innovation gets defined ab initio at the end-product level. This facet of innovation in multiple technology substrates represents both an opportunity and a challenge for product level innovation. The opportunity arises in terms of choice and speed while the challenge arises because of imbalance in innovation of parts. Rarely one gets to have a total product technology mission that targets innovation in raw materials, components, integrating systems, manufacturing equipment, production processes, and end-products as one holistic mission.

That perfection does not necessarily move with innovation, and vice versa, is fairly obvious. Apple which has seemingly attained perfection with its iPhone range until recently (say, till iPhone 5) has not necessarily been innovative in all the departments. On the other hand, as the innovation level (as exemplified by a slim form factor) got bumped up in the iPhone 6 range, perfection lagged as evidenced by bending phones, protruding camera modules and blurred images in some lots. Samsung has been innovative in form factor and stylus based phones but never reached the top in terms of perfection. Incorporation of OIS modules in slim phones represent a greater challenge in terms of achieving perfection rather than integrating innovation. Inevitably, every first generation innovative product, be it cell phone or holography headset, emerges to be a rather bulky, blunt or crude form of innovation (at least, until after the next generation products are unveiled).

Parts and the whole

The author of this blog once wrote a post titled “Style is Substance: Management of Product Design and Manufacture”, Strategy Musings, August 8, 2009 (http://cbrao2008.blogspot.in/2009/08/style-is-substance-management-of.html). The post argued that the style of a product demands substance in design and manufacture of a product, and boosts efficiency, encourages creativity, promotes flexibility and drives growth but also demands management competence to ensure all of this. The blog post was, in fact, inspired by the crop of stylistic products that began to be unveiled during those years. Much intellectual water has flowed under the bridge since then with rapidly evolving products and amazingly shortening life cycles. While style and substance seem to have stood up over the last six years as a solid pair, perfection and innovation seem to be moving out of step, of late. This can be traced to the mismatch of perfection and innovation in the parts and the whole.

Product design as a technical discipline has such versatile facets that a few parts can make a significant change to performance but such trend can neither be unlimited nor perpetual. For example, a superior drive-train can step up an automobile to a different performance trajectory but without matching strides in overall strength-weight parameters or navigation systems, enhancement in performance of parts would soon be blocked. When breakthrough products are conceptualized, every part needs to be thought of for innovation and perfection. When Airbus A380 was designed as the largest commercial plane, each and every part had to be redefined to newer standards. The difference between a spaceship for a lunar expedition and a spaceship for mars mission would need a complete conceptual redesign. The challenge of perfect innovation lies in absorbing the approaches from such uncommon products to common products.

Perfect innovation

Perfect innovation may be defined as an organized process in which each component of a product is covered with innovation. This requires concurrent engineering and manufacture of a different detail and differentiated calibre. To institutionalize perfect innovation, a firm has to approach product development and commercialization in two distinct tracks. The first track covers the routinely followed quick-upgrade product cycle. This would incorporate typically certain innovative upgrades to differentiate products across generations; such product cycles may alternately focus on innovation or perfection. Typical examples are found in white goods and consumer goods sectors. The improvements in loading systems or washing cycles in washing machines, enhancements in purification and water recovery in water purifiers, integration of new materials in cooking systems, miniaturization of routers and dongles, enhancements in pixel density of display screens, improvements in aperture sizes of camera sensors and inverter integrated air conditioners are examples of such routine product developments.

The second track, which actually is the track of perfect innovation, reappraises the entire product concept in terms of the total design and functionality of the end-product at one level and the design and manufacture of every material, component, system and assembly at another level. The first editions of digital camera, smart phone, flat panel television, and several such others represent close examples of perfect innovation. The reasons are that each of the products had several totally new components (not merely upgrades of existing ones) involving new materials, new designs and new manufacturing processes. All of these products had new operating systems as well. Introduction of digital technology has enabled definition of metrics for measuring innovation and perfection. Until the entry of digital technology, mechanical fits and tolerances determined the perfection of manufacture. Digital technology helps monitor the perfection of manufacture as well as on-site performance on a continuing basis in critical equipment such as medical imaging equipment, diagnostic equipment and infusion equipment.

Bill of innovation

Perfect innovation is a multi-stage iterative process which starts in the first phase with a total redefinition of the product concept. This stage can be applied to any product, from a telephone or a television to a hotel room or operation theatre. This stage requires truly out-of-the-box thinking on product configuration, which could reposition even plateauing or declining products. For example, the land telephone which has reached a stage of plateau can be subjected to this process.  From a mere dialing instrument for physical communication, it can be converted into a home management robot. At the very least all the functionalities of a smart phone like multiple ringtones, display screens, voice assistance, voice recording and play back, and a number of utilities such as alarm, compass and calendar can be incorporated. At a higher level, it can be embedded with a mini-computer which can provide instructions to various devices and equipment in home, serve as daily organizer and also serve as a real-time camera to record entrants to the home. A fundamental re-positioning of a traditional product, based on a new technology substrate, is the first phase of perfect innovation.

The next phase is the crucial operative phase which comprises four parallel inter-connected streams of technology substrate choice, detailed bill of materials, bill of innovation corresponding to bill of materials and component-specific manufacturing perfection scheme, including testing and quality assurance and equipment planning. These four streams encompass the product on an end-to-end basis, from design to delivery. At the end of this second phase, the first prototypes of the new breakthrough product would be available. The third final phase is the iterative phase when the prototypes are honed to perfection, adding incremental innovation and perfection to each component to perfect the overall product style and substance. At the end of this phase, the product would be ready for homologation and commercial manufacture. As opposed to a typical 6 month upgrade cycle, perfect innovation would require a minimum development and commercialization cycle time of 3 to 5 years. Firms would do well to split their R&D and Manufacturing functions into Improvement Business Units and Redefinition Business Units.

Posted by Dr CB Rao on September 01, 2015

Technological Behaviour in Retrospect: Near Perfect but Never Perfect?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acknowledgements

This is my 300^th post in my Blog “Strategy Musings” which is dedicated to my essays on various aspects of strategy and policy. I am grateful to my revered God Almighty,  Sri Venkateswara Swami Varu for gifting me the capability to think and express myself as creatively and as consistently as possible in pursuance of my passion for sustainable growth with equity.

This blog post on technology is dedicated to the extraordinary scientists and technologists whose innovative, experimental and practical capabilities transform human life.

CB Rao

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consumer facing industries sparkle with a continuous flow of new products, to retain consumer loyalty. The mobile phone industry is a witness to such a continuous product flow. More manufacturers are in fray with more products than ever in the marketplace. More importantly, industry level competition is commoditizing technologies as never before forcing innovative firms to keep coming up with innovative breakthroughs periodically. In one sense, all major manufacturers tend to be pioneers, viewed of course in a liberal thought perspective, even if they are followers of an innovation introduced by someone else. By offering incremental value even on known formats, a pioneering development can be accomplished. The smartphone industry offers an excellent canvas to study and test several of the concepts. This blog post will focus on the behaviour of technology in the hands of firms, called technological behaviour, for the purposes of this paper.

Developing large screen phones has been a Samsung innovation (Galaxy series) but soon LG developed similar phones with a few pioneering features, including the thinnest bezel structure (G3). Apple followed with a pioneering departure from its small screen format but bringing its famous all glass structure for its large screen phones (iPhone 6 and 6 Plus). Sony brought in a different concept of dust and water resistance (Z series). Samsung developed an even larger and stylus based Note phone series and stayed on as a pioneer for a long time in that segment. It improved the Note by bringing for the first time an edge display (Note 4 Edge). Again, it has improved the edge concept further with a dual edge concept that has just been introduced through the mainline Galaxy series (S6 and S6 Edge). In the camera department again, innovations in pixel density, image stabilization and low-light imaging continue to take place (various models).   

      

Technological behaviour    

Like different human beings are considered to behave differently based on individual differences in genetic dispositions, family upbringing and institutional environment, technology can also be interpreted to exhibit its own distinctive behaviour based on the fundamental foundations of innovation of a firm and the way technological innovation is nurtured by successive generations of a firm’s leadership, in an overall competitive industry landscape. For example, Sony has its fundamental roots in the depth of its electronics technology.  It is this capability that still vests in Sony a leadership position in consumer and industrial electronics despite the buffeting of business strategies by own lags as well as competitor leads. This is evidenced by continuing innovations in Playstation, camera sensors, robotics, and in special design elements of its products and robotics. Bose is another example of how the fundamental foundations of acoustic purity have consistently driven new product developments.

Technological behaviour can be defined in terms of hardware specifications, operating system, experiential novelty, market timeliness and user affordability as a holistic paradigm. Hardware specifications define the core performance of a product while the operating system (OS) defines the ultimate product performance. The OS not only integrates the hardware of a product but also integrates the product, user and the environment in a unique way. Experiential novelty defines how the product delivers an experience in a fashion that is hitherto unexperienced. Market timeliness occurs when a product is introduced in such a way that it leads to a transformation in how the activities are performed. Finally, user affordability reflects the ultimate relevance of the product to generate value for the user in return to the price paid. It also means to the firm the returns provided by the product for all the costs and expenses incurred by the firm in developing, manufacturing and delivering the product to the customer.

Never perfect

As with everything, product perfection is the ultimate goal of a competitive firm. This, in turn, requires perfect technological behaviour. Unfortunately, however, neither product perfection nor its driver, the perfect technological behaviour, are rarely achieved in an optimal fashion in the first occurrence, even for a virtuous firm. Reverting to the smartphone example, Apple despite its design and OS elegance could not master the large screen approach of Samsung or the high pixel and image stabilization camera technologies of Nokia. Similarly, Samsung could not go beyond the plastic body technology and could introduce a superior body only in the most recent sixth iteration of its Galaxy series. Despite its being a consistent follower, rather than a leader ever, LG scored its own victories with the thinnest bezel design ever (G3) and curved phones (Flex). Even the visible and successful accomplishments of competitors do not seem to alter the technological behaviour of firms beyond a point.

Even though Apple recognized the inevitability of larger screen phones and introduced iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus, the firm failed to develop and offer the superior bezel technology of LG, higher camera technology of Nokia or unique dust and water resistance of Sony even in the latest product offerings. There exist two interpretations for this apparent lacuna. The first is that firms find it difficult to acknowledge and appreciate the superior behaviour of competitors, and consequently delay a responsive behaviour as long as possible. The second is that certain firms, foundationally, tend to be prone only to certain technological behaviours. The examples cited above illustrate the twin features of technological behaviour that makes products stay less than perfect, even at the hands of big firms. Even when perfect technological behaviour could be well within reach from a pure technology point of view, certain managerial aspects of technological behaviour relating to timeliness and affordability may influence a less than perfect approach.

Near perfect

The firm’s own fundamental technological propensities and its leadership’s own strategic dispositions influence the technological behaviour, and therefore cause the product attributes of their firms to be less than perfect. One may wonder that if perfection is impossible even for a Sony or Apple, what would be the chance for smaller firms. Perfection is not a function of scale; it is a behavioural mind-set. Big or small firms can certainly achieve at least a state of near perfection. Near perfection is achieved when a firm seeks near perfection on each of the five dimensions of hardware, software, novelty, timeliness and affordability discussed earlier. It would not suffice to be a leader on some and laggards on others. Interestingly, near perfection in technological behaviour turns out to be a conflict, if not clash, between the technology leadership and management leadership that a firm desires to have. Technology leadership drives the hardware, software and novelty components while management leadership drives the timeliness and affordability components.

In one important sense, technology and management leadership components should have a balance for a firm to achieve near perfection. The balance would be unique to each firm. The balance would be within the respective technological and management components as well; for example between hardware excellence and software perfection or between both of these together on one hand and novelty on the other. Similarly, a balance would need to be struck between timeliness to the market and affordability to the user. This brings us to the second principle of near perfection, that a fine balance within all the five components is essential. Integrating the discussion so far, it is clear that near perfection does not happen by accident; it happens by achieving near perfection on each of the five dimensions on one hand and striking a fine balance among the technology and management components, intra and inter.

Retrospectively prospective

Firms in the business of technology intensive products have a challenge. While planning technological innovation and product development, current plans and execution for the future would look appropriate, in some cases more than appropriate. Yet, once the competitive landscape is played out fully, the deficiencies become patent. It would appear that in retrospect technological behaviour of firms is found to be never perfect. This inherent feature of technological behaviour of firms is contrarian to the need to develop technologically and commercially competitive products of perfection. This deficiency seems to hurt even technologically and commercially giant-scale firms. This blog post proposes a simple prescription. The prescription requires the firms to modify their technical behaviour in an insightful manner to be able to review future products in retrospect even while staying at the current point of time so that the final product development is future-perfect!

Firms must, prior to launching the development of any product, imagine and conceptualize the competitive landscape at the time of actual product launch. Appropriate technical behaviour would eschew firm-specific biases and habits; instead, a genuine effort would be made to understand the limits to which each component of the firm’s technical behaviour can be stretched. It would also be necessary to assess the capabilities of the firm and its competitors to incorporate the perfect or near-perfect dimensions in product development. Once this analysis is completed, the product specifications would need to be frozen. That would not be the end of the exercise. The real test for the firm would be in terms of taking a leap into the prospective future and assess the planned product profile in retrospect, and evaluate its status on the perfection scale. The more a technology and product is planned in a prospective future but evaluated in a virtual retrospect from the intended date of launch, and further improvements effected, the more effective would be the journey of perfection!

Posted by Dr CB Rao on March 30, 2015  

Product Renewal through Technological Resurgence: When Past is the Future and Legacy is the Discovery!

It is generally believed that new technology not only makes older technologies inefficient and inappropriate but also makes whole product lines obsolete. There have been many case studies of products that have become obsolete by the sheer march of technology. Mechanical watches by quartz watches, ink jet printers by laser jet printers, fountain pens by ball point pens, hand telephones, calculators, cameras and navigation systems, all by cellular phones, physical publishing by digital publishing, corner bookstore by online bookstore, telex by fax, mail and fax by Internet, and so on. Almost all of these have been driven by revolutions in electronics, telecommunications and software technologies. If such changes have not been more universal (for example, X Ray not getting edged out still by CT Scan), the costs alone could be the deterrent.   

The upcoming Apple Watch is another perfect example of a disruptive technology in wearable computers that could change the way smartphones and health devices are positioned in future. Interestingly, this technological trend may not leave even very traditional and mature products such as automobiles untouched.   The fascinating point in all this technological revolution and product obsolescence is that the basic needs that were fulfilled by the earlier generation products continued to be required. Things like timekeeping, printing, writing, voice communication, photography, navigation, book reading, mail communication, other non-voice communication, and medical diagnosis are still required. Technology’s ability to converge more applications into one device or one medium has contributed to this transformation.

Technological resurgence

Established technologies, and hence established products, may be overtaken by newer ones; however, nothing prevents them from staging a comeback. The case of Seiko Epson, the famous Japanese printer group is a case in point. The company, under the stewardship of Minoru Usui san, took a bold step in 2006 to refocus on ink jet printers despite the likely advent of a paperless digital office. Not only did he focus on ink jet printers, in preference to laser printers that are considered to be technically superior, but also shifted focus from consumer markets to business markets. This has been made possible by a technological stride in print head technology patented by Seiko Epson that enabled high accuracy in firing the ink droplets and thus securing higher print quality. This was also accompanied by a different bundling strategy for the marketplace that enabled his high cost printers featuring big tanks accept cheaper inks from any brand.

Similar technological resurgence has been behind the Swiss watch industry, which recovered from the shock of piezoelectric quartz watch technology by a refocus on its precision design and manufacturing capability on one hand and by integrating multiple drive options from mechanical to quartz to light powered and radio powered movements in watch design and manufacture. This was also accompanied by redesign of watches to appeal to customers belonging to different demographics and professions, including youngsters, students, sportsmen, professionals and seniors. There has also been a very successful effort to position watch as a luxury product, with an additional ornamental value for the ladies watches. The case of the fountain pen is also one of similar comeback, from a mass writing instrument to one which is rendered obsolete by ballpoint pen and which finally staged as a gallant comeback as a luxury writing instrument.

Basic needs

It is important to recognize that technologies may come and go but the basic objectives of all technological developments would be to fulfil certain basic needs in an ever better fashion.

As long as writing exists, the need for writing instrument exists. Many thought that personal computers have rendered typewriters irrelevant, and along with traditional typists. True, but typing itself has never gone out of need; in fact, typing has become a universally required skill and physical keys of a typewriter got replaced by a computer keyboard, followed by a BlackBerry keyboard, now followed by a virtual keyboard. The same type of product reinvention cycle can be seen across products. At the core of such renewal lies the relevance of technology in enhancing user experience even for basic established needs.

Successful technological resurgence would depend on multiple factors: the scope for the old generation technology to be upgraded, the opportunity to extract incremental value from the technology, the costs and benefits of breakthrough innovation vis-à-vis incremental innovation, the potential to integrate supportive technologies, the ability to re-segment the markets based on new technologies and products, the possibility to reposition and rebrand through ‘retro’ features, the adaptive nature relative to the Internet technologies, and so on. Not all later stage technology would result in more expensive products. For example, Swatch watch used inexpensive quartz technology to provide to youngsters inexpensive watches as fashion accessories. It is important, therefore, not to discard any product or banish legacy technology simply because a new technology has arrived. 

Market redefinition

The key to re-emergence of legacy technologies for renewing products lies in the ability to redefine markets. It also requires redefining competition. The relevant case is that of fountain pens. The industry possibly sold several hundred million units each year in the 1950s but by the 1970s the annual sales dwindled to a few million units due to the advent of the ballpoint pen. Today, possibly in unit volumes the same level is being maintained but in dollar value the turnover of the industry multiplied – the reason being that the fountain pens are now being marketed not as utilitarian writing instruments but as nostalgic luxury accessories. It is not that technology was passive in this process; from finely honed gold nibs to lacquer finish cases, new technology did give luxury touch to the renewed fountain pen drive.  As a result, fountain pens and ballpoint pens now operate in two distinct market segments. The same could happen to radios and record players.

The case of Seiko Epson also demonstrates how technological resurgence gives confidence to redefine markets. Given the lower print quality and lower price point relative to laser printers, ink jet printers were ideally positioned for the cost conscious consumer markets and the laser printers for the office market. However, on the back of energy efficiency and comparable print quality, Seiko Epson could do the contrary market positioning for its new series of ink jet printers focusing more on business users successfully. The likely future market definitions could be even more disruptive; from simple definition on the basis of a spectrum between mass consumption and luxury use, future products would have very novel redefinitions. For example, shoes in the past moved from being classified as business and casual shoes to application oriented shoes (running, jogging etc.). Tomorrow, if a smart chip can be embedded in the sole of a shoe, shoes may get stratified into health shoes and routine shoes!

Human factor

The temptation to discard legacy technologies could be easy to fall for executives and companies but the grit to re-develop and re-deploy legacy technologies requires strong human faculty. Fundamentally, it starts with the resolution of the apex business and function leaders to preserve the institutionalized value of technologies until the time comes to merge new technologies. This also requires preserving the technicians and workforce that grew with and lived in/with the legacy technology. There is an interesting anecdote on this. When Zenith, a Swiss watchmaker was buffeted by the quartz onslaught, it like many Swiss mechanical watchmakers decided to discard all its production tools, including critical molds and dies. However, a veteran employee who could not stand the idea of scrapping all the historical production tools hid them in a shed in the factory.  When, years later, the mechanical watch industry made a comeback and Zenith was at its wit’s end as to how to participate in the revival, the veteran employee returned to disclose the hidden treasures of historical tools and drawings, and led Zenith’s foray into mechanical watches.

There is a practical and compassionate element to the human factor too. It is easy to lay off people but difficult to retrain people. Companies which invest the time and effort to retrain people would combine the benefits of legacy knowledge and futuristic technology. Seiko Epson, for example, decided to retrain and redeploy its people on newer product lines. This, of course, requires not only a compassionately practical management but also a mature employee base which is not plagued by insecurity but is willing to learn new technologies as eager students with a faith in future. The third important factor is to focus on the customer as not merely as a user but more importantly as a human being who needs to be provided a better quality of life. The new slew of products, particularly the ones on the anvil, such as smart phone linked health watches are nothing but the stethoscopes, pedometers, electroencephalographs and diagnostic algorithms, all rolled into one.

When the customer is pampered and enthused as a human being, just with satisfaction of basic needs with resurgent technologies and renewed products, past tends to be future-perfect and legacy promises to be future-creative!  

Posted by Dr CB Rao on March 21, 2015  

Technological Efficiency + Financial Sufficiency = Sustainable Growth: From Startup to Ramp-up, the Winning Formula for Corporate Sustainability

The week of February 17, 2014 was notable for the eye-popping occurrence of the Facebook - WhatsApp deal. That a technology startup, which achieved a user base of 450 million through its private messenger service in just three years, could garner a deal value of USD 19 billion is certainly amazing. Yet, Mark Zuckerberg, the Founder-CEO of Facebook went on record to say that WhatsApp was worth much more. Analysts say that the acquisition was a reasoned attempt by Facebook to stay relevant to the younger generation which has part moved away from its infatuation with Facebook and part is taken in by the exclusivity, privacy and snappiness of WhatsApp. While the Facebook - WhatsApp deal has attracted huge interest, one cannot overlook certain other past technology deals of similar eye-popping nature of their times.  The deals, in fact, are indicative of an interesting dimension of the technology companies – despite their rapidly ramped up scales and large market capitalizations they remain respectful of the value the technologically savvy startups can bring to the future businesses.  

The more prominent of the past technology deal history has been the Google - YouTube deal. When Google acquired YouTube in October 2006 at a deal value of USD 1.65 billion, many thought that it was a risky foray by Google into a disorganized and often self-compelling online video streaming service. Yet, YouTube has emerged to be one of the most successful technology acquisitions ever, and probably the most notable amongst all of Google products, aside of the core Google search engine product. Equally important but not so well known has been Google’s acquisition of the Android mobile operating system startup in August 2005 for an undisclosed sum. Android has since raced, under Google, to become the most dominant mobile operating system, overtaking iOS of Apple. Other notable deals are Microsoft - Hotmail (December 1997, USD 500 million), Microsoft - Skype (May 2011, USD 8.5 billion), Google - Instagram (April 2012, USD 1 billion) and Yahoo - Tumblr  (August 2013, USD 1.1 billion) acquisitions, each with its compelling logic. These deals, which are only a few of the several scores of the deals that have happened, and which will no doubt be followed by several others of such unique nature, signify certain important lessons for corporate sustainability.

Technology bets as game changers 

Many of such amazing acquisitions are seen to be bets placed by the acquirers on promising startup technologies and rapidly revving up businesses. When such technologies succeed in shaping new user functionalities and behaviors, more especially and more strongly under financially stronger acquirers, they become truly game changing, as technologies themselves, and for the acquirers’ businesses. While they seem to be technology bets, they actually signify a wise appreciation by the larger acquiring firms of the futility of trying to organically emulate the successful startups against a background of the need for such new technological functionalities. When a technology ceases to be a futuristic bet and instead becomes a business booster is a case by case occurrence.

From a strategy perspective, acquisition of such promising niche technologies and businesses is validated by the superior performance of such acquired entities and acquiring firms, post such acquisitions. All these acquisitions point to such technology bets becoming game changers. Some of these have been huge bets in a technological sense (technology was not yet proven but the acquirer placed the bet with financial ease) while some have been huge bets in a financial sense (technology was well proven but the acquirer placed rather high financial bid). In the former category we have Google’s acquisition of an unproven Android at a relatively low price while in the latter case we have Facebook’s acquisition of the popular WhatsApp at a very hefty price tag. It is also interesting that in most cases, the branding of the acquired entities continued to be maintained indicating that niche technologies have their market followings and brand equities.

Breakthrough ideas are non-linear

Conventional strategies tend to be anchored around linear development of technologies and businesses. For example, if email was successful in the 1990s as a popular niche technology of instant communication, all subsequent efforts focused on making the email more powerful and more collaborative, for example an Outlook version.  If Facebook wove an expanding open social community, Google+ attempted to build multiple circles of communities. Successful technologies tend to be non-linear, however. Twitter achieved success with the 140 character instantaneous brevity of messaging. WhatsApp achieved success through texting service that is both free and private. Both also built rapidly expanding communities of users. A motor pump can be continuously improved for performance and power consumption, including multi-stage draw of water and graded power consumption. A water submersible pump, however, is a breakthrough technological idea. A laptop battery charger can be continuously improved for the charging efficiency, power consumption and form factor. A technology which draws back the laptop’s heat and recharges the battery would be a niche technology.

Sometimes non-linear ideas have their roots in the basic and oft forgotten natural configurations. Most of the Internet firms and search engine firms are dependent on vast server farms, established on vast tracts of land. Tesla’s electric car revolution would hinge on a massive battery factory ("giga factory”) with adjacent solar and wind farms, making Tesla as much a huge power storage company as a premium electric vehicle company. In future, just as Sun provides free solar power as nature’s gift to the mankind, manmade satellites may be designed and launched to provide wifi connectivity all over the world. Technologists and business persons may, in future, learn more from nature with inventiveness, and offer new public services with affordability and humility. Conventionally, technologies have tended to influence new user lifestyles. Non-linear technologies would increasingly tend to align with human body as well as nature to develop game changing products and services. Newer technologies would follow human thoughts and physical capabilities to invent new niche products that could improve human life and environmental management in an almost limitless manner.

Technological efficiency, financial sufficiency

Embracing a niche idea to serve life or nature, converting the idea to a product using new or existing technology and influencing customers to use them is often in the capability of technology-driven startup firms. Large firms have the ability to innovate new products in a linear fashion, for example from simple Positron Emission Tomography (PET) to PET combined with Computed Tomography (CT) or with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). In each combination, the number of slices could increase across generations of equipment (say, from 64 to 360) or the efficiency of 3 D imaging could be enhanced. These developments are best done by the medical equipment giants such as GE, Philips and Hitachi. However, the very basis of PET in the past had been university level researches in the late 1950s (University of Pennsylvania, Washington University School of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Brookhaven National Laboratory, for example).

Futuristic radical biomedical technologies in this domain could be non-linear. Nuclear medicine and imaging studies require a radio-isotope tracer (or, a radio pharmaceutical) being injected into the blood stream for imaging. If there were to be new technologies that make a constituent of the blood itself or the blood volume and flow rate themselves descriptors of the imaging study, there could emerge a totally new generation of non-interventionist, bio-friendly non-nuclear medical diagnostic equipment. Newer, non-linear technologies in any domain make for efficiency. However, technological efficiency requires financial sufficiency to germinate and grow.  As seen by the PET example, public funding of such universities and research grants made such technological innovation possible. However, firms which licensed the technologies had the financial capability to mass-produce the products and also achieve increasing levels of technological efficiency in such equipment. In a technologically virtuous world, there would be far more number of technology ideas than individual funding opportunities. The academic, industrial and business ecosystems must evolve in a manner of combining technological efficiency and financial sufficiency.

From startup to ramp-up, from passion to fusion

The above discussion brings us back to the examples that were reviewed at the beginning of this blog post. Successful startups have technological efficiency but they need financial solvency to validate their entrepreneurial theorems and ramp up their business models. While the examples quoted in this post are dramatic indicators of the practice and potential in the technology space, routinely hundreds of decrepit as well as robust startups get acquired or co-share and license their technologies to enable the growth of startups. It is a virtuous even if occasionally chaotic and brazenly capitalistic world as technological efficiency and financial sufficiency seek the synergy of each other. The point at which the synergistic marriage gets made in each case is a matter of considered judgment and reasoned risk-taking. Despite the virtuosity of this equation, many times lack of introspective ability on the part of the brilliant startups and the lack of prospective ability on the part of the financial behemoths act to derail the virtuous process.

Not to be outdone, big firms do try to set up mini-laboratories, incubators and venture teams to bring some of the startup innovation organically into their behemoth structures. However, behemoths tend to be more adept at scaling up product lines and businesses rapidly rather than patiently nurturing potential ideas and products. External startups would continue to be the most important resource for innovation and new business. The inventiveness and passion of the technologists and entrepreneurs would continue to be responsible for converting new ideas into innovative products and then onto scalable businesses. When inventiveness would mature into practicality and passion would accept fusion on the part of startups, and when institutional solidity would get flexed by respect for external technologies and clinical analytics would get overruled by futuristic visions on the part of corporate majors are the vital time-points of intersection for the startups and the acquiring firms, respectively. The equation of adding technological efficiency and financial solvency for sustainable growth delivers maximum value when the timing is right, and mutual competencies are well-understood, well-respected and well-supported in the pre- and post-acquisition scenarios.

Posted by Dr CB Rao on March 2, 2014

  

 

Sony VAIO: Elegance in Vain, and Smart in Strategy – The Theory of Sinusoidal Business and Product Strategy

When Sony launched its VAIO (originally, an acronym of Video Audio Integrated Operation) series of personal computers, first as desktops in 1996 and later as laptop and notebook computers in 1997, not many took Sony seriously. Users were under the impression that computers were industrial and business products, for which service would be the most important. The market mainstay at that point of time was seen in terms of office and industrial use. As Sony sold its laptops and notebooks through its normal consumer retail outlets which mainly sold televisions and other audio-visual products to individual consumers and families, Sony was not considered to be channel-friendly to the computer buyers. To Sony’s credit, it proved its detractors wrong. VAIO became the preferred laptop brand competing with Apple, HP and IBM/Lenovo, for its top of the mind consumer recall. It even became a leader in large format CPU integrated desktop computers. Sony emerged next only to Apple in terms of design elegance and product sophistication.

If one would recall, laptops at that point of time were staid and boxy with black as the only color (even today, several models continue to be that way). Sony pioneered laptop and notebook design to levels that made the products works of art. Use of exotic materials and colors and incorporation of slim form factor enabled Sony to develop and offer lightweight and high performance computers that captured the imagination of young and old as well as individual users and business firms alike. The latest in Sony design innovation is VAIO Flip which represented a unique design that straddled a laptop and tablet. In terms of hardware too, Sony VAIO packed a punch with bundles of proprietary software to add considerable value to the products. Against the scenario of elegant design, sophisticated manufacture and robust branding, the recent decision by Sony to sell off its VAIO computer business to Japan Industrial Partners (JIP), booking a business loss in the bargain, has been a surprise.

Theme in strategy

The divestment of the VAIO business must have been emotional for Sony but seems a practical decision from one perspective, and visionary from another perspective. The practicality arises from the fact that the Sony VAIO may have fired the imagination of users but has not exactly raked in the requisite revenues and profits. Part of it could be related to the high manufacturing and supply chain costs related to multiple SKUs and excessive accessories. The strategy of multiple product platforms, frequent model changes, optional availability of several accessories, and celebrity led advertisement campaigns required that Sony operated VAIO as a mass market product range to financially breakeven. Yet, the products were often a trifle underspecified spec-wise and quite over-specified price-wise. The top-of-the-line design elegance inspires consumers to look for the best in hardware capabilities, but Sony traditionally stopped short of giving the best in its products; for example, 1 TB hard disk capacity is offered with a 6 GB RAM, rather than an 8 GB RAM. Even in respect of flash memory models, initial offerings have been in terms of 128 GB rather than 256 GB.  

Possibly, Sony’s reluctance to pack the ultimate punch in the internals in line with the futuristic external elegance has limited the market for its elegant products; many consumers seek RAM upgrades at their cost, for example. The strategic template set for VAIO laptops (the best in design, the next best in hardware, the maximal variety in SKUs, the best in promotion, and the highest in pricing) was thus possibly too embedded to allow a major shift for higher volumes, lower volumes and a revival in profitability.  The proposed divestment of its PC business by Sony thus makes sense in the face of Sony’s unwillingness to make any major shift in VAIO strategic theme. Interestingly, this is not the first time that Sony exited from its computers business. Sony initially entered the PC business in the 1980s with computers made exclusively for the Japanese domestic market but exited the business in the early 1990s. The proposed VAIO divestment, after a successful reentry in 1996 and growth over nearly two decades, is reflective of an approach to delete the strategy itself rather than reengineer the strategy. From a strategy perspective, therefore, firms do face the clinical option of strategic abandonment vis-à-vis thematic reengineering. That said, Sony’s decision is possibly not as simple and self-effacing as it appears.

Arena redefinition

Sony’s decision to quit the VAIO business needs to be viewed in the context of how the communication, computing, entertainment and social media arenas are getting redefined and integrated into one huge seamless arena of networking through the cloud. Smart phones and tablets have emerged as the devices which cater to this new arena. Sony’s decision to quit the VAIO computer business needs to be seen in the context of the company’s earlier decision to consolidate in the mobile phones business by buying out the stake of Ericsson in the Sony-Ericsson joint venture. Over the last few years since this has happened, Sony has demonstrated a new penchant to bring its industrial design and manufacturing elegance to the smart phones business. One may hypothesize that Sony would now concentrate all its resources to develop a smart phone and tablet lineup that caters to the four needs of communication, computing, entertainment and social media. From a perspective of developing a strategy for future, Sony’s smart phone and computer decisions together indicate how a changing technology landscape could dictate the product strategy, and an overall business strategy.

While redefining the strategic arena is important, developing a new generation of devices that meet the requirements of the new arena is equally essential. Sony’s design studios must surely be working on the new product themes. The challenge is to imagine the future shape of arena. In this case, for example, the question would be how seamlessly the nations of the future would be networked. Like radio and television waves, would carriers and the governments be offering free seamless wireless connectivity through satellites across the nations? Answers to such questions would determine how the phones and tablets of the future would evolve. It is important that product development in environments of such technological fluidity must emerge from the environments of the future rather than the capabilities of the firm. One view, for example, is that the large boutique of proprietary software that Sony bundles in its VAIO and other devices (nicknamed ‘bloatware’) has been a system drag rather than a user friend. As products become mass-market products, the balance between three types of product architectures, open, value added semi-open and proprietary, has to be carefully evolved.

Strategy, product sine cycles

Most firms that exist for the long term go through strategy cycles. These are sinusoidal curves of entry, growth, decline and exit into a business based on specific products. While this may seem similar to a product lifecycle, what is not seen is the hidden sine wave of product redevelopment that occurs, unseen to the external world. This involves deep de-learning, futuristic re-development, revalidation through piloting and finally reentry into the market.  If Sony’s strategy journey, from 1980 to 2014, is reviewed, clearly strategy can be seen to be moving in cycles (for example, into computers, out of it, again into computers and again out of it) with silent product redevelopment occurring unseen. Microsoft has also been into some kind of strategy cycles in a similar manner (into tablets, out of it, into it, and again further into it, through acquisition). Firms with strong brand equity and deep resources would use every exit challenge as an opportunity to reinvent its products and its own business. ITC, which is a market leader in cigarettes may face product exit if tobacco consumption is banned but the sinusoidal theory of strategy would require that ITC should develop tobacco and nicotine free cigarettes for a reentry.

Product strengths and environmental fit of a firm positively correlate with each other. Product stagnation and environmental transformation inversely correlate with each other. This constitutes the essence of the theory of sinusoidal theory of business and product strategy.  Strategists must define objectively, and on a continuing basis, the fit between current products and future environment. When products are considered inappropriate for the future evolution and the firm does not have the resources to reinvent the products or any such reinvention is not considered sustainable or viable, strategic exit is advisable. If the reverse is true, that is products are appropriate and can be rendered even more effective for the new environment, the product strategy must be leveraged to amplify the business strategy. The stronger the product competencies and greater the product-environment, the greater will be the amplitude of the sine wave. If the entry-peak-exit sine wave has high amplitude and long time horizon, the hidden product redevelopment reverse sine-wave need not necessarily have the same amplitude and time span; it is all a question of how technological savvy and proactive a firm is.

Ideally, the positive sine wave of product-market entry, growth and decline and product (not necessarily market) exit must be mirrored by the inverse sine wave of product redevelopment, piloting and reentry into the market. Even as the positive sine wave takes shape and rules the market, there should be several inverse sine waves of product redevelopment. Sony VAIO case study teaches us the curious but very interesting theory of sinusoidal product and business strategy. A technologically virtuous and environmentally sensitive firm should take cue to let technology and business act in concert to generate high and wide positive sine waves and simultaneously generate short and speedy inverse sine waves of product strategy.  The author believes that the theory of sinusoidal product and business strategy, as developed in this blog post, is a novel contribution to the theory of strategy that seems strapped for innovative contributions.  

Posted by Dr CB Rao on February 9, 2014    

    

Technology Fluidics and Adaptive Agility: Markers for Competitor Analysis in the New Age

Competitor analysis is a key aspect of developing strategy for any firm. The subject has received considerable attention with the theory of competitive strategy propounded by Michael Porter. Definition of competition and competitors has acquired a new abstractness and challenge in the increasingly technology-driven world. The commonly used markers of competition of a firm, for example, are in terms of revenues, profits, growth, products or services, regions or markets and investments. Each of these can be assessed in terms of relative industry ranking, the most important one amongst them being relative industry market share. However, the breadth and depth of an understanding of competitors can be far greater in terms of comparative absolute and ratio analysis. In fact, analysis of each item of an income statement or balance sheet, on an item to item basis, can provide significant inputs to sharpening the competitive strategy of a firm. There is a strong view, however, that financial analysis of competition is of limited value, and real insights can be gleaned from a detailed product-market analysis of competition.

For a firm, traditionally the marketing department provides information on competitors’ new product launches and marketing moves. Similarly, the strategy department undertakes a financial analysis of competitors. Rarely, the research and development (R&D) departments are involved in regular competitor analysis. In matter of fact, there is a new dictum that neither launches nor performance offers sufficient understanding of competitor activity. Product pipeline and market canvas, as drivers of future performance, are perhaps more relevant. With increasing tracking of product and market development activities, and voluntary disclosures by firms to acquire anticipatory customer interest, analysis of future products and markets is more feasible today than it was a few years ago. An automobile maker, for example, has a preview of the concept cars proposed by its competitors, years ahead through international automobile exhibitions. Proliferation of the specialist magazines dedicated to specific product lines has enhanced such transparency even further.  The same applies to entry into new markets and regions as well.

Defining competition

Competition is usually defined in terms of industry players, industry being defined in terms of a type of product or service; for example, automobile industry, consumer durables industry, power industry, and so on. This carries with it the interesting and intriguing facet of industry boundary, which is interplay of technology shifts, consumer needs and player positions. The apparently simple way is to define an industry is in terms of its customers (product or service users) rather than a broad function (need fulfillment), recognizing that the same users can be catered to by different products or services. For example, bus industry and car industry are different because they cater to different users, even though all the users are individuals seeking transportation. Overlaps in industry definition are unavoidable on several dimensions. At one level, two wheeler industry and low cost car industry could be competing with each other, the level of competition depending on the product price or its life cycle operational cost. At another level, they can never be competitors as the products cannot be designed, manufactured or delivered using the same or similar infrastructure. Given this complexity, it may be appropriate to define the industry in three ways (besides the firm as a player); in terms of a product at a basic level, in terms of technology at a delivery level and in terms of functionality at a gross level.  

Typically, in a sunrise industry which is built by, and around, the innovator who would also be a monopolist, the word competition hardly exists in the minds of many players. This is actually a false sense of security; for, competition even in sunrise monopolist industries surfaces sooner or later. Competition emerges not necessarily in terms of followers offering the same products or services but also in terms of new players offering alternate products or services (or additional ones) that make the innovator product or service less preferred or simply less competitive. The movement of external memory from floppy disk, through CD and DVD to flash memory is an example.  It emerges from the above discussion that competition, in the contemporary and futuristic environments, tends to be more abstract and more ubiquitous than ever, with competitive triggers emerging from diverse sources and translating into multiple forms. The traditional form of competitor analysis limited to an industry or sub-industry and a few players is hardly of sufficiency nowadays. Google as an Internet giant, pioneering products of futuristic technologies such as driverless cars, vision glasses that act as computers and cameras or contact lenses that act as continuous diagnostic devices, is a perfect example. This brings us to the question of technology as the central driver of competition; technology that can manifest itself in terms of any component or subsystem, and can be embedded in a restructured product.

Disruptive competition

Competition tends to be an endless continuum. The case of the watch industry is an interesting one. The initial threat for the handmade, hand-wound watches was the self-winding automatic movement. The introduction of quartz automatic movement provided the first serious competition based on the discontinuity of technology. The emergence of electronic movements posed the next serious threat. The watch industry weathered the storm by reinforcing the handmade quality to retain the watch as a fashion accessory while simultaneously integrating the electronics and perpetual kinetics to provide contemporary timekeeping perfection. The emergence of cellular phone with its time display made watches redundant for certain sections of the population but the recent emergence of smart watches aligned and locked into cellular phones is poised to bring watches onto a new plane. At this stage clearly, hand or machine made electronic watches and machine made, mobile phone mated smart phones are at two ends. It is conceivable that the watch industry would once again reinvent itself by integrating cellular smartness in its artful designs so that the future watches are communication smart with fashionable art.  Even more profound has been the competitive landscape in the handheld camera industry, from camera film to digital photography of varied sorts, and digital camera technology getting embedded in cellular phones for instant transmission and cellular technologies getting embedded in digital cameras.    

The forces of competition, of course, engulf different industries in different manners. The devices in the traditional category of largely mechanical or electrical devices (for example, automobiles or machine tools) are slow to get disruptive competition. The competitive landscape for the firms dealing with this class is easily tracked through conventional product-market share analysis of individual players. The class of electro-mechanical devices (for example, photocopiers, scanners or diagnostic devices) is prone to periodic bursts of disruptive competition. The competitive landscape for the firms dealing with the class is tackled though product-technology based analysis. The pure electronic devices (computers, smart phones, tablets etc.,) characteristically live in a technical environment of continuous disruptions in technology on one hand as well as continuous convergence and divergence of product functionalities on the other. This class of products also has the additional facet of different operating systems that determine the internal and external efficiencies of such devices. The competitor analysis for this class of products is indeed complex, and needs to be sliced on several dimensions, based on form factor, predominant product characteristic or operating system, for example. Given the agility with which product characteristics move based on multiple technological platforms, competitor analysis for manufacturers of this class needs to focus on the overall technical power of such firms, and the overall synergy of constituent product groups.

Technology fluidics  

The domain of strategy has mobility barriers as an interesting concept for determining competition. The theory classifies firms into strategic groups, and firms’ ability to move across strategic groups in response to internal and external factors is said to be based on mobility barriers across groups. Mobility barriers, themselves, are linked to scale and scope related to investments. If mobility barriers are low, firms are tempted to compete in multiple product-market segments, enhancing competitive intensity. Even more fundamental, perhaps, is the fluidic ability and adaptive agility of technologies to be deployed on multiple classes of products. For example, if flexible touch screen technology can be adapted to a huge range of screen sizes, say from 6 inches to 120 inches (diagonal) it could result in a massive transformation in display capabilities of an entire range of electronic devices. Use of Xenon flash or point and shoot SLR/DSLR technologies in camera phones and video recorders is an example. Use of sensors in any equipment from vacuum cleaners to assembly lines and from machining centers to robots is another example. The more is the discovery of platform technologies like nanotechnology, the greater would be the potential application across products and industries.

The fluidic ability and adaptive agility of any new technology is measured on two dimensions. The first is the months taken to commercially upscale or downscale any new technology to other devices in the same design family. The second is the months taken to embed the technology of one device into significantly different device. Traditional strategy theory has positioned technology as a core competence and collaborative factor. The more relevant theory would be to view all technology that is outside of a firm’s intellectual ownership or commercial access as being a potentially competitive force. Technology, being an embedded invisible platform, is abstract to identify in terms of commercial potential and feasibility. While Porter’s Five Forces theory considers technology as a competitive force, it really depends on a physical surrogate (ie., substitute products) for identification. This approach would be too late a stage approach for competitive analysis. The more relevant approach is to analyze competition in terms of technology share. An insightful understanding of technological competencies of a firm constitutes the marker for competitor analysis. A forthcoming blog post of the author will propose a conceptual and analytical framework to understand and potentially quantify technological competencies of a firm, in an industry context.

Posted by Dr CB Rao on January 19, 2014

Scientific Temper and Technological Perfection: The Driver of National Competitive Advantage

Organizations contribute to a nation’s wealth and national competitive advantage. India has recognized the importance of science and technology and created the department of science and technology. It is, however, a moot point if the fervor of science and technology truly pervades India, Inc; for, if it were, India would have been far less import dependent on products of high technology and far more export competitive in terms of India-made high technology products. Part of the reason is due to early digression of talent, focus and investments from the demanding aspects of science and technology to the glimmering aspects of management and administration. This blog post postulates that establishment scientific temper and technological perfection should be pursued as national core competencies to derive national competitive advantage.

Complex qualities

With decades of unrelenting publication of management thought, it is expected that members of an organization must possess all humanly possible qualities, referred to often as competencies, capabilities, skills, abilities, traits and attitudes. These are often classified into hard skills and soft skills, as well as into operating skills and strategic skills. The prescribed human qualities are several, to quote a few professional knowledge, conceptual skills, analytical skills, and interpersonal skills. As higher levels of organization are considered, other additional qualities are prescribed which include, for example, foresight, vision, integrity, ethics, intuition and charisma. A study, in fact, listed over 100 human qualities that a leader, and potential leaders, must possess. As a result of this trend (or fad), programs to develop these myriad qualities have burgeoned into a learning and development industry by itself!

A parallel phenomenon relates to professional specialization or functional specialization. This has, in fact, become the very organizational core of socio-economic and business-industrial infrastructure. The number of professions is no longer limited to a few; it has vastly expanded beyond the traditional research, procurement, manufacturing, quality, and selling domains to spawn additional domains, for example operations, logistics, legal, secretarial, marketing, information technology. In addition, the professionalization has got merged with product lines to include automobile engineers, oncologists, pharmacists, chemists and the like. The matrix of growing professions and product lines has led to an exponential proliferation of qualities which each of these specialist and generic professions must possess. Rather than myriad qualities, scientific temper and technological perfection are all that are required for national competitive advantage.

 Simple differentiators

For sustainable success and perpetual growth, organizations need to have high quality human resources. At one level, the more scientists and engineers an organization has the more likely would be its competitive advantage. This does not mean that organizations should have only scientists and engineers (or technologists) or that other professionals such as managers and accountants are not important. In fact, even more important than the numbers, is the organization-wide presence of certain mesmeric and differentiated qualities that science and technology stand for. These are scientific passion and technological perfection. These help organizations discover, design and deliver not merely products and services but new ways of doing any of the organizational or business processes. As much as the caliber and number of scientists, engineers and technologists in any organization, the extent of scientific fervor and technological perfection across the organization is the key differentiator.

Science and technology (or, engineering) are closely related and often have interdependent and overlapping functions. Science enables fundamental discoveries while engineering designs the equipment and products, and makes manufacturing and delivery possible. Science requires sophisticated engineering and technological infrastructure to deliver. Higgs Boson particle (God Particle) could be discovered only because of equipment made with unprecedented engineering and technological sophistication such as the Large Hadron Collidor of 27 kilometer length. Stem cell discoveries would not be of any avail without cryogenics and cryogenic equipment. By the same taken, without discoveries in materials science nanotechnology developments would not be feasible. Science and technology are so closely interrelated that it would be unnecessary to delineate the functions. What can be delineated, however, are the basic qualities of the two disciplines.

Scientific temper 

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of independent India was the first to articulate the concept of scientific temper. In his landmark book The Discovery of India he advocated reliance on observed facts and not on pre-conceived notions, the search for truth and new knowledge, and a refusal to accept anything without testing and trial as some of the important characteristics of scientific temper. He proposed that scientific temper was required not merely for the application of science but for life itself and the solution of many of its problems. The concept of scientific temper is critically required for organizations which most oftentimes get caught up in whirlpools of pre-conceived notions, convenient propositions and ad-hoc reactions. Scientific temper needs to be an individual and organizational way of thinking and acting that uses a scientific method, of observing physical reality and drawing conclusions or hypothesizing the abstract possibilities and validating potential outcomes.

Scientific temper is an attitude to life that integrates logic, discussion, debate and analysis to arrive at the best possible conclusions. Inherent to scientific temper is the ability to think and communicate. Organizations, schools and colleges or businesses and governments, should promote positive thoughtfulness and constructive expressiveness to institutionalize scientific temper. The economic benefits of scientific temper are many; but for Nehru’s scientific temper the Indian Institutes of Technology and national research laboratories would not have been set up, several heavy industries established and multiple dams constructed within a few years of Indian independence. Leaders with scientific temper would similarly institutionalize science and technology in their organizations. More than that, they will facilitate processes of scientific enquiry all through the organization leading to logical decision making, structured execution and objective monitoring of results.

Technological perfection

Compared to scientific temper, technological perfection is a moving concept; moving, of course, to higher levels of perfection every period of time. Perfection is defined as having everything that is necessary, and without faults or weaknesses; in one sense, the highest level of quality attainable at any point of time. The limits of perfection are set by the limits of technology available at any point of time, and given that scientific temper causes humans to push technology ever to newer limits, the limits of perfection also set to move continuously upwards. Whether it is the power to weight ratios and fuel efficiency and emission levels of automobiles or it is the imaging capabilities of scanners and surgical precision of radio-knifes and lasix lasers, technological perfection continuously pushes up the accomplishments of devices and equipment as well as man-machine systems.

Like scientific temper, technological perfection is an attitude to life that integrates aesthetics with performance, durability with reliability, and economy with efficiency. Technology tends more often to be continuously incremental and periodically breakthrough. Cost and affordability constitute the twin ballasts that stabilizes technological randomness. Scientific temper that triggers technological quest also governs the irrelevant technological perfection. The economic benefits of technological perfection are many. Without achieving better fits and tolerances as well as better finishes and efficiencies, Japanese automobiles would not have been world leaders. Higher levels of technology bring higher levels of service but also higher levels of profligate consumerism and adverse consumption. Scientific temper enables individuals and organizations to draw an appropriate balance between cost and consumption

Humanism

There is a school of thought that clinical application of scientific temper and unrestrained quest for technological advancement affect, if not erode, human values. The school of thought argues that not everything in the world is rational or logical, and there needs to be a level of piety and spirituality related to religious beliefs and a level of emotion and empathy related to social equality and equity. In emerging economies, in particular, science and technology must be deployed to uplift the vast sections of the society. This requires a two-fold deployment of science and technology. At one level, the best of science and technology must be mastered to make India a globally competitive industrial power. At another level, science and technology must be optimized to serve the vast indigent sections of the society through universal access to better social infrastructure and public services; roads, schools and colleges, hospitals, public transport, power, housing, for example. The former would bring in economic power while the latter would usher in social equity for India. 

Posted by Dr CB Rao on December 15, 2013