Vivek Wadhwa is pessimistic about the future of Indian IT because of its inability to change (See here). He makes the point that the CEOs see that the ground realities are changing but are unwilling to do anything about it, with the daily imperative of closing Outsourcing orders dominating their agenda. In short, the sector has become a prisoner of its own success and there is a lack of strategic thinking.
While I share Professor Wadhwa's sense of foreboding (that Indian IT industry isn't changing with time) and his prognosis (the lack of strategic culture), I would think that it is more of a case of an industry that can't change itself rather than industry leaders not wanting to change. Indeed, this makes things worse: Global IT services is an extremely competitive industry, and one thing that works for Indian companies here is the ability to scale, to line up thousands of workers which companies from other competitive countries can't easily do (with the exception of China, where language becomes a barrier). However, with the changes in technology usage and consumption, scale may become less important than innovation and design abilities (particularly in the context of new opportunities) and with Internet of things, language a lesser barrier. The business model of Indian IT industry may indeed wither, if these things come to pass.
Apart from being a prisoner of its own success, I see four interrelated factors hindering Indian IT industry's ability to change. These are the nature of capital, the process-driven industrial culture of the workplace, the lack of start-up ecosystem and the wider education system that supplies the workforce. It is worth understanding each one of these factors in turn to see what is making Indian IT compete with its hands tied behind.
First, most Indian IT companies, those which are able to scale, are publicly listed, and therefore CEOs are under pressure to deliver quarterly earnings growth in the face of declining margins and stagnating demand. Therefore, their attention on chasing the next outsourcing order is understandable. And, because of the other factors present (the ones mentioned above), aligning with the changes in the IT industry is not about mere strategic re-alignment inside, but a more fundamental shift of the business model itself. Stock markets are usually bad at allowing changes in the business model, and the CEOs' priorities merely reflect that of their investors.
Second, because of the Indian IT industry's business model, that of creating huge pools of qualified programmers and other IT workers at a low cost, the company cultures are modelled around process-driven industrial culture. At its best, it is more Microsoft than Google; At its worst, it may resemble Ford Motor Company a hundred years ago. This makes Indian IT good at doing many of the twentieth century IT tasks, but inadequate for many emerging opportunities. And, change here is almost impossible (even the famed experiments at HCL Technologies, so celebrated by Gary Hamel, seemed to be fizzling out) because the internal company ecosystems have spawned a wider system of education to produce more and more of industrial-era workers.
Third, if there is little hope of change from inside, one way the companies tend to adapt to rapidly changing industries is by tapping into start-up ecosystem outside. However, the start-up ecosystem in India still remains weak, primarily because of the tycoon culture of the Indian economy, as well as the lack of qualified workers, rising overheads and difficult legislation. The Indian government has indeed paid lip service to entrepreneurship development, but the focus of all such initiatives, presumably in the quest of prime time TV, was to endow more land, resources and facilities to large IT service companies, propping up the same endangered business model with some life support.
Fourth, the Indian education system has failed to up its game. So, not only skilled graduate pool has become inadequate for the current scale of Indian IT industry, resulting in higher wages (undermining the business model) and high turnover, the nature of skills have become out of sync with the changing needs of the industry. The Indian education system reflects closely the hierarchical, process driven culture of the IT companies, and the elaborate tests and ranking systems reward those who can play the system rather than stand outside and innovate. And, again, innovation in Indian education system has been extremely rare and usually marginalised, because of the lack of incentives from the employers and lack of any alternative, like a start-up ecosystem. The regulators have made it worse, superimposing an input-defined system of quality assurance and restricting the entrepreneurial activities in training and skills development sector by repeated and misdirected government interventions.
I am conscious that this view is unerringly bleak, ruling out any possibilities of change, and the reality must not turn out to be that way. However, I fear that we are still looking for wrong formula to make amends and bring about the change. The Indian companies have so far responded to this challenge through acquisition and offshoring using their huge cash reserves, acquiring skills and abilities abroad as well as venturing out to Ireland, Poland and Philippines to set up shop to tap into local skills base. However, these efforts were so far directed to supplement their existing business models, and given their deep dependence on Indian manpower, it is unlikely that these overseas facilities or acquisitions can effectively help transform the way these companies do business.
The other usual retort to this bleak view will be that Indians are extremely innovative, making do with little and pulling off impossible feats in the face of scarcity, the paradigm of Jugaad innovation now popularised in the West. But this presents a fatalistic view - that somehow everything will be alright for such a successful industry - which is very Indian, but has been proven to be incorrect. And, indeed, in my view, there is a limit to Jugaad, and it may actually be counterproductive for India in the changing industry context (see here).
The only way to get out of this and transform the industry may lie in some joined-up policy thinking and cooperation between businesses, educational establishments and government. This should be easy in theory, but extremely hard in practice in India, where the political culture is dominated by the big and the mighty, the business has a blinkered view to work only on its immediate benefit and the education sector is left to drift along in search of a meaning. To be an optimist, therefore, may be about believing in the possibility of change, and there is some evidence of change at the State level in India, with new governments trying to break the mould. Whether these efforts will bring long term benefits is yet to be seen: In the mean time, the only option will be to remain fatalistic and wait for the knights in the shining armour to save the distraught IT maiden.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Nations are ideas. We try to fashion them as territories. But how can a river, a mountain ridge or sometimes an imaginary line in the middle of a field can explain the wide division in the lives, thoughts and futures of the people who live on different sides? Nations are not the people too. Indeed, people build nations and become its body. But the soul of the nation is an idea: People come together on an idea to build a nation. While that's what a modern nation is - an idea - and that way exceptionalism is not an American exception, very few nations are as completely defined by an idea as Pakistan. There was hardly any political, geographic or military rationale of Pakistan other than the idea of an Islamic homeland in South Asia. [In that way, the ideological brother of Pakistan in the family of nations is Israel] This, abated by the short term political calculations of some backroom colonialists, created a modern state which must be solely sustained on that singular idea. Reli
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
Introduction: Hastings in the history of Indian Education Whether or not one includes Warren Hastings in the history of Education in India is a matter of perspective. If writing the history of education means writing the history of schools, the impact of Hastings' administration would be quite limited. If anything, the rapid implosion of local rulers in Eastern, Southern and Northern India during Hastings' tenure had meant a bleak period for the indigenous education system, as patronage and funds would have dwindled away for many of them. The Company administration really concerned itself with the schooling of the natives only after 1813, as Nurullah and Naik rightly pointed out ( see my earlier post ) and one can legitimately start the story at this point. However, if history of Education in India is to encompass the transformation of Indian Scholarship, on which foundation the new, colonial, system of Education would be built, the story must start with Warren Hast
As India's democracy reaches a critical juncture, with a very real danger of a authoritarian take-over, Rabindranath Tagore's birth anniversary is a perfect occasion to revisit the founding idea of India once again. There are many things in his politics that we may need to dust up and reconsider: Tagore's political ideas, because of his inherent aversion of popular nationalism and enthusiasm about Pan-Asianism and universalism, were outside the mainstream of the Indian National Movement, seen as impractical and effectively shunned. He was seen mostly as the Poet and the mystic, someone whose politics remains in the domain of the ideas rather than action. Tagore himself, after a brief passionate involvement in politics during the division of Bengal by Lord Curzon in 1905, withdrew from political action: He never belonged to the political class, despite his iconic status and itinerant interventions, such as returning the Knighthood after the massacre of Amritsar in 1919.
The story of British influence on Indian Education, to which Macaulay's Minutes of 1835 belong, has been told in six distinct phases. Syed Nurullah and J P Naik's very popular and influential History of Indian Education calls these 'six acts' of the drama: From the beginning of Eighteenth Century to 1813 The British East India Company received its charter in 1600 but its activities did not include any Educational engagement till the Charter Act of 1698, which required the Company to maintain priests and schools, for its own staff and their children. And, so it was until the renewal of its charter in 1813, when the evangelical influence led to insistence of expansion of educational activities and allowing priests back into company territory. From 1813 to Wood's Education Despatch of 1854 The renewal of Charter in 1813 re-opened the debate, which seemed to have been settled in the early years of the company administration, between the Orientalis
I spent the last week at the Ideas for India conference in London. This conference had different strands, and brought the diaspora Indians, India watchers and a number of delegates from India together. Because Rahul Gandhi chose to attend - a rather last minute thing which changed the published agenda somewhat - the media narrative revolved around his 40-odd minutes of talk. And, of course, a sense of discomfort hung over the whole conference: A wholly new thing for me and it shows how much India has changed. Somehow, the people in India seemed to think that no conversation about India should happen anywhere else in the world, a strange thing for a country which is anxious to assert its global importance. Additionally, anything outside the official channel is seen as conspiracy. Gone are those days when the presumptive opposition candidate, the current Prime Minister, could freely interact with the diaspora Indians and slam Dr Manmohan Singh's lack of initiative; today, this wou
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.