Posted on

Bending India’s COVID-19 Curve Through Science & Data-Led Models

Powered by data-led scientific rigor, the India COVID-19 SEIR Model delivers early infection trends for every district in India. The model is geared to help Indians from all walks of life plan life and work decisions around their region’s projected trends over the next 15-30 days. Hospitals can use the model to plan for a surge in demand for resources (beds, ICUs, ventilators); local and national level leaders across private and public sectors can use the model to decide how best to contain the spread of the disease and re-open safely. Epidemiologists can use the model to define how different behavioural and environmental factors affect disease transmission. We introduce 3 use cases in this blog post—the first in a series aimed at promoting scientific and modelling capability. 

Wherever the Coronavirus curve has bent to our will, it has happened on the back of behaviour changes based on data-led insights. Everywhere, simple shifts in behavior—staying at home, wearing masks, sanitizing hands—have been informed by predictive models that showed us the mirror to a dystopian future if we didn’t edit our lifestyles. As a digital public good for a billion Indians, the value of the India COVID-19 SEIR Model lies in its reach and widespread use. 

Until a vaccine is developed, we have to make sense of today’s numbers in the context of all our tomorrows. Individuals, policymakers—and everyone in between—can make smarter decisions if they know the evolving shape of the outbreak, and the India COVID-19 SEIR Model aims to do just that by enabling identification of potential trends and patterns in the next 15-30 days. 

The approach taken by the model provides flexibility and utilisation from both a view of trends as core model adoption/enhancement.

We can all use it to bend India’s curve. That’s the ultimate use case, really — where the model tells us where it’s going and we, in turn, steer it in an entirely other direction. Models will change and that’s a good thing. It means we are responding. The power of models and data science in this particular moment is the ability to assist a very scientific approach to scenario planning during an ongoing pandemic.

We can turn the course of this pandemic and transform what this model tells us, every 24 hours. We are already watching the shape-shifting in real-time. It’s in your hands. Go on, try it. 

Use Cases

User — Individuals & Businesses (PDF format)

User — Scientists (PDF format)

User — Policy-Makers (PDF format)

About the contributors: The blog post is co-authored by our volunteers Yashvi Jaju, Nikhila Natarajan and Srikar V Cintalagiri

Posted on

Covid19 Crisis: Sharpen the Saw with Marginal Costing

When reality changes, it’s important for the firms to acknowledge and adjust to the new situation. This is the time to remember the mantra ‘Revenue is Vanity, Profit is Sanity, Cash is Reality’.

The Covid-19 crisis is much written about, debated and analyzed. If there is one thing everyone can agree about on the future, it is that there is no spoiler out there for this suspense. The fact is that no one knows the eventual shape of the business environment after the pandemic ends. 

When revenue momentum slows down or even hits a wall as it is happening in the current scenario, costs take centre stage even as every dollar of revenue becomes even more valuable for the firms. So, enterprises need an arsenal of strategic weapons to operate and survive, maybe even thrive, in this period of dramatic uncertainty. The same old-same old, push-push methods will not move the needle of performance. 

As an entrepreneur and CEO, I have always found the theory of Marginal Costing (MC) to be practically powerful over the years. Let me tell you why.

At the best of times, MC is a useful tool for strategic and transactional decision making. In a downturn or a crisis, it is vital for entrepreneurs and business leaders to look at their businesses through the MC filter to uncover actionable insights.

Using MC-based pricing, the firm can retain valuable clients, win new deals against the competition, increase market share in a shrinking market and enhance goodwill by demonstrating dynamism in downmarket.

As the firm continues to price its products based on MC, the idea is to continually attempt to increase the price to cover the fixed costs and get above the Break-Even Point (BEP) to profitability. However, this happens opportunistically and with an improving environment. 

Pricing for outcomes is more critical during these times and playing around with your costing models can go a long way in determining the most optimal outcome-based pricing approaches. 

Steps to Get the Best Out of MC:

1. Determine bare minimum Operating level

Estimate the bare minimum operating level or fixed costs you will need to bear to stay afloat and capitalize on revenue opportunities. This is the BEP of the business. This estimate can include:

  • Facilities, machines, materials, people and overheads. 
  • All R&D expenses required to support product development
  • Necessary support staff for deployment and maintenance of products/services.

2.  Ascertain the variable costs

Identify the incremental costs involved in delivering your business solutions to fulfil contractual and reputational expectations to both existing and new customers. These costs are the variable costs in your business model. Try to maximize capacity to flexibly hire, partner or rent variable costs as needed, based on incremental revenues.

3. Distinguish between fixed costs and transactional variable costs.

Take your fixed costs at your operating level as costs for a full P&L period. Let’s say, the fiscal year. Take your variable costs as what it takes to fulfil the Revenues that you can book. Make sure you only take the direct, variable costs. Note that if Revenues less Variable costs to fulfil the revenues is zero, then you are operating at MC.

4. Sweat the IP already created.

For every rupee or dollar you earn over and above the MC, you are now contributing to absorbing the fixed costs. Do bear in mind that all historical costs of building the IP are ‘sunk’, typically to be amortized over a reasonable period. Hence, it doesn’t figure in the current level of fixed costs. The idea now is to ‘sweat’ the IP already created. 

5. Peg the base price at marginal cost.

Start at the level of marginal cost, not fully absorbed costs. Then, try and increase the price to absorb more and more of the fixed costs. The goal is to get to BEP and beyond during the full P&L period. At the deal level, be wary of pricing based on the fully-loaded costs (variable and fixed costs, direct and indirect).

6. Close the deal to maximize cash flows

Price your product at marginal cost + whatever the client or market will bear to get the maximum possible advance or time-linked payments. This is a simple exchange of cash for margins wherever possible and an effective way to maximize the cash flows. Many clients, especially the larger ones, worry more about budgets than cash flow. 

Let’s look at a high-level illustration. 

Assume a software product company providing a learning and development platform to the enterprise marketplace. Let’s call this company Elldee.

Elldee has a SaaS business model that works well in terms of annuity revenues, steady cash flows and scale. Clients prefer the pay-as-you-model representing OpEx rather than CapEx. Investors love the SaaS space and have funded the company based on the future expectations of rapid scale and profitability.

However, given the ongoing crisis condition, Elldee needs to take a good re-look at the licensing model. By applying MC filters, it may make more market and financial sense to maximize upfront cash by doing a longer-term `licensing’ deal for the software-as-a-service at even a deep discount, with back-ended increments in price. The variable costs of on-boarding a client are similar to a SaaS deal yet the revenue converts to contribution to absorb fixed costs quickly to help survival and longer runway for future growth. So the client pays lesser than what they would have for a three year SaaS deal but Elldee is able to sweat its IP while maximizing cash flows.

Elldee can even move its existing SaaS clients to this model to capture more revenues upfront by being aware of MC and figuring out the right pricing models to get to the BEP of the business or product. Outcome-based pricing can also be designed to deliver margins beyond the MC, contributing to the absorption of fixed costs more aggressively.

Elldee is now in a position to address different types of markets, clients and alliances. It can calibrate higher and higher margins as the environment improves and client relationships deepen. Over the next two years, Elldee would come out stronger with a more loyal client base, higher market share and a growth trajectory aligned with its pre-Covid19 business plans.

Yes, this is a simplified example but many variations to the theme can be crafted, based on a firm’s unique context.

Remember that a strong tide lifts all boats but a downturn separates the men from the boys. Marginal costing techniques, when customized for sector-specific operating models, delivers a competitive edge at a time from which will emerge stronger winners and weaker losers. Be a winner.

About the contributor: Sam Iyengar is a PE investor, mentor and advisor focused on Innovation and Impact. He can be reached at [email protected].

Posted on

The future of ‘civic’ technologies after COVID-19

In 1973, the British economist Ernst Schumacher wrote his manifesto “Small is Beautiful”, and changed the world. Schumacher’s prescription — to use technologies that were less resource-intensive, capable of generating employment, and “appropriate” to local circumstances — appealed to a Western audience that worried about feverish consumption by the ‘boomer’ generation. Silicon Valley soon seized the moment, presenting modern-day, personal computing as an alternative to the tyranny of IBM’s Big Machine. Meanwhile, in India too, the government asked citizens to embrace technologies suited to the country’s socio-economic life. Both had ulterior motives: the miniaturisation of computing was inevitable given revolutions in semiconductor technology during the sixties and seventies, and entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley expertly harvested the anti-IBM mood to offer themselves as messiahs. The government in New Delhi too was struggling to mass-produce machines, and starved of funds, so asking Indians to “make do” with appropriate technology was as much a political message as it was a nod to environmentalism.

And thus, India turned its attention to mechanising bullock carts, producing fuel from bio-waste, trapping solar energy for micro-applications, and encouraging the use of hand pumps. These were, in many respects, India’s first “civic”, or socially relevant technologies.

The “appropriate technology” movement in India had two unfortunate consequences. The first has been a celebration of jugaad, or frugal innovation. Over decades, Indian universities, businesses and inventors have pursued low-cost technologies that are clearly not scaleable but valued culturally by peers and social networks. (Sample the press coverage every year of IIT students who build ‘sustainable’ but limited-use technologies, that generate fuel from plastic or trap solar energy for irrigation pumps.) Second, the “small is beautiful” philosophy also coloured our view of “civic technologies” as those that only mobilise the citizenry, out into farms or factory floors. Whether they took the form of a hand pump, solar stove or bullock cart, these technologies did little to augment the productivity of an individual. However, they preserved the larger status quo and did not disrupt social or industrial relations as technological revolutions have historically done. 

Nevertheless, there has always been a latent demand in India for technologies that don’t just mobilise individuals but also act as “playgrounds”, creating and connecting livelihoods. When management guru Peter Drucker visited post-Emergency India in 1979, Prime Minister Morarji Desai sold him hard on “appropriate technology”. India, Drucker wrote, had switched overnight from championing big steel plants to small bullock carts. Steel created no new jobs outside the factory, and small technologies did not improve livelihoods. Instead, he argued, India ought to look at the automotive industry as an “efficient multiplier” of livelihoods: beyond the manufacturing plant, automobiles would create new sectors altogether in road building and maintenance, traffic control, dealerships, service stations and repair. Drucker also pointed to the transistor as another such technology. Above all, transistors and automobiles connected Indians to one another through information and travel. Drucker noted during his visit that the motor scooter and radio transistor were in great demand in even far-flung corners, a claim that is borne by statistics. These, then were the civic technologies that mattered, ones that created playgrounds in which many could forge their livelihoods. 

The lionisation of jugaad is an attitudinal problem, and may not change immediately. But the task of creating a new generation of civic technologies that act as playgrounds can be addressed more readily.  In fact, it is precisely during crises such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic that India acutely requires such platforms.


Consider the post-lockdown task of economic reconstruction in India, which requires targeted policy interventions. Currently, the Indian government is blinkered to address only two categories of actors who need economic assistance: large corporations with their bottom lines at risk, and at the micro-level, individuals whose stand to lose livelihoods. India’s banks will bail out Big Business, while government agencies will train their digital public goods — Aadhaar, UPI, eKYC etc — to offer financial assistance to individuals. This formulaic approach misses out the vast category of SMEs who employ millions, account for nearly 40% of India’s exports, pull in informal businesses into the supply chain and provide critical products to the big industries.

To be sure, the data to identify SMEs (Income Tax Returns/ GSTN/ PAN) exists, as do the digital infrastructure to effect payments and micro-loans. The funds would come not only from government coffers but also through philanthropic efforts that have gained steam in the wake of the pandemic. However, the “playground” needs to be created — a single digital platform that can provide loans, grants or subsidies to SMEs based on specific needs, whether for salaries, utilities or other loan payments. A front-end application would provide any government official information about schemes applied for, and funds disbursed to a given SME.

Civic technologies in India have long been understood to mean small-scale technologies. This is a legacy of history and politics, which policymakers have to reckon with. The civic value of technology does not lie in the extent to which it is localised, but its ability to reach the most vulnerable sections of a stratified society like India’s. The Indian government, no matter how expansive its administrative machinery is, cannot do this on its own. It has to create “playgrounds” — involving banks, cooperative societies, regulators, software developers, startups, data fiduciaries and underwriting modellers — if it intends to make digital technologies meaningful and socially relevant.  

Please Note: A version of this was first published on Business Standard on 17 April 2020

About the author: Arun Mohan Sukumar is a PhD candidate at the Fletcher School, Tufts University, and a volunteer with the non-profit think-tank, iSPIRT. He is currently based in San Francisco. His book, Midnight’s Machines: A Political History of Technology in India, was published by Penguin Random House in 2019

Posted on

The history of technology is about to change radically. India must seize the moment

There are no atheists in foxholes, and there appear to be no capitalists in a global pandemic either. The head of Honeywell’s billion-dollar GoDirect Trade platform, which uses a permission-based blockchain to buy and sell aviation parts, declared on March 20 that American corporations had a “walled-garden” approach to data. “They need to start sharing data, a huge paradigm shift”, said Lisa Butters. Only a couple of weeks ago, Honeywell had been defending the virtues of a permission-based system, saying enterprises “needed some constraints to operate in”. 

What a difference a few days can make. 

Historically, the aviation industry has been one of the most secretive among ‘Big Tech’ sectors, with its evolution tied intimately to the Second World War, and the US-Soviet Cold War rivalry that followed soon after. Concerns around China’s theft of aerospace IP was among the foremost drivers behind the Obama administration’s negotiation of the 2015 agreement with China to prohibit “economic espionage”. It is the ultimate “winner-takes-all” market — but Boeing, its lynchpin, has now approached the US government for an existential bailout. Honeywell’s call for a “paradigm shift” is proof that the sector is not thinking just in hand-to-mouth terms. The aviation sector may get a lifeline for now, but as an industry forged by a global war, it knows more than most that a transformational moment for technology is upon it, which needs to be seized. 

As the economist Branko Milanović has highlighted, the correct metaphor for the Covid-19 pandemic and ensuing crisis is not the Great Recession of 2008, but the Second World War. To win WWII, and retain its military superiority, the United States pioneered technology complexes that placed innovation at the trifecta of a university lab, government, and market. (The blueprint for this model was drawn up in 1945 by Vannevar Bush, founder of Raytheon and director of the Office for Scientific Research and Development, and presented to the US government. The document was titled, “Science: The Endless Frontier”.) This was by no means a Western endeavour alone. Several countries, including India, followed suit, trying to perfect a model of “organised science”. In India, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research was the totem for this effort and created a centralised network of national labs. The primary difference between Western models and ones in developing countries like India was the role of the state. In the US, the state retained regulatory agency over the process of technological innovation, but gradually ceded into the background as the Boeings, Westinghouses, GEs, Lockheed Martins, and IBMs took over. In India, the state became both the regulator and purveyor of technology. 

India’s attempts to create “national champions” in frontier technologies (think Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd, Electronics Corporation of India Ltd, Defence Research and Development Organisation, etc) failed because the state could not nimbly manufacture them at scale. Even as India pursued “moonshots”, those businesses in the United States that were incubated or came of age during the Second World War began to occupy pole positions in their respective technology markets. Once those markets matured, it made little sense for America to continue creating “organized” technology complexes, although research collaborations between universities and the federal government continued through the National Science Foundation. The banyan-ization of the internet and Silicon Valley — both seeded by generous assistance from the US Department of Defence — into a market dominated by the FAANG companies affirms this shift.

In the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, however, the tables are turning. The United States is not only shifting away from “moonshots” but also pivoting towards “playgrounds”, settling on a model that India has perfected in the last decade or so.

The United States has often sought to repurpose private technologies as public utilities at key moments in its history. Communications technology was built and moulded into a public good by the American state. It was US law that enabled patent pooling by Bell Labs in the 19th century, leading to the creation of a “great new corporate power” in telephony. A few decades into the 20th century, American laws decreed telephone companies would be “common carriers”, to prevent price and service discrimination by AT&T. Meanwhile, both railroads and telecommunications providers were recognised as “interstate” services, subject to federal regulation. This classification allowed the US government to shape the terms under which these technologies grew. IT is precisely this template that Trump has now applied to telehealth technology in the US. Tele-medicine services could not previously be offered across state lines in the US, but the US government used its emergency powers last week to dissolve those boundaries. And on March 18, President Trump invoked the Defence Production Act, legislation adopted during the Korean War and occasionally invoked by American presidents, that would help him commandeer private production of nearly everything, from essential commodities to cutting-edge technologies. 

Invoking the law is one thing, executing it is another. Rather than strong-arming businesses, the Trump administration is now trying to bring together private actors to create multiple “playgrounds” with an underlying public interest. The Coronavirus Task Force was the first of its kind. The Task Force brought together Walmart, Google, CVS, Target, Walgreens, LabCorp and Roche, among others to perform singular responsibilities aimed at tackling the coronavirus pandemic. Walmart would open its parking lots for testing, Google would create a self-testing platform online, Roche would develop kits, LabCorp would perform high-throughput testing, and so on. The COVID-19 High-Performance Computing Consortium, created on March 23, is another such playground. It includes traditional, 20th-century actors such as the national laboratories but is doubtless front-ended by Microsoft, IBM, Amazon and Google Cloud. The Consortium aims to use its high computational capacity to create rapid breakthroughs in vaccine development. Proposals have been given an outer limit of three months to deliver. 

In some respects, the United States is turning to an approach that India has advanced. To be sure, we may not currently be in a position to develop such a playground for vaccine R&D and testing at scale. But India is well-positioned to create the “digital playgrounds” that can help manage the devastating economic consequences of the Covid-19 epidemic. There is a universal acknowledgement that India’s social safety nets need to be strengthened to mitigate the fallout. One analyst recommends “a direct cash transfer of ₹3,000 a month, for six months, to the 12 crores, bottom half of all Indian households. This will cost nearly ₹2.2-lakh crore and reach 60 crore beneficiaries, covering agricultural labourers, farmers, daily wage earners, informal sector workers and others.” The same estimate suggests “a budget of ₹1.5- lakh crore for testing and treating at least 20 crore Indians through the private sector.” 

The digital public goods India has created — Aadhaar, UPI and eKYC — offer the public infrastructure upon which these targeted transfers can be made. However, cash transfers alone will not be enough: lending has to be amplified in the months to come to kickstart small and medium businesses that would have been ravaged after weeks of lockdown. India’s enervated banking sector will have meagre resources, and neither enthusiasm or infrastructure to offer unsecured loans at scale. “Playgrounds” offers private actors the opportunity to re-align their businesses towards a public goal, and for other, new businesses to come up. Take the example of Target, which is an unusual addition to the Coronavirus Task Force, but one whose infrastructure and network makes it a valuable societal player. Or Amazon Web Services in the High-Performance Computing Consortium, which has been roped in for a task that is seemingly unrelated to the overall goal of vaccine development. 

If digital playgrounds are so obvious a solution, why has India not embraced it sooner? None of this is to discount the deficit of trust between startup founders and the public sector in India. Founders are reluctant to use public infrastructure. It is the proverbial Damocles’ sword: a platform or business’ association with the public sector brings it instant legitimacy before consumers who still place a great deal of trust in the state. On the other hand, reliance on, or utilisation of public infrastructure brings with it added responsibilities that are unpredictable and politically volatile. To illustrate, one need only look at the eleventh-hour crisis of migrating UPI handles from YES Bank in the light of a moratorium imposed on the latter earlier this month. On the other hand, the government retains a strong belief that the private sector is simply incapable of providing scalable solutions. In most markets where the India government is both player and regulator, this may seem a chicken-and-egg problem, but c’est la vie.

Nevertheless, there are milestones in history where seemingly insurmountable differences dissolve to reveal a convergence of goals. India is at one such milestone. A leading American scientist and university administrator have called the pandemic a “Dunkirk moment” for his country, requiring civic action to “step up and help”. By sheer chance and fortitude, India’s digital platforms are poised to play exactly the role that small British fishing boats played in rescuing stranded countrymen on the frontline of a great war: they must re-imagine their roles as digital platforms, and align themselves to strengthen the Indian economy in the weeks to come. 

Arun Mohan Sukumar is a PhD candidate at the Fletcher School, Tufts University, and a volunteer with the non-profit think-tank, iSPIRT. His book, Midnight’s Machines: A Political History of Technology in India, was recently published by Penguin RandomHouse.