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

Why India needs to move beyond “Jugaad”.

Innovation is a result of an unaddressed problem.

TITLE (1)Contrary to general perception, design process strives to find the correct problems. Solution to these form the second half of the process and which has complete dependency on the earlier, yet is more celebrated.

A designer observes a given brief, studies it in the context and then identifies the problem(s). He finally calls upon his knowledge and experience to address these. Often enough, reaching out to experts. Later, he iterates solutions at various levels of implementation, progressively validating in the context.

In the case of jugaad, the journey to innovation travels in the opposite direction. The innovator is the user himself. He defines the brief after he has already pinpointed the problems, then makes do with his limited knowledge to address these. In ideal cases, this leads to innovations that are appropriate for his use, and exceptionally, a genius product to generalise.

Much like any heroic story, jugaad innovations are also widely acknowledged. While its solutions are obviously admirable, the process itself isn’t. I offer a few words of precaution in this context.

A step-by-step comparison between the two reveals the risk. At the initial stages, jugaad does a better job in understanding the context and the defining of problems as the user (/innovator) understands his problems better than anybody else. On the other hand, a designer uses his observation skills to relate to the persona of the user, ideally, becoming the user himself. But this ideal case is by-default in jugaad and unrealistic in design process.

However, at solution stage, design process has its advantages. Being better equipped, given the expertise of a designer and access to experts, it not only leads to more efficient solutions but also makes sure that these are appropriate in larger system. Jugaad however depends solely on knowledge and capability of the innovator. In exceptional cases, smart workarounds come out. But these are rare, and bound to fall short of a designer’s resources.

In cases when the solution itself requires lesser expertise, a bigger knowledge pool might be irrelevant. But it can again be a risky proposition to generalise such cases. And that is what we would be doing if we recognise “jugaad” as a parallel process.

However, as I earlier stated, finding the correct problem(s) is crucial, and jugaad is better equipped. A more inclusive process might be to involve users with designers during initial phases. This can lead to exciting results with juxtaposition of experienced users and resourceful designers in brainstorming solutions.

Jugaad by itself should only be looked upon as a desperate option rather than a process. India, being a country well equipped with resources and aiming to be a world-class innovation hub, should do well to encourage correct processes in this endeavour.

Guest Post Contributed by Sumit Dagar, Kriyate

Why Indian IT product companies grow slower than companies elsewhere?

Indians are loved world over due to their intellectuality, hardworking nature and their unparalleled ability for Jugaad (an innovative fix or a simple work-around of complex problems). Generally speaking, Indians are doing wonderful job in technology sector and why technology sector alone, it’s across the board now. Many of the world’s largest enterprises have Indians as their CEO’s who are driving high growth for such mammoth organizations e.g. Pepsico, Mastercard, Apple. Mind you, size tends to slow down the growth due to increased complexities.

Global economic expansion and rise of Indians on global map is a boon for India as a whole. It has certainly helped securing unique identity for India on the world map. Despite all this, why Indian Product companies in IT sector are not able to grow to their fullest potential? Why after a certain point these companies call it a quit or struggle to keep up pace of growth? Let’s discuss

I have been associated with Indian IT product companies from the last 8 years at least. The size of these companies has been in the range of 20 Million – 300 Million. With little experience in dealing / working with various product companies following are my general observations (not specific to any company I worked with).

  1. IP Vs Marketing – IP is heart for any product company but what are the rules of the game? Shall they continue investing heavily into developing / enriching their IP’s all the time? What is more important for them at different point in time of their lifecycle? This is a tricky question and finding a balance between business and IP creation could be a never ending debate and obviously THE most difficult question for these companies to answer themselves.

If you look at the IT products originated from western world and with specific mention to Israel, I have few observations to share:

  1. They develop the IP considering present and future (Not so Distant hypothetical future).
  2. Test it, Test it and Test it so that it does not fail (I know few of you must be smiling while reading this J. We all have restarted our computers every time it stopped responding)
  3. Sell, Sell and Sell as much as they can before finding the right balance between efforts required for IP management and marketing.

On the other side, Indian entrepreneurs (Btw most of them started by technocrats and not by sales gurus – Please note) are so passionate about IP that they tend to postpone the problem of selling the software. IP gives immense pleasure and satisfaction to an extent that all the policies, strategies, growth plans, creative energy, board room discussions and even canteen discussions revolve around IP – This is what killing them softly 🙂