Frugal Innovation
Navi Radjou has spent years studying "jugaad," also known as frugal innovation. Pioneered by entrepreneurs in emerging markets who figured out how to get spectacular value from limited resources, the practice has now caught on globally. Illustrating his talk with a wealth of examples of human ingenuity at work, Radjou also shares three principles for how we can all do more with less.
Please share your thoughts.
I gained some perspective from Navi, specifically in identifying a different way to innovate. I was unaware of the "North-South divide" in innovation strategy. I, broadly, understood the only goal of innovating to be to create a better solution to an existing product or problem. I had not considered that a better solution could be achieved without advancing technology- this is embarrassing to admit in hindsight.
(In the rest of my response, I am subbing out "the North" with the "United States," as this is the country I have the perspective to speak about.)
The United States has the resources, so they do not need to stop and think, "Should we use them?" or "Can we innovate differently?" The U.S.'s innovation fundamentally differs from "the South" because it isn't from the necessity perspective.
But who is making these innovation decisions for the U.S.? It is not the average American citizen but the few with the capital to invest.
There is a growing income disparity in the U.S. It is objectively easy to see how poorly set up millennials and Gen-Z are for owning a home, paying off student loans, and retiring, to name a few wealth issues. While they are the most talked about generational "economic losers," they are not the first wave of people affected. Baby Boomers who did not secure jobs with pensions and did not fully understand the financial product that emerged, the 401k, are currently compromised in our country.
I share this to drive home the point that the innovation decisions occurring in our shared country are not made by people living the average American life. This is why it is easy for innovators to spend billions in R&D and create products and services that advance technology, offering more but at a much higher cost.
With the persistence of this type of innovation, the wealth divide inevitably grows larger.
Normalization and adoption of "frugal innovation" by investors and venture capital would benefit the U.S. because it could seek solutions for the citizens under-resourced in this country. This is the irony. The U.S., at an individual level, is under-resourced. It needs help. However, the nation's aggregate wealth classifies the U.S. as adequately resourced to innovate in this "more for more" manner.
Our "nation" (i.e., those with the innovation decision-making power) needs to use an innovation strategy more aligned with its people. Innovation successes from the South are an excellent case study for U.S. entrepreneurs and investors.