Agricultural & Environmental Concerns: Role of Education

Yesterday, I spoke at a seminar on the subject theme organised by Knowledge Xchange in Chennai. This is a summary of what I said...

You must've heard several speakers on the subject since morning, and now you must be wondering what a corporate has to do with this topic. Let me deal with that first.

Purpose of education = Know How. Know How has two components. Firstly, Know What. Training typically focuses on Know What, while education is expected to build the other component of the capacity i.e. Know Why.

Purpose of Know How = Do How.

And, purpose of Do How is to actually "do" things that "deliver" the intended outcomes.

What are those outcomes, in relation to the Seminar theme?

1. Raise incomes for the farmers (Per Capita GDP of Indian farmers is just about a third of the rest of Indians)
2. Achieve Food & Nutrition Security for our all our people (a third of all our children are malnourished)
3. Do this in an environmentally sensitive manner (so that we leave a habitable world behind for our children and their children)

The theme of my talk is "What can Corporates do, to enable these outcomes?"

Basically, I have three messages to share:

1. For the Know How to be effective, the medium (of education) must be tailored to the context.
2. For the Know How to be translated to Do How, the education must be an integral part of a "meta-process"
3. To execute the idea of a meta-process in the real world on a large scale, you must leverage the power of innovative business models

To substantiate these arguments, I will walk you through the nature of challenges in Indian agriculture and the corresponding solution themes. And then illustrate those through the creative solutions successfully deployed by ITC on the ground.

1. The context of Indian agriculture and the farmer is quite complex, with multiple dimensions and each dimension with multiple degrees of challenges. The "media strategy" of "education", if I may call that, must be tailored to this context. Let me outline four of those dimensions, relevant to our theme today.

a. Any context must first be seen from the perspective of "outcome for the consumer", in our case the "farmer". Each of our famer is so very different from the other. Starting with variations in farm size, to the heterogeneity in agro-climatic conditions, to the far more individualised resource availability and risk taking ability. In other words, one message is not relevant to all farmers. That means, many messages need to be personalised, some can be mass-customised, while a few can be generic.

b. The second dimension of the context, is the "nature of message" itself. That varies according to the action that the message should trigger to achieve the objective. In some cases, it could be simple awareness about a market or a weather condition; while in another case, it may need to alter an existing farm practice such as seed rate or row spacing; in yet another case, it could create a conflict between short term effort or cost with long term benefit (such as investment in micro irrigation for soil conservation). Again, obviously, one tool doesn't trigger action in all cases. In one case it could be SMS on mobile phone, in the other it is an on-farm demo, and may be an audio-visual in another case.

c. The third dimension is "time" that enables action. In agriculture, as you will all know, most activities are very time sensitive. Therefore, a piece of information or a knowledge component has to be delivered absolutely on time. Especially when some of the actions are linked to random events like rain fall or pest attack.

d. The last dimension is "cost". Notwithstanding different levels of message and types of tools, obviously the cost can't be out of whack with the benefit being delivered or the risk being managed.

In ITC eChoupal, multiple media are used in a 360⁰ approach tailored to the need. For example, improved practice or a new input through the eChoupal website, followed by an on-farm demonstration through Choupal Pradarshan Khet for better conviction; then the adoption is facilitated through SMS reminders & telecalling to clarify suitability for specific farm condition, and obtaining feedback on practice / product performance through tele-helpline.

2. The second message is about translating all this Know How to Do How. The farmer may know what to do, but many times timely & affordable access to other inputs is a problem. Be it, credit or seed or some crop protection chemical. In the mind of the farmer, all of these elements are part of one process. Call it the "meta-process", because it is in the mind of the farmer. Deciding which crop to grow, managing it through the crop season, and then realising cash from the crop. But, these needs are served by different industry verticals such as agri extension, banks, seed companies and so on... Unlike in evolved markets, the delivery of these inputs is not synchronised with knowledge. Therefore, the action doesn't happen often. Consider an evolved market like buying a car in Chennai. You can acquire the knowledge about a car suitable to your needs through several magazines, a loan through a bank, actual vehicle from a dealer, insurance from an agent, and the service arrangement through a dealer seamlessly. But, for many farmers in rural India, such seamless process is still a dream. Fragmented farm sizes, dispersed villages, heterogeneous conditions compounded by weak infrastructure make synchronised delivery a challenge.

ITC eChoupal factors these challenges while orchestrating an ecosystem that delivers the desired end-to-end solution to farmers. It is achieved through a new digital, physical and human infrastructure organised in a hub & spoke configuration. Today some four million farmers access services through the ITC eChoupal network, offered by 160 organisations cutting across Government, Private and Social Sectors.

3. To roll out an infrastructure like eChoupal on ground, it costs a lot of money. How ITC designed a business model so that the cost of such a system is not a burden on the farmer, but recovered through innovative revenue models, is the third message.

For example, by eliminating non value adding costs of a village to mandi to our warehouse chain through a village to our warehouse chain by discovering price in the village is one such model.

In another model, we embed traceability along the chain (having sourced directly from the farmers) into our products, we deliver greater value to consumers and capture some of that value for ourselves and the farmers.

Yet another model is charging a toll on these 160 organisations for bringing them cost-effective access to the rural markets.

Allow me to repeat my three messages, before I close:

1. For the Know How to be effective, the medium (of education) must be tailored to the context.
2. For the Know How to be translated to Do How, the education must be an integral part of a "meta-process"
3. To execute the idea of a meta-process in the real world on a large scale, you must leverage the power of innovative business models

Thank you.

Bringing about enterprise accountability and the concept of triple bottom line

Some of you may remember my tweets and Fb updates on the subject a couple of months ago, when I participated in a panel discussion at National Geographic's Green Conclave. I got busy soon after, and couldn't post a blog. Yesterday a friend asked for some material on triple bottom line, and I decided to write it now...

There are two arguments on what a good Corporate Citizenship is. One argument views business enterprises as pure economic citizens. The other, a position taken by ITC, sees them as Socio-economic Citizens.

Pure Economic Citizen argument says enterprise accountability starts with earning profits and ends with paying taxes; that the responsibility towards social and environmental aspects is best left to other organs of society viz Government and Civil Society Organisations. Further that the focus of Business Enterprises should be on satisfying the shareholder desire for a return on their financial investment to the exclusion of non-financial stakeholders.

Essentially, the argument is that the Corporates, as artificial entities, should have no social responsibility; people or real individuals must have social responsibilities. Generating profit by servicing consumers in a competitive environment is considered the most socially responsible act of an economic enterprise.

On the other hand, ITC views enterprises as socio-economic citizens and therefore as accountable to today's & tomorrow's society and environment from which it is drawing resources, besides to its financial shareholders. The expectation from socio-economic citizens is that the core business activities must be implemented with broader responsibility towards ALL the stakeholders. In other words, enterprises must demonstrate positive economic, social and environmental performance over long term. This is called Triple Bottom Line approach.

Of course, the trade-offs in the value created for multiple stakeholders make Triple Bottom Line approach a difficult path to follow. ITC has creatively enmeshed the interests of shareholders, the poor, and environment to build business models that overcome the trade-off challenge. ITC eChoupal initiative, Social Farm Forestry programme in Bhadrachalam area and Agarbatti business linked to women self help groups are some examples of Triple Bottom Line approach by ITC.

Other panelists argued that such enmeshing isn't easy and the trade-offs are inevitable, pushing companies to be profit focused or compromise on profits. I proposed that Government could do four things and create a market mechanism to deal with such a trade-off challenge.

1. ‎Make TBL reporting mandatory. Peer group and market pressure will then automatically broaden accountability of enterprises
2. Define TBL accountability metrics clearly along outcomes lines. For example, Water Positive and Carbon Positive Corporates...
3. Create tradeable instruments from such metrics. TBL then becomes a source of economic advantage
4. ‎Deepen the market for these social credits by mandating threshold TBL for bidding in Govt projects. Non TBL enterprises can buy credits to be able to bid

The Promise of UID - What to do, to get it right?

As part of the annual ISIS Conference on 18th Dec 2010 at ISB Hyderabad, there was a Panel Discussion on UID. Besides myself, Dr KC Chakrabarty of RBI, Mr Sanjay Swamy of UIDAI and Mr Abhishek Sinha of Eko Financial were the other Panelists. The Panel was moderated by Prof Arun Sundara Rajan.

Before the Panel Discussion, a specially recorded video (will be linked once the Conference Organisers upload the video) of Mr Nandan Nilekani, Chairman of UIDAI was played.

As you would see in the video, Nandan outlined SA, PA & DA of the SA-PA-DA-PPA template, I used my time on the Panel to do a PPA of three of those areas. This is what I said:

Acknowledged existence: Many Indians, especially the poor, cannot prove their identity with legally valid documents. Out of a billion Indians, only 60 million hold passports; there are just about 70 million IT PAN Card holders. It is not difficult for fraudulent third persons to misrepresent the poor in certain transactions. As a result, for example, many of the poor people cannot access social support programmes of the Central and State Governments. Substantial part of the social subsidies meant for the poor get diverted and misappropriated. The proposed UID number helps in accurately establishing the identity of a person and in authenticating any transaction. This will help in reducing misappropriation and lowering leakage from subsidy funds.

But, vested interests won't be happy with lower corruption in the subsidy system. Powerful among those interests won't let UID scale! Besides the technological challenges in scaling (mind you, the enrolment system must be fool-proof to eliminate any fake identities, must be robust enough to eliminate duplicates and must be easy & cost effective to verify & authenticate; all these for some 600 million people) that UIDAI is well geared to take on, the execution plan must cognise for the potential challenges arising out of the hurdles created by these vested interests.

I see these hurdles as marketing and social sciences challenges. Instead of clinically enrolling the citizens, the benefits of UID must be widely communicated to the citizens so that they get "enrolled" into seeing UID as a practical solution for their real problems. The people will then collectively find a way to deal with the hurdles created by the vested interests, as they did when ITC eChoupal faced similar resistance years ago. Similarly, it will help if the relevant agencies (eg District Administration) can co-opt the poor in design and execution of the social subsidy schemes. For example, the poor themselves know exactly how they get excluded from many schemes, and what process changes can help include them.

Business Opportunities: To start with, there is a mega business opportunity in the very process of enrolment of citizens into the UID system. Appropriate hardware is required at some 100,000 enrolment centres, along with necessary software to capture the finger prints, iris shots and demographic data. Someone aptly said that India can become the Bio-metric Capital of the world. There will also be similar opportunities in building transaction authentication hardware for different types of establishments using one or more of the UID features.

In the long term, the real value business application of UID is actually in improving effectiveness of financial transactions, consumer loyalty programmes, personalised crop management advisory, health cards for citizens etc. through shared transaction data of every UID across organisations. But, public access to such data raises serious concerns on privacy of individuals and competitive intelligence for businesses.

One way this conflict could be resolved is by limiting the seam-less sharing of such transaction data among a syndicate of organisations or certain type of businesses approved by the individuals for an appropriate value-exchange.

Innovation Ecosystem: Once the data sharing conflict is resolved, a powerful innovation ecosystem will be catalysed by the UID platform. Pretty much like a Development Apps Store! Some of the potential innovations would obviously be yet un-visualised. But, I can surely see ideas that make up for the missing institutions such as credit rating system and dispute resolution mechanisms. Many by many experience rating using the same identity can lead to interesting B2C and C2C applications.

The yet unvisualised innovations could also be mega threats to society. Dutch Census anecdote I recently heard is an example of such a threat. In an early 20th Century Census, Dutch collected the religious affiliation data of their citizens (for building places of worship in their neighbourhoods). A few years later, that data was very handy to Germans in exterminating some 75% of all the Jews listed.

On balance, I say, we must push forward with the UID.

But, raising public awareness of pros & cons of any new system with potential transformational impact, such as UID, is key, rather than selling it as a panacea to all problems...

Role of Corporate Sector in Inclusive Growth: Importance of Business Model Innovation

Earlier today, I spoke at the SMF-IIMA Conference on "Challenges to Inclusive Growth in the Emerging Economies".

My talk posed and answered four questions.

Q1: Who is "excluded" from the current growth process, that we now want to include?

Two sets of people are excluded, may be are even short changed, from the exciting growth story of the emerging economies in general, and India in particular, in recent times.

1. Some sections of our population, because they suffer from certain inherent disadvantages, are excluded from the new economic opportunities and growth (e.g. farmers, rural crafts persons, people with physical disabilities etc)
2. Some other people are excluded from the economic equations, because they don't have a say today! I am talking about our grand children and their grand children. The decisions taken by our generation have a bearing on the availability of natural resources (e.g. water) and the quality of ecology (green house gases) when they are around on this planet.

Q2: What can Corporate Sector do in this context?

Traditionally inclusive growth has been the domain of Government, Civil Society Organisations, Multilateral Institutions. Although there has been some progress over all these decades, none of us can feel satisfied with today's position of either of these excluded segments. For example, per capita GDP of an Indian farmer is just about 1/4th of that of rest of Indians. And, the concerns on climate change are at a level we have never seen before.

Programmes of these agencies miss out on one or the other aspects of three crucial areas.

1. Sustainability - where the programmes are subsidy based, their long term sustainability is suspect
2. Outcome effectiveness - for the target segment of people is weak, as the programme focus is typically on outlays
3. Scalability - is often the most challenging aspect of a successful programme

Call these SOS, if you will, by the first letters of the three areas. That's the message to the world.

On the other hand, by the very nature of enterprises, Corporates survive & thrive by doing these three things right...

1. Profit, the key metric of financial sustainability is the core objective of any commercial enterprise
2. Value Proposition to the target group of customers is the essence of market and competitive strategy, and guarantees outcome effectiveness.
3. Growth, the other metric by which Corporates swear, is what goes into determining market capitalisation of an enterprise

In other words, Corporates have the specific wherewithal to engage in inclusive growth agenda by applying these capabilities and deal with the SOS challenge.

Q3: Why is Business Model Innovation important?

Despite such a case for Corporate involvement in inclusive growth, there is widespread skepticism too!

Many in Government and Civil Society are skeptical about the intentions of Corporates. They simply see such engagement as a lip service, since they believe that 'profit' and 'inclusive growth' are at cross-purposes

Even the Financial Investors see a conflict between a company's profit objective and its social or environmental engagements.

On the other hand, if Corporates stay out, the SOS challenge unlikely to vanish. If the income divides expand and the ecological insensitivity continues we will have a serious problem. No business can succeed in a failed society, or in a world where natural resources are exhausted.

Then, there is also a huge business opportunity in selling products & services to the poor, and in selling eco-friendly products.

How do we reconcile these conflicting realities? The only answer is Business Model Innovation.

If we are able to innovate business models in a way that the profit objective of Corporates is enmeshed with the social or ecological benefits to the community at large, the new goal will be well aligned.

While many Corporates create shareholder value indifferent to society, and some even do at the cost of society, the conflict can be resolved if shareholder value is created "through" serving society. That's where business model innovation comes in!

By calling it business model innovation, I am distinguishing it from product or service innovation that can help inclusive growth. Renewable energy, micro finance, mobile phones, and road infrastructure are some examples of such product & service innovations.

Q4: Is there a special tool kit for business model innovation for inclusive growth?

Based on my experience in building the many phases of ITC eChoupal, and having observed several other inclusive growth initiatives of ITC from ring side, I see three important tools in a kit that will help innovate business models and deliver inclusive growth.

1. Co-creation together with the Communities: Both design and execution. This makes up for the missing infrastructure (eg individual credit rating, dispute resolution) through infusion of social capital. This also cuts costs. More importantly this co-opts lead consumers and helps accelerate product & service innovation. Two of the new institutions innovated under ITC eChoupal system viz. Sanchalak and Samyojak are vital components of a co-creation platform.
2. Leveraging Technology: Technology helps in remote delivery of services (eg eLearning, Telemedicine) and overcomes the physical access barriers as well as the knowledge concentration barrier. Technology can multiply productivity. Technology can also personalise solutions to individuals, so important given the heterogeneity of the target segment we are talking about. Technology helps in precision, leading to better resource usage and improve quality of the output.
3. New Revenue Models: Integrating the micro producers into value chains that connect them to the markets, is one way in which their share of a consumer price can be taken up. The principle of "Third Party Pays", as in Media business, is an important way in which the burden on the low-income producers or consumers can be reduced. This leads to rapid market expansion. Platforms that can carry products & services of several other organisations can create "increasing returns ecosystems" and deliver exponential growth, once the network effect sets in.

Wish you good luck, in co-creating a new world order :)

Microfinance

Earlier this week, when President of MFIN Vijay Mahajan tipped off that "some MFIs may have to shut shop as early as 1st Jan 2011, as Banks refuse to lend", of all things, Karna from Mahabharata came to my mind...

Bankers may only be proving the stereotypical notion that they are, after all, fair weather friends; or may be right in their judgment in not putting any more good money behind bad. But, much like the Karna's story, many factors beyond the new loans from Banks may have contributed to the death of such MFIs.

Here is my take on what some of those factors are:

1. While the interest rates of MFIs are lower than what a local money lender charges, the fact that the rates hardly came down in so many years of MFI existence implies that the sector hasn't innovated enough. Whoever survived without innovation for long?

2. Actually, at the heart of MFI value proposition are two other complementary services viz. (a) improving income generating capability of the borrowers - beyond their cost of borrowing - through several Business Development Services, including collectives for scales of economy and (b) social mobilisation for improving credit repayment culture and taking up activities that benefit the community as a whole, eg anti-liquor campaigns. Along the way, as MFIs proliferated many of them focused on transaction efficiency, and lost sight of these two pillars that defined the original business logic.

3. That politicians cutting across party lines are egging the borrowers not to repay their loans, likening the MFIs to Loan Sharks, suggests that the industry hasn't built any political capital either, in all these years! A wide range of motivations were attributed though, such as opportunistic political gains and selfish interest of some politicians who are money lenders themselves hence anti-MFI.

4. What's even more surprising is the lack of overt support (in this hour of crisis) from the very beneficiaries themselves - the borrowers - even after knowing fully well that the MFIs would close and they may have to resort to higher cost borrowings again. The absence of social capital in the operations of many MFIs (described in 2 above) meant that the borrowers didn't see the long term benefits of continued engagement with those MFIs, instead were happy extracting the short term transactional benefits (escape from repaying their loans). In contrast, when the middlemen struck work at mandis in 2004 to stop ITC eChoupal from making the agri markets transparent, thousands of farmers came on to the streets spontaneously to support eChoupal.

5. Appropriate regulations did not evolve along with the growth of the MF sector.

6. The MF market got distorted, with Government also acting as a lender through SHGs in many States. In fact, competition with Government (who is also a regulator) in a distorted market, is a big threat for the sustainability of many social enterprises. People at BoP are the common target, by definition.

7. Wrong choices of scaling models by many MFIs is another factor. Any organisation can choose from four scaling models - scaling up, scaling deep, scaling out or scaling through. Up requires standardisation of processes for efficient replication of a demonstrated unit. Prerequisite of deep is a capability to orchestrate an ecosystem to deliver multiple products & services to the same customer group. Out is replication of the same model in a different domain. And, through is a typical franchising approach with the attendant conditions. Some MFIs attempted crossing from one model to the other or even blending different models without building the requisite capabilities, obviously leading to trouble.

8. Large sums of money was pumped in through Private Equity, IPO etc. before the sector geared itself for scaling. These sources of money demanded rapid growth, which in turn meant diluted quality of execution (multiple loans to the same borrower, coercion in recovery etc). Coupled with 7 above, this is a recipe for disaster.

9. Not enough manpower was trained in conjunction with the growth of the sector, unlike what was done in other manpower intensive large scale businesses, such as Software, Green Revolution and Operation Flood. It is estimated that some 100,000 people are employed in MFIs. Again, whoever succeeded without quality manpower.

10. In many places, the group leaders (of borrower groups) started their own bridge loan businesses, thus "ever-greening" the loans, making the ground reality opaque to MFI staff.

11. Many people question the ethics of some MFI promoters for using the growth & profits from the highly leveraged soft loans (originally given for a social cause) for private gain. In businesses at BoP, it is important for the lead players not to lose the strength of morality to be able to push Government towards reform.

What Next?

Notwithstanding all the above factors, the business case for MFIs still exists. By virtue of the crisis wrought by the Ordinance in Andhra Pradesh, good MFIs are suffering as badly as the bad.

Instead of trying in vain to revive the sector after it is dead, all the stakeholders need to kick-off a consultation process to determine the right way forward in each of these and such other factors, with the future of the borrower in mind. Karna did die due to many curses, but mythology tells us that every curse can be lifted too!

India: FDI in Retail

Here are the notes I had prepared as Aide Memoire for myself, for yesterday's Panel Discussion on FDI in Retail at the India Retail Forum 2010

With AT Kearney's Global Retail Attractiveness Index placing India at the very top since the mid 2000s, many MNCs and the Foreign Governments have been advocating liberalised FDI inflows into the sector for a while now. Their primary argument is that the FDI is a powerful catalyst to spur competition, especially in the retail industry which is characterised by low competition and poor productivity along the whole supply chain...

Some benefits are clear, while some are arguable! And, there are some genuine concerns too... A very calibrated reform process adopted by the Indian Government, to date, made sense. As the pressure mounts to open up the FDI in the hitherto reserved multi-brand retail, what should the Government do? Here is my analysis of the pros & cons. And the recommendations follow!

A. Clear Benefits:

1. More competition leads to more choice. And, more choice leads to greater value to the consumer.
2. Interactive engagement between the product and the consumer on the modern retail shelf leads to higher consumption. This means faster GDP growth at macro level, and better quality of life for the people at micro level

B. Arguable Benefits:

1. Retail sector generates large employment opportunities. Or, are they actually the jobs from the informal sector getting recognised as employment in the formal sector? Is there a metric such as "Relative Employment Intensity per Rupee of Sales" that resolves this argument?
2. Price paid to the small farmers will increase. Higher share of organised trade, the argument goes, results in higher farm gate prices. Or, will the small farmers actually get squeezed further, to pass the benefits on to the consumer in a hyper competitive market?

C. The Concerns:

1. Modern Retail will displace small retailers. In a nation of shopkeepers, is this justified? The counter-argument is that the small retailers are very savvy, they will find their own niches and co-exist; it's not as if modern retail will take 100% market share. Empirical studies prove that the small retailers in the vicinity of newly set up modern stores do suffer badly...
2. Big Box modern retail has adverse side effects on the environment. Huge energy consumption through ACs & lighting, besides large concrete constructions that skew the green ratios.

D. Some Related Issues:

1. When domestic large companies can invest in modern retail, what's the big deal in allowing FDI? On the other hand, is it not that every firm - however globally spread it is - has a dominant home nation orientation? What are the implications of such orientation on the gross value captured within the boundaries of a "market nation" for its people & economy?
2. FDI was allowed in cold chains some time ago, but no investment has come into cold chain! What's the reason? Does India really need large investments in cold chain, given that most perishable products are grown within a small vicinity of consumption geographies, taking advantage of its conducive agro-climatic conditions? Are we better-off with investments in information infrastructure and farmer-market linkages that enable rapid response by the production system to demand signals? Isn't that a more viable means to cut wastage than the expensive cold chains? Actually, where the cold chains are required (eg. for exports of perishables, for products that can be grown in some corner of the country), the investments (whether FDI or domestic) are not happening because of regressive Agricultural Laws (eg Essential Commodities Act, Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, Forward Contracts Regulation Act).

So, how do we gain from the positive outcomes listed in these arguments, and neutralise the negative outcomes?

Is a gradual 24, 49, 74% FDI permission the good route, taking stock of the outcomes at each stage? Or should we place some specific conditions? In a world where the flag-bearer of free markets - USA - advocates "Be American & Buy American", I believe, some conditions are apt! Otherwise, the benefits could remain "kehuni-pe-gur"!

E. My Recommendations:

1. Mandate that a proportion of the investments must be made in the back-end. Say 30% in logistics and another 30% in farm level infrastructure (including agricultural extension services). In today's world of specialisation, instead of insisting that the mandate be executed by the Retailers directly, let them decide which of these legs they would like to execute themselves, or which they would like to outsource to domain specialists.
2. Impose a special surcharge (say 1%) on the Sales Value of the modern retail that can be built into a "Displaced Small Retailer Rehabilitation Fund". Somewhat along the lines of the Universal Service Obligation Fund in telecom.
3. Reform Essential Commodities Act, Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, Forward Contracts Regulation Act while permitting FDI in multi-brand retail.
4. Leave the rest to the market.

Swimming through Blue Ocean - The ITC eChoupal Story

Over the years, ITC eChoupal story has been told from many perspectives. On the occasion of the launch of India Blue Ocean Strategy Research Centre by TAPMI, I was requested to share the story using the Blue Ocean Strategy framework. Following is a summary of that talk. The ppt I used is here.

If you are unfamiliar with the Blue Ocean Strategy (BOS), or would like to refresh, this presentation by the BOS authors provides a quick overview.

In essence, the aim of BOS is not to out-perform the competition in the existing industry (a bloody battle akin to a red ocean), but to create new market space (a blue ocean), thereby making the competition irrelevant. BOS framework includes 'formulation' & 'execution' principles to minimise risks and maximise opportunities while creating blue oceans. A 'visual strategy canvas' frames the context, and a 'new value curve' with 'four actions framework' offers the tool kit to craft the strategy. 'Six paths' to BOS pull you out of a mindset of "competing within" to "creating across" the dimensions of industry, offering, orientation, time etc

The eChoupal story is written in normal font and the references to BOS framework are in italics.

Am using rural marketing as the scene of my story today. Feature stripped products at low prices, or single serve packs at unit prices, are the most common strategies adopted by companies, while targeting rural consumers in India. These efforts did succeed to some extent, but growth & profitability are limited, because everyone is competing for a larger share of the same small wallet. The outcome is a bloody red ocean! Many companies, in fact, started wondering if there indeed is a fortune at the bottom of the pyramid, or just some small change...

Comes along ITC eChoupal, and says "why not raise the incomes of rural people and then get a larger share of their expanding wallets?" "And if we can raise their incomes profitably, that becomes a unique business opportunity in itself, and will also create a virtuous cycle; more profits to ITC --> higher incomes to rural producers --> more spends by the rural consumers --> more profits to ITC -->" In other words, fortune "for" the bottom of the pyramid as a route to discover fortune "at" the bottom of the pyramid!

Thus, instead of following the conventional logic of outpacing the competition on the same counts by offering a better solution (lower prices) to the given problem (low incomes), ITC eChoupal redefined the problem itself and offered a blue ocean solution that made the competition irrelevant. This 'reconstructed' the market boundaries and eliminated the 'search risk'.

BOS recommends a sequence in which the strategy must be created to ensure a win-win in the new market terrain, viz. 'utility' of the offering to the customer, 'price' that is relevant to the customer, a target 'cost' that leaves sufficient profit for the company at the relevant price, and finally make certain that the customer 'adopts' the offering... In fact, ITC eChoupal can be called a "deep blue ocean strategy" because this sequence itself was made redundant by "raising incomes, at no charge to the customer; the questions on pricing and adoption didn't even arise"!

In the language we use internally, "raising incomes" was only an "opportunity insight". We still needed a "solution insight" that could actually seize that opportunity...

In fact, our solution insight actually killed five birds with one stroke, much like the Hungarian Bus Company (NABI) example cited in the BOS book. So, I fancied the title "Five Birds with One Stroke" for my next section :)

Before coming to that, let me describe another red ocean in the context of rural producers. I illustrate this by using the example of farmers. Most of you know that farmers receive only a small share of the consumer price; this is because of an institution called "mandi" (an auction centre) in the value chain between a farmer and a consumer. Farmers take their produce to a "mandi", typically some thirty kilometres away from their village, to sell. Representatives of Agri Business Companies or their agents look at the produce to assess the quality and bid a price. At the end of such a bidding, the farmer is under pressure to sell the produce even if he is not happy with the price because of the sunk cost of transportation. Taking the produce back and bringing it again would mean twice the cost, with no guarantee of a better price the next time around. The total transaction costs also multiply because the produce is first taken from the village to the mandi from where it is brought to the Buyer's warehouse. Since mandis became monopolies, cartelisation to bid lower prices, higher commission charges and malpractices (eg under-weighment of the produce) etc became common. But there was no better option than a mandi, because the farmers were small, the quality of their produce was heterogeneous and they lived in dispersed geographies.

If we figured a way to "discover the price in the village" despite these constraints, we could eliminate substantial part of these non-value-adding transaction costs and split that saving between the farmer and ITC. That was our "solution insight" to raise farmers' incomes. We did this by using the Internet for disseminating the generic price, and a lead farmer (Choupal Sanchalak) to assess the quality in the village itself. Once the price was discovered, the farmer could decide - with no pressure of sunk cost on him - when and where to sell his produce for best price realisation. If he decided to sell his produce to ITC, he brought it to ITC's factory or warehouse (typically at a similar distance as a mandi) to realise a higher net revenue, because he paid no commissions nor incurred any labour charges. Electronic weighing ensured correct weighment. Since the material is delivered at ITC's warehouse, ITC saved on transport costs. The savings are different for different commodities and geographies, depending on the levels of non-value-adding costs in those chains.

This is the first bird, and in a sense, is like "Eliminate", one of the four actions to design a new value curve under BOS; eliminate some of the factors that the industry takes for granted!

But, 'inefficiency elimination' as a source of value becomes obsolescent with the passage of time, as the market efficiency improves once many competitors imitate the model. So we needed to discover more sources of value. And, we did not need to go far! The same price discovery solution became the source of another value, the second bird :)

The case study of ITC's Aashirvaad Atta is the best illustration of this idea. Indian consumer living in different parts of the country seeks different traits in Atta (wheat flour) based on the cooking habits in those geographies, viz. colour, texture, water absorption capacity etc. But the traditional mandi system did not allow this value to be offered to the consumer! The different varieties of wheat that could deliver these traits got mixed up at the mandi before moving to the wheat mill. As a result, the consumer did not see value in buying packaged atta and preferred buying select wheat and getting it ground in a neighbourhood chakki, however inconvenient it was. With farmers bringing their produce to ITC eChoupal hubs themselves without any comingling of varieties as happened at mandis, ITC could preserve the identity of the varieties & grades through its supply chain and produce discrete blends of atta for different markets of India based on consumer demand. And, Aashirvaad became a market leader with over 50% share in under two years of its launch. And the market itself has doubled since then, as the consumer is now finding the traits she wanted in atta itself! The farmer now received a larger share of a higher value delivered to the consumer; and ITC built a premium brand...

This is another idea described in the four action framework, as "raising" a factor of the value curve well above the industry standard!

The third bird was a revelation for us when we went to the farmers for feedback during our first season. The higher price and the lower costs were only second and third benefits on the farmers list. To our surprise, the first was the restoration of their pride through dignity of choice! Many farmers said that they felt humiliated by the system of "auctioning" their produce at mandis, as they had no way to set their own price for their months of toil & risk as any other business person did. Nilaami of someone's property was a disgrace in villages, as this happened only to the insolvent... But, in farm produce there was no other choice.

It occurred to us that the traditional functional orientation of the industry (a strictly price based transaction), suddenly got transformed into an emotional orientation. This is one of the six conventional boundaries of competition described in the book, when broken through would lay a new path to Blue Ocean Strategy. And this revelation also reinforced our tagline "Kisanon ke Hith mein, Kisanon ka Apna". A simple and compelling tagline is a key attribute of a sound BOS, along with two other complementing characteristics viz. must have an undiffused focus on some key competitive factors, and the shape of the value curve must diverge from that of other players in the industry.

This re-orientation of the relationship helped with the fourth bird! The trust reposed by the farmers in the ITC eChoupal brand enabled us to create a rural marketing platform that could endorse products & services on offer to rural consumers helping deeper penetration. In turn these products & services filtered by ITC through its knowledge and bargaining power raised the quality of life in rural India finding better destination for the higher incomes. The same digital (access to Internet), human (Sanchalaks & Samyojaks - more on this later) and physical infrastructure of eChoupal was leveraged for the reverse flow, reducing the effective cost of reach into rural India. Today more than 160 organisations ride on this platform creating an "increasing returns model". More partner companies bring more customers, and more customers attract more partner companies!

This fourth bird is like another method of the four actions framework i.e. "create" some factors that the industry has never offered before, to craft a new value curve.

Using this rural marketing platform to deliver agri inputs together with agri extension, raised farm productivity and quality of the farm produce. This was the one more way of raising the farm incomes, while creating another new business opportunity for ITC!

The shot not only delivered the fifth bird, but also broke another of the conventional boundaries of the competition by expanding the scope of offering through a complementary service (extension bundled with input) to chart another BOS!

Before I close, let me illustrate a couple of "execution principles" of BOS by sharing what I consider the real breakthrough innovations of ITC eChoupal. Both of these are similar to having your cake and eating it too, the hallmark of value innovation under BOS!

First of these is the co-option of the traditional middlemen into the eChoupal model as Samyojaks. These middlemen added value to the agri chains by making up for the lack of infrastructure; especially in the areas of physical transmission of goods, handling cash and managing counterparty risk. But they spun exploitative cycles of dependency around farmers and extracted value for themselves, by blocking information flow and market signals. ITC eChoupal co-opted them as service providers to handle physical jobs, yet bypassed them in the information chain by using Internet. In this manner, who could have been potential detractors of the new strategy were converted into friends. The devil is silenced, per BOS language!

Even more interesting is the creation of a new institution called Sanchalaks, lead farmers from within the village. Through a "fair process" of selection and work practices, the Sanchalaks were evolved into nano-enterprises who are equi-distant from the farmers as well as the companies riding on the platform at the same time. Both of them considered a Sanchalak a reliable trustee of their interests. The angel is leveraged, per BOS language!

With these execution risks managed effectively, ITC eChoupal initiative is now scaled to serve 5 million farmers (or 20 million consumers) spread across 50,000 villages of rural India.

Thank you...

PS: ITC eChoupal story is narrated using the BOS framework with a hope to trigger more innovation for the benefit of society, but the initiative itself precedes the BOS book by five years!