I do think one ‘sales-like’ role is missing in my list, which I would probably call “market strategist.” This ties in with the subject of the Grabowski ratio, which I covered recently as well. If I ever polish up this piece into V 2.0, I’ll add that. This is a person who has the ability to segment non-existent new markets, profile non-existent new customers, and pick the strategic entry sequence and timing. Not sure who I’d pick as the classic example though — possibly Edison again.

For your previous question, on the connection to the caste system, a quick response:

1. Yes, though there has been invention in Indian history, it is nowhere near the invention culture of Europe, America or China.

2. Yes, an argument could be made that this is partly attributable to the historical stewards of the intellectual traditions, the brahmins being averse to getting their hands dirty.

3. More likely, it is likely that the explanation for the lack of inventiveness among brahmins has less to do with what they didn’t like to do, and more with what they did like to instead: metaphysics, hermeneutics, logic, rhetoric. The historical technical domains where the brahmin intellectual culture was active (arithmetic, proto-algebra and astronomy) actually were a minority tradition compared to, for instance, the dominant interests like Vedanta-vs.-Buddhist metaphysical debates.

4. Non-brahmin cultures: these didn’t develop an invention-oriented culture either (at least not comparable to elsewhere). This can probably be partly, but not wholly attributed to suppression by Brahmin elites (the famous Ekalavya story in the Mahabharata is often cited here as allegorical evidence). There are also fundamental intrinsic and environmental factors. Debates around this tend to be very contentious. Modern Dalit intellectuals tend to blame everything on upper-caste oppression, while modern-day Brahmins tend to adopt a mix of apology, defensiveness and legitimate reconstruction of what they view as a false popular perception of caste. The scholars to look to here are actually European — Norman Kotz and Louis Dumont have written classic treatises on caste in India. Among the interesting arguments there is that the rigidity of modern caste is actually attributable to the reductive/rigidifying “management by anthropological definition” governance model of the British.

I tend to be agnostic about this stuff because there is a LOT of very very subtle historical analysis involved here, with discourses conducted in a politically volatile atmosphere.

Full disclosure: I am Brahmin (though personally atheist and entirely un-engaged in modern Brahmin culture).

Interesting topic, and I’d write about it, except that I am not interested in sparking flame wars in my blog’s comments section

Venkat

As I think of it, having a group of scientists all vulnerable to “inventor itis” dominating the show is rather like a “Circulat Firing Squad”, not as immediate, perhaps, but just as deadly.

In sum, I now believe that paying attention to the Grabowski Ratio is not only important for any research organization but particularly important in India.

Regards,

David

Now let me ask another perhaps more sensitive question relating to the Indian Innovation “DNA”. While the U.S., UK and Germany long revered the idea of a “Gentleman Tinkerer” (Think Ben Franklin and his kite), popular wisdom holds that this model was largely absent in India. In fact, Gucharon Das holds that it was not until computer software was in big demand that Bramans finally found a trade that both was worthy of their talents and kept their hands clean. Others have suggested that one reason that India (unlike China) has focussed on IT and Pharmaceuticals is because these sectors were less dependent on good reliable infrastructure.

Clearly your story about Tata shows that India is not only concerned with IT and BPO but it also leaves unanswered the question of whether Caste has some role in the Indian Innovation DNA?

1. 3M’s “Percentage of revenue coming from innovations in the last 5 years” (they like to keep that at 50%)

2. Number of citations (for journal articles)

3. Grabowski ratio (which I recently discovered) = M/E; marketing spend to RD&E spend ratio. Apparently, M/E near 1 makes companies very successful in commercializing products

4. RD&E spend as a percentage of revenue/turnover (this is a standard metric Wll street looks at, and has expectations for, depending on sector)

There’s a lot more, but the metrics have to be carefully designed and picked according to the needs of the particular innovation entity (be it the NSF, India’s UGC, a company or a university). I am pessimistic about the utility of any broad metrics that could be used as benchmarking measures across an entire economy.

And thanks for the cappuccino, much appreciated fuel!

Sincerely
A Child of Innovation