Big firms versus intra-india variation
Each firm needs to choose how to respond to the enormous variation of locale within India
Many firms have prospered through established, standardised process manuals, backed by IT systems, and obtaining scale by rolling these out all across India. Even more ambitious are firms like Uber that have built a single product and rolled it out all across the world. But in numerous industries, the design of products and processes needs to respond to the locale. And in India, the locale is highly heterogeneous. The first flush of excitement in India was that of building large firms that operate all across the country with one single suite of products and processes. The second wave lies in more complex organisations which vary their behaviour across the country.
In the old days, the front-line staff of a firm was empowered, and negotiated details of products and processes on a pertransaction basis. This was messy! Decision making was idiosyncratic and the front-line staff had agendas of their own. But in return, the working of the firm was more flexible.
In the 1990s, the first complex nationwide corporations emerged, backed by IT systems. Now, for the first time, products and processes were standardised all across the country. Every detail about the behaviour of the firm was coded into software and the front-line staff had no flexibility to change things. Process standardisation made scaling possible: Indian firms were able to put up thousands of offices with millions of transactions.
The people who built these systems, for the first time in India’s history, are justly proud of what they did. And in some domains, such scaling is indeed the way to think. Looking beyond India, products like Google mail are remarkable situations where one single product is built which works all over the world.
But for many products and processes, such homogenisation — a single offering all across India or all across the world — does not work well. There is variation by location and this shapes the optimal design of the firm. As an example, many food companies hold a brand name constant but use focus groups in each geographical region to discover a recipe that is optimised for the local palate. As a consequence, the precise taste of (say) a packet of noodles or a candy bar varies, depending on where it is purchased. The French are different from the Germans and a sophisticated corporation will not try to behave in the same way in the two countries.
India is highly heterogeneous. We tend to think of states or languages as defining homogeneous regions. But even within one state (Kerala) with one single language (Malayalam) there is important variation between North Kerala vs Central Kerala vs South Kerala.
The Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy has constructed a classification of India into 102 “homogeneous regions”, which are about seven districts or 15 million people each and useful in thinking about intra-india diversity. Using this classification, we get some measures of the extent of heterogeneity. In terms of household income, the median income in the best places (e.g. Bombay, Delhi or Chandigarh) is 4.3 times bigger than the median income in the worst places (e.g. Jaunpur, Sultanpur, Faizabad, Ambedkar Nagar in UP). Or, consider the fraction of females that own a mobile phone. The best places (e.g. Bombay, Chandigarh, Goa) have a rate 17.8 times higher than the worst places (e.g. Jhansi, Lalitpur, Hamirpur, Mahoba, Jalaun in UP).
When a firm picks a product or a process that is supposed to serve the entire country, this will inevitably work well for some households only. Ideally, that single design will be done well, so that it is a “modal” design that reaches the largest number of people possible. But it will be just part of the overall population for reasons of class and geographical heterogeneity. In the first flush of big companies scaling up all across India in this fashion, a two-tier market has emerged, by which local firms do unique things that reflect the locale (while having inferior economies of scale), and global/national firms that are tone-deaf on the locale but have economies of scale.
We can, then, envision three classes of markets. In some things, localism wins, and there will just be local players within each homogeneous region. In some things, a simple global/national product wins, and there will just be global/national players everywhere.
And then, there is the middle zone. Is household lending in South Kerala much like household lending in Jhansi, Lalitpur, Hamirpur, Mahoba, and Jalaun in UP? Are the tastes and price points for food products in these two homogeneous regions the same? Can global/national companies achieve greater success by varying their offerings across the country?
As in many other respects, there is an analogy between India and the European Union; each is vast and diverse. In the middle zone, the task of firms in India is to choose the appropriate level of sub-national homogeneity. This answer will vary, depending on the industry. Some firms may choose to cut India into 10 geographies; some firms may choose to go all the way down to the 102 “homogeneous regions”. The management systems within the firms need to create substantial flexibility for each geographically defined team to grow its business by modifying products and processes.
This will require management complexity. It is easier to mass-produce a single soap that is pushed all across the country with a single jingle. It is harder for a firm to have 10 or 100 decision-making units that make a diverse array of tactical and strategic decisions. This process is helped by advances in software, where there can be a national/global level system with numerous parameters of variation placed in the hands of local managers.
Every firm in India today sees a map of profit per population, or of market share, which varies a lot across the country. The firms that learn how to take decentralisation seriously and those that are animated by a federal character will achieve greater uniformity in this map of outcomes.