What's in a Name? A Lot When It Comes to Innovation

What's in a Name? A Lot When It Comes to Innovation

the Innovation Breakthrough -2

What did it take for the company to bring this innovation to life?

1. What were the drivers that led to the innovation? What were the forces / catalysts that triggered the development of the innovative idea?

-        Only 10% of 6.5 million tons salt annually consumed in India were branded and refined.

-        Only 25% salt in India was iodized

-        Despite the availability of iodized salt, consumers are not educated regard the necessity of the organism for iodine

-        Rejection for pay a premium price for iodized salt

-        Loss of iodine in storage (up to 70% of loss), transportation and Indian cooking (even those who consumed iodized salt didn’t receive the recommended daily allowance of iodine): air moisture, high temperatures, poor quality of raw salt, low environmental pH, time before compsumption. PH levels of Indian species

-        Iodine deficiency desorder

-        75% of Indias population is rural

2. What were the barriers that has been faced? What were the main barriers that held back the organization and the stakeholders when developing the innovative solution? (price for the market segment, managerial support/commitment for development, technical issues, etc.)

-        Price for market segment was high due high costs of distribution

-        Creation of penetration channel to rural areas

-        Though conditions for distribution to rural areas

-        Skepticism of parents that child’s mental development depends on consuming right salt

3. What were the enablers that made the innovation happen? Who were the key people, what have been the factors that enabled the innovative idea to prevail, and how did they help? Who changed the status quo?

-        HLL endorsement Government trustful agencies to promote the consumption of iodine salt

-        Shakti: Education from women of the same community. Word-of-mouth

-        Creation of micro-business in the communities

4. What is the result and impact? What impact the innovation has had or will have on the customers, market, competitors, and environment? What kind of new behavior does it trigger?

-        Health conscious

-        Entry of the traditional leaders into the iodized salt market

-        Project Shakti empower women to stand among the men of the village

-        Distribution of the other HLL products

-         

5.  What’s next for this innovation or the company? Based on the innovation, what is the company going to do next? (What the company wants explicitly and/or our assumptions of what could be next on this path.)

-        Expand its product distribution

-        Involving the major customer base to increase sales in volume

-        Reduce transportation cost

-        Improve supply chain

-        Entered the common man’s household with a wide variety of products

the Innovation Breakthrough -1

                            concept of the offering

-        A new branded salt which due to an innovative process of production doesn’t lose its concentration of iodine.

-        Encapsulating the iodine in aluminum and magnesium hybrid, the iodine is retained even in Indian cooking conditions.

 insight that led to developing the innovation

-        How to create a salt that guarantee and keep the level of iodine concentration required for the body to prevent IDD (iodine deficiency disorders).

-        How to reach and educate the poor people regard the importance of iodine consumption.

 emerging and converging trends exist to make this innovation sustain over time

-        Health ONGs and donations were not enough to reduce the rate of IDD in India. 

-        Was necessary the auto sustainability of the communities.

-        Creation of micro economy

-        Required a self-sustained effort by an consumer organization

-        Lack of education

 basic human needs does it satisfy?

-        Need of health.

-        Need for an additional income

-        Upgrade of the household.

business model used to make money

BoP principle.  Despite the low margins of the product, it generates high profitability due high volume of units sold.

 combined capabilities that differentiated the offering and makes it compelling for the customers? Focus on aspects of production, offering, delivery, customer experience and partners

Production: Production capacity for salt was above demand in India.  HLL developed partners and transferred its technology  and upgrading quality. Strong R&D.

Offering:  rural penetration model Shakti. Personal approach.  Based on education on benefits of Annapurna consumption.  Huge training efforts from HLL due illiteracy of women. 

Marketing: different levels of literacy and TV access. Vans traveled through villages giving educative shows in the villages and presence in festivals to educate and create brand awareness.  Word-of-mouth. Marketing directed to women appealed through the health of the children.  Message  positioned the product as a healthy product, to prevent bodily dysfunctions related with lack of iodine in the organism. (thyroid, goiter, growth of the neck, abnormal mental development and inadequate growth in children).  Because goiter is not visual attractive, HLL decided to focus its campaigns on mental disorder.  HLL offered Annapurna scholarships to children who submit interesting questions and answers (highlighting mental development)

Delivery:  Different distribution than others HLL products.  Distribution relied primary on rail. They had fewer middleman involved and ended with wholesalers rather than retailers. 

Customer experience:

Partners:

-        Shakti women

-        Producers

-      

Pharma expanding partnerships with healthcare entrants: E&Y

Pharmaceutical companies are dramatically increasing their investments in new and innovative offerings to meet the demands of a patient-empowered, data-driven, outcomes-focused future in health care. In the last year alone, pharmaceutical company investment in smart phone apps, educational websites, social media platforms, wireless devices and other programs increased 78 percent, as companies embrace a role that goes far beyond developing and manufacturing products.

While many of these initiatives involve collaborating in new ways with non-pharmaceutical companies, investments by these same non-pharma companies are outpacing those made by pharma companies, challenging industry members to either increase their level of investment or risk diminished relevance. These findings and other insights were a part of Ernst & Young’s annual global pharmaceutical report -Progressions: Building Pharma 3.0.

The Progressions report provides a detailed update on the transformation currently underway in the pharmaceutical industry — one in which companies will need to shift from simply producing new medicines to demonstrating improvements in health outcomes and creating innovative new business models, an ecosystem that EY has entitled “Pharma 3.0.” This evolution is being driven both by rapid advancements in health care technology and the coming to a head of health care’s lack of sustainability globally.

“New entrants to the health care industry are clearly committing much more to business model innovation than pharma companies,” remarked Hitesh Sharma, Partner & National Leader, Life Sciences Practice, Ernst & Young. “The companies that succeed in this new health care ecosystem will do so by developing innovative outcomes-focused offerings through structured, systematic and scalable approaches to business model innovation. Also, the global pharmaceutical companies are increasingly exploring alliances with nontraditional partners as a way to pursue opportunities in emerging markets. Emerging markets, such as India, will play a crucial role in these opportunities of Pharma 3.0.

The opportunities latent in these shifts are attracting a growing flood of non-pharma players to the health care space. The report estimates that non-pharma players have publicly committed at least US$20 billion in experiments with Pharma 3.0 related business models, an investment level several multiples larger than the allocations made by the pharmaceutical industry.

The Progressions report also contains insights from the first-ever detailed database of Pharma 3.0 initiatives launched by pharmaceutical companies during the last five years. Key findings include:

· Pharma 3.0-related initiatives are being driven by investments in mobile health technology, particularly smart phone apps. Between 2006 and 2009, 16% of initiatives were in the mobile health space. In 2010, this category accounted for one out of every two new initiatives.

· These smart phone apps, previously focused primarily on diabetes management tools, expanded rapidly into other disease categories in 2010, with apps emerging in an estimated 14 disease areas. These apps ranged from tools to help patients and consumers track vaccination schedules, manage infusions for treatment of hemophilia, and find cancer clinical trials within 150 miles of their location.

· Oncology-related initiatives surpassed those in diabetes as the most popular Pharma 3.0 investments in 2010, representing 15% of all initiatives. Diabetes and Metabolics tied for the second spot with Immunoscience/Inflammatory diseases, each accounting for 12% of initiatives.

· Pharmaceutical companies are increasingly developing business models that seek to improve patient outcomes using more holistic approaches, including disease management, coordinated care, and an expansion across different stages of care. Several of the world’s largest pharmaceuticals recently announced collaborations with technology and eHealth firms designed to empower patients to manage their conditions more effectively and to more easily and safely share their personal data with health care professionals.