Nomenclature
Chapter 7: Conclusion, achievement, recommendations and scope for future work
6.2 Case study analysis on RuTAG
Qualitative case study methodology proposed by Yin, 2016 is followed here. As a part of the study, opinions from all the stakeholders associated with RuTAG-IIT Guwahati projects are
collected and analysed to have an in-depth knowledge on how RuTAG is bridging the institutional voids to deliver technology at the BoP. Workshops/ idea-sharing sessions were organized to have a wider dialogue with expertise from different background associated with academia, government, development-based projects/ rural technology transfer initiates, etc. In such meetings, participants include RuTAG-IITG officials, RuTAG- IITG Project Appraisal Committee Members, members from civil society, Government officials associated in Science Technology Intervention in North Eastern Region (STINER) project. The outcomes of those meetings enrich the knowledge on design and delivery in the rural India context. Outcomes gathered during multi-method approach research tools viz., workshops, opinion collection, idea sharing sessions are used as the inputs for developing the technology transfer framework.
6.2.1 Brief introduction about RuTAG
In India, premier technical institutions and laboratories typically lack action groups for the dissemination of technologies suitable for the rural community (Das, 2007). Therefore, the RuTAG mission is enacted by the Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser to create a technical pool in premier technical institutions of the country who can devote time and effort for development and dissemination of demand-driven technology for the rural community. A participatory model design and innovation system is emerging under RuTAG initiative.
As shown in Fig. 6.1 and Fig. 6.2, RuTAG is acting as an interface between academia (technical institutes), Government, and NGOs. The roles played by different actors of the system are as follows: NGOs for problem identification and technology transfer; academia (technical institutes) for design and development of technology; and Government for necessary funding arrangements, etc. RuTAG is trying to empower the community through strengthening village-based institutions. As shown in Fig. 6.3, RuTAG ensures elaborate consultations with NGO officials, community members, and other stakeholders before taking up a particular problem of technology intervention. Community meetings are organised in different parts of the country where the needs and constraints are identified. In addition, an NGO official can communicate directly with the RuTAG team for technological needs of the individuals or communities. RuTAG officials visit villages, identify problems, and verify the villages’ needs and constraints. Again, for the design and development of technology, RuTAG collaborates with technical institutions. Since all the RuTAG centres are working under administrative
control of an Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), RuTAG can avail of the excellence in such institutions. Once the technology is ready for dissemination, it is the responsibility of the NGO to take the technology to the community through its available resources. In such cases, RuTAG encourages the NGO to collaborate with different funding agencies. Capacity-building exercises, such as exposure visits for artisans and training in selected institution/organisations, are also organised from time to time.
Such an arrangement facilitates a common platform for co-creation of knowledge, which is essential to reflect marginalized people needs and aspirations in a new product/technology.
The end-users are placed at the heart of the design process in RuTAG. It facilitates the inclusion of local people's knowledge and experience in the design process. Extensive user-orientation during the ideation stage helps in gathering knowledge on both the tangible and intangible socio-technical factors of the target-community. In traditional design activities, the participation of NGOs/VOs is mostly appreciated in the post-development of technology, whereas they play a passive role during the ideation process. Here, the NGOs/VOs/end-users receive the central stage in the whole innovation effort. NGOs/VOs works as the mediator during the information sharing, data generation, collection of user feedback, etc.
The design team (technical) constructed extensive discussions with other stakeholders in various stages of the design. In deciding different technical and non-technical dimensions of the design and delivery process, suggestions and opinions from the stakeholders are seriously valued.
One significant learning of the case study analysis is that technology transfer at the BoP necessitate initiatives to improving the absorptive capacity of both the rural micro-enterprises and the target users. Such capacity-building activities have two objectives: (i) to improve the knowledge of the community about the new technology, so that they don’t face problem in migrating from traditional practices into new technology and (ii) to improve the skill of the technology manufacturer, so that they can manufacture the product per demand and provide necessary maintenance service to the community. In doing so, stress is given for improving the understanding about the technology (i.e., market, finance, economy etc.), so that the community/supplier of the technology can make necessary changes if the situation demands in the long run.
Instead of just delivering a piece of technology, stress should be given for minimizing the cultural and geographical distance between the technology developers and technology recipients. It is empowering the bottom actors to take part as a positive performer in the technology transfer efforts. Catalysing the events by RuTAG through their R&D efforts and connecting government for financial support also help to activate the other stakeholders to perform positively.
Fig. 6.1 Feedback mechanism for appropriate technology development and dissemination
Fig. 6.2 Role to be played by different actors of RuTAG
Fig. 6.3 Multi-stakeholder socio-technical engagement facilitated by RuTAG
Fig. 6.4 Technology transfer framework