Innovating for the Bottom of the Pyramid: Case Studies in Healthcare from India

  • Balaji ParthasarathyEmail author
  • Yuko Aoyama
  • Niveditha Menon
Conference paper


The much vaunted fortune at the bottom of the pyramid (BoP) has proven hard to reach. This is because realizing the opportunities provided by the BoP market faces several challenges, ranging from affordability to a lack of human and physical infrastructure. This paper argues that overcoming these challenges to achieve “frugal innovation” requires design strategies which deploy new technologies and organizational approaches. To substantiate its argument, the paper presents case studies of four firms and their innovations in the health care domain. All the cases are from India, which has emerged an ideal location for developing products and services for the BoP market. India not only has the skills to propose new technological solutions, but also a market characterized by socioeconomic diversity to demand various organizational approaches. Two cases focus on diagnostic devices and products: one is a portable ophthalmic imaging device to reduce preventable blindness, while the other is a baby warmer to lower infant mortality by preventing hypothermia. The other two cases focus on health care delivery: one relies on telemedicine while the other relies on mobile telephony to provide access for hard-to-reach populations. All four cases describe the circumstances surrounding the design, development, and deployment of the products and services. The paper will point to the challenges the firms faced, even as they successfully designed for the BoP context. For diagnostic devices, the challenge of positioning a new offering in the diagnostic devices ecosystem, especially in terms of quality and cost, figures prominently. For service delivery, the challenge is to negotiate and manage the balance between the technological and human elements in servicing those needing care. Each case provides insight into the factors responsible for the sustainable deployment of these innovations, thus enabling a degree of extrapolation of lessons.


Phase Change Material Mobile Technology Radiology Information System Sweet Spot Diagnostic Device 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The case studies described here are drawn from a larger study “The Global Shift in R&D Alliances: Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) and the Quest for the BOP markets.” The study is supported by a US National Science Foundation Grant (BCS-1127329) and has the first two authors as Principal Investigators. Interviews for the four cases were conducted on 16 July 2012, 25 June 2013, 10 July 2012, and 18 June 2013, respectively.


  1. Aoyama, Y., & Parthasarathy, B. (2012). Research and development facilities of multinational enterprises in India. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 53(6), 713–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Datta, P., Mukhopadhyay, I., & Selvaraj, S. (2013). Medical devices manufacturing industry in India: Market structure, import intensity, and regulatory mechanisms. ISID‐PHFI Collaborative Research Programme Working Paper Series 02. Accessed 10 Jan 2013.
  3. Dutz, M. (Ed.). (2007). Unleashing India’s innovation: Towards sustainable and inclusive growth. Washington DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  4. Horner, R. (2013). The impact of patents on innovation: A pre- and post-TRIPs analysis of India’s pharmaceutical industry. New Political Economy, 19(3), 384–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Pahls, S., Pons, J., & Diaz, A. (2010). Aravind eye health care operations. IE Publishing Department. Accessed 11 Jan 2013.
  6. Parthasarathy, B., & Lage, R. G. (2010). Organizational impacts of information technology. In H. Bidgoli (Ed.), Handbook of technology management (Vol. 1, pp. 289–298)., Core concepts, financial tools and techniques, operations and innovation management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Polak, P., & Warwick, M. (2013). The business solution to poverty: Designing products and services for three billion new customers. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Prahalad, C. K. (2004). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  9. Radjou, N., Prabhu, J., & Ahuja, S. (2012). Jugaad innovation: Think frugal, be flexible, generate breakthrough growth. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  10. Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful: Economics as if people mattered. London: Blond and Briggs.Google Scholar
  11. Tiwari, R., & Herstatt, C. (2012). India—A lead market for frugal innovations? Extending the lead market theory to emerging economies. Technology and innovation management Working Paper No. 67, Hamburg University of Technology. Accessed 10 Jan 2013.
  12. WHO (2000). World health report 2000—Health systems: Improving performance. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  13. Zelenika, I., & Pearce, J. M. (2011). Barriers to appropriate technology growth in sustainable development. Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(6), 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Balaji Parthasarathy
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yuko Aoyama
    • 2
  • Niveditha Menon
    • 1
  1. 1.International Institute of Information TechnologyBangaloreIndia
  2. 2.Graduate School of Geography, Clark UniversityWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations