Well Begun Is Half Done

Kapil Minocha

Email: ms@holtecnet.com

The following article is about management of an experimental program "Pilot Launch of Cost Effective Energy Efficient Building Materials in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu". The main objectives of the program are to increase acceptance of these technologies, employment generation and shelter upgradation. This article emphasizes the importance of understanding the finer elements in such experimental programs. It also highlights significance of planning on the success of these path-breaking programs.

Let me begin by pointing out a simple yet, according to me, a very relevant point in the field of sustainable technologies. Whether we are consultants, policy makers, technology providers, architects, designers, engineers or users, we follow things indiscriminately rather than questioning them at the very first instant. We talk of "Success Stories" and not of "Success Realities". This has a lot to do with one’s attitude. Stories remain stories to be told to generations to come, whereas realities speak for themselves and need no narrator to enumerate them. The difference between realities and stories in this context is even starker than the one between "cost-effective" and "low-cost" housing. A simple change like this changes the future of things to come.

When one thinks of any kind of developmental work, the first buzz that rings is either of a prominent personality à la Medha Patkar or of some NGO like CRY? These two sects are thought to be the right supplementary to organizations like the UN. However, we do hear of some private organizations doing their act here and there. But still, by and large, developmental work still continues not to be "the business" of the private sector.

Coming back to the moot point of successes in sustainable technology, what follows now is an abridged description of a tedious and non-tested route of popularizing cement based cost-effective, energy efficient technology…..the right way! SDC was toying for long with the idea of experimenting dissemination of technology through "the private route". The broad objectives were to augment the supply of CEEF building materials; develop and test strategies of mass dissemination; promote self-sustainable organizations; and improve shelter conditions. It tied up with HOLTEC, the leading cement consultant in the country for providing a structure to a program which, till then was fairly nebulous.

The broad methodology is depicted in the chart given below. Being a developmental project, the four P’s of marketing: Product, Price, Place and Promotion have been modified to read as Product, Place/ People (as they are closely interlinked), Promotion and Payback. Being done under the aegis of the private sector, it becomes an imperative to keep the Payback as a key focus area.

To begin with, the seeds of this association were sown when SDC appointed HOLTEC to do a Marketing Strategy Study for MCR Tiles in the year 1996. This was followed by another survey in Sustainable Building Products in seven states in the western and southern regions of India during the year 1997. This was like a seven-course dinner of sustainable technologies widespread right across that part of the country. The survey concluded with a list of products, trends in construction, technologies, possible entrepreneurs for tie-ups and the potential areas/ states for further phases.

We had realized the potential that existed in the following areas: -

n Cost effective roofing substitute to RCC

n Faster construction/precast substitute for roofing

n Better quality substitute to red clay bricks

n On site availability / casting option

n Savings from rectifying construction malpractices

n Environment-friendly building products

 

In 1998, HOLTEC had the mandate to achieve mass scale dissemination in the select districts of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. Here again, district selection was an intricate process involving both desk analysis and extensive field research.

This enabled the HOLTEC team to get a feel of the area and come to certain conclusions based on ground realities.

It would be important to highlight the importance of the thorough desk analysis done by the consulting team. It included roofing trends, questionnaires, a long list of entrepreneurs for future tie-ups, existing versus competing products in these regions, market size, growth indicators, etc.

Choosing the districts and products was a much easier task as compared to that of choosing partners/ associates of HOLTEC for this program. They formed an integral part of the experiment and their understanding of objectives of the entire exercise was equally crucial to ensure sustainability, as were SDCs and ours. Besides extensive discussions, some key parameters instrumental in partner selection were:

n Related line of business

n Interest in association with HOLTEC

n Reputation and market standing

n Faith of the entrepreneur in the product and its potential

n Positive attitude towards marketing of such technologies

n Resource availability in terms of infrastructure, capital and time

n Linkages with the market / government departments, etc

There was a critical period where the methodology of the program was not clearly defined. The understanding between all parties associated ++ with the program was low and to a certain extent ambiguous. For a moment, it almost seemed that development work was not a baby of the corporates or private organizations and the experiment would fail before testing. But then, all the concerned parties had come a long way and there was no looking back. Intense deliberations within and between SDC & HOLTEC have paved the way for a program that will bear testimony to a lot of developmental programs in the future.

The tangible outcome of the program has been defined in terms of the increase in the number of self-sustainable units, employment generated and energy savings as a result of using such building materials.

It was necessary to have guesstimates about the above mentioned parameters so as to relate them directly with program objectives. The entire learning process, the do's and don’ts and the stages of different cost-effective products in the Product Life Cycle also form an integral part of the outcome.

Although it took some months to arrive at the working modalities for the building material program, the agreement was signed in September, 1999. The program is scheduled to end in March 2001. A synopsis of the entire process is presented in the chart.

The program is going full steam as of now and for those of you readers who have kept track of what happened when, it is only a beginning for me. A beginning of the phase for which so much has been at stake. It just proves " Well begun is half done".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back to Contents

 

Donation    Home   Contact Us About Us