healthmedicinet

Several concepts and frameworks attempt to distinguish frugal innovation from other innovation types. Most are based on literature reviews (for an overview, see Table 1).

Cunha et al. (2014) examined literature streams in the field of scarcity and product innovation. They consider frugal innovation to be product innovation when there is a scarcity of affluent customers and distinguish it from bricolage, which is when material resources are scarce, and from improvisation, when time is scarce.

Brem and Wolfram (2014) seek to distinguish between frugal innovation and related terms such as frugal engineering, constraint-based innovation, Gandhian innovation, jugaad innovation, reverse innovation, catalytic innovation, grassroots innovation, and indigenous innovation. They introduce a conceptual framework based on a literature review of 363 explored articles. Their framework classifies frugal innovation and the related terms by using the three dimensions: sophistication, sustainability, and emerging market orientation. In their classification, compared to jugaad innovation or reverse innovation, frugal innovation has low to medium sophistication, medium sustainability, and medium emerging market orientation.

Zeschky et al. (2014) also analyse different resource-constrained innovation types. They distinguish between frugal innovation, good-enough innovation, and cost innovation, conceptualising the distinctions between them. They classify frugal innovation via the criteria technical novelty and market novelty. In their view, frugal innovation has a higher technical novelty and a higher market novelty than good-enough innovation and cost innovation. Also, in their conceptualisation, cost innovation means the same for less, good-enough innovation means tailored for less, and frugal innovation means ew for less. Ostraszewska and Tylec (2015) use a similar conceptualisation, with the criteria the same for less, adapted for less, and ew for less to distinguish between cost innovation, jugaad innovation, Gandhian innovation, good-enough innovation, and frugal innovation. In their classification, the GE LOGIQ Book Ultrasound Machine is an example of frugal innovation (ew for less), while the city car Tata Nano is an example of Gandhian innovation (adapted for less); elsewhere, the Tata Nano is used as a typical example of frugal innovation (Rao 2013; Tiwari and Herstatt 2014; Wooldridge 2010).

Soni and Krishnan (2014) review the literature on frugal innovation and propose, in their conceptual paper, looking at frugal innovation not as a monolithic entity. They introduce three frugal innovation types: frugal innovation as a mindset or way of life, as a process, and as an outcome in the form of products or services. Their approach aims at a typology of frugal innovation rather than focusing on distinctions between frugal innovation and other innovation types.

Basu et al. (2013) distinguish between frugal innovation and conventional innovation along four characteristics: driver, process, core capabilities, and location. The driver of frugal innovation is described by what do they need, in contrast to what would be nice to have; the latter relates to conventional innovation. The process is described as bottom-up in contrast to top-down. The core capability is functionality (rugged, lightweight, adaptable, and simple) in contrast to desirability and design. The last characteristic, location, is developing and emerging markets, in contrast to developed markets of conventional innovation.

Further publications create an understanding of frugal innovation by examining principles that underlie frugal innovation and frugal engineering. Kumar and Puranam (2012) identify six principles: robustness, portability, de-featuring, leapfrog technology, mega-scale production, and service ecosystems. Radjou and Prabhu (2014) also present six principles: engage and iterate, flex your assets, create sustainable solutions, shape customer behaviour, co-create value with prosumers, and make innovative friends. Further principles and needed competencies to develop frugal and related innovations are discussed in the literature (Basu et al. 2013; Prahalad and Mashelkar 2010).

The abovementioned concepts, frameworks, and principles are helpful for us to get a better idea of what frugal innovation means. Prabhu and Gupta (2014) argue that “frugal innovations in products are easily identified by expert examination”. However, it still seems difficult for us to determine what a frugal innovation is. In these concepts, frugal innovation is often related to developing and emerging markets, although frugal innovations have entered developed markets (Govindarajan and Trimble 2012; Immelt et al. 2009; von Zedtwitz et al. 2015). Accordingly, criteria to determine frugal innovation should be universal and should be independent from the question whether or not it is discussed in the context of emerging or developed markets. Further, the abovementioned distinguishing characteristics mainly focus on special aspects such as technical novelty, market novelty, or the field of scarcity. Using the scarcity field or market novelty and technical novelty for distinction are useful to point out particular differences between frugal innovation and other innovation types. However, by using the distinguishing characteristics depicted in Table 1, it remains difficult to clearly define frugal innovation in ways that, first, make it easier to determine whether or not an innovation is frugal and, second, what can be considered the most important aspects in order to develop frugal innovation.

In the literature, frugal innovation is seen as an outcome and as a process. Soni and Krishnan (2014) note that the process is often referred to as frugal engineering, with frugal innovation being the outcome. Brem and Wolfram (2014) have a similar understanding. In contrast, Basu et al. (2013) call the process frugal innovation—similar to George et al. (2012), who consider frugal innovation to be a complex process rather than only an outcome. We focus on attributes and descriptions of product innovation and service innovation rather than on processes. However, in our view, our results can also be transferred to processes.