Dare to Manufacture!

author-image
Voice&Data Bureau
New Update

To manufacture or not to manufacture is the old telecom debate
that refuses to die. In fact, it gets perked up whenever a bad economic patch
hovers over the Indian business scenario. One party insists that manufacturing
is already a lost opportunity, and rather than attempting at resuscitating it
the country should concentrate on telecom software and services. But the other
side refuses to buy the viewpoint and says it’s imperative upon India to have
a bustling equipment manufacturing business if it really wants to be a
telecom/IT superpower.

Advertisment

Policies only on Paper

The government has taken very encouraging stands in its
policy guidelines. Both National Telecom Policy (NTP) 1994 and NTP 1999 made
clear the government’s objective to encourage local manufacturing/R&D.
According to the NTP 1994, "Taking into account India’s size and
development, it is necessary to ensure that India emerges as a major
manufacturing base and a major exporter of telecom equipment". It also laid
emphasis on the need of R&D saying, "An equally important aspect is the
strategic aspect of telecom, which affects the national and public interests. It
is, therefore, necessary to encourage indigenous technology, set up a suitable
funding mechanism for indigenous R&D so that Indian Technology can meet the
national demand and also compete globally."

TEMA’s Recipe for Success

International trends are…

  • Rapid technological changes leading to rapid
    obsolescence
  • Speed to market has become critical, companies
    focus on product development and rapid roll-outs
  • Major trends towards contract manufacturing

To enable high-velocity manufacturing, the government
should…

  • Make policy changes in customs to introduce
    procedural controls in place of physical controls to reduce customs
    clearance duration to one day
  • Enforce audit to ensure compliance
  • Target a 15-day turnaround from ship-in of
    components to ship-out of products
  • Liberalize labor laws

Indian manufacturers must …

  • Follow contract manufacturing model where few large
    contract manufacturers will cater to requirements of circuit pack
    manufacturing for telecom equipment manufacturers
  • Do integration and testing at their facilities,
    thus resulting in volume manufacturing

To provide competitive cost benefits, the government
ought to…

  • Maximize localization
  • Make continuous efforts to reduce cost of material
    and freight
  • Provide for rational migration towards zero-duty
    regime under WTO commitments by 2005
  • Develop a strong component base in country

NTP 1999 went a step further and identified incentives for
service providers who used indigenous equipment so as to encourage local
manufacturing of equipment. It also sought to encourage the export of telecom
equipment: "Export of telecom equipment and services will be actively
incentivised. Synergies among various telecom players (manufacturers and service
providers) will be exploited and used to provide integrated solutions for
exports."

Advertisment

But when it came to implementing the policies, the government
seemed to be on a different track, frequently resorting to import of equipment.
And whatever preferential treatment local equipment manufacturers have enjoyed
so far vis-à-vis DoT, is now threatened by the impending WTO regime.

Sure, India can look at the export market and develop itself
as a destination for ousourced manufacturing. But, that will need a definite and
well-defined initiative of the government and not just mere mentions of
manufacturing in policies here and there. What will also be needed is
development of world-class infrastructure in terms of real estate, transport,
power and communication, apart from disinfesting the manufacturing scenario of
evils such as unfavorable licensing and bureaucracy delays at local, state and
national levels.

Investment Disincentives

As if in reaction to the dismal state of affairs in telecom
manufacturing, investments in the sector have almost come to a grinding halt.
And talking of investments, it’s hard not to compare India with China, which
got investment worth $1.9 b in a single shot from just one company, Motorola. By
comparison, the sum total of funds invested so far in India’s telecom
equipment manufacturing industry, by both domestic as well as foreign investors,
stands at $1.8 b (Rs 8,000 crore).

Advertisment

It’s not that big equipment manufacturers didn’t consider
setting up plants in India. In fact, many of them took up large spaces in
industrial townships in and around cities like Delhi and Bangalore. In
anticipation of a favorable climate after the deregulation in telecom, several
of them set up joint ventures with Indian companies. Alcatel tied up with Modis,
Lucent with Tatas and Finolex, and Ericsson with Birlas. But demand generation
in the country fell too short of their business expectations–it was not large
enough to support a regular flow of inventory. Another dampening factor was the
long-drawn nature of tenders of government monopoly service providers. To make
matters worse, tenders were often postponed or even scrapped on account of one
dispute or the other. The result: the country today has legacy factories that
perform rudimentary manufacturing of niche products and components.

Local Brigade

As early as 1953, Indian Telephone Industries (ITI) and
Hindustan Cables Ltd (HCL) were formed with foreign collaborations to
manufacture switches/telephones and cables respectively. In 1960, Hindustan
Teleprinters Ltd (HTL) was formed to manufacture teleprinters and accessories in
technical collaboration with Olivetti.

Production of Telecom Equipment

(in Rs crore)

96-9797-9898-9999-0000-01
8,3009,96010,00010,80011,000

Source:
TEMA

Advertisment

It was in eighties that the sector flourished the most. C-DOT
was born in 1984 with the bold objective of building an Indian digital switch.
The zealous research and development activity carried out by the organization
yielded the design of a Rural Automatic Exchange (RAX) in 1985. It was an
indigenous product that suited our telecom needs of expanding in rural areas
without incurring much expense. This development gave India a newfound
confidence in the manufacture of world-class telecommunications equipment. Quite
a number of C-DOT switch manufacturers came up and large-scale production of
rural exchanges took place. At its peak, C-DOT licensed technologies to about 45
manufacturers and even today it is a force to reckon with–contributing to an
addition of 6.1 million telephone lines by Indian telcos during 2000-01. Among
C-DOT equipment manufacturers are ITI, HTL, Puncom, BEL, BHEL, VTL, Crompton
Greaves, Meltron, Keltron, GNFC and GVFCL.

Also, 1980s was the time when several private manufacturing
companies also came into being. Bharti Telecom, ARM, Surana Telecom, Aksh
Optifibre Ltd, Enkay Telecom, and Bhagyanagar Metals are to name just a few.

India’s Equipment Production

Type

Rs crore

Switching Equipment

2,500

Transmission Equipment

2,500

Customer Premises Equipment (CPE)

500

Jelly Filled Telecom Cable (JFTC)

3,500

Optical Fibre Cable (OFC)

500

Others (Access, towers, power plants, etc.)

1,500
Source:
TEMA, 2000-01

Existing Production Capacity

Switches

10 million lines

EPBT and Terminals

10 million lines

Transmission & Access Equipment

Rs 5,000 crore

JFTC

75 million conductor Km
OFC 1 million fibre Km
Advertisment

And then, in 1994, the government invited private players to
operate services such as basic, cellular, paging, and radio trunking. Also, with
the economic liberalization, there began an influx of global vendors in the
country, who were competing for the same market that Indian companies had been
addressing. With pressures from WTO to implement a tariff-barrierless regime,
customs duties came down steadily, thereby making imports cheaper as well as
accessible. The equipment market became crowded and highly competitive, pushing
many local manufacturing companies to shift their focus to services instead.

Present Scenario

Given the number of new licenses being awarded, the length of
fiber ducts being laid out and the rapidly accelerating mobiles market, things
should have looked quite rosy for the overall telecom sector.

Unfortunately, while development on the services front has
been phenomenal, little appears to be in store for the manufacturing sector,
which is faced with two major challenges today. One, India is being steadily
opened up to the global market, as trade restrictions are done away with. Import
duties on telecom products have crashed across the board, thus allowing
companies to easily move goods from overseas. Two, in their attempt to cut down
on operational costs, US, European and East Asian multinationals are outsourcing
manufacturing to cheaper destinations in Taiwan or China.

Advertisment

Looking at numbers too, the picture doesn’t appear
promising. For the last five fiscals, the sector has been tottering around the
Rs 10,000-crore production levels. This, at a time when telecom services have
marched ahead rapidly. On the exports front, things have been even worse–annual
figures of Rs 250—500 crore are peanuts given the size of the industry.

To Be or not to Be?

That really is the question. And going back to the
hardware-versus-software debate, can we really afford to focus on one and ignore
the other? The pro-manufacturing camp argues that it will be tough for the
software industry to sustain its growth if there isn’t a healthy hardware
manufacturing base. Plus, it points out the fact that India cannot depend on
imports for long. One, what India needs is equipment that are made for the
Indian market–equipment that won’t burden service providers trying to roll
out services in villages and handsets that are affordable for rural subscribers.
Two, one cannot depend on imports for designing and making communication
equipment that go into our defence/secured networks and other strategic
projects.

For CampAgainst Camp

KR Naik managing director

D-Link

S Narayanan CMD

MRO-Tek

Rajeev Chopra V-P (marketing)
Cisco India

Ramgopal Vallath* country manager
3Com Asia

On having a manufacturing plant in
India:


Having a manufacturing plant in India facilitates logistics support, and
quality control. Easy availability of products locally, tax benefits,
technology know-how and cost-effective and skilled labour are other
factors. Also, the manufacturing process can be scheduled as per
requirements. Better service support and quicker time-to-market are also
facilitated.

On outsourcing:

Outsourcing does not help in the long run. The
availability of products is affected and one has to depend on external
sources for products. Outsourcing can be undertaken in the short run.

On what Indian networking companies should aspire
for:


Indian networking companies should aspire for exports and world-class
standards. India does have the right talent and skilled manpower which has
to be harnessed to it’s maximum potential. If the right infrastructure
meets the right manpower, the production levels can be increased and the
quality can also improve with the knowledge of the competitor’s
products.

On advantages of manu-facturing:

Manufacturing helps understand the technology in-depth. We believe that
with manufacturing you understand what goes into the box. Today, we
manufacture NT1, HDSL modem, FCAT series, media converter,
etc.  Over 40% of our revenues are from manufacturing.

On competitiveness of Indian products:

Indian products are in no way inferior on quality
when compared to the West. If the Indian government recognizes the
strength of manufacturing in India and offer sops to the hardware
industry as it did to the software industry, it is definitely possible
for Indian manufacturers to offer high-quality products that are cost
effective as well. In the long run we can build products with in-house
R&D and offer them to the global markets.

On MNCs:

MNCs may leave the country once the margins thin down, leaving the
networks built by them high and dry. Indian networking companies will
still be around to support, maintain and upgrade those networks.

 

On companies having local
manufacturing plants having an upper hand over Cisco on cost and
support fronts:


Out of over 40 manufacturing facilities, only two are owned

by Cisco–the rest are owned by our contract manufacturing

partners. Externally, the customization of the Internet’s
open-standards technologies requires a different business model designed
around professional services.

We have an ecosystem of partners who have expertise
in customizing our technology, taking the new Internet architectures,
and finishing them into a customer Internet solution.

On MNCs’ products not taking Indian climatic
conditions into consideration:


Our products conform to all local standard in countries that we do
business in.

On why 3Com doesn’t manufacture its
networking products in India:


3Com has centralized manufacturing across the world and we manufacture
our products in three locations. This way, we bring additional
efficiency into manufacturing. None of  the top networking
companies have manufacturing facility in India.

On robustness of 3Com’s networking products as
compared to those manu-factured by Indian companies. Also on meeting TEC
recommendations:


3Com products are robust enough to handle high variety of climatic
conditions. As for TEC, this is required only for products enterfacing
with the PSTN. For any such product, TEC approval is obtained before
sales.

Advertisment

There are pockets of hope nevertheless. Companies like Tyco
and D-Link have shown the way by building plants that are cost-effective even by
Chinese standards. Tyco is a major exporter of connectors while D-Link is known
to be contract manufacturing both computer and networking equipment for
companies in the West as well as in Asia. Then there are companies like HFCL,
ARM, Fibcom, and MRO-Tek that have taken the JV or technical collaboration route
to manufacturing the latest communications equipment and yet compete quite
successfully against imports from the US and Europe.

Outlook

So what lies ahead for companies still interested in the
manufacturing business? One way is to come out with innovative products and
designs. Except for one or two RAXs and corDECTs, the R&D community here has
not been able to produce enough product ideas and designs. And that is quite
sad, especially when IITians and engineers from other reputed enginnering
institutes are doing pathbreaking work in labs of large US and European
companies like Lucent, Nortel, IBM, Ericsson and Nokia.

Why do we need local manufacturing in the first
place ?


NKG: We are not developing software for our own
hardware/business solutions, but for global partners who control IPR. What
is needed is that we move up the value chain. We have created an excellent
software fraternity, as well as a good base for hardware design. There is
news that China is getting its personnel trained in India on software
development. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that we move up the
value chain not only to sustain ourselves, but to also earn more foreign
exchange for the nation. We should encourage design and development for
hardware to do so.It also helps us leverage the Indian market potential
by coming up with price competitive products and also open doors for
technology advancement at a faster pace. What has happened to the
automobile sector is to be keenly observed where not only the industry has
raised itself up in the value chain, but also assisted a number of
ancillary units to come up and start manufacturing, thus resulting in
better living standards of workers and large-scale employment. The same
needs to happen in telecom and IT as we target high Internet/PC
penetration and teledensity.

P
Balaji,

 vice president

TEMA

Is indigenous manufacturing a cause that is already
lost? Investors are also said to be not taking interest...


PB: Speaking about Indian telecom equipment
manufacturing industry, it has attracted an investment of over Rs. 8,000
crore with an actual production capacity of around Rs 12,000 crore and a
potential of attracting investments worth over Rs 25,000 crore in the
coming five years. With investments still flowing into the manufacturing
sector, exports have jumped 222% to touch Rs 550 crore during 2000-01. The
export percentage growth figure speak volumes of India’s potential in
exporting telecom hardware to South Asian, Southeast Asian, Russia, West
Asia, and Africa.

Another important aspect of encouraging local
manufacturing is the arrest of outflow of precious foreign exchange. Local
telecom equipment manufacturers are doing a remarkable job by saving
precious foreign exchange. It is all the more relevant, as the demand for
telecom equipment is on the rise to meet our national tele-density
targets.

Cost and support of rural telecommunication needs to be
made viable and this is another area where local manufacturing can be
extremely useful.

Indian market is waiting to explode with the growth in
subscriber base and new telecom services being introduced. Therefore,
there is ample scope to leverage the local manufacturing base, provided
certain key global trends are recognized and appropriate policy
initiatives undertaken.

Indian manufacturing companies are ready to meet the
challenges provided a conducive environment is created by the government,
about which TEMA is hopeful.

Various committees have discussed the issue and brought
out path-breaking recommendatory reports. But not much has happened on the
ground...


PB: TEMA has been part of various committees and
working groups of the Planning Commission and Department of Telecom
drafting policies for the Tenth Five Year Plan. The feeling we have is
that with the advent of the WTO regime and with the high potential of the
hardware sector, the government has realized that the hardware industry
has to be given favorable treatment and a stable policy environment.

The government has, in recent times, taken the industry
into confidence while framing policies for the future, which is a positive
step.

Recommendations of various working groups are now being
referred to Planning Commission for suitable implementation. We are
optimistic about the recommendations being accepted this time.

NK
Goyal, secretary general, TEMA

What we have not achieved, China has. Globally, China
is seen as a strong manufacturer but we do not figure anywhere...


NKG: Parallels cannot be drawn with China. There
has been too much comparison of China with India and even sector-wise
analysis done by all of us to establish China as a better market than
India. The first big difference lies between the Chinese and Indian
mindsets. China, with its political ideology and integration with the WTO
regime, and the existence of disciplined and cheaper workforce under
liberal labor laws, has undertaken a process of accelerated growth and
technology transfer. Also, various Chinese provinces have been given more
power to invite foreign investment and also implement the same with
minimum approvals from the center, and there are liberal subsidies and
availability of cheap financial assistance. We cannot boast of any of such
factors except an English speaking workforce.

There was a huge hue and cry when imports were
liberalized in the last Union Budget. Everywhere, it was thought that
Chinese goods were going to flood the Indian market and the manufacturing
sector would vanish. Fearing this, even the government set up special
cells to monitor specific goods imported from China. But at the end of the
day, nothing really happened and India exported more goods to China as
compared to previous exports.

If at all we need to compare China with India, then it should be only
in terms of provoking all stakeholders in national development to
introduce and implement more radical steps to boost the national economy,
and facilitate a high velocity of business.

As shown by a group of IITians at Chennai, headed by Prof
Ashok Jhunjhunwala, India can design world-class products locally as well–the
only requirements being hard work and dedication. To develop corDECT, an
affordable wireless communications technology designed for countries like India
that is currently being tested by BSNL and other service providers in India, the
team worked withot much funds and state-of-the-art labs. The group is already
busy chasing another big dream. Professor Jhunjhunwala was heard saying in a
recent academic function that his real aim was to make a product company that
was the best in the world. Research and development work is already in full
swing.

Export
of Telecom Equipment

(in
Rs crore)

Bangalore, Hyderabad and Gurgaon are bustling with several
startups, funded by tech evangelists and VCs in the US, who are working on
developing prototypes of the next-generation communication equipment. But the
sad thing is that most of these startups do not have plans set up plants in
India.

Another approach that companies can undertake is contract
manufacturing. For this, they need to build efficient manufacturing plants
housing the best machines and employing the best practices. They can not only
manufacture products designed by Indian startups but also obtain bigger
contracts from large outsourcers like Cisco, Nortel, Juniper and Ericsson. With
improved infrastructure and a pro-active government, the country can still give
other outsourcing destinations of the world a run for their money.

Nareshchandra Laishram

Consensus Action Recommendations of Hardware-Special Interest Group

  1. The domestic market of India will be marketed by the
    Ministry (IT). Convener-HW SIG and vice-chairman to visit Penang (Malaysia),
    China, etc., to work out the plan for Marketing of India as IT HW site of
    preference.

  2. Using the HRD strategy behind the success of SW and
    services sector growth, ‘India Inc.’ will accelerate and fund high-quality
    yet rapid training of HR from the talented pool of 1.5 lakh JEE passers/year,
    in disciplines of micro-electronics engineering, opto-electronics,
    communication/DSP, embedded software, etc., in order to foster Internet-based
    delivery of design services, refurbishing services, IP,
    mechanical/chemical/architecture engineering services, etc. Initially wafer
    fabrication to be outsourced; later it could be also attracted in the country.

  3. Chip design and manufacturing companies like MAXIM,
    INTEL, which have already shown some interest in locating a plant in India
    (AP, TN, Delhi) be carefully cultivated with ‘out of the ordinary’
    assurances on mission-critical needs like trained manpower, quality power (20
    MW), four-hour customs clearance and assured transportation services for
    becoming global suppliers.

  4. A MoF and MIT to jointly review all taxation and tariff
    and customs regimes to remove irritants and speed-breakers to ensure that all
    collections are done without slowing down any transactions (a la excise
    collection) and that the total government (state and center) revenue from
    imported product (say printer of price x) is more than the total government
    revenue from domestic product (say, the same printer of price x). Once the
    tariff rates are set, all collections on hardware be collected not at the
    point of sale but when revenue is generated by hardware manufacturers.

  5. B Remove all controls; facilitate level-playing field for
    Indian players in all segments of IT, letting only market dynamics shape
    decisions by entrepreneurs relating to investments in any activity in the IT
    industry.

  6. 5. MIT to champion the reversing of the declining trend in
    percentage of R&D grants given by MIT and other departments to private
    industry (from 25 percent to 14 percent), through large-impact technology
    missions roadmaps like Rs 360 crore India Wireless Initiative (WDB), India
    Engineering Services Delivery Initiative, etc. For achieving a technology
    leadership (vs followership) position in niche areas, the government funding
    to private industries/universities will have to be more upfront, on
    pre-competitive technology, IP, etc., to be followed by industry funded
    productionization, manufacturing process and marketing expenditure, all within
    a pre-agreed scenario (like Rs 360 crore Wireless Initiative). Major R&D
    grants be announced in media to encourage wider bidding by private and PSU
    players, instead of these going to only known universities and R&D labs.

  7. A conscience-keeper HW-SIG sub-committee be empowered to
    avoid/discourage tender specifications in govt’s purchases/contracts which
    are (motivatedly) slanted towards MNCs or particular vendors, to unfairly
    disadvantage the local technology development like CorDECT, CDOT, NHVDC, IWI.

  8. Since two-three percent of each ministry/state govt’s
    budget is already earmarked for IT-ization expenditure, the Minister (IT)
    should spearhead a policy of zero-based business process engineering (BPR) and
    digital-components (not mere PCs) integration in agriculture, mining, power,
    railway, or water management sectors. The purpose is to accelerate IT HW
    demand and to ensure sectoral productivity enhancement instead of mere
    computerization. The actual expenditure of 3 percent target be reviewed every
    six months at the minister’s level.

  9. Just as clustering and specialization has occurred internationally, with
    Singapore having HDD, Japan having printers, Taiwan having motherboards, etc.,
    even Indian IT-savvy states (govt-industry forums) need to formulate HW
    clustering plans and policies, based on comparative advantages.