Jugaad is not an absurdity. It is a strategic lesson.
When people hear the word Jugaad, many still picture a kind of improvised patchwork, a local workaround, almost something folkloric.
That is the wrong reading.
As described by Navi Radjou, Jaideep Prabhu, and Simone Ahuja in Harvard Business Review, Jugaad is the ability to overcome harsh constraints by improvising effective solutions with limited resources (Harvard Business Review).
In other words, Jugaad does not glorify scarcity.
It turns constraint into competitive advantage.
That is exactly where many organizations still get it wrong.
They assume strength comes first from abundance:
more budget,
more tools,
more validation layers,
more experts,
more committees.
Jugaad says the opposite.
In some environments, the winner is not the one spending the most.
It is the one learning faster, simplifying better, adapting faster, and accepting to work differently.
India showed long ago that a constrained actor can disrupt established standards
The Indian space example is fascinating because it overturns a very Western image of innovation.
For years, space innovation was associated with giant budgets, long cycles, massive infrastructure, and programs that seemed reserved for superpowers.
Then India arrived with a different grammar.
India’s Mars Orbiter Mission was approved in August 2012 and launched only 15 months later. Britannica notes that unusual speed, made possible in part by reusing building blocks already mastered by ISRO (Britannica). Reuters reported a cost of about $74 million, nearly ten times less than NASA’s MAVEN mission at the time (Reuters).
This is not only a cost story.
It is a philosophy story.
India did not win by copying Western standards of power.
It won by redefining the rules:
do more with less,
do well enough much faster,
reuse intelligently,
prioritize efficiency over prestige.
Reuters also showed in 2024 that India’s space strategy relies heavily on data, small satellites, and low-cost launches instead of confronting heavyweights head-on (Reuters).
That is exactly what many companies still refuse to do.
They remain hypnotized by the luxury version of innovation.
They want the Rolls-Royce project.
Meanwhile, a more agile player has already left on a scooter.
The current U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran shows the same logic in its harshest form
In the current conflict, Reuters describes a now central dynamic: cheap drones are heavily complicating the defense of systems that cost far more (Reuters). Reuters also reported in March 2026 that the economic gap between low-cost Shahed-type drones and expensive interceptors such as Patriot missiles is pushing countries to seek more frugal alternatives (Reuters).
The Council on Foreign Relations captures that imbalance clearly: a Shahed-136 can be estimated at around $35,000, while an advanced Patriot interceptor can cost about $4 million (Council on Foreign Relations).
That is the key point.
When a $35,000 system forces the other side to answer with a multimillion-dollar missile, the issue is no longer only military.
It becomes economic.
It becomes industrial.
It becomes strategic.
It even becomes psychological.
Because the defending side can win tactically while exhausting itself financially.
That is where the lesson becomes uncomfortable for large organizations.
They still often reason as if superiority naturally comes from investment volume.
Yet in many cases, the real disruption comes from the ratio between cost, speed, and effect.
The Shahed-136 is not impressive because it is sophisticated.
It is impressive because it creates an unfavorable cost-exchange ratio for the opponent with very little spending relative to the scale of the conflict.
In a civil and business context, Jugaad rests on the same mental model:
do not first seek the noblest solution,
seek the one that shifts the balance of power fastest.
The lesson for artificial intelligence inside organizations is enormous
Many companies still approach AI the way they would approach a bureaucratic space program from another era:
big budget,
heavy governance,
waiting for the perfect tool,
endless validation,
huge ambition,
slow execution.
That is the best way to be overtaken.
As I explain in my book, chapter 3, innovation only exists when it is implemented; without execution, there is no real innovation.
And in my book, chapter 14, I propose two decisive questions for AI adoption inside organizations: “How can I use AI to increase my productivity and the quality of what I deliver within my current role and objectives?” and “What can I do now thanks to AI that was impossible before?” Everything else becomes a distraction.
In other words, the right approach is not:
“Which giant platform are we going to buy?”
The right approach is:
“Where can a small, intelligent implementation create an immediate disproportionate effect?”
That is where the Jugaad mindset becomes valuable.
Understanding AI well does not mean thinking big too early
The classic trap is trying to transform the whole company at once.
The better move is usually much simpler.
Identify 5 to 10 highly concrete use cases.
Choose the ones with fast gains.
Measure time saved.
Observe quality improvements.
Create a few visible wins.
Scale what works.
Drop quickly what does not help.
AI then becomes process innovation, exactly in the sense I describe in my book in chapter 3: a new or significantly improved way of producing, distributing, or working.
So this is not mainly a technology issue.
It is a strategic issue.
Do you want prestigious AI or useful AI?
Do you want a compelling boardroom program or a concrete field effect?
Do you want to impress or to transform?
The companies that win will not necessarily be the ones that bought the most AI.
They will be the ones that understood how to create a better ratio between cost, learning speed, and operational impact.
What leaders should take away now
First lesson: constraint is not the enemy of innovation. It can become its accelerator.
Second lesson: a lightweight, imperfect but quickly deployed system can create more value than an ambitious system that never reaches the field.
Third lesson: in competition, the decisive question is not “who has more?” but “who gets the best marginal effect per dollar, per week, and per decision?”
Fourth lesson: AI should be treated as a portfolio of useful experiments, not as a religion and not as a monument.
Fifth lesson: the real danger for an organization is not lacking tools. It is continuing to think about innovation with the reflexes of a world where heaviness felt reassuring.
That world is fading.
Jugaad reminds us of something deeply uncomfortable for established structures: superiority does not always belong to the most powerful.
It often belongs to the one who can simplify without becoming simplistic, improvise without losing focus, learn without waiting, and deploy before everyone else.
And that is exactly how artificial intelligence should be viewed inside your organization.
Not as a totem.
Not as a gadget.
Not as an abstract promise.
As an asymmetric lever.
And in the years ahead, those who understand that asymmetry will build an advantage that many others will call, too late, unexpected.
References
(Harvard Business Review) = https://hbr.org/2010/01/jugaad-a-new-growth-formula-fo
(Reuters) = https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/science/india-triumphs-in-maiden-mars-mission-sets-record-in-space-race-idUSKCN0HJ05I/
(Britannica) = https://www.britannica.com/topic/Mars-Orbiter-Mission
(Reuters) = https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/indias-space-strategy-harness-data-tiny-satellites-capture-market-beyond-spacex-2024-10-14/
(Reuters) = https://www.reuters.com/graphics/IRAN-CRISIS/DRONES/dwpkyamxqpm/
(Reuters) = https://www.reuters.com/markets/asia/gulf-money-will-boost-europes-defence-startups-2026-03-17/
(Council on Foreign Relations) = https://www.cfr.org/articles/the-new-era-of-drone-warfare-takes-root-in-iran
