There was a time when purpose was prepackaged. Life followed a script: study hard, land a job, buy a house, and retire in comfort. Meaning was socially constructed and widely shared. To succeed, one simply followed the rules.
That era has passed. Today, individuals are freer-perhaps even too free. With tradition in retreat and institutions in flux, the burden of defining meaning has shifted from systems to selves. We are no longer choosing between clear paths; instead, we are now tasked with inventing them. Strategy, which was once a question of how, has become a question of why.
As collective beliefs dissolve, a peculiar phenomenon emerges: the elevation of tactics into ideology. When the destination is uncertain, people cling to the map. Education becomes sacred. Wealth becomes virtue. Process becomes principle. In this void, the means are often mistaken for the ends.
In corporate life, this appears as process worship: the KPI becomes king, and the playbook becomes scripture. In parenting, it emerges as academic fundamentalism. In governance, it breeds procedural paralysis.
These are not strategies; they are symptoms of strategic disorientation.
In simpler times, such patterns worked. When “success” meant job security, or when “happiness” was synonymous with home ownership, fixed methods were efficient. Today, however, those outcomes have become abstract. We now speak of self-actualization, personal meaning, and authenticity. These are concepts too fluid for rigid tools. Yet many still chase metrics that no longer measure anything real.
This shift marks a profound transformation in the nature of strategic work. In the industrial age, strategy meant optimization: doing known things better. In the post-industrial age, it means orientation. The focus is now on deciding which things matter at all.
Japan is a case in point. Despite its safety, infrastructure, and relative prosperity, it consistently ranks low on global happiness indices. The explanation cannot be material; it is existential. The answer lies in the gap between the measurable and the meaningful.
Even branding reflects this shift. Once built on functional and emotional value, modern brands now trade in identity. Products are no longer merely useful or delightful; they are aspirational. They promise not just performance, but transformation. In this new “purpose economy,” the product is not the object itself. Instead, it is the self the object allows us to become.
The implications for leadership are profound. Strategy must now account not just for markets or operations, but also for mindsets. Leaders are no longer navigators of terrain. They are designers of direction, responsible for holding space for ambiguity, stewarding identity, and anchoring people in a world where everything-including purpose-must be self-defined.
This shift brings risk. In systems built for predictability, ambiguity can be destabilizing. In cultures of bottom-up consensus, belief in method becomes deeply ingrained. In top-down systems, rapid pivots are possible, but often come at the cost of depth and coherence. Each approach has strengths, but both risk misalignment in a world where context evolves faster than culture.
What is needed is not new ideology, but strategic adaptability. Organizations must develop the ability to reconfigure structures, not just goals. We need systems that can learn and evolve.
The old question, “What should we do?” must now be preceded by a harder one: “What are we aiming for?” That question cannot be answered by data alone. It requires judgment, perspective, and, above all, thoughtful design.
In this new landscape, the manager is no longer simply a planner. She is a philosopher with a P&L. The strategist is no longer just a tactician. He is a curator of collective meaning. It is no longer about finding the fastest route. It is about deciding what is truly worth the journey.
Strategy, in short, has become stewardship.
To find out more about how IGPI Group can provide support for businesses, browse through our insight articles or get in contact with us.
Kohki Sakata, CEO of IGPI Singapore
After joining Cap Gemini and Coca Cola, Kohki joined Revamp Corporation where he managed projects on global expansion and turnaround in various sectors including F&B, healthcare, retail, IT, etc. After joining IGPI, he has managed projects mainly on global expansion and cross border M&A in various sectors such as logistics, IT, telecom, retail, etc. In addition to his broad experience in implementing solutions that has been developed in Western countries, he has developed multiple methods to turnaround Asian companies with focus on setting clear vision and employee empowerment. Kohki has proven the practicality of these methods by turning around Asian companies not only as an advisor but also as senior management.
He graduated from Waseda University Department of Political Science and Economics and IE Business School.
IGPI Group is a Japan rooted premium management consulting & Investment Group headquartered in Tokyo with a footprint in Osaka, Singapore, Hanoi, Shanghai & Melbourne, as well as parts of Europe and India. The organization was established in 2007 by former members of the Industrial Revitalization Corporation of Japan (IRCJ), a USD 100 billion sovereign wealth fund focusing on turn-around projects in Japan. IGPI Group has 13 institutional investors, including Nomura Holdings, SMBC, KDDI, Recruit & Sumitomo Corporation to name a few. IGPI Group has vast experience in supporting Fortune 500s, Govt. agencies, Universities, SMEs and funded startups across Asia and beyond for their strategic business needs and hands-on support across a wide variety of industries. IGPI group has ~8,500 employees on a consolidated basis.
* This material is intended merely for reference purposes based on our experience and is not intended to be comprehensive and does not constitute as advice. Information contained in this material has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but IGPI does not represent or warrant the quality, completeness, and accuracy of such information. All rights reserved by IGPI.
In a recent conversation between Kohki Sakata (CEO, IGPI Singapore) and Shivaji Das (MD, IGPI Singapore), the two explored what’s making Japan attractive today, what sectors present the greatest opportunities, and how foreign firms can succeed in one of Asia’s most complex markets.
Several recent factors are converging to attract renewed global interest in Japan. The weakening yen and the relatively low valuation of listed Japanese companies have made the market especially appealing, especially from an M&A perspective. Many firms on the Tokyo Stock Exchange are trading below book value, opening the door to both activist and strategic investment.
Beneath these financial signals lies a deeper structural story. Japan is facing issues that many other countries will soon encounter—an aging society, declining population, and aging infrastructure. These legacy systems, often highly dependent on human labor, represent urgent social challenges—and untapped market potential for companies offering scalable, tech-enabled solutions.
Infrastructure is emerging as one of the most promising sectors. Japan’s centralized models for water supply, energy, and transportation—built in the 20th century—are becoming increasingly outdated. In their place, decentralized systems such as microgrids or modular water technologies, already common in emerging markets, are becoming viable and cost-effective options even in Japan’s suburbs and regional cities.
In B2C, particularly in healthcare, significant gaps also present clear opportunities. While many countries have adopted telemedicine as a core part of their healthcare infrastructure, Japan continues to rely on in-person consultations. The infrastructure, technology, and user behavior in Japan are ripe for transformation—especially following the global acceleration of digital healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Foreign companies often focus exclusively on Tokyo and Osaka, but real opportunities lie beyond these megacities. Tier 2 cities like Kumagaya and Takasaki—within easy reach of Tokyo—face real, unsolved problems that can be solved by business solutions: limited public transport, retail decline, food logistics inefficiencies, and more.
These areas have fewer competitors and are underserved by both large incumbents and agile startups. The combination of accessible markets and unmet needs makes them ideal testing grounds for innovative business models. They’re close enough for efficient operations but distant enough to avoid the saturation and competition of the major metros.
While Japan is renowned for its technological sophistication, it often excels more in optimization than reinvention. The application layer—making things better—is a strength. But building entirely new ecosystems from scratch requires architectural thinking: the ability to assemble stakeholders, align incentives, and design interconnected platforms.
For example, a functional telemedicine ecosystem needs municipal governments, medical professionals, logistics players, and IT infrastructure to work in unison. This kind of ecosystem orchestration is an area where foreign companies can add exceptional value—and face relatively limited domestic competition.
Success in Japan starts with the right leadership. A local country manager is essential, but not just anyone—this person must understand Japanese business culture and have global exposure. The danger lies in over-customizing solutions to “fit” Japan in ways that dilute strategic clarity.
What’s truly needed is the ability to draw abstractions, see common patterns across markets, and design frameworks that balance local sensitivity with global scalability. Architectural thinking, not reactive localization, is the key to building relevance and longevity in Japan.
M&A is a powerful—but timing-sensitive—entry strategy. Japanese companies often struggle to grow independently and can benefit from external partnerships. However, acquisitions are rarely welcomed when a company is doing “well enough.”
The optimal window is during inflection points: moments of distress, strategic transition, or the need for digital transformation. At those points, openness to external capital and fresh thinking increases—making it an ideal time for foreign investors to engage.
Understanding how decisions are made is critical. Japanese organizations tend to be bottom-up; even CEOs may lack the authority to drive sweeping change. Contrast this with Western firms, where top-down leadership is more common.
Moreover, identity in Japanese business culture is often tied to membership rather than qualification. Individuals introduce themselves as members of a company, not by their credentials or past achievements. This nuance shapes trust, hierarchy, and relationship-building—elements that foreign companies must respect and navigate carefully.
Japan may once have seemed inaccessible, but today it is a market ready for change. With long-standing challenges demanding fresh solutions, and with global attention shifting toward resilient, high-potential economies, Japan is regaining its place on the strategic map.
From infrastructure and healthcare to mid-sized regional cities and ecosystem-building, the opportunities are real—and they’re growing. With the right mindset, timing, and guidance, foreign companies can thrive in Japan—not in spite of its complexities, but because of them.
For those ready to take the first step, IGPI stands ready as a trusted partner on the ground.
To find out more about how IGPI Group can provide support for businesses, browse through our insight articles or get in contact with us.
Kohki Sakata, CEO of IGPI Singapore
After joining Cap Gemini and Coca Cola, Kohki joined Revamp Corporation where he managed projects on global expansion and turnaround in various sectors including F&B, healthcare, retail, IT, etc. After joining IGPI, he has managed projects mainly on global expansion and cross border M&A in various sectors such as logistics, IT, telecom, retail, etc. In addition to his broad experience in implementing solutions that has been developed in Western countries, he has developed multiple methods to turnaround Asian companies with focus on setting clear vision and employee empowerment. Kohki has proven the practicality of these methods by turning around Asian companies not only as an advisor but also as senior management.
He graduated from Waseda University Department of Political Science and Economics and IE Business School.
Shivaji Das, Managing Director of IGPI Singapore
Shivaji has over 20 years of strategy consulting experience, specializing in New Business Models, Innovation Roadmaps, and Sustainability Journeys. He has worked with private and public sector clients across 25 countries in sectors like Technology, Semiconductors, Chemicals, Healthcare, Renewable Energy, and Construction. Previously, Shivaji was a Partner and Managing Director-APAC at Frost & Sullivan. His paper on Artificial Intelligence was presented at CAINE-2000 in Hawaii, USA. He is the author of seven acclaimed travel, art and business books including The Visible Invisibles and Rebels, Traitors, Peacemakers (both Penguin Random House), as well as The Great Lockdown: lessons learned during the pandemic from organizations around the world (Wiley, USA).
He is an alumnus of IIT Delhi and IIM Calcutta.
IGPI Group is a Japan rooted premium management consulting & Investment Group headquartered in Tokyo with a footprint in Osaka, Singapore, Hanoi, Shanghai & Melbourne, as well as parts of Europe and India. The organization was established in 2007 by former members of the Industrial Revitalization Corporation of Japan (IRCJ), a USD 100 billion sovereign wealth fund focusing on turn-around projects in Japan. IGPI Group has 13 institutional investors, including Nomura Holdings, SMBC, KDDI, Recruit & Sumitomo Corporation to name a few. IGPI Group has vast experience in supporting Fortune 500s, Govt. agencies, Universities, SMEs and funded startups across Asia and beyond for their strategic business needs and hands-on support across a wide variety of industries. IGPI group has ~8,500 employees on a consolidated basis.
* This material is intended merely for reference purposes based on our experience and is not intended to be comprehensive and does not constitute as advice. Information contained in this material has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but IGPI does not represent or warrant the quality, completeness, and accuracy of such information. All rights reserved by IGPI.
IGPI employs a hands-on approach to strategy execution, ensuring that leadership teams not only develop strategies but implement them effectively. One of the most pressing challenges organizations face today is balancing psychological safety with performance accountability.
It is crucial to understand that psychological safety is not about eliminating stress, but rather creating a culture where individuals feel secure enough to take risks and drive results.
Organizations often focus on psychological safety as an end in itself, equating it with reducing workplace stress and promoting open dialogue. This perspective, however, risks diminishing performance. Companies exist to create value, and psychological safety must be aligned with business objectives. A psychologically safe workplace should enable employees to challenge ideas and contribute meaningfully, not just speak freely. High performance emerges from the intersection of psychological safety and accountability. When these are decoupled, organizations either become too rigid or too permissive — both of which undermine long-term success.
In 2012, Google initiated Project Aristotle, a comprehensive study to understand team effectiveness. The project analyzed data from 180 teams across the company, considering over 250 attributes. Research findings indicated that psychological safety was the most critical factor in team success, outweighing individual performance or team composition. However, Google’s study also emphasized that psychological safety needed to be coupled with clear goals and a culture of dependability to truly drive high performance.
Leaders often adopt a binary mindset, treating psychological safety and accountability as mutually exclusive. In reality, both must coexist. This balance is achieved through timely and specific feedback. Annual performance reviews have proven ineffective. Feedback must be immediate and actionable, providing concrete examples for improvement. Vague mandates such as “increase sales” or “reduce costs” fail to drive change. Managers must translate objectives into concrete, executable actions.
When leaders provide direct, specific, and constructive feedback, they foster a culture of continuous improvement — where employees feel safe to take risks while remaining accountable for results.
A common leadership pitfall is focusing on immediate problem-solving rather than scalable solutions. Many managers tend to jump to conclusions, solving specific issues instead of designing repeatable frameworks. For instance, if a store experiences a stockout, an inexperienced manager might simply increase inventory orders. A skilled leader, however, would develop a demand-forecasting model that prevents future occurrences across all locations. Effective leadership is about building processes, not just fixing problems.
Successful managers resist the urge for quick fixes and instead establish scalable, generalizable principles that drive sustainable success.
Toyota’s Production System (TPS), developed in the mid-20th century, revolutionized manufacturing by focusing on systemic solutions rather than quick fixes. At its core, TPS emphasizes continuous improvement (kaizen) and respect for people, encouraging employees at all levels to identify and solve problems. This approach led Toyota to develop scalable solutions like the “5 Whys” technique for root cause analysis and the “Just-in-Time” production method. As a result, Toyota not only improved its own efficiency and quality but also set a new standard for manufacturing processes worldwide, influencing industries far beyond automotive.
A core competency for high-performing leaders is the ability to abstract complexity into clear, structured frameworks. However, abstraction without deep operational understanding leads to flawed decision-making. To make meaningful strategic decisions, leaders must first engage with real-world complexity. This can be achieved through various means:
| 1. | Rotating employees across functions | |
| 2. | Ensuring employees who don’t typically interact with customers are exposed to real customer feedback | |
| 3. | Encouraging executives to work at the ground level |
Without these experiences, strategic decision-making risks becoming detached from reality, leading to frameworks that appear sound on paper but fail in execution.
The essence of management is organizational augmentation — enabling a company to scale execution beyond individual capability. As teams grow, complexity increases, making information flow and decision clarity more challenging. Managers must design mechanisms for knowledge-sharing, cross-functional collaboration, and decision-making at scale.
This approach aligns directly with IGPI’s methodology for hands-on strategy execution — ensuring that leadership is not just about defining strategy, but actively shaping the mechanisms that drive impact.
| 1. | Psychological safety is a tool for high performance, not an end goal. | |
| 2. | Timely, specific feedback is essential to maintaining accountability. | |
| 3. | Managers must design scalable solutions, not just fix immediate problems. | |
| 4. | Operational experience is critical — abstraction must be rooted in real-world insights. | |
| 5. | Leadership is about expanding an organization’s execution capability, not just directing individuals. |
IGPI works alongside leadership teams to ensure that these principles are not just understood — but embedded into the fabric of how organizations operate.
Kick-start your transformation journey towards a high-performance culture. Speak with IGPI today to explore how we can elevate your organization’s managerial effectiveness and execution excellence.
To find out more about how IGPI Group can provide support for businesses, browse through our insight articles or get in contact with us.
Kohki Sakata, CEO of IGPI Singapore
After joining Cap Gemini and Coca Cola, Kohki joined Revamp Corporation where he managed projects on global expansion and turnaround in various sectors including F&B, healthcare, retail, IT, etc. After joining IGPI, he has managed projects mainly on global expansion and cross border M&A in various sectors such as logistics, IT, telecom, retail, etc. In addition to his broad experience in implementing solutions that has been developed in Western countries, he has developed multiple methods to turnaround Asian companies with focus on setting clear vision and employee empowerment. Kohki has proven the practicality of these methods by turning around Asian companies not only as an advisor but also as senior management.
He graduated from Waseda University Department of Political Science and Economics and IE Business School.
IGPI Group is a Japan rooted premium management consulting & Investment Group headquartered in Tokyo with a footprint in Osaka, Singapore, Hanoi, Shanghai & Melbourne, as well as parts of Europe and India. The organization was established in 2007 by former members of the Industrial Revitalization Corporation of Japan (IRCJ), a USD 100 billion sovereign wealth fund focusing on turn-around projects in Japan. IGPI Group has 13 institutional investors, including Nomura Holdings, SMBC, KDDI, Recruit & Sumitomo Corporation to name a few. IGPI Group has vast experience in supporting Fortune 500s, Govt. agencies, Universities, SMEs and funded startups across Asia and beyond for their strategic business needs and hands-on support across a wide variety of industries. IGPI group has ~8,500 employees on a consolidated basis.
* This material is intended merely for reference purposes based on our experience and is not intended to be comprehensive and does not constitute as advice. Information contained in this material has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but IGPI does not represent or warrant the quality, completeness, and accuracy of such information. All rights reserved by IGPI.
The central takeaway? Competitive advantage in this era will hinge on collaboration rather than control, and on horizontal adaptability rather than vertical dominance.
India’s industrial evolution provides a compelling example of adaptive modernization. Historically constrained by infrastructure challenges and bureaucratic hurdles, Indian businesses have overcome these barriers by embedding digital solutions throughout their value chains.
AI-driven manufacturing optimization, cloud-enabled R&D collaboration, and hyper-efficient logistics—such as 15-minute urban deliveries—are now standard practices. What stands out is not just the technology itself but the seamless integration of digital tools with operational agility.
This combination of resourcefulness, adaptability, and digital expertise has enabled Indian firms to scale rapidly and efficiently while sidestepping legacy constraints. For companies aiming to succeed in emerging markets, India’s recent strategies offer valuable insights into future opportunities.
Globalization emphasized frictionless flows of goods, capital, ideas, and people across borders. In contrast, regionalization prioritizes proximity—focusing on shared resources within regions, local responsiveness, and platform-based integration over global sprawl.
Japanese firms, traditionally structured around vertically integrated models, face unique challenges in this transition. The Toyota-style keiretsu ecosystem—built on deep supplier exclusivity and control—is less suited to an environment where flexibility, interoperability, and cross-platform collaboration are paramount. Vertical integration is no longer an unqualified strength. Companies must now realign themselves with horizontally structured ecosystems that emphasize shared infrastructure and decentralized innovation.
India’s Tata Group serves as an illustrative case for legacy firms navigating high-tech industries like defense and electronics. Despite its scale and reputation, Tata has faced challenges in establishing a foothold in these sectors.
Why? Success in high-tech industries today requires more than capital and infrastructure—it demands integration into dynamic innovation ecosystems driven by startups and globally connected R&D. Tata’s struggles highlight a broader issue: legacy organizations often find themselves misaligned with the decentralized and entrepreneurial nature of modern innovation.
The broader lesson for others, including Japan’s trading houses, is clear: success increasingly depends on orchestrating diverse partnerships across corporates, startups, academia, and government rather than relying solely on internal capabilities.
In the regionalization era, traditional industry boundaries are dissolving. The concept of “moving up the value chain” is being replaced by sector convergence and cross-pollination of technologies. Instead of focusing solely on vertical advancement, companies must ask how they can build and manage ecosystems – sustainable competitive advantage will often come from enabling networks rather than owning every component within them.
Japanese trading companies are already adapting to this shift. Their recent growth reflects a deliberate transformation—from resource brokerage to ecosystem enablers—embedding themselves deeply within local contexts while maintaining global reach.
Entering India today requires more than replicating past models. The traditional approach—producing in Japan, exporting to India, and localizing manufacturing later—no longer guarantees success. India now boasts robust infrastructure: digital platforms, skilled talent pools, energy access, and financial inclusion. The challenge lies in co-creating new capabilities with local partners across conglomerates, SMEs, and startups.
Embedding within India’s industrial ecosystem demands shared ownership, mutual learning, and a long-term perspective. Companies that prioritize integration over mere entry will position themselves for sustained relevance and growth.
India’s business landscape values speed; Japanese firms excel in precision. While these traits are often seen as opposites, they can be complementary. Speed enables responsiveness to market dynamics; precision ensures reliability over time. The key is harmonizing these strengths. Japanese companies can contribute process discipline and engineering rigor to complement India’s agile experimentation-driven approach. Together, these attributes can drive both innovation velocity and operational excellence.
India’s growth is ecosystemic rather than sector-specific. However, certain value chains present particularly strong opportunities for Japanese firms:
| ● | Hospitality & Lifestyle : Rising demand for premium services offers opportunities to leverage Japan’s expertise in service design. | |
| ● | Medical Devices & Aerospace : These sectors require both precision engineering and rapid innovation—a natural synergy between Japanese manufacturing depth and India’s design agility. | |
| ● | AgriTech : Combining Japanese machinery with Indian SaaS platforms could create scalable solutions targeting global markets. |
Japanese firms often excel at bottom-up operational improvements, while Indian companies adopt top-down approaches marked by boldness and agility. This contrast creates opportunities for synthesis: blending Japan’s operational excellence with India’s dynamic strategy can produce organizations that are both resilient and adaptable.
Historically reliant on manual engineering expertise, Japanese firms must now adapt as tacit knowledge becomes codified into software and AI systems. To remain competitive, they must identify which processes can be digitized while preserving critical human-led elements. Without this clarity, even highly advanced industries risk disruption by software-native competitors.
India and Japan have the potential to pioneer a new industrial paradigm rooted in hardware-software convergence, ecosystem thinking, and regional collaboration.
By combining Japan’s product expertise with India’s agility and entrepreneurial drive across sectors like agriculture or MedTech, both nations can create scalable solutions that serve not only their own markets but also global needs.
In this age of regionalization, competitive advantage will belong to those who master the art of connection—across geographies, disciplines, and mindsets. The future of strategy lies not in building walls but in weaving networks—and those who excel at weaving will lead the way forward.
To find out more about how IGPI Group can provide support for businesses, browse through our insight articles or get in contact with us.
Kohki Sakata, CEO of IGPI Singapore
After joining Cap Gemini and Coca Cola, Kohki joined Revamp Corporation where he managed projects on global expansion and turnaround in various sectors including F&B, healthcare, retail, IT, etc. After joining IGPI, he has managed projects mainly on global expansion and cross border M&A in various sectors such as logistics, IT, telecom, retail, etc. In addition to his broad experience in implementing solutions that has been developed in Western countries, he has developed multiple methods to turnaround Asian companies with focus on setting clear vision and employee empowerment. Kohki has proven the practicality of these methods by turning around Asian companies not only as an advisor but also as senior management.
He graduated from Waseda University Department of Political Science and Economics and IE Business School.
Shivaji Das, Managing Director of IGPI Singapore
Shivaji has over 20 years of strategy consulting experience, specializing in New Business Models, Innovation Roadmaps, and Sustainability Journeys. He has worked with private and public sector clients across 25 countries in sectors like Technology, Semiconductors, Chemicals, Healthcare, Renewable Energy, and Construction. Previously, Shivaji was a Partner and Managing Director-APAC at Frost & Sullivan. His paper on Artificial Intelligence was presented at CAINE-2000 in Hawaii, USA. He is the author of seven acclaimed travel, art and business books including The Visible Invisibles and Rebels, Traitors, Peacemakers (both Penguin Random House), as well as The Great Lockdown: lessons learned during the pandemic from organizations around the world (Wiley, USA).
He is an alumnus of IIT Delhi and IIM Calcutta.
IGPI Group is a Japan rooted premium management consulting & Investment Group headquartered in Tokyo with a footprint in Osaka, Singapore, Hanoi, Shanghai & Melbourne, as well as parts of Europe and India. The organization was established in 2007 by former members of the Industrial Revitalization Corporation of Japan (IRCJ), a USD 100 billion sovereign wealth fund focusing on turn-around projects in Japan. IGPI Group has 13 institutional investors, including Nomura Holdings, SMBC, KDDI, Recruit & Sumitomo Corporation to name a few. IGPI Group has vast experience in supporting Fortune 500s, Govt. agencies, Universities, SMEs and funded startups across Asia and beyond for their strategic business needs and hands-on support across a wide variety of industries. IGPI group has ~8,500 employees on a consolidated basis.
* This material is intended merely for reference purposes based on our experience and is not intended to be comprehensive and does not constitute as advice. Information contained in this material has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but IGPI does not represent or warrant the quality, completeness, and accuracy of such information. All rights reserved by IGPI.
India holds significant potential in high-tech manufacturing, underpinned by its vast domestic market and a deep reservoir of engineering talent. However, several structural challenges continue to impede its ability to compete with established players such as China, South Korea, Japan, and the United States.
One of the most pressing obstacles is access to advanced technology. Unlike its global competitors, India lacks well-developed technology clusters in critical sectors such as semiconductors, aerospace, and medical devices. This reliance on foreign collaborations and technology transfers not only limits autonomy but also creates vulnerabilities in strategically sensitive industries.
Another challenge lies in the absence of a robust high-tech manufacturing ecosystem. India’s industrial base lacks the depth of supply chain linkages and partnerships necessary for rapid scaling. Global firms are often hesitant to collaborate with Indian manufacturers due to limited experience in cutting-edge production. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle where the lack of credentials prevents Indian firms from integrating into high-value global supply chains.
Furthermore, India faces a significant talent retention issue. Despite producing a large number of engineers and technical professionals annually, many migrate to higher-paying markets abroad. This brain drain exacerbates workforce shortages in critical areas of high-tech manufacturing.
Despite these challenges, India’s achievements in low-tech manufacturing provide a strong foundation for its high-tech aspirations. By building on this base, India can create spillover benefits that accelerate its transition to advanced manufacturing.
Infrastructure development offers a clear pathway for this transition. Addressing long-standing issues such as energy reliability and logistical inefficiencies will not only benefit low-tech industries but also enhance the viability of high-tech sectors. For instance, improving transport networks and energy supply chains can reduce bottlenecks that hinder high-end manufacturing.
Workforce development serves as another critical bridge between low- and high-tech industries. Structured vocational training programs tailored for low-tech sectors can gradually upskill workers for more sophisticated applications. This approach ensures a steady pipeline of talent capable of supporting India’s high-tech ambitions.
Traditional manufacturing ecosystems have historically been organized around vertically integrated value chains, with tightly linked networks of suppliers, OEMs, and manufacturers. However, the digital revolution has disrupted this paradigm, giving rise to more modular and dynamic production systems.
The smartphone industry exemplifies this shift. Telecommunications providers, software developers, operating system creators, and device manufacturers now operate within distinct yet interconnected layers rather than rigid value chains. This layered structure fosters greater flexibility and efficiency by allowing firms to specialize in specific segments of the value chain.
For India to compete effectively in high-tech manufacturing, it must embrace this new paradigm. Rather than replicating traditional supply chains dominated by established players, Indian firms should focus on identifying lucrative niches within these layered structures. Specialization will enable Indian manufacturers to carve out competitive advantages in global markets.
India’s potential as a high-tech manufacturing leader is most pronounced in sectors where demand is growing rapidly and foundational strengths already exist:
| ● | Medical Devices: While India has established itself as a producer of basic medical equipment like blood pressure monitors, it has yet to make significant strides in advanced devices such as MRI machines. Strengthening production capabilities could position medical devices as a cornerstone of India’s high-tech ambitions. | |
| ● | Aerospace and Defense: Recent efforts have focused on component production and airframe assembly. Expertise in advanced materials engineering and precision manufacturing will be critical for scaling this sector. | |
| ● | Space Technology: Building on ISRO’s success in cost-efficient satellite launches, India has an opportunity to expand into commercial satellite manufacturing. | |
| ● | Semiconductors: With geopolitical shifts prompting supply chain diversification away from China, India is well-positioned to attract investments in semiconductor design and fabrication. |
Though in a different context, China’s rapid ascent in high-tech manufacturing offers potential lessons for India’s path forward:
| 1. | Talent Development: China prioritized STEM education to ensure a steady pipeline of engineers and technicians. | |
| 2. | Government Incentives: Targeted subsidies and R&D grants enabled Chinese firms to scale rapidly. | |
| 3. | Technology Transfers: By mandating joint ventures with foreign firms, China secured access to advanced technologies that bolstered domestic capabilities. |
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) will play an indispensable role in advancing the nation’s high-tech manufacturing capabilities. Beyond capital infusion, FDI brings global best practices and cutting-edge technologies that enhance competitiveness. To mitigate risks associated with geopolitical fragmentation, India must diversify its FDI sources by engaging with multiple countries.
To attract global investors and technology partners, Indian policymakers must address regulatory complexities that deter foreign firms. Simplifying tax structures and easing compliance requirements will create a more conducive environment for investment.
Equally important is fostering competition rather than overprotectionism. Industries shielded by excessive government intervention often struggle to remain globally competitive. Encouraging open competition will drive innovation and efficiency across sectors.
India possesses the market size, talent pool, and industrial foundation needed to emerge as a global leader in high-tech manufacturing. Success will hinge on its ability to overcome structural challenges while leveraging opportunities through strategic investments and policy reforms. By embracing modular industry structures and drawing lessons from global best practices, India can position itself at the forefront of the high-tech revolution. The next decade will be pivotal—will India rise to meet the challenge?
To find out more about how IGPI Group can provide support for businesses, browse through our insight articles or get in contact with us.
Kohki Sakata, CEO of IGPI Singapore
After joining Cap Gemini and Coca Cola, Kohki joined Revamp Corporation where he managed projects on global expansion and turnaround in various sectors including F&B, healthcare, retail, IT, etc. After joining IGPI, he has managed projects mainly on global expansion and cross border M&A in various sectors such as logistics, IT, telecom, retail, etc. In addition to his broad experience in implementing solutions that has been developed in Western countries, he has developed multiple methods to turnaround Asian companies with focus on setting clear vision and employee empowerment. Kohki has proven the practicality of these methods by turning around Asian companies not only as an advisor but also as senior management.
He graduated from Waseda University Department of Political Science and Economics and IE Business School.
Shivaji Das, Managing Director of IGPI Singapore
Shivaji has over 20 years of strategy consulting experience, specializing in New Business Models, Innovation Roadmaps, and Sustainability Journeys. He has worked with private and public sector clients across 25 countries in sectors like Technology, Semiconductors, Chemicals, Healthcare, Renewable Energy, and Construction. Previously, Shivaji was a Partner and Managing Director-APAC at Frost & Sullivan. His paper on Artificial Intelligence was presented at CAINE-2000 in Hawaii, USA. He is the author of seven acclaimed travel, art and business books including The Visible Invisibles and Rebels, Traitors, Peacemakers (both Penguin Random House), as well as The Great Lockdown: lessons learned during the pandemic from organizations around the world (Wiley, USA).
He is an alumnus of IIT Delhi and IIM Calcutta.
IGPI Group is a Japan rooted premium management consulting & Investment Group headquartered in Tokyo with a footprint in Osaka, Singapore, Hanoi, Shanghai & Melbourne, as well as parts of Europe and India. The organization was established in 2007 by former members of the Industrial Revitalization Corporation of Japan (IRCJ), a USD 100 billion sovereign wealth fund focusing on turn-around projects in Japan. IGPI Group has 13 institutional investors, including Nomura Holdings, SMBC, KDDI, Recruit & Sumitomo Corporation to name a few. IGPI Group has vast experience in supporting Fortune 500s, Govt. agencies, Universities, SMEs and funded startups across Asia and beyond for their strategic business needs and hands-on support across a wide variety of industries. IGPI group has ~8,500 employees on a consolidated basis.
* This material is intended merely for reference purposes based on our experience and is not intended to be comprehensive and does not constitute as advice. Information contained in this material has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but IGPI does not represent or warrant the quality, completeness, and accuracy of such information. All rights reserved by IGPI.
India’s early industrialization efforts in the 1950s and 1960s were state-driven, with a heavy reliance on public sector enterprises in industries such as steel, aerospace, and defense manufacturing. However, this approach led to systemic inefficiencies, an absence of competitive pressure, and limited access to cutting-edge technology.
Additionally, India’s economy remained highly protectionist, restricting foreign investments and market competition. With limited exposure to global best practices and a constrained talent pool in high-tech fields, the country struggled to establish a meaningful presence in advanced manufacturing. The result was a missed opportunity in high-tech sectors, with India unable to capitalize on its early ambitions.
In stark contrast to its high-tech struggles, India’s pharmaceutical industry thrived despite lacking full vertical integration. The turning point came as global drug patents expired, opening opportunities for low-cost generic manufacturing. Initially reliant on European and Japanese suppliers for raw materials, Indian firms later leveraged Chinese manufacturers for cost-effective inputs, allowing them to scale rapidly.
This layered approach—focusing on specific segments of the value chain rather than attempting full vertical integration—enabled India to dominate the global generic pharmaceutical market. By specializing in cost-efficient manufacturing and regulatory expertise, Indian firms carved out a niche in a heavily commoditized industry, demonstrating that strategic positioning within a value chain can sometimes outweigh full control over it.
For decades, China dominated the global toy industry, particularly in South China, controlling over 80% of global market share. However, India has recently emerged as a challenger, driven by a combination of government protectionist policies, a booming domestic market, and localized product innovation.
Historically, India had a strong domestic toy industry focused on traditional, handcrafted toys, but lacked large-scale manufacturing capabilities. Recent government incentives, coupled with rising middle-class purchasing power, have enabled Indian manufacturers to scale up production and cater to both domestic and international markets. Unlike China, which dominates through mass production, India is differentiating itself by leveraging its cultural heritage—customizing toys to reflect regional preferences and traditional aesthetics.
This success reflects India’s broader industrial strategy: leveraging domestic strengths to create export opportunities, rather than directly competing with China’s economies of scale.
India’s industrial conglomerates have played a defining role in shaping the country’s manufacturing landscape, but their origins differ significantly from their Chinese counterparts.
While Chinese conglomerates often trace their roots to banking, finance, or real estate, Indian business houses emerged from trading and commerce. Historically, trading families from Gujarat, Rajasthan, and the Parsi (Iranian) diaspora built extensive networks with the Gulf, Africa, and Europe, later expanding into manufacturing and industrial sectors.
When India’s economy was heavily regulated, these conglomerates diversified across multiple industries to navigate restrictions and survive. However, post-liberalization, many of them restructured and consolidated, focusing on sectors where they could achieve global competitiveness.
This evolution has created a fundamental difference in industrial structures:
| ● | China’s manufacturing model is vertically integrated, with companies controlling multiple stages of production. | |
| ● | India’s model remains horizontally integrated, with firms specializing in specific segments of the value chain rather than fully owning upstream and downstream processes. |
This structural distinction has implications for India’s future in high-tech manufacturing—can it replicate China’s model, or should it refine its own unique approach?
The Indian government has been both an obstacle and a catalyst for manufacturing growth. In the past, high import tariffs and nationalization efforts sheltered domestic industries but limited their competitiveness. Today, however, India has embraced a more market-driven approach, introducing:
| ● | Production-Linked Incentives (PLI) to encourage domestic manufacturing. | |
| ● | Infrastructure investments in roads, power, and logistics. | |
| ● | Tax reforms such as GST (Goods and Services Tax) to harmonize the regulatory landscape. |
These policies have lowered costs, improved supply chain efficiency, and incentivized foreign investments, making India a more attractive manufacturing hub.
India’s biggest advantage is its massive domestic market, which few low-tech manufacturing hubs can match. Unlike countries such as Bangladesh (focused on textiles) or Vietnam (electronics), India benefits from sectoral diversity, spanning pharmaceuticals, petrochemicals, medical devices, and even aerospace.
This breadth of expertise allows India to compete across multiple verticals, rather than being dependent on a single industry. Additionally, India’s labor force, while still in transition, offers a balance between cost competitiveness and technical capability.
India’s manufacturing landscape today is split into two parallel worlds:
| 1. | Globally integrated, world-class manufacturers—leveraging IoT, AI-driven inventory management, and predictive analytics to optimize efficiency. | |
| 2. | Fragmented, low-tech enterprises—often informal, small-scale, and slow to adopt digital tools. |
While large corporations have embraced Industry 4.0 innovations, smaller enterprises remain largely untouched by digitalization. Bridging this gap is crucial for India’s broader industrial transformation. To stay competitive, India must accelerate digital adoption at all levels—integrating small-scale manufacturers into modern supply chains and enabling them to compete globally.
The low-tech industrial foundation has provided it with a strong cost-competitive base, but its future lies in scaling high-tech industries. The transition from horizontal diversification to vertical specialization will require:
| ● | Greater investment in R&D to drive innovation. | |
| ● | Stronger policy support for high-tech sectors. | |
| ● | Global partnerships to accelerate technology transfer. |
As India positions itself for the future, the central question remains: Can India replicate China’s vertically integrated manufacturing success, or will it forge its own distinct, layered approach? The answer to this will define India’s global industrial role in the decades ahead.
To find out more about how IGPI Group can provide support for businesses, browse through our insight articles or get in contact with us.
Kohki Sakata, CEO of IGPI Singapore
After joining Cap Gemini and Coca Cola, Kohki joined Revamp Corporation where he managed projects on global expansion and turnaround in various sectors including F&B, healthcare, retail, IT, etc. After joining IGPI, he has managed projects mainly on global expansion and cross border M&A in various sectors such as logistics, IT, telecom, retail, etc. In addition to his broad experience in implementing solutions that has been developed in Western countries, he has developed multiple methods to turnaround Asian companies with focus on setting clear vision and employee empowerment. Kohki has proven the practicality of these methods by turning around Asian companies not only as an advisor but also as senior management.
He graduated from Waseda University Department of Political Science and Economics and IE Business School.
Shivaji Das, Managing Director of IGPI Singapore
Shivaji has over 20 years of strategy consulting experience, specializing in New Business Models, Innovation Roadmaps, and Sustainability Journeys. He has worked with private and public sector clients across 25 countries in sectors like Technology, Semiconductors, Chemicals, Healthcare, Renewable Energy, and Construction. Previously, Shivaji was a Partner and Managing Director-APAC at Frost & Sullivan. His paper on Artificial Intelligence was presented at CAINE-2000 in Hawaii, USA. He is the author of seven acclaimed travel, art and business books including The Visible Invisibles and Rebels, Traitors, Peacemakers (both Penguin Random House), as well as The Great Lockdown: lessons learned during the pandemic from organizations around the world (Wiley, USA).
He is an alumnus of IIT Delhi and IIM Calcutta.
IGPI Group is a Japan rooted premium management consulting & Investment Group headquartered in Tokyo with a footprint in Osaka, Singapore, Hanoi, Shanghai & Melbourne, as well as parts of Europe and India. The organization was established in 2007 by former members of the Industrial Revitalization Corporation of Japan (IRCJ), a USD 100 billion sovereign wealth fund focusing on turn-around projects in Japan. IGPI Group has 13 institutional investors, including Nomura Holdings, SMBC, KDDI, Recruit & Sumitomo Corporation to name a few. IGPI Group has vast experience in supporting Fortune 500s, Govt. agencies, Universities, SMEs and funded startups across Asia and beyond for their strategic business needs and hands-on support across a wide variety of industries. IGPI group has ~8,500 employees on a consolidated basis.
* This material is intended merely for reference purposes based on our experience and is not intended to be comprehensive and does not constitute as advice. Information contained in this material has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but IGPI does not represent or warrant the quality, completeness, and accuracy of such information. All rights reserved by IGPI.
Two major forces are accelerating the move toward regionalization. The first is the digital revolution, or what can be called the smartphone revolution in emerging markets. Today, nearly everyone has a powerful computing device in their hands, enabling new business models that were previously impossible. Digital platforms allow companies to localize services dynamically, adapting to the needs of regional consumers in real time.
The second key driver is global decoupling, caused by geopolitical tensions and economic realignments. Trade barriers, sanctions, and shifting regulatory environments have made it more difficult for companies to operate under a single, unified global strategy. Instead, businesses are adopting regionalized approaches, leveraging local champions such as CP Group in Thailand and Mahindra Group in India, as well as fast-growing unicorns that are reshaping local economies.
The digital revolution is also disrupting traditional manufacturing models, making vertical integration less relevant. The automotive industry offers a prime example. With the rise of electric vehicles (EVs), components have become increasingly modularized, reducing complexity in supply chains. Unlike traditional gasoline-powered vehicles, which require thousands of intricate parts, EVs rely on fewer, more standardized components.
This modularization has enabled startups and regional players to enter the market with specialized designs, sourcing components globally and focusing on assembly and service differentiation. At one point, China had over 500 EV manufacturers, illustrating how a shift away from vertically integrated models can foster greater innovation and competition.
For Japanese, European, and U.S. multinational companies, this shift requires a reassessment of how they structure their supply chains and operations. The old model—where companies designed a product centrally and exported it globally—is giving way to regional manufacturing ecosystems where businesses must tailor their offerings based on localized consumer demand and regulatory conditions.
As regionalization accelerates, MNCs must redefine how they position themselves in these new ecosystems. The key challenge is no longer just about producing the best products but about delivering localized services efficiently.
In the past, a company like Toyota could build a globally standardized car like the Corolla and sell it across multiple markets. Today, businesses must design services and customer experiences tailored to specific regional needs, which requires closer collaboration with local partners.
Japanese companies, in particular, need to shift away from value chain-based thinking and instead adopt a layered approach to market entry. In Southeast Asia, Japanese firms have traditionally built vertically integrated supply chains similar to their domestic models. However, this approach has not worked as effectively in India, where business conditions and consumer preferences differ significantly. Rather than replicating the Suzuki-Maruti model—which successfully built a localized automotive supply chain in India—new entrants must adopt more flexible business models, aligning themselves with regional market structures and emerging business layers.
ASEAN has long operated as a regional economic bloc, where companies naturally adopt regional approaches to manufacturing and supply chains. India, however, has traditionally functioned as an independent market, but its role in the regionalization movement is now evolving.
For Japanese firms, ASEAN has historically been seen as an extension of their home market, allowing them to replicate Japan-style vertical integration across the region. India, in contrast, requires a fundamentally different strategy – Japanese companies entering India must move beyond value chain thinking and instead analyze which layers of the economy they should focus on. The competitive dynamics and consumer behaviors in India are distinct from ASEAN, requiring new business models, localized strategies, and stronger local partnerships.
Suzuki’s success in India came from building a vertically integrated supply chain, establishing deep control over local production. While this model worked well for Suzuki, it is not necessarily replicable for other industries or new market entrants.
Traditional Japanese manufacturing firms are accustomed to deeply integrated supplier networks, where tier-one, tier-two, and tier-three suppliers exclusively serve a single OEM. However, in a regionalized economy, companies must instead determine which layer of the value chain they excel in and adapt accordingly.
For example, Japanese firms entering India today may find greater success by focusing on specific segments of a layered market rather than attempting to build and control an entire supply chain. The ability to identify core competencies—whether in manufacturing, software, or services—and integrate them into regional ecosystems will be critical for future success.
Geopolitical tensions have become a dominant factor shaping business strategy. In the past, corporate leaders assumed that political changes had minimal impact on economic decision-making, but the events of recent years have shown that this assumption no longer holds.
For Japanese firms accustomed to fully integrated, self-controlled supply chains, adapting to geopolitical uncertainty requires two key shifts. First, companies must build robust business intelligence capabilities that go beyond simply tracking political events. They must actively analyze where global resources, talent, and supply chain opportunities exist.
For instance, a recent project analyzed global AI talent distribution and identified regions with emerging AI expertise that had not previously been considered strategic hubs. This type of intelligence gathering is essential for companies looking to navigate geopolitical risks while optimizing their operations globally.
Second, Japanese firms must embrace open innovation and collaborative supply chains rather than focusing solely on self-contained, vertically integrated networks. In a world of regionalized trade and shifting alliances, building strategic partnerships across multiple geographies will be key to reducing risk and maintaining resilience.
The shift from globalization to regionalization is reshaping how companies operate across industries. Digital transformation and geopolitical realignments are making traditional value chain approaches obsolete, forcing companies to adopt more flexible, layered business models.
For Japanese, European, and U.S. firms, success in this new era will depend on their ability to localize services, adapt supply chains, and form strategic partnerships within regional economies. Companies must move beyond product standardization and instead focus on layered market strategies, identifying their core strengths and leveraging them in specific regional contexts.
The most successful firms will be those that combine digital intelligence, supply chain flexibility, and regional collaboration, positioning themselves as key players in the evolving global economic landscape.
At IGPI, we have extensive experience supporting multinational corporations in navigating the complexities of regionalization by optimizing supply chains and adapting business models to localized market needs. Our understanding of the interplay between digital transformation, geopolitical tensions, and regional market dynamics allows us to provide tailored strategies that enhance operational flexibility and resilience in a rapidly evolving global landscape.
To find out more about how IGPI Group can provide support for businesses, browse through our insight articles or get in contact with us.
Kohki Sakata, CEO of IGPI Singapore
After joining Cap Gemini and Coca Cola, Kohki joined Revamp Corporation where he managed projects on global expansion and turnaround in various sectors including F&B, healthcare, retail, IT, etc. After joining IGPI, he has managed projects mainly on global expansion and cross border M&A in various sectors such as logistics, IT, telecom, retail, etc. In addition to his broad experience in implementing solutions that has been developed in Western countries, he has developed multiple methods to turnaround Asian companies with focus on setting clear vision and employee empowerment. Kohki has proven the practicality of these methods by turning around Asian companies not only as an advisor but also as senior management.
He graduated from Waseda University Department of Political Science and Economics and IE Business School.
Shivaji Das, Managing Director of IGPI Singapore
Shivaji has over 20 years of strategy consulting experience, specializing in New Business Models, Innovation Roadmaps, and Sustainability Journeys. He has worked with private and public sector clients across 25 countries in sectors like Technology, Semiconductors, Chemicals, Healthcare, Renewable Energy, and Construction. Previously, Shivaji was a Partner and Managing Director-APAC at Frost & Sullivan. His paper on Artificial Intelligence was presented at CAINE-2000 in Hawaii, USA. He is the author of seven acclaimed travel, art and business books including The Visible Invisibles and Rebels, Traitors, Peacemakers (both Penguin Random House), as well as The Great Lockdown: lessons learned during the pandemic from organizations around the world (Wiley, USA).
He is an alumnus of IIT Delhi and IIM Calcutta.
IGPI Group is a Japan rooted premium management consulting & Investment Group headquartered in Tokyo with a footprint in Osaka, Singapore, Hanoi, Shanghai & Melbourne, as well as parts of Europe and India. The organization was established in 2007 by former members of the Industrial Revitalization Corporation of Japan (IRCJ), a USD 100 billion sovereign wealth fund focusing on turn-around projects in Japan. IGPI Group has 13 institutional investors, including Nomura Holdings, SMBC, KDDI, Recruit & Sumitomo Corporation to name a few. IGPI Group has vast experience in supporting Fortune 500s, Govt. agencies, Universities, SMEs and funded startups across Asia and beyond for their strategic business needs and hands-on support across a wide variety of industries. IGPI group has ~8,500 employees on a consolidated basis.
* This material is intended merely for reference purposes based on our experience and is not intended to be comprehensive and does not constitute as advice. Information contained in this material has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but IGPI does not represent or warrant the quality, completeness, and accuracy of such information. All rights reserved by IGPI.
China’s vertically integrated model provides greater control over supply chains, cost efficiency, and innovation synergies. This model has helped China dominate industries such as electronics, automotive, and industrial manufacturing, where deep coordination between suppliers and producers is crucial. A prime example is China’s semiconductor industry, where state investment has strengthened domestic chipmakers, reducing reliance on foreign technology. However, this model also faces challenges, particularly in overcoming technological dependencies and geopolitical constraints.
India, by contrast, follows a horizontal specialization model, where different firms focus on specific segments of the value chain. This approach requires less capital investment, encourages global partnerships, and aligns well with industries where R&D and production can be geographically dispersed. In the automotive sector, for instance, Indian firms such as Tata Technologies and Infosys provide digital engineering and automation solutions for global car manufacturers, bridging software and manufacturing without full-scale production facilities.
India’s pharmaceutical industry exemplifies the benefits of horizontal integration, particularly in the generic medicine sector. India is the world’s leading supplier of generic drugs, accounting for over 40% of the U.S. market. Unlike China’s vertically integrated pharmaceutical sector, India has succeeded by leveraging a combination of process patents, cost-efficient production, and strategic global partnerships.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries is a case in point. Initially focused on generics, the company later expanded into specialty and branded drugs through acquisitions, demonstrating how horizontal integration enables value-chain upgrades. Similarly, firms like Biocon and Dr. Reddy’s have leveraged their strengths in generics to enter the contract development and manufacturing organization (CDMO) space, working with multinational pharmaceutical companies on advanced drug development.
While India initially built its pharmaceutical success on cost efficiency, it is now moving up the value chain into biologics, specialty medicines, and high-end research. This shift illustrates how horizontal models can evolve to capture higher-value segments, reinforcing India’s growing influence in the global pharmaceutical landscape.
Despite its dominance in pharmaceuticals, India lags behind in medical device manufacturing, a sector historically controlled by global giants such as GE, Siemens, and Toshiba. However, the industry is undergoing a transformation, shifting from hardware-driven products to service-based, software-integrated solutions.
For India to establish itself as a global player in medical devices, it must strengthen its local supply chains, encourage deeper collaboration between universities and industry, and leverage government incentives to attract investment in domestic production. The transition to a more digital and services-driven healthcare model presents a strategic opportunity for India to integrate its software strengths with traditional manufacturing capabilities.
Beyond pharmaceuticals and medical devices, India’s software industry is reshaping global manufacturing by shifting value from physical production to data-driven services. In the automotive sector, the growing emphasis on connected vehicles and autonomous systems has made India a key hub for automotive software development. Meanwhile, smart grid solutions and predictive analytics are modernizing energy networks, while AI-driven predictive maintenance is improving factory efficiency worldwide.
Bosch India’s operations exemplify the evolving nature of global manufacturing. The company has strategically leveraged India’s AI expertise to optimize its production networks worldwide. This integration of advanced software capabilities into manufacturing processes underscores the increasing centrality of digital technologies in modern industrial operations, potentially offering Bosch a competitive edge in efficiency and innovation.
While India has significant strengths in software and digital transformation, its manufacturing sector faces structural challenges. One key issue is workforce readiness. India’s workforce is comparable in size to China’s, but literacy rates, advanced manufacturing skills, and female labor force participation remain significantly lower. In manufacturing-driven economies, these factors influence productivity and industrial scalability.
China has benefited from a strong, state-driven industrial policy that has supported manufacturing through large-scale infrastructure investment, subsidies for priority sectors, and strict technology transfer requirements for foreign firms. In contrast, India has taken a more market-driven approach, though recent policy reforms are addressing historical bottlenecks. Initiatives such as the Production-Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme are helping boost local manufacturing, while deregulation of labor laws and improvements in ease of doing business have made India a more attractive destination for industrial investment.
India’s emerging toy manufacturing industry presents an interesting case of policy-driven industrial growth. Recent government initiatives, including local content requirements and tariff adjustments, have reshaped the competitive dynamics of this sector. As a result, India has begun to capture a growing share of the global toy production market, a space traditionally dominated by Chinese manufacturers. This shift highlights the potential impact of aligned government policies and industry needs in developing new manufacturing capabilities.
Traditional value chain analysis is no longer sufficient for understanding global industries. As manufacturing becomes more software-driven, companies must move beyond sector-based strategies and adopt a layered approach, considering the integration of software with traditional industries, the rise of data-driven, subscription-based business models, and the increasing interdependence of manufacturing, AI, and IoT.
This shift requires firms to rethink supply chains, innovation models, and global partnerships. Companies that can successfully navigate this transformation by integrating software with traditional production and leveraging cross-industry collaboration will be best positioned to lead in the next phase of global industrial evolution.
India and China represent two distinct pathways to manufacturing success. China’s vertically integrated model has allowed it to achieve dominance in scale-driven and infrastructure-heavy industries, while India’s specialization model has enabled it to succeed in technology-driven and service-enhanced sectors.
As technology reshapes industry boundaries, firms must rethink their manufacturing strategies. The future of global manufacturing will not be defined by a single model but by the ability to integrate digital capabilities, optimize global partnerships, and embrace the layered industrial transformation that is already underway. Companies that successfully adapt to this changing landscape will emerge as leaders in the next era of global industry.
IGPI possesses extensive experience supporting companies in aligning their manufacturing strategies with either vertical or horizontal integration models, depending on their industry and market needs. By considering strategic trade-offs, we can help businesses optimize their processes to retain competitiveness.
To find out more about how IGPI Group can provide support for businesses, browse through our insight articles or get in contact with us.
Kohki Sakata, CEO of IGPI Singapore
After joining Cap Gemini and Coca Cola, Kohki joined Revamp Corporation where he managed projects on global expansion and turnaround in various sectors including F&B, healthcare, retail, IT, etc. After joining IGPI, he has managed projects mainly on global expansion and cross border M&A in various sectors such as logistics, IT, telecom, retail, etc. In addition to his broad experience in implementing solutions that has been developed in Western countries, he has developed multiple methods to turnaround Asian companies with focus on setting clear vision and employee empowerment. Kohki has proven the practicality of these methods by turning around Asian companies not only as an advisor but also as senior management.
He graduated from Waseda University Department of Political Science and Economics and IE Business School.
Shivaji Das, Managing Director of IGPI Singapore
Shivaji has over 20 years of strategy consulting experience, specializing in New Business Models, Innovation Roadmaps, and Sustainability Journeys. He has worked with private and public sector clients across 25 countries in sectors like Technology, Semiconductors, Chemicals, Healthcare, Renewable Energy, and Construction. Previously, Shivaji was a Partner and Managing Director-APAC at Frost & Sullivan. His paper on Artificial Intelligence was presented at CAINE-2000 in Hawaii, USA. He is the author of seven acclaimed travel, art and business books including The Visible Invisibles and Rebels, Traitors, Peacemakers (both Penguin Random House), as well as The Great Lockdown: lessons learned during the pandemic from organizations around the world (Wiley, USA).
He is an alumnus of IIT Delhi and IIM Calcutta.
IGPI Group is a Japan rooted premium management consulting & Investment Group headquartered in Tokyo with a footprint in Osaka, Singapore, Hanoi, Shanghai & Melbourne, as well as parts of Europe and India. The organization was established in 2007 by former members of the Industrial Revitalization Corporation of Japan (IRCJ), a USD 100 billion sovereign wealth fund focusing on turn-around projects in Japan. IGPI Group has 13 institutional investors, including Nomura Holdings, SMBC, KDDI, Recruit & Sumitomo Corporation to name a few. IGPI Group has vast experience in supporting Fortune 500s, Govt. agencies, Universities, SMEs and funded startups across Asia and beyond for their strategic business needs and hands-on support across a wide variety of industries. IGPI group has ~8,500 employees on a consolidated basis.
* This material is intended merely for reference purposes based on our experience and is not intended to be comprehensive and does not constitute as advice. Information contained in this material has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but IGPI does not represent or warrant the quality, completeness, and accuracy of such information. All rights reserved by IGPI.
The second Trump administration raises concerns about the future of sustainability investments in ASEAN. Over the past few years, the region has seen significant momentum in areas like hydrogen, carbon capture, and renewable energy, driven by global commitments to climate action. However, if the U.S. shifts its stance, corporations may pause to reassess their exposure, delaying projects and investment decisions.
Yet, the broader trajectory remains clear. Climate change is accelerating, and public pressure for action is growing. While short-term disruptions may occur, long-term sustainability initiatives will continue, supported by multilateral agreements like COP16 and coalitions led by Japan and Singapore. Rather than retreating, businesses should take a calibrated approach—hedging against political shifts while staying committed to the long-term potential of green investments.
For decades, globalization followed a predictable formula: source raw materials at the lowest cost, manufacture in cost-effective locations, and export to high-margin markets. However, digitalization and shifting geopolitical realities are making this model obsolete.
The new paradigm is regionalization—where companies leverage regional synergies rather than purely global supply chains. ASEAN firms are already adapting – companies like Vietnam’s VinFast are not just producing electric vehicles but integrating them into smart city ecosystems, creating value beyond manufacturing. In contrast, many Chinese manufacturers continue to operate under old globalization rules, aggressively exporting amid domestic slowdowns.
This shift presents a strategic imperative for ASEAN, Japanese, and Korean firms: competing solely on cost is no longer viable. The future lies in regional collaboration, digital integration, and problem-solving within ASEAN’s unique ecosystem.
The next three to five years will be defined by several key geopolitical risks. The trajectory of U.S. trade policy remains a central concern. A more protectionist America could disrupt trade flows and unsettle markets. Meanwhile, conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, and potential tensions in the Taiwan Strait pose risks to supply chains, energy prices, and currency stability.
Beyond military conflicts, the geopolitical landscape is being reshaped by ideological battles. A growing backlash against sustainability policies, particularly in parts of the U.S. and Europe, could slow the green transition. Political instability is another concern, with leadership changes in Indonesia, Japan, and Korea introducing regulatory unpredictability. Resource nationalism is also emerging as a critical factor, as major powers compete for control over strategic minerals and supply chains.
Japanese businesses in ASEAN must prepare for these disruptions, not just by managing risk but by identifying where opportunities may emerge in this shifting landscape.
Periods of uncertainty often create openings for specific industries. The defense sector, particularly outside the U.S., is set to expand as European and Asian countries ramp up military spending. Infrastructure and housing will benefit from deregulation in key markets like India, Indonesia, and China, creating opportunities for investment. The digital economy, including fintech and e-commerce, will continue to thrive as shifting regulations open new doors for innovation.
Rather than seeing uncertainty as a purely defensive challenge, businesses should approach it as an opportunity to reposition for long-term growth.
The flood of daily political events makes it easy for companies to fall into a cycle of reaction rather than strategy. But geopolitics should be a tool for shaping long-term vision, not just a series of immediate risks to manage.
Companies must expand their strategic horizons. Instead of focusing solely on domestic markets or short-term disruptions, they need to analyze how resource flows and political alliances will evolve over the next decade. This means thinking five, ten, or even twenty years ahead rather than getting caught up in daily headlines.
Equally important is ensuring that geopolitical strategy is not confined to top management. Mid-to-long-term planning must be embedded across the organization, from leadership down to operational teams. This prevents businesses from being swayed by short-term noise and ensures consistency in strategic execution.
Many companies recognize the importance of geopolitical intelligence but struggle with making it actionable. The most common mistake is relying on fragmented, news-driven analysis that lacks business relevance.
A well-structured intelligence function requires an in-house team that interprets global events through a business-specific lens. Rather than dispersing intelligence efforts across multiple units, companies should establish a centralized function that synthesizes insights across the organization.
However, internal teams cannot do this alone and collaborating with external experts is essential. While external specialists bring deep geopolitical insights, they often lack the granular understanding of how these developments impact specific industries. A hybrid model—combining internal expertise with external analysis—allows companies to build a nuanced, actionable intelligence framework.
At IGPI, we have supported multiple clients in setting up business intelligence teams that do more than just track events. Our approach focuses on turning intelligence into clear, strategic direction —ensuring that insights are not just collected but used to drive real decision-making.
Geopolitical uncertainty is not a passing trend—it is the new reality. Companies that continue to view it as an external risk rather than an integral part of strategy will find themselves constantly reacting rather than leading.
The businesses that succeed in this environment will be those that recognize:
– The era of globalization is over, and regionalization is the future.
– Geopolitical risks are not just threats—they are opportunities for those who anticipate them.
– Intelligence is only valuable if it is structured to drive long-term strategy, not just immediate reactions.
At IGPI, we specialize in helping businesses decode geopolitical complexity and turn risks into competitive advantages. In an era where uncertainty is the only constant, the ability to think ahead will define the winners of tomorrow.
To find out more about how IGPI Group can provide support for businesses, browse through our insight articles or get in contact with us.
Kohki Sakata, CEO of IGPI Singapore
After joining Cap Gemini and Coca Cola, Kohki joined Revamp Corporation where he managed projects on global expansion and turnaround in various sectors including F&B, healthcare, retail, IT, etc. After joining IGPI, he has managed projects mainly on global expansion and cross border M&A in various sectors such as logistics, IT, telecom, retail, etc. In addition to his broad experience in implementing solutions that has been developed in Western countries, he has developed multiple methods to turnaround Asian companies with focus on setting clear vision and employee empowerment. Kohki has proven the practicality of these methods by turning around Asian companies not only as an advisor but also as senior management.
He graduated from Waseda University Department of Political Science and Economics and IE Business School.
Shivaji Das, Managing Director of IGPI Singapore
Shivaji has over 20 years of strategy consulting experience, specializing in New Business Models, Innovation Roadmaps, and Sustainability Journeys. He has worked with private and public sector clients across 25 countries in sectors like Technology, Semiconductors, Chemicals, Healthcare, Renewable Energy, and Construction. Previously, Shivaji was a Partner and Managing Director-APAC at Frost & Sullivan. His paper on Artificial Intelligence was presented at CAINE-2000 in Hawaii, USA. He is the author of seven acclaimed travel, art and business books including The Visible Invisibles and Rebels, Traitors, Peacemakers (both Penguin Random House), as well as The Great Lockdown: lessons learned during the pandemic from organizations around the world (Wiley, USA).
He is an alumnus of IIT Delhi and IIM Calcutta.
IGPI Group is a Japan rooted premium management consulting & Investment Group headquartered in Tokyo with a footprint in Osaka, Singapore, Hanoi, Shanghai & Melbourne, as well as parts of Europe and India. The organization was established in 2007 by former members of the Industrial Revitalization Corporation of Japan (IRCJ), a USD 100 billion sovereign wealth fund focusing on turn-around projects in Japan. IGPI Group has 13 institutional investors, including Nomura Holdings, SMBC, KDDI, Recruit & Sumitomo Corporation to name a few. IGPI Group has vast experience in supporting Fortune 500s, Govt. agencies, Universities, SMEs and funded startups across Asia and beyond for their strategic business needs and hands-on support across a wide variety of industries. IGPI group has ~8,500 employees on a consolidated basis.
* This material is intended merely for reference purposes based on our experience and is not intended to be comprehensive and does not constitute as advice. Information contained in this material has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but IGPI does not represent or warrant the quality, completeness, and accuracy of such information. All rights reserved by IGPI.
We have touched upon the Japanese side being challenged with internal buy-in/alignment for Australia, and the Australian side on the “customized approach” to Japan or Japanese corporates. While these issues can be anticipated and planned for, unexpected situations always arise. Hence, the actual engagement will become a valuable experience for understanding each other. This Part III (the final part in the series) intends to put a spotlight on how Japanese corporations can engage with Australian universities and research institutes. These institutions offer a wealth of untapped potential and represent a rich source of capabilities Japanese corporations can leverage off, and frankly less explored at this stage.
The wider objective of this piece is our contribution to a conversation about increasing the A-J innovation success cases in the Australia-Japan corridor. Specifically, IGPI shares some of its observations of how Japanese corporates can engage or partner with Australian universities and research institutes – these could be in the forms of straightforward research relationships all the way to commercialization initiatives.
Throughout the article series, we have touched on the changing nature of “What” and “Who” Japanese corporations are collaborating with in the Australia-Japan corridor. We explored the capabilities of the broader Australian innovation ecosystem, including universities and research institutes.
However, we also highlighted that both Japanese and Australian sides need to prepare internally before engaging. For Japanese corporations, this involves internal alignment between headquarters and the local arm. For Australians, it means developing a customized Japan strategy to understand and overcome cultural or communication barriers.
You can find Part I can be found here and Part II here.
The next question is “how,” or in other words, the “actions” to take for collaboration.
It is first important to note that it is common for Australian universities to have a dedicated department for managing industry collaboration and IP-related matters (e.g. commercialization). These departments are generally known as “Technology Transfer Offices” or TTOs1.
TTO is a general term, and some universities might call it an “Industry Engagement Office” or something similar. TTOs are a crucial point of engagement for any industry partner, regardless of whether they have existing connections with university faculty. This is because the university’s IP management and contractual matters will ultimately be handled by the TTO. Therefore, establishing a holistic relationship with the university early on is important and beneficial.
From the Australian perspective, identifying the right contact within a Japanese corporation is essential. However, this is easier said than done since, unlike Australian universities with their standardized TTO function, Japanese corporate structures vary significantly. To get started, having a Japanese engagement specialist is helpful. If this expertise is not accessible internally, then engaging with government bodies (like Austrade in Japan) or ecosystem participants (like IGPI) can be a strong starting point for your Australia-Japan innovation journey.
Once you know who to contact, the next step is exploring engagement and partnership options. Here are some collaboration methods Japanese corporations and Australian universities can potentially explore (but not limited to):
2.1. Example of Mode of Collab. # 1: Contract Research
Contract research offers a tailored approach for Japanese corporations to access expertise from Australian universities on specific research topics. This could include, consulting, evaluations, lab services, or independent research projects2. The scope is flexible and can range from simple research outsourcing to joint research projects led or supported by the university. However, contract research is generally considered a transactional engagement rather than a long-term partnership, though it can be a stepping stone. It’s a valuable way for Japanese corporations in Australia to gain first-hand experience with a university’s research capabilities.
2.2. Example of Mode of Collab. # 2: Center of Excellence (CoE)
Center of Excellence (CoE) is a generic term referring to hubs that have specialized units (or individuals, or even collaborations between organizations) focused on a particular area of expertise3. While not exclusively research-focused, CoEs can be instrumental in driving business or industry transformation.
There are already examples of CoEs in Australia with Japanese participants.
| CoE | Brief Example |
|---|---|
| ARC Centre of Excellence in Quantum Biotechnology x Olympus | The Arc Centre of Excellence in Quantum Biotechnology’s focus is partnering with industry and government to seek to drive fundamental understanding and innovation across manufacturing, clean energy, agriculture, health and national security4. |
Unlike contract research, a CoE represents a deeper commercial and technical collaboration on a focus area between the partners.
2.3. Example of Mode of Collab. # 3: Intellectual Property (IP) utilisation
Compared to the previous examples, utilizing intellectual property (IP) offers a more direct and relatively immediate path to commercialization. There are several ways universities utilize IP, and Japanese corporations could be involved with5:
| [1] | Licensing to external companies (i.e. university owns IP, Japanese corporations pay for the IP usage) | |
| [2] | License assignment or selling/buying the IP (i.e. IP’s ownership is sold to third party) | |
| [3] | Create a spin-off company to utilize the IP (different to licensing, as spin-offs generally act as an extension of the university as explained in the Part II article) |
Methods [1] and [2] are straightforward in concept. However, spin-offs can involve Japanese corporations co-establishing the spin-off, also known as “Joint Venture Spin-off / Spin-out” or JVSO. While not uncommon, JVSO offer practical advantages. The industry partner becomes a part-owner and can influence the entrepreneurial mindset and commercial direction of the spin-off. It could also benefit the venture’s credibility and stability with the support of the industry partner too6.
These are just a few examples of how to engage and partner with universities or research institutes. The most suitable method will depend on each partnership’s objectives, timing and situation.
In this article series, we have covered the bottlenecks on the Japanese and Australian sides, and explored various forms of engagement or partnership the two parties can action. But it is important to note that there is a critical gap to be addressed for innovation to reach the real-world, this is commonly known as the “Innovation Valley of Death” (hereafter Valley of Death).
The Valley of Death refers to the timing where public funding (i.e. university funds) for research decreases, but there isn’t enough private fundings (i.e. industry partner support) to reach the minimum investment level needed to sustain the initiative7.
Graph 1: Idea to Value – The Innovation Valley of Death8
Here is a simple scenario to illustrate the Valley of Death:
| 1 | An innovative technology, heavily supported by university on the primary R&D funding, reaches the point where it is proven in a lab environment | |
| 2 | The next step is to test it in the real-world and investigate the problem/solution fit | |
| 3 | At this point, primary research funding from the university starts to diminish as the project nears its conclusion | |
| 4 | But industry players are not ready to invest due to uncertainty about the technology’s business scalability | |
| 5 | As a result, the funding/investment level may be insufficient to support the technology’s commercialization |
The above is an example where R&D is run by a separate entity (i.e. university). However, the same principle applies to internal corporate R&D and new business creation cases as well. For example, the initial R&D might be conducted, but further for scaling could be withheld due to core the business being prioritized or facing challenges that require those funds.
Also, it is noted that Australia is experiencing “publishing inflation”, where researchers are prioritizing the number of papers published over the impact of that paper/research9. This suggests an entrepreneurial mindset focused on commercialization might be lacking or not prioritized. While university professors and TTOs are aware of this issue and working to address it, change cannot happen overnight.
Despite these challenges, it is critical to outline that a smooth transition from the R&D to scaling / commercialization, enabled by sufficient collaborative funding or support is a vital requirement for any innovation to succeed.
For specific/apt Australian innovations that may appeal to Japanese corporations – to avoid the Valley of Death, several factors are crucial. The “Why?”, “What?” and “How?” of the Australian innovation must be (i) well-defined within an international context and (ii) discovered and identified by the right audience (e.g. Japan Inc.) and (iii) aligned with the right market situation and timing. And this is where IGPI Group can add value.
IGPI Group has been working with universities and corporations in Japan to address this issue of innovation commercialization by setting up a subsidiary entity “Advanced Technology Acceleration Corporation”, in short ATAC.
ATAC’s focus is being the bridge to support universities and research institutes, start-ups and Japanese corporations to perform hands-on incubation of cutting-edge technologies, bringing them to the real world based on market needs.
Figure 1: Diagram on ATAC’s support10
So far, IGPI Group has executed these initiatives for both Japanese corporations or individual Japanese universities. One example is a joint initiative with Toyota Motor Corporation to establish the “Innovative Technology Acceleration Platform” or ITAP, which collaborates with University of Tokyo’s School of Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology and Nagoya University on technology incubation11.
Figure 2: Toyota Global Newsroom12
Another example is a joint initiative with Nagoya Institute of Technology called “Nagoya Institute of Technology Expansion Platform” or NITEP, which specializes in incubating and commercializing the university’s expertise13.
These are just a few examples from Japan, but symbolizes a strong commitment to hands-on incubation and bringing innovation beyond the labs and to the real world through collaboration—literally “Bridge the Valley of Death”. IGPI Group has developed a deep-rooted understanding of innovation ecosystem and incubation processes and we see strong potential for applying our learnings in the Australia-Japan corridor too.
If you are an Australian university or research institute or an Australia corporation that has the ambition of building new businesses through Australia-Japan innovation, we will be glad to have a confidential conversation. IGPI provides highly customized business advisory to its diverse range of clients, including but not limited to:
I. Building your “for Japan” or “with Japan” strategy
II. Capability statement prioritization based on needs/wants of Japan Inc.
III. Market assessment for specific research initiatives x Japan as a market or Japan Inc.
IV. Strategic partner/capabilities search x Japan
V. Commercial negotiations support
VI. Other custom hands-on support (for/in Japan) etc.
To find out more about how IGPI Group can provide support for businesses, browse through our insight articles or get in contact with us.
1 Knowledge Commercialisation Australasia – https://techtransfer.org.au/ipc-training/commercialisation/who-participates-in-commercialising-universities-ip/
2 University of Melbourne Contract research – https://research.unimelb.edu.au/partnerships/collaborate/research-collaboration/contract-research
3 Catalant Everything you need to know about CoE – https://catalant.com/coe-everything-you-need-to-know-about-centers-of-excellence/
4 The University of Queensland – https://smp.uq.edu.au/research/research-centres/arc-centre-excellence-quantum-biotechnology
5 Knowledge Commercialisation Australasia – https://techtransfer.org.au/ipc-training/commercialisation/commercialisation-pathways-and-vehicles/
6 J-Stage Articles – https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsmeicbtt/2002.1/0/2002.1_77/_article/-char/en
7 Idea to Value – https://www.ideatovalue.com/inno/nickskillicorn/2021/05/the-innovation-valley-of-death/
8 Idea to Value – https://www.ideatovalue.com/inno/nickskillicorn/2021/05/the-innovation-valley-of-death/
9 The Age: We’ve hit peak science, and that’s not good https://www.theage.com.au/national/we-ve-hit-peak-science-and-that-s-not-good-20240116-p5exkb.htmll
10 ATAC website – https://igpi-atac.co.jp/
11 Toyota Global Newsroom – https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/37000298.html
12 Toyota Global Newsroom – https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/37000298.html
13 IGPI News – https://www.igpi.co.jp/2020/07/28/news_20200728/
Mr. Rachit Khosla is the Country Manager of IGPI Australia. Rachit is a seasoned strategy consulting professional with over 14 years of experience in leading and executing market entry and growth strategies (both organic and inorganic) and open innovation engagements for Fortune 500 businesses and large MNCs across the Asia Pacific. He has advised clients in a diverse range of industries, including automotive, fin-tech, industrial and manufacturing, med-tech & healthcare, smart cities, construction materials, travel, IT & telecommunications to name a few. Rachit was the former Country Manager and Director for YCP Solidiance (now Japanese-owned) and Founder and CEO of an online B2B marketplace startup for professional advisory services focused on Emerging Markets.
Mr. Kaoru Shingae is a Consultant at IGPI Australia. Prior to joining IGPI, Kaoru worked at Toyota, BMW and Boston Consulting Group, primarily specializing in the Automotive and Mobility sector and with exposure to wider industrial sectors. Kaoru has both internal and external strategy experience with a deep understanding on ‘What’ is most important for all stakeholder’s future. He has end-to-end experience from corporate and enterprise-level planning to all the way down to operational planning. Kaoru is a holistic all-rounder who engages with both strategic and operational stakeholders throughout the company. Past achievements include crisis turnaround plans, long and mid-term vision plans, CEO’s company goal plans and sales & market operational plans plus delivery, to name a few. Kaoru has graduated from The University of Melbourne with a Bachelor of Commerce.
Ms. Devina Hashifah is an Intern at IGPI Australia (Nov 2023 – Feb 2024). Devina graduated with a Bachelor of Commerce from the University of Melbourne, majoring in Marketing and Management. She has previously worked in the financial advisory sector and student consulting organizations, conducting research for clients from the agriculture, renewable energy, microfinance, and media industry.
IGPI Group is a Japan rooted premium management consulting & Investment Group headquartered in Tokyo with a footprint in Osaka, Singapore, Hanoi, Shanghai & Melbourne, as well as parts of Europe and India. The organization was established in 2007 by former members of the Industrial Revitalization Corporation of Japan (IRCJ), a USD 100 billion sovereign wealth fund focusing on turn-around projects in Japan. IGPI Group has 13 institutional investors, including Nomura Holdings, SMBC, KDDI, Recruit & Sumitomo Corporation to name a few. IGPI Group has vast experience in supporting Fortune 500s, Govt. agencies, Universities, SMEs and funded startups across Asia and beyond for their strategic business needs and hands-on support across a wide variety of industries. IGPI group has ~8,500 employees on a consolidated basis.
* This material is intended merely for reference purposes based on our experience and is not intended to be comprehensive and does not constitute as advice. Information contained in this material has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but IGPI does not represent or warrant the quality, completeness, and accuracy of such information. All rights reserved by IGPI.
Copyright© 2025 Industrial Growth Platform Pte. Ltd. All rights reserved. Web Excellence by Verz
