 Besides basically helping Vertigo patients, which is kind of the core focus area where they started, they're also now working with leading spaces as organizations to train astronauts, to train Air Force pilots, to evaluate and enhance their balance system. So I think it's going to be a fascinating session today with the Bandari family. So without much delay, I want to request Rajneesh to share the screen, please. So good morning everyone and thank you Narayesh for the kind introduction and the invite to allow us to give us an opportunity to talk about what we are doing. We are in the domain of Vertigo Dizziness and Balance Disorders, which affects over 15% of the population globally. And we can translate this into 180 million people in India. Over 40 kinds of diseases of the inner ear and brain cause balance disorders. We are working at innovation at the intersection of three domains, medicine, technology and design. So one of the most fundamental principles of innovation is the ability to unlearn. In most cases, the experts are not able to see the disruption coming. I love to give the example of the Google Loon project, which was started at the beginning of this decade. The idea was to have huge balloons in the stratosphere to be able to be in internet to remote parts of the globe. When the project was launched, the experts, the balloon experts, including the best balloonist in the world, said that it was almost impossible because a balloon could not stay in the air for more than three weeks. The internet experts said that you are trying to beam from 20 kilometers up and what you would get is only a few KVPS. The project was also ridiculed in magazines like Mashable. Today, Loon has achieved over a million flight hours and has set a record of more than 200 days for a balloon in the air. And it has been instrumental in providing internet to far off places in Peru and Puerto Rico during the natural calamities that happen in these countries. The baggage of expert knowledge is what prevents innovation from happening. So I'd like to take you through the journey of some of our product innovations. The inner ear is responsible for maintaining balance of the body. Some of the engineers in the audience would find it interesting to know that the inner ear actually acts as an accelerometer, a gyroscope and a gravity detector. Some patients who have problems in detection of gravity perceive the world as tilted. This is tested by subjective visual vertical. Subjective visual vertical was initially tested in the 1960s by a bucket test in which a bucket which had a black line painted on its bottom was presented to the patient. The patient put his head inside and was asked to turn the or rotate the bucket to make that line vertical. Now the true vertical was compared with the perceived vertical. And this is what we call subjective visual vertical calculation. Various iterations and refinements have been done down the years. And it has even been computerized and mechanized. The latest iteration is a laser projection developed by a European company which costs around $15,000 and comes with a remote control. So I was on a flight, long flight back from US and I was dosing off. And suddenly I had the eureka moment. The test was a simple test to ask the patient to move a inclined line to make it vertical and then to see the difference between what the patient perceived as vertical and the actual vertical. So the solution stuck to me, which was a simple PowerPoint presentation with a black background and an inclined line which could rotate with every click. And the slide number could be used to depict the subjective visual vertical. But here we had a product which was simple to use, which was just a PowerPoint and was a replacement for a $15,000 equipment. And met all the scientific requirements required. So we strongly believe that adding features or stacking features do not help. And what you need is a simple product for solutions. A great example of a simple design is an Amazon Fire Stick. The most difficult part of innovation is saying no to a thousand things and choosing the just the right feature that is required. I'd like to talk about another condition which causes vertigo. It's one of the most common causes and it is called BPPV. The inner ear has three semicircular canals which are filled with fluid. Sometimes a calcium carbonate particle from another part of the ear enters into one of these canals. Here you can see it depicted as the yellow ball. When the patient moves their head, it strikes the nerve fibers causing dizziness or vertigo. Now the treatment involves getting that particle back to its correct position. We can use the analogy of using the maze, this game puzzle, in which the balls have to be brought by different manipulations back to out. They have to be carried to the center. So what BPPV treatment involves is doing a series of maneuvers to bring that crystal back to the center. It's often difficult for doctors to understand the three-dimensional planes of these three semicircular canals when the head moves. And for this, various models have been developed. You can see one of these early models and over time, as we saw in the initial example, refinements have been made, made it more sleek and presentable. A few years back in Switzerland, one of the labs, they developed a 3D robotic model to understand the movements of these particles and yes, it had a budget of several thousand, more than hundreds of thousands of dollars. So when we were thinking about the problem, we came up with an elegant solution in which we created a simulation coupling the head movement with the movement of the inner ear. Now, why did we require physical equipment when we could just use an animated simulation to couple both of these moments and understand how the inner ear was working? We could move the head to all kinds of positions and see the behavior of the particle. Today, this has become an acclaimed, globally acclaimed innovation. Coming back to the treatment of BPPV, as I said earlier, it is basically bringing those crystals back to their initial position and various kinds of machines and chairs have been developed to help doctors perform those functions. The Europeans with their engineering prowess have basically been able to develop all kinds of chairs. And again, now our thought was, what do we need to do? Basically, the purpose of all of this is to map the trajectory of the head during the movement in three-dimensional space. And we then developed a miniature tracking device coupled with intelligent software and have been able to achieve the same results. So one of the fundamental things about our company has been to make, find simple solutions for complicated or so-called complicated problems. This is the kind of equipment that you see in balanced labs across very specialized centers in Europe or US, like Johns Hopkins or Howard Medical School. And we have developed all these equipment from first principle basis, the whole battery of diagnostic equipment. We have applied for six patents. We have already been granted three patents. So we believe that rather than a technology company at our core, we're a problem-solving company because technology-centric companies try and find areas to use their technology and may sometimes end up trying to build solutions for frivolous problems. We, on the other hand, are open to use and adopt any technology that is best suited to solve a subset of the larger issue. So let's look at this. All our equipment is 3D printed to allow for prototyping on the go. We use virtual reality and augmented reality for rehabilitation of our patients, machine learning or AI for diagnosis. We also use computer vision in many scenarios, like this one explained here. So here you see how we track torsional eye movement of the patients. We've developed natural language processing along with algorithm for digital history taking. Next are wearables, which have been developed for treatment of various vertigo and dizziness issues. And then digital therapeutics for lifestyle management with a two-way exchange of data between doctors as well as patients. So drug interactions and contraindicated medicines lead to over 100,000 deaths, which are totally preventable. This is because there are over 7,800 FDA approved drugs and thousands of interactions between them, which is impossible for the human mind to remember. Our algorithms prevent drug reactions in the restrictions they turn out. So medical experts often work in silos like you see here for diabetic care. While what is required is a more collaborative multidisciplinary approach. So our remote diagnosis platform ensures that multidisciplinary collaborative approach at neuro equilibrium. We believe in imbibing and adopting multifarious technologies with a patient-centric approach. So while iteration is about doing the same things better and experts are good at that, innovation is about new things. I think it is disruption, which is important, which is doing things, new things, which make old systems and things obsolete. Focusing on product innovation is not enough anymore. And what is required is business model innovation. I like to give the example of Apple. Apple has multiple products and while, you know, all their products are good, only a few have been runaway successes like iPod, iPhone and iPad. And you know, when I ask people why this is there, most people say because Apple is a great design company, but that does not explain why some products have done really well while others have not been market leaders. This is a mobile video player which was there before iPod came in. Of course, this is the first iPod that was launched, which is in 2001, which is a great design. But I believe that the success of iPod was not just because of great design, but because of iTunes that was launched a few months before iPod, which allowed users to just download one song or one track instead of the whole album at 99 cents. This is one great example of business model innovation. The tablet PC was launched by Microsoft in 2001 and almost 10 years after that. And this was a failure and almost 10 years after that, the iPad came in, which was a huge success. The reason again is not fundamentally designed. I believe the reason was both for the success of iPod and iPhone was the launch of the App Store in 2008, which saw a huge surge in the sales of iPhone going up and ultimately the success of iPad. Millions and billions of apps were downloaded in the next few years and which basically created an ecosystem and a use case for iPad. This is the famous quote by the CEO of Nokia that basically Apple and subsequently Android took the entire market share by because of building an entirely different ecosystem. So it is all about business model innovation and in that we believe that it is very difficult to be 10% better than our competitors. So if we have to compete with the manufacturers of our digital diagnostic equipment, we will have to compete with their vast network with their huge resources and with their years of experience. But it is much easier to be 10x better to think in terms of multiples and this is what we have done. We have changed the rules of the game. Instead of being an equipment player, we have basically set up a remote diagnostic system where we have satellite clinics on a revenue share basis. So instead of instead of selling equipment, we are now a healthcare service provider. We believe that every product is a service waiting to happen and that is what we have done with our domain. And so we have exponentially grown in very short time to more than 125 clinics across India with all the top marquee hospitals under our name, including Apollo, Fortis, Max, etc. We also have clinics in Cyprus and now we are expanding outside India to create an innovative company. Culture of innovation is very important. And the last part of my presentation, I will talk about a few simple things which we have done to create a culture of innovation. One of the important things that we believe in is that brim storming doesn't work. It would come as a surprise to you. There was a survey of CXOs, more than 100 CXOs that were done where they were asked to list three top ideas that they got in the last one year. Then they were subsequently asked to list out what they were doing when they got those ideas. You will be surprised, but not a single one of them came in brainstorming during a board meeting. It was mostly that they were either taking the dog for a walk or having a shower or dozing off or in a long flight. As for neuroscience, it is almost impossible to do brainstorming and have people, 20 people sit in a room and then be able to figure out a great idea. History is replete with examples of the Eureka movement which came when people were not actually thinking about that problem. This is a great article by a published in Howard Business Review, which talks about why brainstorming doesn't work. The other thing that we do is to have small teams working on multiple projects simultaneously. So the people could be working on any one person could be working on multiple projects. So that at the back of their mind, they have multiple problems to think over and that could lead to very innovative ideas. One of the things that we do is to celebrate failure. You know, basically Astro Teller, one of the top people in Google. He has given a beautiful tech talk on why once we celebrate failure, it leads to better innovation. We believe that people are less afraid to try out new ideas, which may look ridiculous in the beginning. We do not believe in having rules to make our workplace look very efficient and very neat and clean. I think innovation comes when people are free to do what they want to do. And we use a lot of tools that allow for experimentation, including of course things like 3D printing, which allows for rapid prototyping. I think we believe that a massive transformative purpose helps people align themselves and able to deliver much better than their normal self. And our massive transformative purpose is to treat a hundred million patients in the next 10 years. We also try to cultivate the culture of frugal innovation and believe that limited resources are in fact a catalyst for innovation, not a hindrance to innovation. We have internal teams, which try to disrupt ourselves. If we do not disrupt ourselves, somebody else will. And I think as a young company, we have already had third generation of products, which have basically disrupted the first generation of equipment that we have developed. So I think this is very important for us to be on the top of the game. I believe that the reason why we exist is to make a dent in the universe and to be able to make an impact on millions of lives. Thank you very much. Right. That was such an amazing, inspiring story. It's a story of a long work there. I know how hard you guys have been working, having some visibility into some of the things that you've been doing. So, you know, it's really inspiring. If you see the chat messages, people are talking about this story needs to go viral in India or worldwide because all the amazing work that you've done and the wisdom that came out in your presentation, I think is just amazing. So let's, you know, I again, want to thank everyone, you know, thank you guys on behalf of everyone for doing this and coming here and sharing your experience. Now let's take a few questions. Let's quickly go through. So folks, if you have questions, please put it in the discuss tab under the Q&A section and we will start taking the questions now. I see a bunch of questions. So, you know, Anita and Rajneesh, I'll just read it out and you guys can answer that. All right. So the first one is from Ankit says, this is a, this is fabulous. What inspired you to use such heavy technology in your area? So, I think, you know, if you take a global problem and so we have 100, 15% of the population, just 180 million people in India. And then you look at how you can influence their lives. And as we said, and as we have mentioned that we are not, we are not a technology centric company. We are not looking at having one technology, let's say virtual reality and then trying to see what we can do with it. It's the other way around. We have a problem statement and there are lots of subsets of problems within that and then we try to adopt the best technology to use for that. So I think that approach of being patient centric and problem centric rather than technology centric is what has helped us to imbibe multiple technologies in our domain. Great. I'll quickly jump to the next question. So the next question is from Sakshi. What has been your major challenge in this transformational journey? I asked this because I can think of a big list but would like to hear from your experience. I think the major challenge has been and I would like Dr. Aita to comment on that has been that when we talk to the specialist, you know, their reaction was that this cannot be done. And I would like Dr. Aita to basically talk about it. So basically when we started out, Rajesh asked me this question that how can you basically try to diagnose a patient who is not in front of you? And that was like, I just couldn't imagine. So I think if I cannot see the patient, I cannot talk to the patient. How is it going to happen? And then we started talking about what do we need to ask the patient and finally develop a uniform basically a history taking examination and then so that we could replicate this at all over at all our places. Moving on next, I think there's a question from Sandeep. Sandeep is asking simplicity is the ultimate sophistication, but it's hard to achieve, right? So simplicity is the ultimate sophistication, but it's hard to achieve. How do you ensure you think simple? So I think this is one of the mantras that we have in the company that, you know, anybody who comes up with a simple solution is definitely, you know, talked about and in various ways rewarded, you know, we are not looking at complicated solutions and every time there is a complicated solution that comes, everyone has the right to question, is this the best? And I think that culture of questioning a complicated solution and having multiple people work on multiple projects where they can think unconsciously or subconsciously about their problems has led to many of these simple solutions to come out. But I can tell you from my journey that finding simple solutions is one of the most difficult things in terms of developing products. Absolutely. I can vouch for that. So I did a startup with Rajneesh back in 2011. I think Adventure Labs, you know, and we were building. We actually started as a company that wanted to focus on mental arithmetic using abacus. And I think we were looking at building a physical abacus very quickly realized that that's a complicated solution to actually, you know, build an electronic version of calculus or abacus, sorry. And we shifted to an iPad based solution and we kept trying to simplify it till we said, okay, you know, this makes sense, you know, from still achieving our goal, but not having to deal with hardware, not having to deal with a lot of other moving parts in the solution. So I think that the drive towards simplicity, I think is very important. The other thing that I just want to quickly touch upon, which I think is a very important point that you made is, you know, some people refer to a set based design, which means that, you know, if you want to, if you want to find innovative solution, you can't just have one team focus on it and just keep working at it. You have to run parallel experiments and you have to try things parallely and see what emerges as a best of the class solution. I think not many people talk about this, even though this has been around as a concept in terms of set based design for many years, very, very few companies actually embrace this, you know, they look at it as a waste of, you know, resources or things like that and want to focus on just, you know, getting one team to focus on solving the problem rather than trying things in parallel. So I think that's again, something that I feel is a very important point worth calling out that you need to do parallel experiments. And I think you've gone one step further saying not only do parallel experiments, but do let the same person do multiple things at the same time and subconsciously let people think about how they want to solve the problem. We've all heard about the water cooler thing where, you know, you're trying to solve a problem. It's very hard to figure out the solution. You step away, you go to get a glass of water or, you know, you just walk away and then suddenly it hits you that, hey, this is the problem. So I think I can relate to that where you are trying to solve multiple problems and when you step back and look at a different problem, maybe the solution to the first problem becomes apparent. And I can, yeah, I see both of you nodding. So I think that's something at play as well. So that's great. Cool. Quickly moving on, there are a lot more questions. So I'll try and keep pace here. Do you, so this is the next question from Vinaya. So do you take different approaches for innovation and for keeping, sorry, for delivery slash keeping the lights on kind of work or do you see it all part of the same whole? So do you have different approaches for innovation versus keeping the lights on type stuff or it's the, it's the same approach used for the whole thing? Yeah. So, you know, basically, because we are from the startup background, I'm also an angel investor and as, as the race was mentioning 2011, we did a startup together. So there'll be multiple startups in my life cycle. I think the belief is in something similar to the job is basically the MVP concept, minimum viable concept. And in that minimum viable concept, basically in healthcare that is considered almost impossible, but we have gone ahead and done that, that, you know, we have in, in, in some sense of, you know, the first product that this company sold was actually a PPT as I, as I showed you, correct? And we have gone ahead and, you know, embraced simultaneously, both the development work and the production. So it's not that something goes into production and then that's fixed. We have continued the journey of innovation and iteration, you know, along with production and we do not see these as two different buckets. Sometimes it is, it is, it is difficult in terms of management, but I think it is very important because the world is changing so fast, the technology is changing so fast that if we do not have this approach, we will become obsolete very soon. In fact, companies in Europe and US have this disadvantage that because of regulation, once they have a certain platform, they just want to stick to it and keep selling for the next eight, ten years. The world has changed. Nothing will be the same in the next three to five years. So this, this, this, you know, platform approach of making an R&D product and then keep selling it. I think the times for that are gone. Very well said. Thank you. The next question is from this, this ma of this May. Sorry. Innovation may emerge without brainstorming, but we still need brainstorming to fine tune the idea. That's a question that this may wants to know. So I think what we use some sort of brainstorming is to see what needs to be executed. A joint meeting is basically for execution, not to, not to get the ideas. We are very, you know, and I have worked with a lot of people, you know, as life coach also, and we have seen this happening in lots of teams that actually once they've understood that brainstorming doesn't help in generating ideas, they've gone back and done much better in terms of innovation. So having meetings is basically for execution and joint meetings help in better planning of execution. Definitely not in terms of, you know, getting new ideas and innovative ideas. And in that, if you add simple ideas, it becomes even more difficult. I would say almost impossible. And I just like to add something we should hear always says no prototype, no meeting. So unless you come prepared for a meeting, have something to add to it, that is where it really works. Love that. No prototype, no meeting. I mean, most of us can relate to the folks who work in the corporate world that we spend a large percentage of our time in, you know, meetings that are to decide when the next meeting is, you know. Yeah, I think at least in my experience, what we have seen is, you know, if people don't come prepared to the meeting, the meeting is not very productive. And if if we are using the meeting as the way where we are first going to disclose some information, it's, you know, we take some time to process it and come out with good ideas. And so you end up basically not getting to the point, you know, if that's kind of how people think of brainstorming. So most often, you know, meetings are great for making decisions is what I would say when you have everyone together, you can make certain decisions jointly, but, you know, all the data points for making the decision could be, you know, thought through individually, like solo, deep solo thinking is kind of, I think Rajneesh, you and I had talked about that quite some time back is very important. Otherwise, you end up just, you know, in the name of collaboration or brainstorming, just not getting to the depth of the particular topic. All right. So we have one last question, which is from Vivek. So how do you narrow down to a problem statement because there are so many problems where solutions are required. Example in the medical field, you have so many problems. How do you know which one to take? So I think the few tick marks to do is one is it should be large enough problem to solve. And the second, so this is our checklist that we have. The second is that there should have been new developments that would have happened scientifically in the in the last few years for us to allow a new science to be to be delivered through new technology. So there has to be a new scientific basis and then we deliver through new technology. And I think overall, if you are in one domain, there are so many subset problems that are there in that domain that so we are, we are basically trying to solve the problem of vertigo, dizziness and balance disorders. And as you have seen, we've been able to combine multiple technologies to solve different problems in the same larger problem that we have. Anything that you want to add on this? So I think you've said it all basically. Awesome. I think one question that is there on everyone's head is sitting in Jaipur, which is not known as a technology centric place. How are you able to drive such an awesome innovation? So, you know, as we have seen the world has gone virtual and we are talking about jobs in India being created with people working for Silicon Valley companies. So I think we need to embrace this new reality. What we have done in our company is that people who are working, um, outs, outside Jaipur in Bangalore, Gugam and all, but we are homesick. So Rajasthan people are quite homesick and we have been able to bring them back and work for us and they have done a great job at what you have seen, what kind of technology we have built. So almost everyone who is working in, in Jaipur has their roots in Rajasthan and, uh, and they, they are, they are there with us, you know, since, since they joined the company and, and I think it's been a great experience having, uh, people work for us, uh, and do destructive, uh, technology development. I think they're really happy being able to get an opportunity to, uh, do this kind of work at home. So they're, they're ready to stay here. Yeah. One of the things that we always do in any meeting, uh, if you would like to call it brainstorming, but in any meeting, whether it is in the, in the sales department or in HR or, you know, a general meeting of everyone in the company. We always talk about stories of how patients have benefited and I think when the, the software and the hardware people see that their product has been used to actually have an impact on how the patient has been benefited. I think that is a very, very strong driver for people to give much beyond their, their, their best. And I think that has been what is, what this small group of people have been able to achieve in such a small time is because we, we have the system can relate the direct benefit that the society is getting, uh, instead of it just being PPTs and other things. Yeah. I think you said it earlier that, uh, the sense of purpose really drives people, really motivates people and when they can see what they're doing, the impact that they're creating, it makes a very, very big difference, uh, you know, is that, that's I think very awesome. Uh, one last question, uh, how long have you guys been working on this and how big is your team? So we have been working, uh, this is our fifth year now, uh, since the company started, but, um, for the first one year there were only two people in the company. So let's say four years we have been working on this, uh, and, um, uh, the, the development team and the production team and the development team is 45 people in the company. Amazing. Amazing. 45 people driving so many different types of innovations. This includes the production team. So, you know, basically about 25 people in the development team. Great. Uh, if I think we have two minutes, so I'll ask one last question here. Uh, and yeah, I mean, uh, this, this is the last question again, I promise. Uh, this is a question from, uh, Ruchi, uh, which basically is talking about sometimes we talk about having a team dedicated to a particular problem or a product, uh, to be more productive, uh, having a team working on multiple, uh, items looks like a contradiction to what is being followed in most agile organizations, uh, where you know, in agile organizations, they talk a lot about focus and having dedicated people to a given problem. So does this probe any risk towards productivity and solution framing? So I think, uh, uh, you know, strangely, we do not have a metrics for productivity in our company. I, and, uh, I think we want to be that way, uh, because we believe that innovation, uh, cannot be a framed into efficiency and, uh, and it becomes a dichotomy and, uh, you know, if we try to be more efficient, we will lose the edge that we have globally. Our products have been accepted as being the most innovative. Uh, I think we do not want to go from there to be the most efficient company. That is not our goal. That is not our vision. Uh, and we want to be more, more disruptive and more unorganized, so to say. Very, very well said. Uh, my friend Jeff pattern photograph of the, the, the mess around the electronic bench that I showed you most people would not like to show that, but I think we are happy with that. Absolutely. Uh, I was just about to say my friend Jeff pattern who's going to be doing a keynote later today. Uh, he often talks about the difference between output and outcome and impact. Uh, and I think, uh, you know, a lot of organizations focus way too much on output, measuring output, you know, focusing on productivity and not enough on impact and outcome. And I think, uh, you know, I see you living and breathing, uh, that Jeff patterns philosophy of, you know, impact trumps, uh, productivity. Uh, you know, if you can show an impact, nobody cares how productive you were because you can actually demonstrate that you had a tangible impact. Uh, so yeah, I love that. I wish more organizations and more leaders in organizations specifically hear that, uh, because that's such a powerful mantra, uh, to, to focus on productivity, to focus, sorry, not to focus on productivity instead focus on impact. Uh, and I think, yeah, it's, it's awesome. So thank you so much. Uh, you know, Rajneesh, Anita and Rhea for joining us today. Uh, I think there are more questions. Yeah. Rhea, if you can just come behind, uh, your quick, uh, let's, let's do a screening. That's the new thing. We don't have selfies now that we can do. So there, uh, folks, uh, let's do some thumbs up, show the love for the awesome work this team has been doing. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.