Guest blog by Loureiro Fernando, LEG ’23
To be able to reflect on PDIA concept and process, to put these concepts in a process-oriented approach, gave me a great insight to help me prepare and propose my interactions with government and policy makers with whom I engage in Latin America and Africa. I was involved in the past in a creation of a kind of “Investment Promotion Agency” in Brazil and many of the topics discussed here were very interesting to balance with what was my experience at that time and what or how it would be today considering the learnings and processes discussed in this course. Nowadays I am not in a position of leading (public) economic growth initiatives in countries, regions or municipalities, but as an individual I do feel I am in a position to be a relevant stakeholder, be able to initiate discussions and position for ideas and insights and propose/support specific economic growth opportunities in the countries that I am in charge in my position at my current firm. In the middle of a relevant goal to our company/industry in the need to rebalance the global semiconductor supply chain and preparing/helping many countries in Latin America and Africa to be ready to the task, realize the opportunity, map the geopolitical and strengths of their countries, the learnings during the course was fantastic to help me put in action the concepts discussed.
I focused on Brazil given the fact that I do believe there is an opportunity for the country, and Brazil is not really understanding the momentum nor position itself to surf the wave. During these weeks I tried to help myself to put together what could be a PDIA for Brazil and had the opportunity to discuss and validate the process with its Minister of Finance. It was very helpful (and made the difference) to be able to articulate the conversation based on the concepts and process we discussed in this course. I think he was a believer and now he is potentially a supporter – and can be a sponsor.
First to really focus on the problem and not propose immediately a solution. I particularly liked the concept of deconstruct the problem and break it into more specific causes to be able to tackle (the 5-6 Whys is great). To go into the fishbone process, even not as I should (involving different stakeholders in a process with more knowledge and validation) was per se enlightening and helped me going deep in the root causes and better identification and prioritization of the problems/actions (low hanging fruits, get quick wins, motivation and support, increase authorization and empowerment).
Refining the approach and the potential different teams to tackle the issues evolved during the weeks and I had to go back and review, learn, adjust, and reshape the idea of the project. This can take time at the beginning but will save a lot of time once the project is in full execution mode. The quick wins/progress validation/communication sharing to ensure alignment and continued support (get authorization) is a must in any given situation (I do that as a regular process at the company with regular/quarterly ops reviews). Of course, I was in individual mode process, so I need to continue to influence the right supporters and sponsors to make this project get into real traction. But the fact that I have now a much better framework organized, the next steps will certainly be easier and target oriented.
Since we at Intel are focusing on support the Western Hemisphere to attract and invest in the long tail of the semiconductor supply chain, we were already working closer and faster with few countries, specially in Latin America, that quickly understood the opportunity and start preparing themselves to profit from the nearshoring/friendshoring process that the geopolitical circumstances + covid + other factors were pushing. Particularly Mexico and Costa Rica (besides Panama, Dominican Republic, and few others), started to prepare themselves, develop a focused pitch, leverage from the existing ecosystem or other advantages (USMCA, proximity, key investors in similar sectors). Brazil, despite by far the one country in the region with the most developed and comprehensive tech ecosystem (due to long time sectorial policies and incentives), did not show up. Other LA countries are pushing the US and the US Chips Act funding (“tech diplomacy” ITSI fund) to position themselves and be part of the Americas semi supply chain, developing projects, discussing talent, signing MoU with the US – but not Brazil. Surprisingly, even the country is not aware of the potential and the real ecosystem they had developed in the country, including all the key global relevant players with operations (including manufacturing/assembly/R&D) established in the country. The issue is that the current legislation is outdated and no longer effective – what put the sector just focusing on the domestic market, not able to compete or to be productive. But anyway, the ecosystem is there. The opportunity for Brazil to revamp this sector, mapping what they have, preparing the right pitch and going to a roadshow to reinforce and attract more and new players is huge. In the meantime, they need to update the policy framework, balance growth and inclusion in the formula (throughout the years this concept was misused in the current legislation what caused negative results in both fronts). This is what I tried to focus and use/leverage with what I am learning in this course. To prepare a proposition for Brazil. To support action, process oriented, step by step, but with the right sense of urgency. This train is departing, will not wait long time, and the region cannot afford lose it again.
I believe that some concepts that we start discussing the last 2-3 weeks of the course could be bring out earlier given the relevance that they have going forward in any serious economic growth initiative. First the concept of growth + inclusion and how to measure them was really an a-ha moment to me. I could see the misconception and the failure of trying to do inclusion by (mandatory) redistribution and growth by mandatory local content requirements (picking winners without evaluating competitiveness) during the decades of the Brazilian IT Law. The consequences are quite negative (to be fair there were some few wins that could be used now) and very hard to change afterwards. Have them included in the initial concept and make sure that measurement along the period allow governments to evaluate, learn and adjust could avoid not expected negative consequences such as we could see in Brazil (a sector that was competitive and able to export 3 decades ago and nowadays is not competitive even to export to neighboring countries with 0 tax). I believe that this could be helpful to instill this concept earlier on in the PDIA initiative steps (maybe become a specific box in the fishbone framework). The second topic that I believe would be good to be addressed earlier in the initial weeks would be the green transition. Definitely this will change dramatically the economic growth strategy of every country: the ones that can win and the ones that can lose – or how to approach in a global win-win view like Professor Ricardo proposed. But definitely should be included in any PDIA project. The EU approach to the twin green and digital transition could be a topic to use as a start point (for discussion and how to use in specific country economic growth initiatives). All in all, I would like to thanks and congratulate for the great content and discussions – it is really good to be able to seat, read, think and discuss with others those concepts – I really enjoyed the journey!
This is a blog series written by the alumni of the Leading Economic Growth Executive Education Program at the Harvard Kennedy School. 58 Participants successfully completed this 10-week online course in December 2023. These are their learning journey stories.