NASSCOM Animation & Gaming India 2007: Resourcing Human Resource

Despite all the optimistic talk about India’s rapidly growing animation industry, professionals and educators alike acknowledge the severe lack of quality manpower. This is a matter of concern for all those contributing to the industry, whether as studios or as institutes. The agenda at this particular session on 2nd Nov. at the NASSCOM Animation & Gaming India 2007, chaired by Ganesh Natarajan, Vice Chairman, NASSCOM, was to analyze the problem, tackle the hurdles and look at possible solutions through discussion.

The panelists were AnimationXpress.com CEO and Managing Editor Anand Gurnani, Arena Animation Executive Director R. Krishnan, Accel Animation Chairman N R Panicker and Red Octane CEO Anurag Khanna.

The first two points brought up were –
1. Setting up more animation training institutes.
2. In-house training by studios.

Arena’s Executive Director, R Krishnan set the tone for the discussion by talking about his experience while setting up Aptech 11 years ago when animation was still at a nascent stage in India. Since then, the market has grown rapidly leading to a greater need for trained professionals.

To that N R Panicker added, “When we set up Accel Animation Studio a year ago, we faced a huge human resource crunch. For us, the best way to tackle the problem was to set up an academy to teach and train people based on our requirements.”

Anurag Khurana touched upon a nagging problem that plagues the industry. “The pool of talent is so small that they move from studio to studio, which makes salaries go up unreasonably. It increases production costs drastically. At Red Octane, our focus is on quality. We train all our recruits for 6 months and sometimes, even upto a year, irrespective of whether they get hired at the end of the training session or not. Getting people is easy, retaining is not!”

Anand Gurnani had a couple of suggestions to make. “On one hand, studios complain all the time that institutes don’t train people properly. On the other hand, Institutes ask for a little more active involvement from studios. What I see is the need for more commitment from institutes. I have listed a few suggestions which I feel will help us fix some of the problems. My first suggestion is that we have some kind of a registry of artists and professional across multiple skills from studios who will dedicate 2 days every month to teach. Institutes could access this registry and book a time for the professional to come teach. This way, everyone gets access to quality training.”

Anurag had some misgivings about this. “We agree industry professionals must be involved with the teaching process but we need to get something in return. Most of the time, people misuse our brand association to suit their own purposes.

Anand’s second suggestion was to have video servers for VOD and to transmit lectures to students in institutes in far flung places, which otherwise are unable to have direct access to the industry experts.

Ganesh Natarajan then asked the panel to list their concerns.

Krishnan talked about two critical issues. “Firstly, there seems to be a disconnect between industry wants and institute output. The common complaint is – the students coming out of institutes know only tools and software but not other skills. On our part, we are training people in a lot more skills like sketching, acting etc. Secondly, students’ attitude is a problem. They don’t want to spend long periods learning. Studios and institutes should collectively make people aware that animation is not something that you can learn in 6 months. People read about the hype but miss the point that they need to also do their bit.”

Panicker added, “There has to be government sponsored initiative. Most training centres don’t have budgets, especially in smaller towns and villages.” Ganesh instantly responded to that by saying, “On the other hand, are we not saying that the government should get out of education?” Panicker continued, “The state government, central government and private entities should each contribute towards this. KINFRA is an example of one such venture”.

Anurag had a couple of comments. “I agree with Krishnan that specialization is needed. Software and technology can be taught but not creativity! What I want to know is, are the institutes screening the students? Just training is not sufficient, we have to move on to education. Do not sacrifice quality for quantity. We don’t need a ‘3D guy’. We need a modeller, a texturer, a rigger. These things count, especially when you are trying to compete with foreign companies. Anand’s suggestions are great in theory but tough to put in to practice. Everybody just talks about these things at panel discussions but they never get implemented. Tell me Anand, are you willing to invest money into it?”

Put in a tight spot, after a bit of hemming and hawing, Anand said they would. The audience applauded in response.

Ganesh shared his experience of creating a shared registry of people for the IT industry– educational records, employment records, finger-printing etc. “May be we could do the same with the animation industry. What is your take on ‘education versus training’, Krishnan?”

Krishnan: “Training is about a particular skill while education is more holistic. I have a few points to make. We don’t need the government. Evolution of the software industry teaches us lessons that we must adapt for the animation industry. Studios and institutes must work together in coordination. Quantity IS important. Just a few boutique studios are simply not enough. We need to find a scalable model. Specialization is something we are taking note of. Others should too. The issue is not just of the faculty but of investment as well.”

Ganesh: “I have spent 10 years in Aptech and Arena and my observation is that quantity subsidises quality. There might be people who have joined an institute for frivolous reasons – perhaps a boy has enrolled just because his girlfriend has too. But their fees contribute to the running of the institute as well, thereby benefitting other students who are serious. What is needed is evaluation.”

Panicker: “Earlier good students used to come to institutes. Now they get picked up by companies from campus so only the average students go to institutes. There is degradation in every field. At Accel we are talking to Fine Arts colleges to reach the talented ones. The primary need is awareness.”

Anand: “My observation is that there is a huge faculty crunch. I have research data that shows there are 1700 centres and 10000 students in India. So how do institutes cope? They hire the previous year’s students who have successfully completed a course from their institute. This is purely circumstantial in most instances, not intentional. But it certainly does not help that a novice is a faculty member. We need an institute that teaches only teachers. There are plenty of unemployed drawing teachers (figures state that 200 exist in Maharashtra alone)”.

Prosenjit Ganguly of Toonz Animation spoke from the audience. “There is another very serious concern. On forums like these, we discuss potential and growth. This has made animation education lucrative. Even good institutes sometimes have empty seats, so they fill them up with 40 average students instead of just 3 or 4 truly talented ones. Yet, they all get absorbed into the industry. This is the reason why there is so much mediocre work coming out of studios.”

Another person from the audience suggested that educational insitutes should come together to cooperate and form an organization. They must send their students for internships.

Ganesh thought otherwise. “It is not possible to get institutes to form an organization. I have tried it and failed. I would rather invest in quality. A good example would be the ISB – Indian School of Business. Despite exorbitant fees, people still enroll.

Chaitanya Chinchlikar, Marketing Manager, Whistling Woods International had a very interesting viewpoint. “It is possible to meet all these challenges. We have. With the help of 65 crores of private funding, we have invested in the best of facilities and state-of-the-art technology. We have a capacity of 35 students per intake, yet, in the 3 intakes that we have had so far, we have 12, 4 and 11 students only. It is not about filling up seats! I also think that the studios must come together, set guidelines, and put their foot down saying they will only hire if these guidelines are followed by the schools. The complete process of film making must be taught to the students.” For lack of time, he was unable to complete the 7 points that he wanted to outline. (We caught up with him later. The interview will be posted in another blog.)

ABRP Reddy of Picasso presented a very different perspective. “There are different dimensions to this. Quality and quantity are both required. We have a social responsibility. These kids put their time and money into the training, Then what if they don’t get jobs? IT knowledge and skills can be used elsewhere but not animation. The industry’s credibility is at stake. NASSCOM’s report clearly states that out of all the trained students, only 13 percent get placements. What happens to the remaining 87 percent?”

Ganesh: “ICICI bank has major expansion plans, so they have become pro-active. They are going to tier two institutes and pro-actively participating in their training, setting guidelines etc. The same is needed in animation.”

Anurag disagreed, “Each studio’s requirement is different so you cannot set the same set of guidelines across the board.

The discussion concluded with the sense that some action must be taken. It is not enough to just keep discussing problems. Implementation of solutions is the key. Studios need to invest in training. The trainers need to be trained. Guidelines must be set and internships facilitated. Let us hope, for the sake of the Indian animation industry, that the exchange of views and perspectives leads to conscious efforts and firm action as well.