Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, New Delhi 110 016, India
h
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi 110 016, India
Abstract
In recent years technology has become not only an important dimension of national development and growth but also essential
for survival in this competitive world. Consequently, development and commercialization of new technologies has become an
activity of focal attention and a force to reckon with.
India had started development of its scientific infrastructure in a planned way immediately after independence, however, technology development/commercialization attracted due attention of policy makers only since 1980s. The papers presents findings of
field research undertaken by the authors to study the status of new technology commercialization practices in the country. The
focus is on the parameters that influence the decision regarding commercialization of new technologies and the success of new
technology ventures, the efficacy of existing financing/support mechanisms and the further actions required by stakeholder agencies,
viz., industry, technology institutions, financial institutions and the government for further development of commercialization of
new technologies in India. For better exposition the presentation is divided into sections dealing with introduction, technology
commercialization policy initiatives in India, need for the study, design and methodology, study findings and is summed up
with concluding remarks.
Keywords: Technology; Technology transfer; Technology commercialization; New technologies; Innovation; Development through innovation;
Research and development; Technology institutions; Technology stake holders; Technology research
1. Introduction
The importance of technology in the current era has
been brought out very explicitly by Jospin (1998) when
he concludes "new products and processes will be
required to move today's industries into the next century
and to achieve industrial competitiveness and sustainable
growth". The notable studies of Kuznets (1961), Denison
(1962), Derry and Williams (1965) and Schmookler
(1966), etc. have also shown that technology of late has
become the most important factor for national growth.
Historically, price and quality determined the competitiveness, but in recent years technology has become the
significant factor affecting it (Seong-Youn, 1997).
The fast pace of technology developments and obsolescence has left very little choice on technology front
for developing countries like India. The complete dependence on the import of technology from developed countries could lead to perpetual technology subordination on
the one hand, and may hamper development of indigenous technology on the other. The technology anchor of
a nation needs to be within the country to achieve self
sustaining and self propagating prosperity; de facto it
provides intrinsic strength for development of own technologies, inter-alia, technological capabilities.
114
independence. A chain of about 3000 scientific institutions of which 2000 are devoted to research and development (including about 1400 in-house research and
development units of industrial sector, academic institutions, testing laboratories and technology centres) were
created (Research and Development Statistics, 1998).
Establishment of venture capital funds was started
during the mid 1980s and Technology Policy Statement
(1983), Research and Development Cess Act (1986) and
Technology Development Board Act (1995) were
enacted by the Government with an objective to provide
risk-sharing funds as well as the managerial expertise
for technology development and commercialization.
In addition, as follow-up actions of the Technology
Policy
Statement
(1983),
a
few
special
mechanisms/schemes were initiated during late 1980s
and early 1990s to facilitate and promote technology
proving, up-scaling and commercialization. The major
ones are: "Programme aimed at technological self
reliance" (PATSER), a scheme of Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR); "The sponsored
research and developments" (SPREAD) and "Programme for acceleration of commercial energy research
(PACER)" schemes of Industrial Credit and Investment
Corporation of India Limited (ICICI) and Home Grown
Technology (HGT) of Technology Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council (TIFAC) an autonomous body of the Department of Science and Technology (DST).
3. Need for the study
In spite of the above mentioned initiatives, the desired
impact has not been made by new technologies, albeit,
a beginning has been made in a modest way. There are
some weighty reasons for such a state of affairs. Many
of the technologies developed in Indian laboratories have
remained unexploited as they have not been proven on
adequate prototype or pilot plant scale (Sikka, 1997).
4. The study
The authors undertook a field research to study the
current status and practices of commercialization of new
technologies in India with perspective of four major
stakeholder groups, viz., industrial firms (sample size:
200 numbers), financial institutions (sample size: 55
numbers), technology institutions (sample size: 175
numbers) and policy-makers and facilitators (sample
size: 50 numbers).
The study made a modest attempt in its holistic nature
to: (i) study and analyse the practices of commercialization of new technologies in India, in terms of important
parameters that influence the decision of commercialization of a new technology; (ii) identify the thrust parameters, inter-alia, their relative importance for successful
Weighted score
Rank
Status of technology
Source of technology
Market potential for end
product
Company's business
philosophy
Financial status of the
industrial firm (ability to
bring in its share and over
run, if any)
Tie-up for technical
backup support
Patentability of technology
Entrepreneurial experience
of the proposer
Educational background of
entrepreneur
Import-export policy
Fiscal policies
Capacity of company to
expand in future
Geographical location of
company
Size of the industrial firm
1153
1087
1
2
1013
921
847
779
648
6
7
639
504
469
427
10
11
402
12
395
13
360
14
115
Weighted score
Rank
359
347
338
332
327
326
316
314
7
8
301
298
10
285
11
277
12
275
13
273
14
266
15
261
16
116
packaging' (score 273), 'low interest rate during re-payment period' (score 266) and 'longer re-payment periods' (score 261).
6.3. Appraisal of funding mechanisms
Only 11 (11 %) of technology institutions feel that
sufficient mechanisms exist in the country to finance
NTCVs and just 6 (6 %) said that desired impact is being
made by these mechanisms. The majority of respondents
(98%) are of the opinion that much more is required to
be done.
Improvements desired for various features of the
existing mechanisms are presented in Appendix B. The
highlights are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(8) To be a corporate sponsored agency (to have corporate membership from industry) (309).
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
117
7. Conclusion
The study has brought to the fore the important parameters that influence the decision of commercialization
of new technologies, their success as well as the significant features of the developmental phase of commercialization of new technologies in India. These can be
of beneficial use for practising agencies. In addition, the
findings bring out clearly the areas/aspects that need to
be developed further with focussed thrust. Further, it
provides a well researched and in depth studied material
for researchers and scholars working in the area of commercialization of new technologies in particular and
technology management in general.
118
Table A4
Respondent spread: sectorwise-agewise
Sector Age in years
1-3
Sector 1
Sector 2
Total
>15
Total
27
35
Sector
2
Total
11
44
64
11
15
71
99
Zone
North
South
East
West
Total
16
31
47
8
21
29
6
5
11
5
7
12
35
64
99
Table A2
Respondent spread: sectorwisetechnology institution typewise
Sector
11-15
Sector
Sector
Sector 1
Sector 2
Total
7-10
Table A5
Respondent spread: sectorwise based on number of technologies
transferred for commercialization
Table A1
Respondent spread: sectorwisezonewise
Sector
4-6
Sector 1
Sector 2
Total
1-3
4-6
7-10
More
than 10
Total
4
8
12
9
24
33
11
14
25
11
18
29
35
64
99
Table A6
Respondent spread: sectorwise based on success rate of commercialization of new technologies
Sector
In-house
National
Private
research lab. lab./academia research
lab./govern. body
lab.
Total
8
24
32
35
64
99
20
32
52
7
8
15
Sector 1
Sector 2
Total
Up to 25 25-50
51-75
75-100
Total
8
17
25
10
13
23
9
11
20
35
64
99
8
23
31
Table A3
Respondent spread: sectorwisemarketing channelwise
Table A7
Respondent spread: sectorwise spread on degree of success
Sector
Sector
Marketing channel
Number of technology institutions
1
Sector 1
Sector 2
Total
Degree of success
Number of technology institutions
Direct
Agent
NRDC
Others
2
27
58
85
3
1
1
4
8
5
13
5
35
64
99
Sector 1
Sector 2
Total
0.010.80
0.810.99
1.001.20
>1.20
Total
17
35
52
6
11
17
5
6
11
7
12
19
35
64
99
119
Table B1
S. no. Feature
Current level
Desired level
1.
810
15-20 ( 9 6 % respondents)
21-30 (4% respondents)
2.
[Al]~250
3.
10-25
4.
=6-12
5.
=6-15
2 (12% respondents)
2-3 (80% respondents)
4-6 (8% respondents)
0.550
50 (26% respondents)
100 (12% respondents)
500 (62% respondents)
6.
7.
Upper limit of financial support (as percentage of total project cost) 50-50
66 (16% respondents)
75 (74% respondents)
90 (10% respondents)
8.
Nil to 50,000
9.
018
0 (18% respondents)
2-6 (76% respondents)
10 (6% respondents)]
10.
6-18
0 (9% respondents)
5-10 (39% respondents)
11-15 (52% respondents)
11.
0-5
12.
0-10
5 (26% respondents)
7 (63% respondents)
10 (11% respondents)
13.
35
5 (14% respondents)
7 (65% respondents)
10 (16% respondents)
14.
Hypothecation/mortgage of assets
Applicable in some
15.
Bank guarantee
Applicable in some
16.
Personal guarantees
Applicable in some
17.
Applicable in some
18.
Applicable in some
120
References
Denison, E., 1962. The Sources of Economic Growth in the United
States. Committee for Economic Development, New York.
Derry, T.K., William, T., 1965. A Short History of Technology: from
the Earliest Times to A.D. 1900. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Edwards, A.L., 1957. Technique of Attitude Scale Construction.
Appleton Century Craft, New York.
Jospin, L., 1998. Towards the factory of next century. In: Innovation
and Technology Transfer. European Commission, Luxembourg,
January, pp. 16-21.
Kuznets, S., 1961. Capital in the American Economy. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Research and Development Cess Act, 1986. Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, New Delhi, India.
Research and Development Statistics, 1998. Department of Science
and Technology. Government of India, New Delhi, India.
Schmookler, J., 1966. Invention and Economic Growth. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Seong-Youn, K., 1997. Technology selection strategy for the enhancement of technological competitiveness. In: Karunes, K.S., Momaya,
K. (Eds.), Proceedings of International Conference on Management
of Technology, 'Globalization, Flexibility and Competitiveness'.
Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, pp. 177-186.
Sikka, P., 1997. Technology support and financing system for development and commercialization perspectives in India. Technovation
17 (1I/12), 707-714.
Simon, J.L., 1968. Basic Methods in Social Science. Random House,
New York.
Technology Development Board Act, 1995. Government of India, New
Delhi, India.
Technology Policy Statement, 1983. Government of India, New
Delhi, India.
.7