Posts Tagged ‘National Innovation System’

New publication: “India – A Lead Market for Frugal Innovations? Extending the Lead Market Theory to Emerging Economies”

Friday, January 27th, 2012

The Institute for Technology and Innovation Management at Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH) publishes a new working paper on the topic: “India – A Lead Market for Frugal Innovations? Extending the Lead Market Theory to Emerging Economies“. The paper is authored by Rajnish Tiwari and Cornelius Herstatt (Working Paper 67, January 27th, 2012).

Abstract
India has emerged as a vibrant and versatile source for cost effective, “disruptive innovations” of various varieties. Price-sensitive consumers in a large and growing market keep inducing firms to apply “frugal engineering” for creating affordable products and services without compromising excessively on quality. Because, as The Economist asserts: “Frugal does not mean second-rate”. Such innovations are characterized by high affordability, robustness, and “good enough” quality in a volume-driven market. Resource constraints motivate firms and entrepreneurs to think out-of-the-box. The trick lies in creating solutions that are able to circumvent given environmental constraints in a cost effective way. India’s large and enormously young population faced with limited budgets, but well-endowed with high aspirations, provides an ideal experiment ground for many firms. Solutions created for the Indian market are often suitable for other developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America that frequently face similar socio-economic conditions. In some instances they succeed even in developed country markets by enabling significant cost reductions. This emergence as a hub for “frugal innovations” possibly suggests a “lead market” role for India.
On the other hand, lead markets, as understood today, are characterized by high per capita income, great customer sophistication and high quality infrastructure. Such assumptions imply that lead markets, almost by default, can only exist in economically developed countries because only they can finance the development effort. Using two anchor-cases of product innovations aimed at price-sensitive segments in India we generate preliminary evidence to challenge some of the core assumptions of the “lead market” theory and propose that lead markets can emerge in developing countries too because market attractiveness (e.g. volume of demand, export possibilities) and technological capabilities are able to offset many other deficiencies. The supposed absence of customer sophistication is channelized into a challenge for supplier-side sophistication to design cost effective, “good enough” solutions (“low-cost, thin-margin”) that can meet the aspirations of consumers in a highly competitive market. In order to master this challenge companies need access to a competent and sufficiently large technical base with first-hand knowledge of the ground situation of targeted customer groups (“social capital”).
Keywords: Lead Markets; India; Frugal Innovations; Frugal Engineering; Disruptive Innovations; National Innovation System; Sectoral Innovation System.

Science and technology: falling patent quality hits innovation, says OECD

Thursday, September 22nd, 2011

Source: OECD press release, dated 20.09.2011:

20/09/2011 – The quality of patent filings has fallen dramatically over the past two decades. The rush to protect even minor improvements in products or services is overburdening patent offices. This slows the time to market for true innovations and reduces the potential for breakthrough inventions, according to a new OECD report.

The Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2011finds that patent quality has declined by an average of around 20 per cent between the 1990s and 2000s, a pattern seen in nearly all countries studied.Studying patent quality in different sectors has also allowed the OECD to assess which countries are doing best in innovation. The United Kingdom, for example, produces semiconductor and environmental technology patents that are above average in quality.

 

Korea has a competitive advantage in ICT-related innovations. And Germany is strong at innovating in solar energy.

Patents from inventors in the United States, Germany and Japan are the most highly cited, which suggests they are true innovations being used by many firms in their products to generate further innovations.

 

But while these countries produced about 70% of the top 1% of highly cited patents between 1996 and 2000,  their share had fallen to 60% five years later.

 

The Nordic countries and China, India and Korea have seen their share increase of highly cited patents. The European Union is leading in clean energy technologies, representing nearly 40% of all filings by the late 2000s, followed by the US and Japan. In this area, China now ranks 8th worldwide.

 

The OECD report ranks research by universities worldwide. Overall, 40 of the top 50 are located in the United States, with the rest in Europe. But a more diverse picture emerges when looking at subject areas. In social sciences, for example, the UK leads with 16 of the top 50 institutions after the US. And there is growing evidence that universities in Asia are emerging as leading research institutions: China has 6 in the top 50 in pharmacology, toxicology and pharmaceutics. And Hong Kong University is among the best in computer science, engineering and chemistry.

 

The US leads the world in research and development (R&D), with around USD 400 billion of spending on R&D in 2009. China is today second, with over one third of that total, followed by Japan. The European Union as a whole spent about USD 300 billion in 2009.

 

The Scoreboard tracks trends in science, technology and industry to understand how innovation is evolving and how countries are positioning themselves in the global knowledge economy. It includes more than 180 internationally comparable quality indicators and provides a broad range of statistics for other major economies such as Brazil, China, India, and the Russian Federation.

 

The complete Scoreboard 2011 is available at www.oecd.org/sti/scoreboard and provides easy access to individual sections and links to the databases used. Each indicator is also downloadable in PDF format.

 

For further information about this report, please contact Alessandra Colecchia (tel. + 33 1 45 24 94 12), OECD’s Science, Technology and Industry Directorate.

Infosys reportedly gave up China investment plans for IPR fears on clients’ side

Sunday, September 11th, 2011

According to a news item appearing the Economic Times (7th Sept. 2011) Indian IT major Infosys gave up its plans for increasing foreign direct investment (FDI) in China as its major customers in Europe and the USA had apprehessions about their data procession and/or software-related work being done in China owing to fears about the protection of intellectual property rights.

The report cites as source a US diplomatic cable which has been released by WikiLeaks. It also narrates an incidence, which N.R. Narayana Murthy, Co-founder of Infosys reportedly told US diplomats:

Murthy said he understood the misgivings of his clients and narrated his experience in China to show how rampant piracy was. Stepping out of his central Beijing hotel to go for a stroll with Peter Bonfield, then CEO of British Telecom, they encountered a sidewalk vendor selling pirated Microsoft and Windows products.

Bonfield jokingly asked the vendor if he had Finacle (an Infosys banking software product) and the vendor replied: “I can get it for you tomorrow.”

Murthy, was at the same time quite clear about China’s potential, its qualities, and HR problems that it faces, as is clear from the next section:

Murthy, however, was optimistic about the long-term potential of China. As per the cable, he stated: “There is nobody better than the Chinese at solving a problem once they are serious about it.” Murthy said it would take four to five years for the Chinese to overcome that reluctance.

There were other concerns for Infosys to expand in China. Murthy told the diplomats that though qualified graduates were available, those with sufficient English skills commanded a high premium. He said retention was more difficult in China than in India, as Chinese professionals are more willing to leave for a higher salary where Indian ones value institutions a bit more.

The whole report is available at: The Economic Times (11.09.2011)