DEVELOPMENT - INDIAN FRAMEWORK
By Dr S Ganguly,Chairman,Webel

In to-day’s fast moving world, science, engineering and techno- logy are important on several broad fronts. Throughout civilisation there has been an unending quest for new knowledge of the world that we live in and of the universe of which we are a part. Secondly, and more importantly, there is now almost universal acceptance that successful countries must be able to generate products, processes and services which can be manufactured and sold profitably in the demanding global market places of the 21st century. Thirdly, with the ongoing electronic and information technology revolution encompassing our universe, there is increasing demand from the deprived majority of our people for an improved quality of their lives. Wealth creation and increasing national prosperity will ensure that the people of our country will have better living, better education, better health, a cleaner environment at all levels of society.
Against this context of an increasingly open society with higher levels of expectations than ever before, we must examine critically the performance indicators of scientific research and the gaps to effective science & technology deliverables.

While there have been outstanding successes in the areas of agricultural production, space, defence, health care, communication, etc. the expectations from the rest of science and technology sector remain largely unfulfilled. For a country of our size and stature, the range of goals and plans must remain on a matching scale.

Let us analyse for a moment the principal causes for the relatively large gap in unfulfilled expectations from the science and technology sector.
The domestic industrial Research and Development (R&D) system till 1990 comprised two distinct categories l publicly/government fundned R&D institutes and l in-house R&D Units in industry. Both the constituents had hitherto functioned in distinct and distant compartments without much interaction. Till the beginning of the 8th Plan the groups were generally characterised by the following:

Publicly Funded R&D

•  Dominated by supply-push programmes for new process/product development.
•  Scientific publications as main criteria for output and performances of scientists and

 institutes.
•  Dependence on in-house expertise and facilities with little effort to network and forge

 alliances for synergising of core competencies and optimal outputs.
•  Inadequate linkages and interaction with industry.
•  Inadequate marketing of expertise and knowledgebase.
•  Poor customer and community communication.

In-House R&D in Industry

•  Superficial management support, based on fiscal incentives as the main driving force.
•  Concerned more with investigating incremental production problems and not geared to new

 process/product development.
•  Little effort to out-source external expertise and knowledge base.
•  Poor interaction with the national and international Science and Technology community.

Both constituents were thus far, inward looking and there was little meeting ground between them. However, presently the move towards a market economy is compelling both, publicly funded R&D and industry, to establish a dialogue and work together for mutual advantage. This is evident by the change in the outlook and orientation of the two groups that is already reflected by the following:
Funded R&D

•  R&D programmes are now more market driven.
•  Consciousness has dawned for IPR and confidentiality issues.
•  Performance criteria are based on R&D deliverables that contribute to

 economic, societal or environmental well being.
•  Outward orientation to forge alliances and consortia for more

 comprehensive technology/service packages is beginning to emerge.
•  Publicity and marketing are recognised as essential components of R&D

 management.

In-house R&D

•  Recognition of technology as an instrument for corporate strategy for deriving competitive advantage is dawning.
•  Appreciation for innovative technology development is being realised.
•  Higher investments in R&D at least in selected sectors are emerging.
•  Outsourcing of skills and for elements of technology has been initiated.

Cooperation for Self Sufficiency
The increasing complexity of technology makes it difficult for individual enterprises and more so for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to engage on their own in competitive R&D and technological development efforts. This is more so as continued growth of product development costs is compounded by the shortening of the product development cycles, leading to high financial risks. Most Indian firms are thus likely to be bypassed by technological advances unless timely corrective steps are taken to rectify/mitigate the problems. In the emerging competitive environment, cooperation and coordination between Indian enterprises and R&D institutions is not a matter of choice but rather a compulsion derived from competitive pressures. The focus of cooperation might be for value addition to and products based on endogenous resources/skills; environmentally clean and economically viable processes; exclusive/original products/processes; closely held technologies that are commercially denied to Indian industry; strategic/dual-use technologies; technology packages as available from commercially operating unit; process/product upgradation and incremental productive improvements; and strategic alliances with partners abroad for gaining market/technology advantage/dominance. The major constraint of Science and Technology so far linked to economic progress has been that due to policy consideration research and development have been regarded as an input activity, while technology innovation received only marginal resources and efforts. Little research and development work is undertaken beyond technology innovation, not to speak of any meaningful scale of efforts and finally commercialisation of technology generation remains only a pious wish with very few takers from the industrial sector, whether public or private. In fact, policy concern with R&D appears to diminish as one gets closer to the market.

 

I would like to pay my tribute to the ‘Panchratnas’ of the CSIR family - National Chemical Laboratory, Indian Institute of Petroleum, Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad, National Aeronautical Laboratory, Bangalore, and Central Leather Research Institute, Chennai. Let us all join hands in making at least these five great National Institutes not only centres of excellence, but also to put them prominently in the global map of Research and Technology.

Fortunately, within the CSIR in recent years a great deal of churning has been taken place and a focussed effort is under way to increasingly link research to market place by outlining the following business strategy as outlined in the report of the working group of formulation of 9th Five Year Plan of CSIR:

•  Studying and analysing technology and market trends and forecasts to identify niche opportunity areas, partners, customers,competitors and markets.
•  Evolving a balanced portfolio of products that are industrially led, cost shared and market driven, while others that are self propelled and create new processes, products,  applications and markets.
•  Shedding and divesting programmes and activities that are non-viable.
•  Exploring and establishing synergetic alliances, consortia and networks that minimise costs of risks of R&D, and optimise on value addition and returns on outputs.

For this new environment of adequate autonomy for CSIR laboratories with hopefully less beaurocracy and mindless regulatory compliance, the Indian hydro carbon sector looks up to Indian Institute of Petroleum as the lead centre of excellence.

Indian energy scene today has become a major cause of concern througout the country. An expert committee constituted by Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas examined in depth the technological gaps in the Indian Refining sector and provided a road map of both short and long term research and technology targets to be achieved on a time bound basis.

The R&D targets cover fields of product and product applications, equipment/process related work and undertaking of fundamental frontier programmes after in-depth study of the international scene of the refinery management business. Following the submission of the report of the Expert Committee, I believe major initiatives are under way to give a pride of place to Indian Institute of Petroleum along with other R&D Centres elsewhere in the country, who would now be undertaking with clearly defined deliverables and accountabilities of the individual institutions against requisite funds and other support, as required.

According to our experience of collaborative research projects, the pre-requisite of success is the management of dichotomy between the tendency for free pursuit of R&D by individual Research Institutions opposite the emphasis from the industry partner and timely completion of targeted research objectives within a defined budget. Very often the failure of industry partners to think and articulate clearly their priorities to a National Laboratory appears to be a frequent cause of subsequent problems in the relationship. Objectives can range from corporate philanthropy to contractual research to genuine partnerships although many relationships are intended to cover more than any one of these objectives. Failure to spell out concrete objectives is a frequent cause of frustration and failed projects - on the part of both industry based scientists and managers as well as their research laboratory partners.

Comparable problems are often found in the laboratory environment. The central belief of many scientists is primarily to seek the advancement of knowledge as an exclusive motto. That objective not only drives the research function, but often tends to bias it against applied research. In addition, the absence of an explicit profit making objective in research laboratories removes some of the pressures for short research cycle times that characterise the industry enviornment. Finally when results obtained the laboratory environment encourages publication, whereas the industry prospective may be to delay publishing results to avoid giving away something of value to a competitor and instead protect its interests through patent application.

Despite these contrary pulls and pressures, Indian Institute of Petroluem has established a successful model of building strong linkages with major industry partners, both in the public and private sectors in the last few years. The key task in my view is for IIP to maintain its open mindedness in seeking industrial partners through articulation of their R&D needs, followed by prioritisation of programmes to avoid sub-critical funding.

The increased participation and involvement of industry in your decision making bodies would not only make your programmes more attractive to industry, but also to the Financial Institutions venture/risk capital. You should have no apprehension of losing your autonomy or freedom of choice by working closer with likeminded industry, who are proud to use the efforts of the domestic R&D base, rather than looking outside the country.

IIP today is poised for a major leap forward having attained a state of pre-eminence by the hard work put in by its scientists and technologists over the last four decades.

Lastly I would like to pay my tribute to the ‘Panchratnas’ of the CSIR family - National Chemical Laboratory, Indian Institute of Petroleum, Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad, National Aeronautical Laboratory, Bangalore, and Central Leather Research Institute, Chennai. Let us all join hands in making at least these five great National Institutes not only centres of excellence, but also to put them prominently in the global map of research and technology.