The common feeling is that the number of researchers, who are capable of invention is around 2,000 in the country.  All these funding agencies run around these 2,000 individuals.  Mr. A.S. Rao , Adviser, DSIR, New Delhi

Mr. A S Rao, Adviser, DSIR, is currently in-charge of Technopreneur Promotion Programme, jointly operated by Dept. of Scientific and Industrial Research, Dept. of Science & Technology and Technology Information Forecasting and Assessment Council, which aims to to tap the vast existing innovative potentials of the citizen of India. Mr. Rao the activities under the programme has become a passion. R&D India sought his views on various aspects of innovation in the country, including problems and prospects of funding non-institution based innovators in the country.

Excerpts from the interview. 

What are the activities included under Technology entrepreneur Promotion Programme (TePP)?  

We have several platforms—Indian Innovators Association is one of the new ones, this is primarily for the corporate innovators. We are looking at the second level of innovation and innovators, and not the top end ones like those done by larger corporations such as BHEL etc.  But the lesser-known innovations also need to be internationally disseminated through International Federation of Inventors Association (IFIA).  With this it would be in the digital space and many people get to know of innovations through this medium. We put a lot of resources including all the Indian innovations for free access.  The site also has resources which an innovator typically looks for innovation activies, incubators, patent search etc. The site works as a virtual library for innovators. We also host all associated information on innovation including current debate, standards, etc.   This is a blog for TePP Innovators. 

Is there a need for government funding for innovations at this level?

Institutional funding is the part of government activity.  This is the international trend initiated by Germans.  Almost all countries have programs to support innovation which are institution based.  Industry support is a relatively new phenomenon.  Technology  Adoption and Absorption Programme was the first by the Government of India in the 1980s.  Those were the days of Licence Raj.  We would put on a rider on the technology licenses and called for indigenisation of the technology by the company over a period of time in phases.  That was called phased manufacturing programme.  After the reforms were initiated in 1990s, absorption, adoption, import substitution has no longer been the thrust.  Focus shifted to new product development.  TePP is catapulated as the scheme to support new product development.  This programme  evolved over a period of time has created an excitement.   

We are giving public money to a private profit making entity.  That is the newness in the approach.  The assumption is that such a support helps society at large in accumulating the knowledge capital and equity.  Though it seems logical today, it was not a simple thing considering our pre-reforms philosophy.  Once the concept was  accepted, we have evolved funding schemes  for each of the sub sectors in innovation and technology development.  If it is a take off from an institution we say it is homegrown;  if it is coming from in-house R & D, we have a scheme for tax exemption;  if it is technology commercialization—NRDC and other agencies  come into picture;  drug development is assisted, so is biotechnology by Department of Biotechnology.  We have the funding window for every link of the innovation chain from basic research to companies leveraging the technology through venture capital.  Institutions are fully covered, commercial establishments are fully covered.  Only gap was the independent innovators.  Typically, an independent innovator is not doing a programmed research, yet he has a bright idea and makes  a personal investment.  Beyond a point he needs assistance.  TePP comes into picture here. 

What kind technology are we looking for at this level?

When we are looking at the basic research of an institution we are looking at the ‘state-of-the-art’ technology.  The expectation is that the scientist technologist improves on the existing technology.  It is enlarging the current technology at the cutting edge.  We have a way of assessing it -  peer review, publishability of the work etc.  For institutional research peer review is possible.  ‘State-of-the-art’ is same all over the world. 

For commercial companies also it is not hard to assess, as we are looking for the state-of-the-market technology, what is new for us.  There are guidelines for evaluation.

When we come to the independent innovators, what are we looking at?  We do not look for cutting edge technology or those catering the state-of-the-market ones. 

We have got a large number of funding windows.  The common feeling is that the number of researchers, who are capable of invention is around 2,000 in the country.  All these funding agencies run around these 2,000 individuals.  The base is small for the country.  There are many more scientists and researchers.  This number – 2,000 – excludes them.  They are put to a job they are paid for.  They have no free space.  They do doctoral work; they know logical way of doing things.  They are not used to out of the box thinking.  With the result there is a shortage of original ideas in the country.  Unless we have a plethora of original ideas, we cannot have a product like ipod that has global appeal.  That is the result of a million ideas churning out in the space.  For this to happen, we need to increase the idea space.  TePP Innovator Programme started with this objective.  To tap those who are innovative, but not a professional, not a researcher, still having an original idea.  with these ideas it is more the merrier as they broaden the national knowledge base.  

These ideas, innovations percolate better and create spin offs in the system than the MNC research.  In this category of creative innovators we have the grassroot innovator.  National Innovation Foundation led by Dr. Anil Gupta  scouts for these new innovations, document and give away awards.  They have documented 40,000 of these innovations.  From within this base TePP takes further some of the technologies, support them for making prototypes—concept proving prototype - where you prove the functionality.  We are keenly looking at a possibility beyond this.  We have structured relationship with NIF.  Initially TePP started with this objective only. 

As NIF takes care of scouting and documentation what larger objective does TePP serve now?

We are now looking at a base bigger than grassroot innovators.  This is a much bigger space.  There are many  independent innovators.  We have a mixed category of innovators, including the users.  As users more often are not satisfied with the product either because they are expensive or because product is too complicated. There are many people who tinker with the particular product and come up with their own versions.  The most successful in this are the medical doctors.  They continuously tinker and device low cost innovations.  I am not talking of the drugs but the attachments to surgical equipment, instruments and the like. What we need is a prototyping product.   

How do you track these innovators? 

There are many who are doing utilitarian innovations.  This is the most desirable from the societal perspective—improving burner, stove, shoes etc.  This base of innovators who pose their own problem is very widely spread about.  For us accessing institution is very easy, but small innovators are all over the country.   So we conceived the idea of TePP network.  There are network partners all across the country.  Ultimately these are the people who are contact point for the innovators. They do the complementary role.  They are promoting innovations, training people in entrepreneurship. We are currently experimenting  with this set up.  In the network some are formally designated as TePP network partners and some are not. They work like partners all the same.  This is the real strength of TePP. We have 12 designated outreach centers, plus three more not designated so, making it in all 15 active partners closely working with us in this space.  This is what we want to bank upon for the Eleventh plan Programme for the TePP activity.   

How many such innovation TePP is aiming to sponsor? How do you cater to their project needs, considering the New Delhi offices would put off a small innovator?

We have accelerated the programme from a base of 40 last year to 100 innovations this year.  We are aiming at a modest 200 in the coming year.  This is a small number.  But the arithmetics works like this—to support 100 we looked at 800-900 clear and complete proposals, which are evaluated in detail by the experts.  To come to this number we responded to around 2000 letters showing the intent.  Fundable proposal was only one in eight.  If we have to support 1000 innovations we have to access 50,000 ideas.  The ideas are there, so are the innovators.  The communication has to work now.   

We are running innovation fund camps to circumvent the “Fear of Delhi” and to facilitate face-to-face interaction.  The camp would be organized by one of the network partners.   The word would be spread among the innovators to come up with their ideas and the base equipment to the camp for the first level screening.  On the spot assessment would be done and a decision taken.  Once the network partnerships stabilize we can expect more such interactions and ideas.  We only take original ideas that are implementable.  We have several filters and at each level we cut out many of these proposals. Also many of these innovators may not have stable income.  The truth is innovation does not materialize unless there is a regular source of income.  Amount of effort involved would call for that.  In such cases, we appreciate their zeal, but discourage them, all the same, in taking up the venture.  It is true in case of loss making companies also.  Innovation is a passion that is what keeps the innovator going. 

Could you try out a strategy where you would put the onus the individual to get the technology to a certain level before you fund?  This is to save the idea, sustain his innovative zeal.

Rejection on paper leads to a lot of heart burning.  That is why the camps.  There we can counsel them on the rejection appropriately at one to one level. However, we will not reimburse what is already expended. But most of these technologies can be furthered improved. In most of the cases it is Passion at the network partner level which makes all the difference. Some of the innovators would themselves become mentors for many others 

What is the success rate in the projects funded under TePP? 

We do not define success in terms of the market he has captured.  It is too early a stage.  What is called for is a prototype.  A functional prototype is a 80 percent success.  This is the measure of output.  Outcome of the project is answer to the question  ‘what next?’  Can he start his own enterprise?  Can he transfer the technology to others who are interested in marketing it.  Here we have very limited success.  Only 20 people in our experience, out of over 100 we have dealt with, have commercialized their ideas and even lesser number have been able to transfer the technology.  There are the gaps where they need further mentoring.  To help out of this we have started Phase-II funding also. We do not expect medical doctors to become businessmen, considering many of them are innovators.  We expect them to license the technology.  We have parallel entrepreneur training programme where they are looking for technologies for production. 

There is a gap between innovation/prototype and the marketable product.  Would the entrepreneur take up this final phase of development? 

TePP supports in these cases through Phase-II funding provided technology is transferable or the innovator has a business plan for production.  The innovations, unless harnessed in time, gets leaked  into the system.  As a government we are not unhappy with that - society benefits.  But innovator would be a loser.  Many of the incremental innovations are not protectable nor can it be monitored for protection. We have also noticed that some of these low cost innovations are not amenable to commercial duplication.  Take the case of riding bicycle on the river Ganges.  It is basically a floater, but a bicycle company cannot commercialize that as the market is small. 

You have funded schools on the scheme. Is that a success?  Are there more such projects forthcoming? 

It is not the school.  It is the innovator - a student whom we have funded.  This is a strategy to create excitement.  Proper innovation calls for a lot more than student projects which often turn out to be repetitive.  They are good at a school perspective not at a national level.  For successful innovation at the school level to happen basic experimentation platform itself has to be improved.—It should not be a parent doing  teacher guiding a  neighbor’s product, which is very common.  Innovator has the freedom to conceptualize.  If the concept is others then the essence is lost. 

In Arts students seem to excel—in drawing, carving etc.  But why this does not happen in science as often?

Creative tools are not imparted to students  in schools.  We often encounter students who would have a logical mind—excellent in maths, science etc.  You give them a blank board, they will fill it up.  But they cannot define the problem itself.  Conceptualization is the limitation, because students are not trained in that. 

Are there efforts to cultivate and streamline the innovativeness?

There is a proposal to start a creativity training institute under TePP which is now approved.  We are yet to understand the ‘Indian’ creative process—a culture specific definition—it has taken two decades for the concept of creativity/innovation to be accepted as important in the development process.  We have to explore and localize a TRIZ for India. 

We are now training trainers in creativity programmes.  Right now there are only three or four people who are actively doing the creativity training programmes.

Creativity training, unfortunately, has not come in schools.  Considering students would be in the most receptive age,  that is the age to mould the mindset and attitude.  Our programme would also emphasize on training at formative age only. In Indian Science Congress we tested the water by organizing an idea competition—We wanted children to come out with the ideas on “waste materials in your neighborhood”—Children were excited and participated.  We are not talking about marketability of the ideas at that stage. 

We are experimenting in collaboration with IIT Bombay’s Robotics group with select children.  International experience shows that toys bring out the creativity among children because of the excitement it creates.  Philosophy behind that is—If we give them certain components, space and guidance, they bring out a product which gives a confidence in them.  The students come up with very interesting robots.  This is an unknown domain for us.  Yet it is a feed stock for us.  We need continuous supply of original ideas.  Otherwise there is nothing for us to do. 

Would you have a  gut feeling about the innovativeness when you interact with a person?

No,  considering the culture and language diversity added to personality variation that is not possible for us.  We go by what is put down in a structured manner.  Work done till a given time gives us the confidence.  Idea per se is also not enough to assess.  Our network partners facilitate in the process of structuring the ideas.   Network partners are more volunteers than consultants.  It is their passion that drives the activity.  It is not a commercial proposition for the government. 

Comparatively speaking does organized commercial research get paid so much more and returns so much less?

Yes.  But here also it is a gamble.  Here it is the concept and prototype, in other cases innovation is important. 

What are the India related innovations that are due?

Many Innovations for the bottom of the pyramid market is over due .  Earlier we had low price—low quality versions.  Now the innovations that we are featuring are low priced without sacrificing the functionality. 

How do you ensure that there is no patent violation in the process of funding projects?

When a medical doctors improves the equipment application for which the product is put to could be same but both process and end product are different.  Also, as most of the products/technologies that we see in patent databases are not patented in India.  To that extent we are not technically violating patents. 

Chinese seems to have new technologies at the low end. How is it working for them?

In China the programme is government driven, ours is entrepreneur driven.  We also do not have that drive, discipline and that is how though the technology is not theirs they can sell in the toughest markets.  That is part of the Confucianism—a decision  once taken is implemented and not endlessly debated. 

Is TePP an appropriate technology approach?

No and yes.  Appropriate technology is related to using local material, local artisans for local market.  We are looking for the technologies appropriate to the market but not otherwise strictly with local materials etc.  Some of our projects address state-of-the-art technologies like visual recognition system.  There is no local material there.  We have mix of everything.

Considering you can take a macro view at a country level, do you feel we are innovative?

Yes, there is innovativeness.  Generation of new ideas is a struggle.  Right now we are catching the low hanging fruits.  As it goes on, we will have to struggle.   We have to grow more fruits to go beyond the low hanging ones.