Speaking from the experience gained by the Honey Bee Network, he said that there have
been mistakes. For instance, he said that one of the issues that came up was at what stage
should an entrepreneur be involved. It was felt that maybe if the entrepreneur is involved
from the initial stages, there would be a greater sense of ownership and urgency with
relation to the process of innovation development. The need for appreciating the struggles
undergone by the innovators and their consequent high expectations coupled with the
difficulties in converting their innovations into enterprises – these were some of the
lessons that have been learnt over the years.
He said that as had been suggested by Prof Pankaj Chandra, an Innovation Forum can be
established and CIIE could facilitate that process.
Prof Gupta said that he was optimistic about the future of innovation-based enterprises
and quoted the example that GIANs have licensed 14 technologies none of which are
patented. This shows that there are entrepreneurs who respect Intellectual property Rights
(IPRs) and who are willing to invest in technologies that could be easily copied.
Several grassroots innovators presented their innovations. This included Bhanjibhai
Mathukia (check dam with multiple semicircular arches – a design modification that has
never been attempted before, Vanraj tractor), Arvindbhai Patel (auto compression
sprayer, auto air kick pump- he has made 11 innovations), Ashok Dhiman (tea making
machine), Paresh Panchal (motorized charki for kites- he has received 15,000 orders in
Ahmedabad itself) and Yusuf Khan (Ground nut digging machine and threshing machinehe
has sold more than 20 units of each).
In the discussion during the presentations, various issues emerged. For instance, it was
mentioned that Bhanjibhai did not want a patent for the check dam. He wanted it to be an
open source technology. It was suggested that he should get a trademark registration for
Vanraj tractor. When asked if any market study had been done for the tea-making
machine, it was mentioned that a detailed discussion with representatives from industry,
academia and other experts resulted in suggestions, which were incorporated in the
product development process. Presentations regarding some other innovators including
Kanak Das (bicycle with rider induced and terrain induced forces for transmission) and
Mohammad Saidullah (amphibious cycle-runs on land as well as water) Remya Jose
(washing machine cum exercising machine developed by a Class X student), Sukhranjan
Mistry (tile making machine which makes low cost tiles) and Dhanjibhai Kerai (a
physically challenged person who has made modifications in a scooter which he can now
drive himself) were made.
Prof Pankaj Chandra highlighted some innovative models of co-operation from Japan
(TAMA model) and Italy (Third Italy) as part of his presentation on organizing small
producers for technological innovations. He also spoke about the engineering cluster in
Rajkot that collaborates on orders, processing and manpower.
He enumerated some of the challenges faced by small entrepreneurs. These included
identifying areas of innovations that have market value, dilemma of matching innovators
and customers, locating producers who will provide process/product support, seed
funding for innovations, R&D orientation and managing regulatory environment.
In the discussion that followed, it was suggested that universities could play an important
role in building clusters. Another worrying issue that was pointed out was that the
prevalent systems in India don’t sustain excellence be it in the industry or the academia.
Post lunch, presentations by innovators continued. The innovators who made
presentations included Amrutbhai Agrawat (innovative pulleys – there had been no
change in the design for the past 2000 years, Aaruni tilting bullock cart), Mansukhbhai
Patel (cotton stripper – has a US patent, latest model does the work of 1200 people in one
day), Bharat Srirang Kamble (motor protection device- offers complete protection from
motor burn outs and has fault specific indicators), Yagnesh Mehta (air curtain blower -
more cost effective and energy saving compared to existing aluminium blowers) and
Mansukhbhai Jagani (Bullet driven Santi - a motorcycle driven plough). Presentations
regarding some other innovators including Manoharan (dual purpose rotary huller -
hulling different items in small quantities simultaneously), Trilokya and Champak Bora
(technique to transmit music through electric circuits – can be used to hear music
simultaneously in all the rooms) were made.
Prakash Parkhi, a small entrepreneur who has been providing logistics and support to
Bharat Srirang Kamble, also spoke. It was highlighted that it had become difficult to
license Kamble’s technology as he was insisting on recovering his costs from a single
licensing agreement. It was pointed out that he could not expect the entire sum from one
deal and should opt for a number of non exclusive licenses. One suggestion was that the
Coimbatore Chamber of Commerce could be approached for commercialization.
The issue of existing standards impeding development of innovations was discussed. It
was mentioned that the Vanraj tractor did not get certified because the vehicle did not
conform to the enforced standards.
There were certain queries related to patents. Prof Gupta said that the renewal of patent
(by The Honey Bee Network) is based on the licensing enquiries generated on that
product within a period of three to four years. However, there are some exceptions. It was
also pointed out that maintaining patents is expensive.
One of the participants wanted to know whether innovations were copied. Prof Gupta
pointed out that artisan communities have their own ethics and that blatant copying rarely
happened. It was more common in the field of plant varieties and farm practices.
It was suggested that an innovators association could be formed and they could help each
other. Some efforts have been made in this direction.
Subsequently, the participants divided themselves into four discussion groups based on
their interest areas:
Group 1 – Blending informal and formal science
Group 2 – Valorising grassroots/ mass impact innovations
Group 3 – Managing Microventure Fund: Principles and Procedure
Group 4 – Taking innovations to market
The groups made presentations the following day.
September 25, 2004
The first group (Blending informal and formal science) focused on the following points:
1. Innovation-Inventor Support Mechanism
2. Knowledge – Skill - Resources
3. Link Agencies
4. Indigenous Technical Knowledge
5. Certification Agency
6. IPR Issues
7. Policy Issues of Formal Sector
8. Joint venture – Contractual Research
The suggestions regarding issuing of public notice two months prior to Research Council
Meetings inviting innovations from the informal sector, translating articles in technical
journals into regional languages, the need for the intermediaries to understand the
language of grassroots people as well as technical experts, minimizing test fees and
frequent revision of standards were found to be quite pertinent.
It was also added that the university systems should be flexible enough to allow faculty
members to contribute to work on informal science.
In the discussion that followed, various relevant issues like the need for sectoral group
discussions between formal and informal science at the regional level, making state
research councils proactive, using EDUSAT for talk back sessions on innovations,
building a network of incubators and listing scientists of various institutes and their
interest areas were raised. Regarding students taking up innovations as practical projects,
it was pointed out that they would probably prefer working on something that would
further their careers. It was felt that even the faculty might not be very keen on research
on grassroots innovations.
There were two speakers on the second topic( Valorising grassroots/ mass impact
innovations). The points mentioned by the first speaker were: identification of institutes
that can assist in value addition, categories of value addition, diversification of the use of
the innovation, participation of entrepreneurs in value addition and venture capital
support for value addition.
The second speaker mentioned that there was some confusion regarding the definition of
the grassroots innovator- whether it is an individual innovator without formal technical
knowledge and support? The group felt that value addition could be done in four ways –
rigorous evaluation, prototype development, customer feedback and raising capabilities
(increasing knowledge base and skills). Emphasis was placed on the need for market
pressure to enable effective functioning of product development centers and clusters.
Some of the points that were raised in the discussion were the need for incentives for
research experts and scientists to work on grassroots innovations, providing grassroots
innovators exposure to formal sector institutes and labs and also allowing scientists to
pursue ideas in this field. At this point, attention was drawn to the recent circular issued
by the Ministry of Human Resources Development stating that the IITs should focus only
on high tech products and not low-tech innovations.
An idea given by Yagnesh Mehta, one of the innovators, regarding building a portable
refrigerator for the army triggered several responses, the outcome of which was the
suggestion that a technology network focusing on alternative materials and alternate
sources of energy should be made.
A participant talking about the Chinese experience with innovation said that students
were actively involved with incubators and often wrote business plans, did market studies
etc. In this context, it was mentioned that NIF has set up SCAI clubs in 23 institutions.
SCAI organizes a competition for business plans on grassroots innovations.
The third group (Financing Grassroots Innovations –Managing Microventure Funds)
focused on the following points:
1. Nature of financial requirements vary
2. In a competitive environment, response time is crucial
3. Government support schemes are useful but have constraints
4. Microventure Innovation Fund status
5. Mentoring and monitoring costs are high compared to the kind of funding
6. Issues of scaling up and sustainability
The group’s recommendations included creating a network of angel investors, setting up
self help groups of innovators in an area, greater dissemination of information regarding
government and NIF support schemes.
The group ended their presentation with certain broader issues that need to be considered.
These were:
1. Is microventure fund a commercial or a developmental activity?
2. Will these remain government or NGO supported efforts?
3. Can GIAN be objective in assessing commercial potential?
4. Should commercialization of innovations be the objective or
motivation/diffusion?
5. How to avoid fund becoming “easy money”?
6. Have we contributed to raising the innovators’ expectations?
The ensuing discussion threw up some suggestions, which included CIIE building a
mentoring network, decentralization of government support mechanisms, involving
commercial banks that have money reserved for social services as well as using their
extensive network and the idea of a group of innovators starting an enterprise together.
One of the participants associated with Automotive Components Manufacturers
Association (ACMA) said that the association could be given information that can be
disseminated to their members.
Venture financing was suggested as the best option for investments in innovations. But it
was pointed out that the current trend in venture financing is looking at investing at a
later stage in the innovation development cycle.
The need to be flexible in formulating and negotiating license agreements was stressed.
The fourth group (Taking innovations to the market) highlighted the following points:
1. Classification of innovation
2. IPR Protection
3. Market readiness
4. Market strategy
5. Publicity and advertising
6. Media coverage
7. Government support – incentives and measures
8. Support to enterprise for working capital
9. User ministries/organizational support where required
10. Support interface market establishment/ mechanism co-ordinated by CIIE or NIF
as a society or a company under Section 25.
No comments:
Post a Comment