`Progressive Purchase' pricing model for household energy systems

“Progressive Purchase” is a new pricing model developed by Simpa Networks that shares some characteristics of the familiar “prepaid”, “pay as you go”, and “installment plan” pricing models. Under Progressive Purchase, the consumer makes a series of payments, each of which unlocks the solar home system for a paid amount of energy consumption (Kwh).  Once the prepaid consumption is exhausted, the solar home system is temporarily disabled until another paymenmt is made.  Once the consumer has fully paid the total purchase price of the product, full functionality is restored and the product is permanently unlocked.

The Progressive Purchase pricing model is enabled by the Simpa Regulator, a tamper-proof, system-integrated micro controller and user interface that regulates the function of  solar home systems based on proof of payments, and the Simpa Revenue Management System, a centralized software solution in the “cloud”, accessible via SMS gateway and over the internet, for payment processing and accounts settlement.

Lessons from Lepakshi Knowledge Hub

January 2012, Business Standard

Global Emerging Markets (GEM), a $3.4-billion alternative investment group having its presence in 55 countries, and former Chief Vigilance Commissioner N Vittal-promoted Gujarat Vittal Innovation City have entered into a joint venture with Andhra Pradesh-based Lepakshi Knowledge Hub to develop a green eco system for knowledge-based services, manufacturing, R&D and incubation activities. To be developed on 2,500 acres allotted by Lepakshi from its 10,000 acre Knowledge Park located in Anantapur district bordering Karnataka.

February 2014 Indian Express

The government issued a show-cause notice to Lepakshi. However, the company failed to give proper replies and the government cancelled all the incentives. The principal obligation of the Lepakshi was to establish a World Class Global Knowledge Hub by providing integrated infrastructure support to universities, science & technology parks, medical parks, aerospace parks, agro food parks, IT/BT parks, logistic parks, global eco theme village, business financial district, FTWZs, energy projects, commercial, retail, residential and other support infrastructure etc., at Chilamattur and Gorantla mandals.The government concluded that there was no substantive progress in the project and no specific action plan has been provided.

Lesson to retired Bureaucrats

Think twice before lending your name to shoddy plans. 

support for small budget innovations benefitting MSME from VNRVJIET, Hyderabad

MSME recently approved incubator of VNRVJIET at Hyderabad to support innovations under their incubator support program. Details of MSME program:

http://www.dcmsme.gov.in/schemes/Incubatee_Application_Format.pdf

Individuals/ Micro and Small Enterprises having innovative business idea at near commercialization stage and needing about 5 lakhs to complete the development can apply to edcell@vnrvjiet.in. 

First Product Industry Monitor Report

iSPIRT has brought out the product start-up report (Feb 2014) based on survey carried out by Sharique Hasan (Assistant Professor at Stanford's Graduate School ofBusiness),SrivardhiniK.Jha(Research Scientis with McGill Centre for Convergence of Health and Economics and Fellow at iSPIRT), and  Rembrand Koning(a doctoral candidate at Stanford's Graduate School of Business). Findings:

• Over 50% of software product firms are bootstrapped.Majority invested less than a crore and valuation is generally less than 10 millionUSD.
•  40% of founders came from MNCs and the founders have a similar background & skill sets.Founders are older with 70% in 301-40 age group.
• Bangalore and Enterprise sectors dominate.

Emergence of entertainment and creative cluster at Hyderabad: Contribution of ANR

In the filmed entertainment sector Los Angeles, or Hollywood, has been the dominant cluster for many years and is the most globally recognised centre for film and television production. However, India is the largest market globally in terms of total box-office admissions and number of films produced. Filmed entertainment in India was estimated around 112 billion INR in 2012 by PWC expected to cross 200 billion INR by 2017. Digital distribution has transformed the markets with movies releasing with large number of prints across India and abroad thereby capturing revenues early combating piracy.

The market share of Hollywood films is about 9%, mostly from multiplexes in large metros. Indian film clusters evolved in a different way compared to Hollywood where all mainstream Hollywood films are produced, financed, distributed (and, to some extent, exhibited) by a handful of integrated media conglomerates (News Corp, Walt Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, NBC Universal, and Sony), and non-mainstream films are practically isolated from the mainstream system of finance and distribution. There is even structural difference amongst film clusters in Hyderabad and Chennai and Bollywood.

After Indian Independence in 1947, Bollywood films have been produced, financed, distributed, and exhibited in complex collaboration among hundreds of independent producers each owning a small-scale production company (with one or fewer annual releases), independent distributors (covering different regional territories), private financiers, and stand-alone cinema operators. seems to move towards an industry model based on alliances. Despite increased professionalism and horizontal integration in down stream processing & distribution, alliances mark the culture of Bollywood film cluster ushered in by refugee film producers, stars and entrepreneurs from Lahore. Star actors, even today are cast and signed though informal social relations, rather than through agents and lawyers, and unlike their Hollywood counterparts, written contracts are rarely used. The second category of social relations is those between producers and financiers. Since Bollywood's inception, producers have obtained most film finance either as advance payment from distributors or from private sources, and the production companies struck new finance and distribution deals for each production.

The growth of Film cluster in Hyderabad is attributed to Akkineneni Nagegewararao (ANR). At the height of popularity, he took a decision to shift to Hyderabad and insisted all his producers to shoot in Hyderabad only. He built his own studio in 1975. The formation of film cluster in Hyderabad shows that government initiatives like providing infrastructure (lands for studios, residence) and fiscal incentives (tax rebate , lower entertainment tax) etc are all important, a cluster champion is needed to form the nucleus.

Chinese Solar Mission

Chinese strategy in solar PV focussed on utilisation, manufacture and research with a synergistic policy. Interesting from Indian perspective as tend to see as all three components as mutually exclusive. Excerpts from UNU-MERIT working paper'  Diverse and uneven pathways towards transition to low carbon development: The case of diffusion of solar PV technology in China, Michiko Iizuka, (wp2014-002).

China (as of 2012) has the largest capacity for renewable power generation in the world, followed by the USA and Germany, and is one of the five largest countries in the world in terms of capacity for producing the following types of renewable energy: bio‐power (3rd), hydropower (1st), solar PV (4th), wind power (1st), solar water collection (1st), geothermal (2nd) in 2012 (REN21, 2013). 

As for manufacturing capacity, several Chinese firms, such as Goldwind, Sinovel and Migyang for wind energy and Yingli Green Energy and Trina Solar – to name a few – for solar PV, are considered the dominant players in the global export market for both wind turbine and solar PV respectively. The growing presence of China in terms of capacity to generate and manufacture renewable energy is accompanied by a growing capacity to innovate as the result of conscious efforts made by both private and public sectors.

The growing manufacturing capacity demonstrated by China’s export performance was accompanied by increasing technological efforts. Both government and firms attempted to close the technological gap with OECD countries. The results of these efforts can be observed from the rapid increase of indigenous R&D. Between 1996 and 2008, central government R&D appropriation for renewable energy increased from RMB 21.1 billion (US$2.5 billion) to RMB104.8 billion (US$15.2 billion), while expenditure by regional governments for the same purpose increased from RMB 7.8 billion (US$940 million) to RMB 105.7 billion (US$15.4billion) (Cao and Groba, 2013). 

 Parallel to such technological efforts, Chinese firms relied on the acquisition of foreign technologies using turnkey cell and module production lines and capital goods from the late 1990s to the early 2000s (de la Tour et al., 2011). During this time, the manufacturing activities of Chinese solar PV firms were concentrated on ‘easy‐to‐enter’ but ‘low‐profit‐margin’ activities of cell and module production. Subsequently, these firms’ cumulative efforts at in‐house R&D were complemented by strategies of joint R&D with universities and research institutes, as well as setting up overseas R&D facilities with government inducements for acquiring technology. Such R&D focused on crystalline silicon, which was the dominant technology at that time. Although the strongest presence of Chinese firms is still in downstream activities, i.e. cell and module production, firms have also invested in upstream activities such as the processing of silicon feedstock.

India adopted early- to- start and fast- to -vacate policy in solar PV too, established CEL in 1974, supported research regularly with small grants to IITs and increased utilisation of PV with Solar Mission.

National Intellectual Property Awards-2014

Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) in partnership with Government of India (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion and Intellectual Property Office),  from 2009 onwards every year celebrates the World IP Day by  recognizing and rewarding  organization/ people who have contributed in harnessing the country’s intellectual capital and creating an eco-system that boosts creativity and innovation. Continuing the trend of felicitating the achievements in IP, CII and Intellectual Property  office, India is organizing the  National  Intellectual Property Awards on 26 April 2014  at Hotel Le Meridien, New Delhi. 

The Categories for National IP Award, 2014 is as mentioned below:

I.   Top Indian Academic institution in Patent.

II.    Top R & D institution in Healthcare.

III.   Top Indian Public Limited Company / Private Limited Company / Indian subsidiary of a  transnational corporation in Patent, for  research and development conducted in India and subsequent first filing in India for the said developed invention.

IV.   Top Indian Private Company (MSME) in Patent.

V.    Top Individual in Patent.

VI.   Top Organization in Trade Mark.

VII.  Top Organization in Design.

VIII.  Top Individual in Design.

IX.    Top Geographical Indication of Indian Origin

Awardees will be selected by a jury comprising professionals from diverse fields such as: IP professionals, Industrialists and Industry Association, Academia, R&D professionals, Representative(s) of the Government of India. Selected applicants will be awarded cash prize of Rs.1,00,000/- each at an award ceremony hosted by the Indian IP Office in collaboration with Confederation of Indian Industry on 26 April 2014 in New Delhi .

Applications are invited from the Indian industry (micro, small, medium, large), both private and public sector, as well as firms and societies, registered in India; Indian subsidiary of a transnational corporation; Indian Academic and R&D institutions; and individuals who have IPRs granted / registered by the Indian Intellectual Property Office.

The  duly filled  application  form  is required to be sent to “Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, S M Road, Antop Hill, Mumbai-400037, so as to reach on or before 28 February 2014. (Please Note: The envelopes must be subscribed with “National IP Awards 2014”)

The details on the awards & selection process and application form are attached for your reference. 

For further details/clarity you can get in touch with Ms. Nabanita Mukherjee / Mr Gaurav Gupta (nabanita.mukherjee@cii.in/ gaurav.gupta@cii.in)  @011-45772021/ 17.

  

IGCARL, Pulivendula offers lab space and residential areas to private firms under PPP/JV basis.

Partnership is invited in the fields of :

1. Biotechnology & Nanotechnology- Vaccine production, Diagnostic kits, stem cell etc.

2.Molecular & Cytigenetics-DNA finger printing, transgenic animals, germplasm etc.

3.Reproduction & Cryobiology- sexing of semen and embryos, cloning etc

4.Microbiology & Immunology: culture development, production of SPF eggs etc.

5.Animal Nutrition= genetic engineering of rumen microbes, Methan gas reduction, Enzymes etc.

Disputes on Royalty over Standard Essential Patents.

         Before the creation of a standard, all patents are implementation patents. However, when a standard is created and a patent holder declares its patents to be essential to the standard, the patent is a standard-essential patent (SEP) and is subject to the FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, Non discriminatory) commitment. A patent holder is obligated to make licenses available to its Essential Patent Claims defined as  “any Patent Claim the use of which was necessary to create a compliant implementation of either mandatory or optional portions of the normative clauses of the [Proposed] Standard when, at the time of the [Proposed]  Standard’s approval, there was no commercially and technically feasible non-infringing alternative.” The IEEE’s guidelines emphasize that the IEEE bears no responsibility for identifying essential patent claims for which a license may be required or for investigating the legal validity or scope of essential patent claims.

         CCI ( Competition Commission of India) recently addressed this issue in the dispute between Micromax Vs Ericsson. The Informant (Micromax) has alleged that the OP (Ericsson) was demanding unfair, discriminatory and exorbitant royalty for its patents regarding GSM technology. The royalty demanded by Ericsson was excessive when compared to royalties charged by other patentees for patents similar or comparable to the patents held by Ericsson.  OP demanded royalty on sale price of product whereas Informant took the stand that royalty should be applicable on Chip (protected with the patents) and not on phone as smart phone manufacturer has to pay royalties on other components as well , leading to royalty stalking. Second, Ericsson was inclined to share data on Royalties imposed on other licensees to verify non-discriminatory aspect.

         CCI ruled:

         The allegations made in the information and not refuted by OP concerning royalty rates make it clear that the practices adopted by the OP were discriminatory as well as contrary to FRAND terms. The royalty rates being charged by the OP had no linkage to patented product, contrary to what is expected from a patent owner holding licences on FRAND terms. The OP seemed to be acting contrary to the FRAND terms by imposing royalties linked with cost of product of user for its patents. Refusal of OP to share commercial terms of FRAND licences with licensees similarly placed to the informant, fortified the accusations of the Informant, regarding discriminatory commercial terms imposed by the OP. For the use of GSM chip in a phone costing Rs. 100, royalty would be Rs. 1.25 but if this GSM chip is used in a phone of Rs. 1000, royalty would be Rs. 12.5. Thus increase in the royalty for patent holder is without any contribution to the product of the licensee. Higher cost of a smartphone is due to various other softwares/technical facilities and applications provided by the manufacturer/licensee for which he had to pay royalties/charges to other patent holders/patent developers. Charging of two different license fees per unit phone for use of the same technology primafacie is discriminatory and also reflects excessive pricing vis-a-vis high cost phones. 

         In view of above discussion, the Commission is of the opinion that it was a fit case for through investigation by the DG into the allegations made by the Informant, and violations, if any, of the provisions of the Competition Act. 

          This is the first and defining case in India. Request readers to share information on similar cases from other countries.

 

Altiux Innovations

Based out of Bangalore, Altiux helps large MNCs as well as startups in joint IP development, prototyping, new product introduction, concept development, product re-engineering and emerging market-focused solutions.CEO, Shyam Vedantam earlier worked with Harman International  as Head Engineering, General Manager , Indian R&D Center, KeyPoint Technologies,  Technoology Manager, GE etc.

Seeking Foot, Nail & Leg Care Technologies/Devices

SkyQuest,  is looking at licensing/acquiring electric/battery operated technologies/devices or products with applications in foot care, nail care and leg care.
Required features:

• Technology/Device for use on nails, feet and/or legs;
• Applications of the Technology/Device should be ranging from buffering or exfoliation of skin, filing/nail care and/or massage;

Constraints:

• Technology/Device operable via battery or powered electronically;
• If battery operated, then recharging source should also be available;
• The Technology/Device should be in market/near commercialization.

Markets to be commercialized: Worldwide.

Please note that we will not considertechnology/devices for hair removal or which are manually operated.
To submit a technology, write to info@skyquestt.com or neha.jhala@skyquestt.com

World's E-Waste

The escalating global e-waste problem is graphically portrayed in a first-of-its-kind StEP E-Waste World Map, available online at www.step-initiative.org/index.php/WorldMap.html,

The interactive map resource, presenting comparable annual data from 184 countries, shows the estimated amount of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE — anything with a battery or a cord) put on the market and how much resulting e-waste is eventually generated (i.e. comes out of use or post-use storage destined for collection by a recycling company or disposal). By providing a better sense of e-waste quantities to anticipate, the initiative is expected to The map shows, for example, that almost 48.9 million metric tons of used electrical and electronic products was produced last year — an average of 7 kg for each of the world's 7 billion people. And the flood of e-waste is growing. Based on current trends, StEP experts predict that, by 2017, the total annual volume will be 33 per cent higher at 65.4 million tons, The StEP e-waste world map database shows that in 2012 China and the United States topped the world’s totals in market volume of EEE and e-waste. China put the highest volume of EEE on the market in 2012 – 11.1 million tons, followed by the US at 10 million tons. Those positions were reversed when it came to the total volume of e-waste generated per year, there being more products put on the market in the past in the US which are now likely to be retired. Here the US had the world’s highest figure of 9.4 million tons and China generated the second highest e-waste total of 7.3 million tons. 

India generated e-waste in 2012 was 0.27 million tonnes.

Global spending on R&D: 2014 forecast

The big news is that China spending on R&D could surpass USA by as early as 2020.
Leaving aside comparison with China, poor India's spending on R&D is not insignificant. In 2014 India is expected to spend $44 billion , that is same as that of U.K and much more than wealthy nations like Canada, Sweden, Netherlands, Australia and several times that of nations known for their innovation prowess like Israel, Finland, Taiwan,Singapore.
This raises issue on productivity/ return on R&D investment.

1. How is that despite spending 4 times higher than Israel, we have nothing to show in global market place?
2 .Even in research publications, Australia, Singapore and Taiwan are far ahead.

'Innovation without Research': Concept for comments

Framework of concept paper given below for comments. This deals with technological innovations.

a)    Corporate R&D started weaning away researchers from universities by offering better facilities and freedom. In-house research centers blossomed with hundreds of highly qualified and competent scientists and researchers working in frontier areas of Science &Technology. During the boom period returns on investment in R&D  was not an issue, firms spent a percentage of their turnover benchmarking the spend with industry average.

b)    Despite large budget and acclaimed outcome, many a time firm noticed they could not compete with fast moving players. Categorization into small r, capital D followed, proving space for catch up work. It is expected that capital D projects, smal duration projects aimed at bettering competition would derive strength from capital R work. The pool of competences developed with capital R projects could be harvested for both capital R and capital D projects, where the firm is the industry leader but also for capital D projects benchmarking competitors product in the market place, with faster response. Portfolio of R & D projects, all marshaled with internal resources was in order for many years.

c)    Sponsored research was always an integral part , researchers generally continued working with alumni institute. Strategic alliances was an acknowledgement of limitation of doing everything in-house and complex strategies evolved for managing strategic alliance with shadow teams, IP sharing , market segmentation etc. acquisition of start-ups for their IP was more smoother operation.

d)    Open innovation and crowd sourcing  was a disruptive practice, firms looked at the vast pool of global talent and shifted focus from ownership to access. The complexity of innovation challenges and multiple teams accepting those challenges call for redefining the contours of global stock of knowledge.

e)    Globalization had seen relative decline in competitiveness of OECD nations and most analysts agree the only way these nations can continue to save jobs is to invest in R&D. With the result, we had seen larger number of talented people working on commercial research than ever before in human history.

f)     The pipeline taking research to market bellowed at the research end leading to a jump in global stock of knowledge. Considering the large ownership base, it can be said this stock of knowledge is publicly owned. This worked wonders for crowd sourcing of ideas, innovation challenges.

g)    And this also provides an unique opportunity for catching up economies like India to improve their innovation score without proportionate increase in national R&D budget. India , a poor nation more on R&D than Australia, Finland etc. Historically , most of spending was by government for scientific and research projects. Whereas, the industry garnered market and developed technological competences based on imported technology. Thus there was a significant disconnect between government funded research institutes and commercial firms. Globalization and IT widened  the rift to disconnect of minds. Collapse of joint ventures ended the inexhaustible source of competitive technology with most technology suppliers setting up their own Indian operations. New generation entrepreneurs smelled better success in IT enable services and largest number of engineers today work in IT firms rather than assembly lines. The  so called Indian human resource strength ends  with students graduation , still Indian government continues to increase their budgets for research by government funded institutes, calling industry to take the fruits of that public spend.

h)    India is a large country needing jobs in all categories and there is revival of interest in manufacturing mainly due to market demand and IT players are looking for value addition beyond labour arbitrage.

Hypothesis 1

Indian government can get better returns by funding proposals in capital D category based on globally sourced capital R.

Hypothesis 2

India firms need to practice and learn to use Open innovation Platforms. 

GFR (General Finance Rules) and Innovation Promotion

In 2007 World Bank released a report `Unleashing INDIA’S Innovation’ and question thus arose;  where is the `leash’?  Is it low budget or structural holes or mind set?

It is common refrain to say that only 1 in 8 of innovations make money in the market. For government departments, the accounting treatment of failed innovations is governed by the rule book GFR. Unfortunately despite a series of announcements including INDIA INNOVATION DECADE, the GFR has not been updated to stimulate risk investment by Government. The GFR condition amended in 2005 says:

Ministries or Departments of Government sponsor projects or schemes to be undertaken by Universities, Indian Institutes of Technology and other similar autonomous organizations such as ICAR, CSIR, ICMR,etc., the results from which are expected to be in national interest. Normally the entire expenditure on such projects or schemes including capital expenditure, is funded by the Ministry or Department. The funds released for such projects or schemes in one or more installments are not treated as grants-in aid in the books of the implementing agency. Apart from the requirement of submission of technical and financial reports on completion of the project or scheme, a stipulation should be made in such cases that the ownership in the physical and intellectual assets created or acquired out of such funds shall vest in the sponsor.

R&D Grants to Industry

There is no provision or bar on funding R&D projects or innovations by commercial organisations. History of R&D funding will thro light on this.

TAAS

DSIR was the first to provide R&D grants to Industry under TAAS (Technology Absorption and Adaptation Scheme). This is influenced by the Japanese Model, where initial technology was imported, absorbed and improved. MITI moulded the program in Japan, the Indian version TAAI taken up by DGTD was resisted by industry due to conditions on PMP (Phased Manufacturing Programme) to improve local content during the initial 5 years of license. To motivate industry to take up technology absorption , DSIR came up with TAAS and R&D grants were given to over 30 Public Sector Firms. GFR does not differentiate between Public Sector or Private sector and this decision to restrict funding to Public sector was primarily to play safe.

PATSER

With liberalization and globalization, the focus shifted to new product development. The literature is supportive of government initiatives to support commercial firms at pre-commercial stage of R&D and WTO also approved this subsidy. DSIR started PATSER as conditional and matching grants scheme, attracting private capital to R&D and at the same time not penalizing them for R&D failures. More than 150 R&D projects were supported under this program and majority of the executing agencies were private firms developing proprietary technology. Similar programs taken up by TIFAC, DOE ran into rough weather as they were loan schemes with no provision to write off failed Research.

TePP

New century shifted focus again , this time to creativity, innovation and incubation. New ground was covered under TePP as network program with slots to support idea at different stages. Read: PPT on Freedom to perform in Government-case of TePP . 

Is GFR the leash that confined India to a narrow circle of achievements?

• ·     Under the same GFR, DSIR started TePP and PATSER programs giving grants to commercial firms for R&D at pre-commercial stage.
• ·         Under the same GFR, TDB started giving time much larger amounts to commercial firms as soft loans at Commercial stage.
• ·        Under the same GFR, TePP started giving small but significant grants direct to innovators for proving their novel ideas at concept stage.
• ·         The amount spent by Government of India on private R&D and Innovation is less than the R&D cess collected from Industry for technology transfer.
• ·         The grant amount is a tiny fraction of revenue foregone (Rs 6330 crores) by Government by way of fiscal incentives ( Deduction/weighted deduction for expenditure on scientific research (section 35 (1), (2AA) &(2AB))

·      It is good if GFR is amended to keep with the times, even otherwise the precedents created should form the base to charge ahead with conviction..

India faces certainty of Water Challenge in an uncertain environment to meet the challenge.

Born and brought up in a village on the bank of Buckingham Canal, imaging a water stressed region was difficult. This McKinsey  report is disturbing as the bridging measure appear in-feasible. 

By 2030, under an average economic growth scenario and if no efficiency gains are assumed, global water requirements would grow from 4,500 billion m3 today (or 4.5 thousand cubic kilometers) to 6,900 billion m3. This is a full 40 percent above current accessible, reliable supply (including return flows, and taking into account that a portion of supply should be reserved for environmental requirements ). By 2030, demand in India will grow to almost 1.5 trillion m3, driven by domestic demand for rice, wheat, and sugar for a growing population, a large proportion of which is moving toward a middle-class diet. Against this demand, India’s current water supply is approximately 740 billion m3. As a result, most of India’s river basins could face severe deficit by 2030 unless concerted action is taken, with some of the most populous—including the Ganga, the Krishna, and the Indian portion of the Indus—facing the biggest absolute gap. The report lists many measures to reduce demand and increase supply. 

As per this report, the biggest additional source for water is National River Linking Project (NRLP)- will it ever take off?  I first heard of reversing course of river during visit to Chicago and American civil engineers achieved this feat in year 1900- how admirable.

Affect of transnational corruption on host country firms innovation behaviour

Researchers Alexis Habiyaremye  and Wladimir Raymond focus on rarely discussed topic- impact of MNCs corruption on innovation behaviour of local firms in transition economies. 

This is known for long that many Indian innovations failed to take off as customers both in government and in private sector favoured MNCs for kick-backs ranging from free foreign trip to over-invoicing.

Using firm-level data from the Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey, the researchers show that the involvement of foreign firms in corruption practices reduces the propensity of firms in host countries to invest in research and development and harms their ability to improve their existing products and services.

Read: http://www.merit.unu.edu/publications/wppdf/2013/wp2013-050.pdf

Agriinnovate India Ltd launched.

Agrinnovate India Ltd. (AgIn) was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (No. 1 of 1956) on 19th October, 2011. It is a “for profit” Company owned by Department of Agricultural Research & Education (DARE), Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. It is to act as an effective interface between Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR- an autonomous organization under DARE) on one side and the Stakeholders of agricultural sector (Farmers; Public & Private Sector firms; R&D organizations; Educational Institutions- all of these at National and International level) on the other side, for a significant purpose of securing, sustaining and promoting global agricultural development.

The Company has been set up with an authorized share capital of Rs. 100 crore, with an initial paid up capital of Rs. 50 crores from DARE/ICAR.

Close

RELATED ARTICLES

Missed manufacturing- next cycle may be century away.

Prime Minister in his message to the report `National Strategy for Manufacturing (2006)' acknowledge that share of manufacturing in national income had shown only a marginal improvement from 15.8% in 1991 to 17% in 2003. He wanted it between 25% to 35%. This goal of 25% was never reached. Share of Manufacturing has come down to 15.2% in 2012-13 from 15.7% in 2011-12. 

Despite regular announcements to boost up manufacturing with policy interventions, it seems India would never achieve the coveted 25% share. Researcher Dani Rodrik says de-acceleration in manufacturing is cyclic and inevitable, both developed and developing countries have gone through the phase of accelerated growth followed by decline in manufacturing. The critical difference is the peak reached before the decline sets in.

In UK before world war 1 had 45% of workforce in manufacturing, now less than 10%. USA had 25-27% of workforce in manufacturing in early nineteenth century , now less than 10%. In Sweden manufacturing peaked to 33%, Germany to 40% before decline had set in.
India peaked at 13-15% in 2002 and has since trended down. When US, Britain, Germany, Sweden began to deindustrialize their per capita income reached $10,000 (at 1990 prices). India switched to service sector at much lower per capita income.

Will India stagnate as a service economy at low income level?
Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/developing-economies--missing-manufacturing-by-dani-rodrik#kTJKPCAZbH1yIdLC.99

2013 China Innovation Survey

The China Innovation Survey is jointly conducted by the Benelux Chamber of Commerce in China, 21st Century Business Review, China Europe International Business School, and Booz & Company. Findings:

• China is well on its way to becoming a true global innovation hub for MNCs from developed markets: Two-thirds of the MNCs in China that took part in the survey reported that they are already conducting product development for foreign or global markets.Participants were even more aggressive in their projections, they expect to be conducting global R&D in China for the rest of the world 10 years from now.
• In addition, the survey contradicts a piece of conventional wisdom: that innovation in China tends to focus on copying and making incremental improvements to existing products. In fact, the data shows that Chinese companies—to a higher degree than most global competitors—pursue the same practiced by the world’s most successful innovators, notably companies based in Silicon Valley. These companies pursue Need Seeker strategies : focusing their R&D efforts on consumer needs, developing products that meet those needs, and then quickly getting the products to market.
• Apart from the optimism, the Chinese firms and MNCs in China share the confusion: neither are clear on Key Capabilities.

For copy of the report contact: Kevin.lu@innoenterprise.com