Approaching 12th Plan for S&T Sector in the context of Innovation Decade 2010-2020
The growing relative importance of the knowledge as a variable of production factor compared to capital, labor and physical resources has been recognized globally. At the same time it should be understood that knowledge is being created, diffused and absorbed linking global and local actors. This is giving birth to new Glocalisation Policies as far as investment in S&T/R&D/Innovation is concerned. R&D activities are increasingly mobile and globally connected. While the significance allocated to the accessibility of codified knowledge through ICT enabled network to improve the efficiency of the research being done is crucial building block of the S&T policy framework at the same time the importance of the institutions which can tap the tacit knowledge from the experts working in those fields gives additional value and leverage to this policy planning institutions to think in new directions compared to stagnated silos.
Policy should give primacy to the non-linear systemic view to look towards progress/innovation rather than judging the changing world through the prism of linear perspectives. So, creating a mesh or embedding a layer of lateral thinking in the communication within the stakeholders of policy planners should be the priority. More time should be given to learn from the studies done around capability to exploit new combinations or of pieces of knowledge is essential. Special attention should be given towards the fact that innovation rests on learning and creativity. Also, it should be realized that innovation happens through interaction amongst firms and other agents.
The knowledge used for innovation may be firm specific among which large part us private proprietary knowledge and tacit. Sectoral or technology specific knowledge may be public, codified and tacit. And generic science based knowledge may be public, open access and codified. In today’s world where distributed knowledge base, the implications it may have for the planning of S&T policies have to be visualized for our better understanding. The kind of diversity of organizations involved in the chain of knowledge creation, diffusion and absorption; resources needed for diffusion considering the limitations imposed by IPRs; importance of local and global access capabilities, flexibilities provided by policies for experimentation, creativity and entrepreneurship and room for innovation without the traditional inputs being given too much emphasis; these are some of the factors which should be accounted for adjusting to the dynamic scenarios of S&T policy making.
The system perspective offers the holistic perspective where whole is greater than sum of its parts, where interrelationships and interactions are more important and includes norms, habits and culture of organizations and institutions. Here most important resource is knowledge and most important process is learning. Understanding the diversity of the performance of the organizations involved needs to be taken into consideration in the context of a) Enhancing the capacities to access and use distributed knowledge base, b) Quality of infrastructure supporting knowledge flows, c) Institutional strategies and link bases. In this perspective moving towards learning organization would be the right step. This step implies: a) Internal changes promoting flat hierarchies, devolution of responsibilities, multi-functional teams, new cross linking competencies, emphasis on quality management and human resource development. So shifts are expected from ‘raising resources’ to ‘promoting change’, from ‘best practices’ towards ‘context specific’ solutions, from ‘standard’ policy making towards ‘policy learning process’.
The changing framework of innovation makes it compulsory to understand that innovation significantly differs from R&D. R&D indicators leave out many unmeasured sources of innovative activity. This is crucial in the context of the increasing awareness of the role of innovation as a non-negotiable ingredient for economic development. In this changing scenario along with the understanding of the systemic actors, emphasis on learning, diffusion and absorption of knowledge is very crucial. So, mobility of tacit knowledge becomes key performance factor.
Traditional policy was viewed in the framework of innovation being only in the terms of R&D; focus on research and technology development, technology transfer mechanisms and institutions created for that purpose, institutions for knowledge creation and diffusion. The shift in learning gained from the traditional approaches has given new insights into the new directions in which the attention needs to be focused. Now innovation must be understood in terms of economic exploitation of new combinations by including broad set of activities including design, organizational, behavioral etc. More attention is necessary to be given for how process of absorption of knowledge is taking place and how to strengthen the absorptive capacity.
S&T/Innovation Policy seems to be dominated by linear tools addressing inputs in the innovation process rather than functioning of the system involved. This system involves actors like R&D institutions, higher education institutions, universities, industry, MSMEs, government think tanks, corporate initiatives, policy bodies, market driven strategies etc. The problem became more serious when individual isolated actors were supported rather than identifying networks of the actors. Therefore policy instruments necessary and addressed to changes in behavior for innovation dealing with strategic, informational, organizational requirements or real time need. So, there is lack of strategic approach in the system.
So challenge for R&D/Innovation policy is to organize complementarities and synergies between policy areas by designing effective policy mixes. Defining this policy mix remains the pivotal task before approaching any strategic plan of S&T/Innovation scene ahead. There should be proper combination of policy instruments which interact to influence the quantity and quality of R&D investments in public and private sectors. The instruments are categorized by all programmes, organizations, rules and regulations with an active involvement of the public sector, which intentionally or unintentionally affect R&D investment.Interactions are carved out by influence of one policy instrument continuously being modified by co-existence of other policy instruments in policy mix. Influences on R&D investments are either direct originating from R&D policy field or may be indirect coming out of all policy instruments from any other policy field.
Here few relevant issues must be probed and explored about how this policy mix should be designed.
a) Challenges for National Innovation System/Sectoral Innovation
System/Regional Innovation System
b) Policy objectives
c) Gaps between challenges and objectives
d) Instruments (both R&D and Non-R&D)
e) Gaps between objectives and instruments
f) History of the policy in that perspective
g) Identification and location of the actors involved
h) Balances within the policy portfolio
i) Modes and ways of interactions
j) Governance framework
Considering all these factors the emphasis should be on building on the clusters of the competence. These clusters will be responsible for dialogue creation, multilateral exchanges, establishing a capable nodal point, creating mechanism which will be responsible for multiple supports, consistent process of evolution of learning support etc and reduce the repetition of the experiments and inculcate the sense of sharing of experiences in order to achieve maximum possibility of arriving at a plan which can be workable and enabling all to contribute in that.
So, policy mix design has to be derived from acknowledging the stakeholders pressure, considering the international/successful/
Thus the success of new policies and initiatives depend on ability of the new institutions in creating new knowledge, the ability of prospective framework of institutions in diffusion of knowledge and the topology of the elements of the network enabling them for better absorption. The directives under policy need to have “open borders” between traditional fields of policy intervention, various forms of knowledge production and diffusion and the evolution of industry experience in dealing with the new and old problems. So, defining new strategic policy intelligence where monitoring and evaluation of the approach of the policy and responses coming from the stakeholders from time to time, need of sound analysis of the structural and informal issues in congruence and keeping in mind the long term vision and also being committed to inclusive policy design processes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
