Role of Technology Incubation in India’s Innovation System: A Case of the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur Incubation Centre

Abstract

The basic objective of innovation which includes the process of new products, processes or new organizational forms is deeply rooted in helping human beings live a comfortable life. Technology business incubation is one such arrangement where the start-ups explore their ideas into visionary dreams under a guided support by the incubator. The study with an objective to map the key components and the roles of various actors and agencies influencing the incubation process employs the case study method using the system of innovation approach to understand the process of incubation in India. The study besides providing an in-depth analysis of the incubation process in India found that the process is still in the developing stage and has escalated significantly over the years.

Keywords

Incubation innovation technology business incubator national system of innovation start-ups

I. Introduction

The Innovation process of knowledge either in the form of production, transfer or diffusion has undergone considerable change with the changing dimensions of the university. Over the years there has been a major shift in the role and functionality of university systems from mere teaching to research and to more industry-related activities. However, the shift also justifies the utilization and validation of academic research through commercialization of the academic knowledge domain. In the present context, the emergence of the entrepreneurial university or the research institute explains changing dimensions through the tools of intellectual property rights (IPR), such as patenting and licensing, which in a way summarizes the commercial or business aspects of the academic arena from the earlier domain of teaching (Wissema, 2009). The emergence new order in the university structure has placed universities as a key factor in both promoting innovation and national innovation system (NIS).

In the current scenario universities not only act as key components in the knowledge economy by producing knowledge but also by creating a knowledge workforce. The universities apart from enhancing technological capabilities promote an entrepreneurial environment. The Technology incubation centre is one such element which integrates the triangle of industry, academia and government by promoting start-ups through academic spin-offs in developing technologies. The technology developed by these incubatees not only promotes the entrepreneurial environment in the country but also addresses other aspects of job creation, along with enhancing the technological base of the country (Mowery & Sampat, 2004).

The term ‘start-ups’ or ‘university entrepreneurship’ (techno-entrepreneurship, academic entrepreneurship) is often being referred in the academic literature to describe the way universities have undergone interaction with the industry or market. In this context a growing body of academic literature related to academic entrepreneurship based on national, regional and sectoral development has been addressed and many others have received attention.

In India the process of technology incubation took shape in 1982 with the setting up of the National Science and Technology Entrepreneurship Board (NSTEDB),¹ an apex body under the Department of Science and Technology, with a broad objective of enhancing technological growth by integrating the academia and industry for effective, efficient and sustainable development (Tang, Baskaran, Pancholi, & Lu, 2013).

As reviewed in the literature it was found that the process of innovation is a complex and interrelated activity, where the actors and agencies blend with each other in pursuit of innovation. So with the objective to study all these relations and networks, the study chose the approach of the NIS as the desired framework.

The article is organized as follows. The next sections present an overview of literature in the domain of technology incubation followed by the methodology in the third section; the article then proceeds with a discussion on the chosen case of the Indian Institute of Technology-Kanpur (IIT K) incubation centre and lastly the final section concludes the article. The study in its route found that in India, technology incubation is yet to emerged as one of the dominant processes in elevating the innovation process in the country, despite the fact that government initiated the programme in 1982 with the establishment of the NSTEDB. The study found that India lacks a significant policy for technology incubation, and it was only in 2016 that the Government of India initiated the start-up India programme. However, during evaluation, the chosen case study showed effective entrepreneurial activity at IIT K, with a growing number of incubatees and R&D activities in high-tech products.

Rational for the Case Study

In India, the incubation process is over three decades old and started in the 1980s. Since then, around 125 technology business incubators (TBIs)² have been set up in different locations, with an objective to enhance the technology capability of the country. These incubation centres apart from being in some universities and research institutes are mostly located in and around the technical and management institutes of the country (Lala & Sinha, 2017).

The public-funded institute chosen as a unit of analysis is one of the core functions of India’s innovation system (IS) mainly in the context of TBI. These institutes integrate various components associated with the system of innovation. However, in order to be in sync with the objective, the study chose IIT K as the unit of analysis as it is considered a centre for excellence (for details, refer to Table 1).

The guided rationale behind the selection of IIT K comprises various indicators and heterogeneous attributes such as active engagement in knowledge production (patenting), broad areas of R&D at the incubation centre, geographic location, the types of affiliations and their positions in the world. These institutes apart from their excellence in India³ are among the top 300 institutes in the world, according to ‘Quacquarelli Symonds⁴’ (QS) world rankings. The incubation centre at IIT K is the only institute in the country to have the facility to manufacture prototypes in its respective incubation centre. However, along with this, the legal status of IIT K is also different from the entire country. While almost all TBIs either have company or society acts as their legal status, the IIT K incubation centre is a part of the institute. The incubation centre apart from having a broad research base was awarded the national award for the best TBI in the country for 2011.

II. Review of the Literature

Innovation has become increasingly central to the development paradigm in every corner of the globe. However, the important factor especially for developing countries is to build one’s innovation and technological capabilities to achieve the development goals (Lundvall, 2007). In this respect, the NIS approach emerges as an important tool in analysing the technical and institutional capabilities for framing an effective and efficient policy for the development project. In other words, the concept of an IS rests on the premise that innovation is the sum total of all market and non-market networks of relationships between various actors and agencies where its effectiveness is mapped by its density and quantity of relationships among others (Lema, Rabellotti, & Sampath, 2018). The incubation process is one such dimension for producing knowledge and enriching technological capabilities. These TBI centres located around universities or institutes provide a controlled atmosphere to these incubatees or start-ups or techno-starters to convert their ideas all the way into a successful product (Knudsen, 2007). However, besides converting ideas to innovation, and delivering cost-effective technologies in the market, technology developed in these incubation centres irrespective of their locations has not only promoted economic and technological capabilities but has also escalated employment opportunities alongside solving the problems of the community and region around the incubation centres (Al-Mubaraki, 2015).

Table 1.
Historical Dimension of the Chosen Case

Name of the Incubation Centre Establishment Name of the Host Institute and Establishment Year Legal Status of Incubation Centre Salient
Feature Broad Area Accreditation QS World Ranking (2015)

SIDBI Innovation and Incubation Centre 2008 IIT Kanpur (1959) Part of host Institute In-house prototype manufacturing IT, electronics, biotechnology and other engineering disciplined Best Incubator for the Year 2011 by NSTEDB 271

Name of the Incubation Centre	Establishment	Name of the Host Institute and Establishment Year	Legal Status of Incubation Centre	Salient Feature	Broad Area	Accreditation	QS World Ranking (2015)
SIDBI Innovation and Incubation Centre	2008	IIT Kanpur (1959)	Part of host Institute	In-house prototype manufacturing	IT, electronics, biotechnology and other engineering disciplined	Best Incubator for the Year 2011 by NSTEDB	271

Source: The authors.

It is widely recognized in the literature that technology incubation is an important tool in facilitating innovation through a spin-off process from the academic arena into the market, a process which has not only facilitated new job opportunities but has also amplified economic growth (Aernoudt, 2004; M. Mcadam & Mcadam, 2008; Mian, 2011; Phillips, 2002). Over the years there has been a considerable amount of change in the structure (Hackett & Dilts, 2004) as well as in the nature of support to the incubatee. In the initial phase incubators were more inclined towards providing infrastructural support, but recently they have moved on to providing network support to incubatees (Bruneel et al., 2012). In this respect the most important thing which facilitates an effective and efficient technology incubation process is the relationship between the incubators and other stakeholders within the innovation ecosystem (Howells, Ramlogan, & Cheng, 2012).

Interestingly, with all the benefits of technology incubation, the liability of newness and the rate of failure with these newly established firms with mutually exclusive components such as seed funding, prototype making, technology commercialization and marketing bring in the question of the efficacy of the incubation process (Arnold & Quelch, 1998; Bulsara, Gandhi, & Porey, 2009; Chandra, He, & Fealey, 2007). In this regard, the role and function of the university becomes more important in escalating the incubation process through constant mentoring and research support, along with providing financial support and other services Pirnay, Surlemont, and Nlemvo (2003). Moreover, while analysing the literature in the Indian context, the study found extremely limited studies mainly on the theme of technology incubation. However, the study by Manimala and Vijay (2012), Tang, Baskaran, and Pancholi (2013), Chandra et al. (2007), Basant (2011) and Sonne (2012) are mainly focused on infrastructure, administrative and financial boundaries. On the other hand the study by Ojha (2009) explains the social and economic barriers for incubatees in choosing an entrepreneurial career. Besides all these studies, only the study by Tang et al. (2013) has presented a view of TBI within the framework of the NIS. However, from the research point of view, the study found that the literature on incubation mainly in the Indian context is in a fragmented stage which needs to be integrated while exploring the theme of technology incubation, which in a way objectifies the motivation of this article.

However, apart from adopting or generating new technologies, public policies also play a key role in developing the entrepreneurial atmosphere of a country, the innovation policy and the national innovation policy, which plays quite a significant role in developing the innovation ecosystem in both advanced and developing countries (Lundvall, 1992).

The study has found that besides similarities in structure, technology incubation has quite a different rate of growth when compared between developed and developing countries and also within these countries. In this respect while analysing the incubation process of the USA, China and India, it was found that besides similarities in the structure, the incubation programme of the USA and China are more successful than that of India (for detail please refer to Table 2). However, besides various reasons the influence of policy cannot be overlooked. The Bayh–Dole Act⁵ 1980 in the USA and the Torch Programme⁶ in China have certainly accelerated the technological capabilities of these countries through TBI (Manimala 1997; Tang, Baskaran, Pancholi, & Muchie, 2011).

Table 2.

A Comparison of the Incubation Programme among the USA, China and India

	USA	China	India
Birth	Early 1950	1988	1982
Model	Both ‘Not for Profit’ and ‘Profit’	Mainly ‘Not for Profit’	Mainly ‘Not for Profit’
Location	Mostly in university	Located in floor of publicly owned buildings	Mostly in and around the universities/Institute
Tenure	Mostly 3 years	3 years but can be extended	2 years but can be extended on prior permission from host institute
Influential policies	Bayh–Dole Act 1980	Torch Programme	No individual policies, besides the initiation of start-up 2016

Source: The authors, adapted from Chandra et al. (2007).

In other words, besides all these discussions, the development of the third-world country still remains an important question of discussion while taking into account any development project. In this respect, Lee (2013) says that a developing country like China has ‘caught up’ with the developed economies by narrowing its income gap and technological capabilities over the year. In his study, it was found that the East Asian developing economies such as China, South Korea and Taiwan moved from a labour-based economic model to knowledge-based exports by conducting intensive R&D in high-tech products. In addition to this, China’s intellectual property filling has increased significantly, which includes innovation by small and domestic firms, originating from small firms or start-ups, which in a way has helped China go beyond other developing economies in Asia.

So, with an objective to understand the technology incubation programme of India, within the selected case study, the article moves on to the next section.

III. Methodology

The process of innovation is a systematic phenomenon, where various actors and agencies associate together by interacting and following interdependency among them to build an effective innovation system. Thus with the broader objective of sketching the innovation trajectory of India, the study has chosen the framework of NIS to map linkages between different actors and agencies involved in the technology incubation innovation system. Based on the literature on NIS, a proposed set of components, their themes and their attributes have been tabulated (refer to Table 3). Further, the article explores all the key dimensions projected by the NIS, namely (a) an entrepreneurial structure, (b) R&D activities, (c) various government policies related to technology incubation and (d) funding opportunities for incubates or start-ups in projecting the dynamics of innovation at the technology incubation centre.

Table 3.
Types of NSI Components and Their Attributes for Analysing Innovation at TBI

Components Theme Attributes

1 Entrepreneurial activities No. of incubatees in the chosen case

2 Knowledge production Patenting trends
Funding opportunities from different agencies

3 Knowledge transfer Entrepreneurial promotion activities
Technology transfer and commercialization of technology by incubatees

4 Innovation platform Linkages between different actors in terms of
• R&D
• technology transfer
• funding

5 Technology portfolio Mapping of technology developed area wise, e.g., IT/biotechnology

6 Mobility or spin-off Facilities provided (tech and non-tech), spin-off

Components	Theme	Attributes
1	Entrepreneurial activities	No. of incubatees in the chosen case
2	Knowledge production	Patenting trends Funding opportunities from different agencies
3	Knowledge transfer	Entrepreneurial promotion activities Technology transfer and commercialization of technology by incubatees
4	Innovation platform	Linkages between different actors in terms of • R&D • technology transfer • funding
5	Technology portfolio	Mapping of technology developed area wise, e.g., IT/biotechnology
6	Mobility or spin-off	Facilities provided (tech and non-tech), spin-off

Source: The authors; Hekkert et al. (2007).

TBI as an Innovation Agent

The institutional processes of knowledge production, knowledge transfer and academia-industry relations have undergone considerable changes with the changing dynamics of the university structure. However, apart from structural changes in teaching and R&D or in light of economic influences, universities in the current timeline have become key proponents in the existing knowledge economy (Wissema, 2009). The literature on the establishment of technology incubation centres across universities has initiated a new portfolio in the university structure. The centre apart from inventing and transferring new technologies also facilitates economic and technological base in the country. Thus, TBI embraces an important element as a unit of analysis in the innovation system.

Methods

The data were collected from the chosen institute IITK and other actors or agencies namely government bodies, subsidiary departments and ministries and research organizations concerned with the incubation process of the country. In addition data on various government policies were also collected and assessed. Moreover, the data from the chosen institute were only from 2010 to 2015 and collected between September 2016 and March 2017. The primary data were collected from multiple sources, including annual reports, R&D newsletters, website information, survey questionnaires and interviews with key officials at the IIT K incubation centre.

The data was collected from the responded in the duration of year 2011 to 2015. The questionnaire was divided into various segments which included general information about the incubator and incubatees, data on innovation and research by the incubatees, financial information (including institutional and other funding), and collaboration and linkages between various actors and agencies in route to the innovation process. Apart from collecting data, the organisation and tabulation of data was done through MS-Excel 2007 Software.

IV. Measuring Innovation: The Small Industrial Development Bank of India Incubation and Innovation Centre, IIT Kanpur

The process of innovation either in the form of radical or incremental or in the form of product or process cannot be understood through results; rather, its trajectory can be traced by studying interactions and its activities.

NIS has been chosen as the desired framework for the study; the approach, apart from locating different actors and agencies around the core actor, studies the interaction and linkages surrounding the firm. Guided by the NIS framework, the present study locates varied types of interactions and linkages, mainly: (a) interactions among different actors, (b) interaction among universities and other research institutes, (c) the diffusion and commercialization of knowledge and (d) spin-offs or the mobility of resource personnel.

The chosen case study for analysing the process of innovation at TBIs is the Small Industrial Development Bank of India (SIDBI) Innovation and Incubation Centre (SIIC), IIT K.

The study explores the contours that these incubators form during incubation; the study also looks at the relationship between technological and non-technological factors that influence innovation in these incubation centre. However, as mentioned, the study explores linkages; the linkages pertaining to these contexts are formal linkages, while the informal and social linkages are not included in the study.

Entrepreneurial Activities

Entrepreneurs are the key drivers in an innovation system, with a propensity to enhance new knowledge, technology and products in the market. However, besides the economic benefits, these entrepreneurs have a visionary motive, to ‘create something new’. The entrepreneurs so defined can be either new entrants or an emerging company with diversified products or services (Hekkert, Suurs, Negro, Kuhlmann, & Smits, 2007).

In other words, the shift in the academic structure, from mere teaching and R&D to transferring technology from academic research, has opened new avenues to the entrepreneurial culture. The incubation centre located in and around the institutes or universities act as a key driver in promoting the early steps in innovation. According to a scholar like Ojha (2009), in India, middle-class families are dedicated to pursuing higher education for the professional opportunities. These families prefer low risks and a steady income source and not uncertain and irregular professions like entrepreneurship. Besides these challenges the entrepreneurial activities at IIT K have grown quite significantly (refer to Table 4).

Table 4.
Entrepreneurial Activities at SIIC Incubation Centre

Institute IIT Kanpur

Name of the incubator and establishment SIDBI Innovation and Incubation Centre (2008)

Type of registration Part of host institute

Incubator status Current Graduate

25 35

Total 60

Job created Approximately 900 for the last 5 years (2008–2013)

Institute	IIT Kanpur
Name of the incubator and establishment	SIDBI Innovation and Incubation Centre (2008)
Type of registration	Part of host institute
Incubator status	Current	Graduate
	25	35
Total	60
Job created	Approximately 900 for the last 5 years (2008–2013)

Source: The authors.

Knowledge Production

Knowledge production and its development is one of the most important components in the modern economy, in which R&D and activities like patenting play quite a vital role in facilitating the innovation process (Lundvall, 1992). Further, universities since its inception have been one of the key components in producing knowledge. In the present era of a knowledge-based economy, the role of universities or institutes is quite phenomenal, the universities or institutes apart from delivering a knowledge workforce brings out research results in the form of patents and publications (Mowery & Sampat, 2004). The IPR regulations other than promoting and safeguarding trade also act as key indicators in highlighting the dynamics of innovation, especially in the academic periphery. With the changing IPR regulations in the past year, related to the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980, incubation centres have become a key component in transferring knowledge in the market. The centre apart from patenting also helps in commercializing it.

In India, the incubation centre apart from promoting early-stage technology development also provides the infrastructure to transfer technology through the patenting process. These incubation centres apart from providing technological and business support to these incubates also provide consultancy services for filling IPRs. IPR plays an indispensable role in promoting innovation specially for the incubatees. It has been found in the study that IPRs apart from promoting trade also have a huge impact in promoting funding opportunities to these early-stage incubates (Mazzoleni & Nelson, 1998).

Figure 1.

Source: The authors.

The data plotted in Figure 1 show the trends of patenting at IIT K over the years. The data projected in the Figure 1 shows a significant increase in the number of patent filled by the incubator over the years. Besides this acceleration the difference in the patent grant to patent filled section has been a greater concern in the escalation of incubation process at IIT K.

The economic policy of a nation has pragmatic effects on its entrepreneurial ecosystem. The corrective economic policies provide an effective entrepreneurial atmosphere in the country (Ojha, 2009). In India, early-stage funding has been a key concern for the incubator. However, besides limitations in dispersing funds, the government agencies are the main financial supporters for promoting technology incubation in the country (Basant, 2011). The data in Figure 2 provide an illustration of funds granted by various government agencies to promote the incubation process.

Knowledge Transfer

Knowledge or technology transfer is one of the most important aspects in the innovation process. The phenomena apart from transferring or moving know-how or technical knowledge from one organization setting to another in a way help to develop the knowledge depository. These transfer mechanism is quite vital for innovation activities in the academic periphery. However, in the academic domain, the industrial consultancy and sponsored research pathways are the most common ways to communicate knowledge in the industries (Chandra, 2003).

Figure 2.

Source: The authors.

According to the system approach the most essential aspects of a network is to transfer knowledge between them; the approach objectifies the importance of linkages and interdependence through the sharing of knowledge. In other words, the significance of the technology transfer mechanism becomes more vital when technology and its attributes become functions influenced by the interaction of the government and market entity (Hekkert et al., 2007). In the present study the objective to follow the innovation process through the incubator has shown a fairly significant analysis (refer to Figure 3). The incubator has commercialized a significant number of technologies over the years (refer to Figures 4 and 5).

Innovation Platform

The concept of innovation has shifted its parameter from mere progress in a product or process to more of a systematic or system phenomena. Incubation centres are basically the platforms to commercialized research results from the academic periphery to industries via the platform of incubation. Besides commercializing technologies, the incubation process also enhances the innovation process by promoting entrepreneurial activities. However, the earlier studies on incubation were focused more on understanding the concepts and their functions, namely physical facilities, rents, logistic and management support and more.

However, changing dimensions in the academic periphery and the strengthened relations between the academia and industry have shifted problem enquiries from mere facilities to more of competition in the market, building the economy and techno-manufacturing base in the country (Matt & Tang, 2010).

In the present study, the component ‘innovation platform’ describes a platform based on academic collaboration, funding opportunities and R&D collaboration, along with the linkages these chosen institutes have with various actors and how the incubates are being facilitated through these linkages (refer to Table 5). The data mentioned in Tables 6 and 7 provide an overview of the types of linkages these incubators have, along with the promotional activities these institutes perform to encourage entrepreneurial activities.

Figure 3.

Source: The authors.

Figure 4.

Source: The authors.

Figure 5.

Source: The authors.

Table 5.

Innovation Platform at IIT Madras and IIT Kanpur

Innovation Platform/Institute	IIT Kanpur
Funding	• Department of Science and Technology
	• Science and Engineering Research Board
	• Department of Biotechnology
	• Ministry of Earth Sciences
	• Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
	• Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
	• Board of Research and Nuclear Sciences
	• Ministry of Environment and Forests
	• Ministry of Power
	• Indian Space Research Organisation
	• Defence Research and Development Organisation
	• Aeronautics Research and Development Board
Academic collaborations	• Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany
	• Dalhousie University, Canada
	• University of California Berkeley, USA
	• The University of Delaware, USA
	• INSA Lyon, Center for Thermal Sciences, France
	• University of Missouri, Columbia
Industry collaborations	• Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL)
	• Unilever Industries Pvt Ltd
	• Larsen and Toubro (L&T)
	• Gas Authority of India Ltd (GAIL)
	• SAP Labs India Pvt Ltd
	• Whirlpool India Ltd
	• Samsung Electronics
	• Boeing Company
	• Intel Technology India Pvt Ltd.
R&D collaboration	• Indian Space Research Organisation
	• Department of Science and Technology
	• Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
	• Hi-Tech Bio Laboratories
	• Institute of Plasma Research
	• Physical Research Laboratories
	• Indian National Remote Sensing Agency
	• Defence Research and Development Organisation
	• Indian Council of Agricultural Research

Source: The authors.

Technology Portfolio

The incubation as mentioned in the literature review is relatively a tough subject to address; the operations of these technology-based firms are complex, dynamic and uncertain with shorter product life cycles. Besides innovative and competitive technologies, innovation through these incubates faces the barrier of ‘newness’ in already-existing technologies in the market. In addition to the problem of ‘newness’ these technologies face the liability of low acceptance from the technological point of view, with respect to the established and existing larger and mature firms (Manimala, 1999). Further, according to Rosenberg (1982), it is quite evident that new technologies often have difficulties in competing with existing technologies, besides the fact that sooner or later these new technologies often overtake existing technologies because these new technologies have to be protected through special measures.

Table 6.

Linkages Between Incubators and Actors at IIT Kanpur Incubation Centres

Innovation Platform/Incubator	SIIC-IIT Kanpur
Funding (government and allied agencies)	DST, DSIR, DIT, MSME, DSIR-PRISM, NSTEDB, Ministry of Energy, TIFAC, BIRAC, SIDBI and UP Government
Funding (centure capitalists)	Not available
Technology transfer	TePP, TDB, DBT
R&D	DST, CSIR, ICAR, DBT

Source: The authors.

Notes: BIRAC: Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council, CSIR: Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, DIT: Department of Information Technology, DSIR: Department of Science and Industrial Research, DST: Department of Science and Technology, DBT: Department of Biotechnology, ICAR: Indian Council of Agricultural Research, MSME: Ministry of Micro Small Medium Enterprise, NSTEDB: National Science and Technology Entrepreneurship Board, SIDBI: Small Industrial Development Bank of India, TePP: Technopreneur Promotion Programme, TDB: Technology Development Board, TIFAC: Technology Information Forecasting and Assessment Council.

Table 7.

Entrepreneurial Initiatives at IIT Kanpur

Entrepreneurial Activities/Institute	IIT Kanpur
Annual fest	e-Summit, Techkriti
Course
Others	Network Security Championship (NNSC)

Source: The authors.

The data plotted in Figure 6 show the diversity of technology developed by respective incubates. Besides the diversified technology developed by incubatees, the growth and multiplicity of innovation are backed by two important factors, first the degree of linkages developed by these institutes (refer to Table 5) and second upholding policies like IPRs and other regulations proposed by different government agencies to promote innovation in respective sectors.

Figure 6.

Source: The authors.

Mobility or Spin-off

Spin-off is one of the most important components in the innovation process; in general, spin-off is defined as the evolution of companies from the academic institution to the commercialization of IPRs and technology transfer. In other words, according to Pirnay et al. (2003), spin-off is the development of technology or the result developed in the university research lab by commercialization in the market. The procedure is quite significant while analysing innovation at incubation centres.

Figure 7.

Source: The authors.

It has been observed in studies by Shane and Stuart (2002) that the majority of incubates starting their venture at incubation centres come through the spin-off process. Besides the complexities and long procedural problems as stated by Mian (1994) in his studies, effective funding opportunities and transparent and encouraging policies related to incubation promote spin-off culture. Moreover, besides academic influence spin-off is also influenced by market forces; according to the study by Nelson and Winter (1982), market forces and demand also act as key components in transferring results from these researchers through the spin-off process. The procedure despite its advantages has been dormant among students and the faculties.

The study of the incubation process at incubation centres located in IIT K shows encouraging results in terms of spin-offs (please refer to Figure 7). The incubators besides their multiplicity in the research domain also have an effective inflow of resources through the spin-off procedure. In other words, according to Hekkert et al. (2007), human capital and financial resources are one of the most important components of a system approach. In other words, the allocation of effective resources illustrates the effectiveness of the system.

V. Summary and Conclusion

The main focus of the study is to outline the trajectory of innovation within the actors and agencies located in and around incubation centres. The study apart from tracing the links between different actors in the domain of academics, collaboration, R&D and funding also figures out the significance and advantages these linkages provides with respect to India’s innovation system.

However, the literature on the system of innovation and its sub-category as NIS stresses the importance of interaction among its components or functions as one of the important factors in mapping out the process of innovation. Besides the importance of linkages as a mainstay for measuring innovation, the study presses forward through empirical evidence on how this incubator as well as the incubates advances through these previously shaped or newly created inter-linkages among different actors in the vicinity of innovation. In short, the study addresses the central issues of tracing innovative behaviours among different actors through linkages and interactions related to seed funding, R&D support and commercializing technologies. Moreover, while mapping the incubation innovation process of India following observations have emerged.

In India, technology incubation is yet to emerged as one of the dominant process in elevating the innovation process in the country. This is despite the fact that government initiated the programme in 1982 with the establishment of the NSTEDB. The study found that India lacks significant policy for technology incubation, and it was only in 2016 that the Government of India initiated the start-up India programme.

On a broader note, it was found that the entrepreneurial ecosystem in India is mainly guided by government initiatives, or in other words, the government plays relatively an important role in initializing and promoting the incubation process through seed funding, policies for start-ups, providing support in commercializing and patenting new technologies.

The study shows the influence of government funding for early-stage funding, whereas the second-stage funding needs more attention. The study reveals significant entrepreneurial and spin-off activities at the IIT K incubation centre and shows the huge difference in the patenting portfolio in terms of patents filed and granted.

The study found that the incubation centre located in IIT K is mostly engaged in high-tech research, with a growing number of commercialized technologies. On the other hand, besides government support, the incubates at the IIT K incubation centre lacks the presence of other financial players to support start-ups.

Furthermore, besides funding entities, the policy parameters have a huge impact in promoting the incubation processes, especially in the development and commercialization of technologies by the incubates. In the course of the study, while analysing the trends in the commercialization of technology, we have observed that the emerging and high-tech sectors such as IT and their allied fields, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and the manufacturing sector, have grown quite significantly.

IIT Kanpur an effective entrepreneurial promotional mechanism, along with rigorous mentoring and consultancy services by the mentors. In addition to the annual technical fests, the institutes organize other short-term events and conferences. However, we have observed in the study that the average time for the incubation process to these early-stage incubates is around 2–3 years. As mentioned, innovation is an interrelated and interdependent process located around the dynamics of linkages between the actors and agencies. Thus, an effective and efficient incubation process requires the flexibility of time frames in executing the ideas from the lab to the market.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Footnotes

Notes

References

Aernoudt

(2004). Incubators: Tools for enterpreneurship? Small Business Economics, 23(2), 127–135.

Al-Mubaraki

H. M.

(2015). Innovation and enterpreneurship powerful tools for a modern knowledge-based economy. Cham, Heidelberg and New York, NY: Springer.

Arnold

D. J.

, & Quelch

J. A.

(1998). New stategies in emerging markets. Sloan Management Review, 40(1), 7–20.

Basant

(2011). Innovation policy in India: Ongoing experiments and emerging challenges. In Annual Meeting of American Political Science Meeting (pp. 1–4). Seattle, WA. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1899859

Bruneel

, Ratinho

, Clarysse

, & Groen

(2012). The Evolution of Business Incubators: Comparing demand and supply of business incubation services across different incubator generations. Technovation, 32(2), 110–121.

Bulsara

, Gandhi

, & Porey

P. D.

(2009). Techno-innovation to techno-enterpreneurship through technology business incubation in India. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Enterpreneurship, 3(1), 55–77.

Chandra

(2003). Academia-industry links: Modes of knowledge transfer at the Indian Institute of Technology (MPhil dissertation). Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

Chandra

, He

, & Fealey

(2007). Business incubators in China: A financial services perspective. Asia Pacific Business Review, 13(1), 79–94.

Hackett

S. M.

, & Dilts

D. M.

(2004). A systematic review of business incubation research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 55–82.

10.

Hekkert

M. P.

, Suurs

R. A.

, Negro

S. O.

, Kuhlmann

, & Smits

R. E.

(2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(4), 413–432.

11.

Howells

, Ramlogan

, & Cheng

S.-L.

(2012). Innovation and university collaboration: Paradox and complexity within the knowledge economy. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(3), 703–721.

12.

Knudsen

M. P.

(2007). The relative important of inter-firm relationship and knowledge transfer for new product development success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(2), 117–138.

13.

Lala

, & Sinha

(2017). Challenges and prospect of technology incubation in India. In Bhattacharya

, Suman

, & Jamal

(Eds.), Policy perspective on innovation and sustainable development (pp. 199–217). New Delhi: Syahi Publication House.

14.

Lee

(2013). Schumpeterian analysis of economic catch-up: Knowledge, path-creation, and the middle-income trap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

15.

Lema

, Rabellotti

, & Sampath

P. G.

(2018). Innovation trajectories in developing countries: Co-evolution of global value chains and innovation systems. The European Journal of Development Research, 30(3), 1–19.

16.

Lundvall

B.-A.

(1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publisher.

17.

Lundvall

B.-A.

(2007). National innovation systems: Analytical concept and development tool. Industry and Innovation, 14(1). doi: 10.1080/13662710601130863

18.

Manimala

M. J.

(1997). Higher education-enterprise cooperation and the enterpreneurial graduates: The need for a new paradigm. In Mitra

& Formica

(Eds.), Innovation and economic development (pp. 95–118). London: Oak Tree Press.

19.

Manimala

M. J.

(1999). Entrepreneurial policies and strategies: The innovator’s choice. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

20.

Manimala

M. J.

, & Vijay

(2012). Technology Business Incubators (TBIs): A perspective for the emerging economies. Bangalore: Indian Institute of Management Bangalore.

21.

Matt

, & Tang

M. F.

(2010). Management of University incubators in China and in France: A comparative analysis. International journal of Enterpreneurship and Innovation Management, 11(3), 282–301.

22.

Mazzoleni

, & Nelson

R. R.

(1998). The benefit and cost of strong patent protection: A contribution to the current debate. Research Policy, 27(3), 273–284.

23.

McAdam

, & McAdam

(2008). High tech start-ups in University Science Park incubators: The relationship between the start-up’s lifecycle progression and use of the incubator’s resources. Technovation, 28(5), 277–290.

24.

Mian

S. A.

(1994). US University-sponsored technology incubators: An overview of management, policies, and performance. Technovation, 14(8), 515–528.

25.

Mian

S. A.

(2011). University’s involvement in technology business incubation: What theory and practice tell us? International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 13(2), 113–121.

26.

Mowery

D. C.

, & Sampat

B. N.

(2004). Universities in national in national innovation systems. In Fagerberg

, Mowery

D. C.

, & Nelson

R. R.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 209–239). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

27.

Nelson

, & Winter

(1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

28.

Ojha

A. K.

(2009). Innovation and enterpreneurship in the Indian IT industry: Contextual impediments. In Manimala

M. J.

, Mitra

, & Singh

(Eds.), Enterprise support system: An inernational perspective (pp. 89–106). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

29.

Phillips

R. G.

(2002). Technology business incubator: How effective as technology transfer mechanism. Technology in Society, 24(3), 299–316.

30.

Pirnay

, Surlemont

, & Nlemvo

(2003). Toward a typology of university spinoffs. Small Business Economics, 21(4), 355–369.

31.

Rosenberg

(1982). Inside the black box: Technology and economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

32.

Shane

, & Stuart

(2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48(1), 154–170.

33.

Sonne

(2012). Innovative initiatives supporting inclusive innovation in India: Social business incubation and micro venture capital. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(4), 638–647.

34.

Tang

, Baskaran

, Pancholi

, & Lu

(2013). Technology business incubators in China and India: A comparative analysis. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 16(2), 33–58.

35.

Tang

, Baskaran

, Pancholi

, & Muchie

(2011). Technology business incubators in China and India. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 3(2), 248–290.

36.

The Hindu (2015, September 15). IISc, IIT-D in top 200 Quacquarelli Symonds rankings. Retrieved from http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/iisc-iitd-in-top-200-rankings/article7652820.ece

37.

Wissema

J. G.

(2009). Towards the third generation university: Managing the university in transition. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.