A nationwide foresight exercise has been
underway for about 5 years now in TIFAC to put together Technology Vision 2035
for the country, and I have been privileged to be in the core team executing
this task. A large number of meetings with experts and stakeholders including
students and young trainees were organized in the course to evolve the Vision,
besides resorting to the conventional foresight tools. During these meetings we
expected insightful foresights into the deep future from these stakeholders and
did get them, though not in full measures; but one of the common concerns that
reverberated all across, was on the lack of intensive Industry-Academia (IA) linkages.
Every other expert from industry or academia vociferously spoke about its need,
rued about its absence and predictably, blamed the other side! Clearly there
was a concern more about the present than the future, which we in TIFAC are
concerned about; rightfully so, because the future is shaped by what we do
today and IA linkages cannot go off the agenda of the immediate future. Let me
use a broad-brush to bring forth my reflections, based on my first-hand
experiences, on this unsettling issue.
The importance of academia- industry linkages
for development of an economy, through innovation and productivity that they
infuse into it, is well recognized and has been talked about ad nauseam in
the country. For industry, time is the
most valuable resource with a demanding customer/ client keeping it on its toes
and forcing it to marshal all its resources well, to stay competitive in the
market. On the other hand, academia needs state-of-the-art infrastructure and
funding, to generate new knowledge to fuel innovation, besides sourcing the
skilled human resource to the industry. Constrained as it is for time and also
not so strong in the basic conceptualization of problems, the industry prefers
known solutions and even expects academia to be ready with them, which
unfortunately the academia is not always geared for. Academia is creativity-oriented, knowledge intensive
and takes an exploratory approach in its operations and therefore, would fail
to deliver if it does not enjoy autonomy. Academia manages knowledge and
knowledge-products well, but isn’t really good in managing material resources
and even valorizing its own knowledge products like the industry. The
complementarity of industry and academia becomes more evident from the fact
that industry needs innovations as
inputs from knowledge-bodies to stay productive as much as academia needs real
problems to work on from industry to stay creative. Thus, it is amply clear
that while two disparate entities may not stay together due to their
contrasting features, they also cannot survive in isolation owing to their being
both sink and source to each other and thus, locked in a perpetual cycle.
It is also clear that in the widest perspective,
both these entities have an important role to play for us as individuals- who look for a better life, secured livelihood and
safe living and also the nations- that look for a robust economy to ensure
fulfillment of all the entitlements due to their citizens. Therefore, an
interaction between the two assumes importance in fulfilling the socioeconomic
imperatives besides their existence for each other. A macro-perspective from
the prism of interactions between the two entities suggests that the developed economies are characterized
by strong linkages between industry and academia, the under-developed by the
absence of it and developing ones by ‘make and break’ of it!
Realizing the importance of this complementing
relationship, several initiatives have been taken world over to promote
linkages between industry and academia and fuel the economy. Some of the
prominent ones catering to diverse needs of the two include Calit2 (California
Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology) in USA, Magnet
& Magneton program (Israel), Fraunhoffer Society (Germany), European
Framework Programs, Industry Research Centers & Hsinchu Science Park
(Taiwan) etc. Some of them involving the academia directly include: Microsoft-
Cisco- Intel- University of Melbourne,
BP’s Energy Biosciences Institute- University of California Berkeley, Audi’s Ingolstadt Institute of TU Munich,
IBM- ETH Zurich, SKF- Imperial College London,
IBM- Imperial College London, GE
Global Research Munich, Siemens- TU Berlin- MIT, Nokia- Aalto University; these
stand out as notable examples of IA interactions. Yet another example of such
an interaction with sharp focus on innovation is Demola, which is an
international organization that facilitates co-creation projects between
university students and companies, either locally or internationally. The
trends from these countries suggest that I-A linkages are focused sharply on innovation, innovation
systems and entrepreneurship. This is in contrast with the developing economies
where they struggle to bring industry and academia face-to-face.
Let’s turn inwards and one finds that in India too,
several initiatives pivoted around academia- industry linkages have been taken,
mediated by the government in the past; like NMITLI (New Millennium Indian
Technology Leadership Initiative) and SBIRI (Small Business Innovation Research
Initiative) basically for technology development/ pre-commercial R&D; HGT
(Home Grown Technology) and PATSER (Programme aimed at Technological Self
Reliance) aimed at technology transfer and upscaling (Early Stage); and technology incubation in academic
institutions (STEPs, TBIs) and TDB (Technology Development Board) with an eye
on technology commercialization; besides several initatives from DST, DBT, DSIR
etc or their autonomous bodies in the recent years. Then, there are
likes of IIPC (Industry-Institute Partnership Cells) and NAFETIC (National Facilities In Engineering & Technology
with Industrial Collaboration) of AICTE and Mission REACH of TIFAC- focusing
on improving the quality of education by involving industry.
Most initiatives are modeled, with government
serving as third- strand in the triple-helix (of Industry- Academia-
Government) not only to prevent the industry and academia linkages from cracking
but also liquidate the trust deficit. These
initiatives have been taken to stir-up and intensify interactions between
industry and academia, keeping in view long-term interests, to enhance their
role and contribution to the economy of
country. Varying degrees of successes have been reported under these programmes,
pointing towards gaps or shortfalls. Some of these programmes have been
withdrawn, some recast but the successful ones hardly scaled-up. Clearly, there
are some problems that fail the trio and need to be fixed, but starting from
the roots.
At least in the Indian context, one finds reluctance
in industry and academia to step into each other’s turf as the biggest stumbling
block and usually it requires a third agency to bring them closer. But the alliance
often remain unsealed, because of the two different languages they speak and
are unintelligible to each other. Even if they get engaged formally, in most
cases the collapse of the alliance is imminent and gets hastened because the
contact is usually at one level. The collaboration remains only in mind and at
best in papers- in the absence of a permanent structure and no follow-ups. A
look into most failed linkages, would indicate that resources invested- time,
funds and people were sub-critical and also the reasons were never documented
as ‘lessons learnt’, out of fear of audits. Even the personal visits and correspondence
remain inadequate to keep the ties afloat. In the post project evaluations, the
failure in IA linkages is generally attributed to a technical point, but if
carefully analyzed it would either be poor management of the affairs or
inadequacy of resources- both non-technical and hence, not insoluble! In the absence of any tangible incentives for
getting out of their comfort-zones and grab industry’s confidence, the faculty
allow their own potential to be under-exploited. Alas! The two sides, let the
bridge burn and watch the camaraderie
go up in smoke; only to whimper in some industry-academia
conclave.
Unfortunately, even the government mediated
initiatives in most cases fail to generate an impact that is envisaged before their
launch. It needs to be understood and
appreciated that success or failure of such programmes cannot be measured at
the end of project duration- typically of three years. A broader vision of
overall programme and its objectives would point out that even the failures in
projects (which could be due to technology, people involved, policy framework
or management, etc.) contribute to its success, but only if they are not
seen from the prisms of accountant. Therefore, the evaluation of both-
proposals (before onset) and projects (after completion) need different
yardstick, as public-private partnerships are a different ball game altogether
and need a different set of rules; persisting with old set of rules on a new
board will continue failing the players.
On a practical note, we need to have a
'sustainable relationship' between the two sides; elements of which cannot be
identified and appreciated by entities other than these two. For this, it
is necessary that two sides value each other's importance and strength,
understand each other's needs, give space to each other and to top it
all, start believing in each other. The alliance should not be just for mutual convenience,
but also be mutually obligatory i.e. synallagmatic, so that there is a
'purpose' for staying together. The relationship should lead to a win-win
situation for both and this should also be a reason for them to sustain the
relationship. Anything that can be a cause of loss should be promptly
eliminated lest it affect the relationship. And yes, success of such relationships
largely depends on the attitude and mindset of people who make and mind
them. Industry and academia should be careful in choosing or appropriately
grooming them. They must have powerful vision and this should be
non-negotiable. It is important that ‘what do I get’ relegates to
the back, paving way for ’what does my organization get’ to come in
front.
Lastly, forging and fostering industry-academia
linkages should not be seen as a project- starting with a proposal and closing
with Fund Utilization Certificate but as ‘management of change’ with hand-holding of industry and academia stretching
well past the high-point in their interaction and right up to celebrations. The
mediating, if any, entity has to be more patient, accommodating, far-sighted
and progressive; more so if it is the government because its stakes are the
highest- “making investment on behalf of the people”, as late Prof. P.V.
Indiresan, Ex-Director IIT-Madras often said while speaking on this topic.
[published in CSI Communications, Vol 39, Issue No. 8, November 2015]
