Innovation Ecosystem for Entrepreneurship: Case Studies from Western India Trilok Kumar Jain* *Dean, ISBM, Suresh Gyan Vihar University, Jagatpura, Jaipur 302017 India,
[email protected]
Keywords: Jewellery Industry, Ceramics Industry, Innovation ecosystem, innovation, futures research, Cyclic Innovation Model, cases,
Abstract Future research, clarity of vision, support system and support from stakeholders through information and knowledge exchange leads to innovations. Innovations help entrepreneurs in their success and survival. This paper looks at the current status of innovation systems in two industries of Western India. The basic research framework for study is Cyclic Innovation Model (CIM). The qualitative research methods have been used. The findings reflect that entrepreneurs and stakeholders need a support system in the form of institutions and research centres, with an excellent process for knowledge sharing.
Introduction Innovation is the change in product, features, technologies, services, designs, and delivery to help the ultimate user. The improvement results in perceptible benefit to the ultimate user. Entrepreneurs thrive through their ability to innovate. They are able to take help of different stakeholders while introducing innovations. Those entrepreneurs, who are able to innovate, are also able to achieve better markets. The process of innovation depends on process of knowledge and information sharing. Abitilty to adapt and change depends on ability to understand consumers. A strong connectivity with consumers can also help in predicting the changing expectations of consumers due to changing environment. The ability to predict the future and prepare for the future is “future research”, which can significantly contribute to the ability to adapt, change and modify products, services and technologies. Future research significantly contribute to innovation (e.g., Cooper, 1980; Tidd et al., 1997). Organisations have benefitted from future research (Van der Duin, 2006). Technologies are influencing the future research (Lichtenthaler, 2007), and future research is influencing the innovations (Rohrbeck & Gemünden, 2010). From individual companies to clusters of companies are exploring the possibilities of future research for innovations (Chesbrough, 2003). There is now a talk about ‘innovation systems’ (Dosi et al., 1988; Freeman, 1987, Lundvall, 1992; Edquist, 1997). There are platforms for information sharing and innovation sharing. There are ‘open innovation’ and ‘innovation systems’, which help companies in preparing for the future. Cyclic Innovation Model (CIM) is the term that describes the business model in which different actors innovate together. Theoretical Framework Innovation Systems are being described through different theoretical models including ‘’Triple helix’-model (Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz, 2000), the regime approach of innovation systems ( Geels, 2005), the ‘functions of innovation systems’-approach (Hekkert et al., 2007), and the Cyclic Innovation Model (Berkhout et al., 2006). Of these approaches, Cyclic Innovation Model (CIM) gives a clear link between future research and innovation, the other models fail to give
-1-
clear linkage. For example, the ‘triple helix model’ gives a simple model of innovation systems (see Ughetto, 2007) but doesn’t link it to futures research. CIM uses three levels of innovation systems (Berkhout et al., 2006). The first level states that the process of innovation starts with a clear understanding of future. A clear direction and a clear strategy gives the initial background for innovation process to start. The leader initiates and connects actors to create a strong linkage between strategy, vision and execution. Level two of CIM brings entrepreneur in the centre of the different roles. The entrepreneur connects different institutions and organisations for better information sharing, knowledge sharing and innovation support systems. The role of the entrepreneur is to create a system, which facilitates information and knowledge exchange, which would lead to innovations. CIM enables us to think about the future as the starting point and to the important role of entrepreneur to monitor and link different sectors to monitor changes in society, market, and technology for triggering innovations (Van der Duin, 2006).
Image(s) of the future
Internal ambitions
External trends vision
Strategy
Leadership
Execution Processmodel
Transitionpath
Innovationprocesses
Figure 1. Level 1 of the Cyclic Innovation Model: the connection between innovation and the future (from: Berkhout, et al., 2007)
The level 1 of CIM gives stress on the role of leadership in creating a clear strategy, a strong linkage between strategy, execution and linking these to the ultimate vision, which is derived from the future research. CIM model highlights the important role of the leadership, which is being played by the entrepreneur in small and medium enteprises. The CIM model highlights the important role of the entrepreneur indirectly because it is giving emphasis on the role of leadership. Level 2 of CIM is takes us to the process model. There are different institutions and organisations, which are interconnected and generate innovation system. These institutions and organisations exchange information, knowledge and resources. These institutions and organisations are influencing each other and contributing to the process of innovation. There is a
-2-
cyclical process, which becomes integral part of the system. This cyclical system fosters or hinders innovation systems. Scientific explorations and product creations are the two main forces, which are influenced by the entrepreneurs, who give them the required impetus.
Figure 2: Level 2 of the Cyclic Innovation Model
Case Study 1: Jewellery Industry of Jaipur Jewellery Industry of Jaipur has five main partners as its stakeholders : Institutions, Exporters, Export Promotion Institutions, Film and Glamous Industry and Tourism Development institutions. All these five groups further extend support to each other and share information and knowledge. These groups play important role in forecasting, trend setting and movement towards the vision of excellence. The institutions play an important role in creating and visualising designs for the future. The film and glamour industry projects these innovative designs in their creations, fashion shows and media clippings. That connects this industry to tourism organisations, which projects Jaipur as an attractive destination for its design aesthetics. The exporters then display their designs in different exhibitions and events through the help of export promotion institutions. This results in exports, employment generation and a cyclic series of innovations. Many exporters have been attracting international media attention. Their designs are being adopted by filmmakers. International celebrities are adopting their jewellery.
Vision of the future The Jewellery Industry of Jaipur continues to grow with the vision of attaining the ultimate symbol of royalty, dignity, glamour, luxury and fine craftsmanship. This industry is reflecting a combined vision of different entrepreneurs, who have made their name in different categories of jewellery. M/s Amrapali has become the best brand for film-makes for choosing the contemporary or traditional jewellery. M/s Pukhraj Baid has become the ultimate standard-setter in Kundan and Minakari Jewellery. Similarly many other entrepreneurs have made their distinct names. Open leadership
-3-
Jewellery industry shares collective leadership from different stakeholders. Different stakeholders play their role in bringing higher and higher standards and creating benchmarks for the future. Process-model The process of information flow and knowledge exchange is still to be strengthened. There is a need of better institutional framework, which can connect different industries and give them the required platform. There is a need of an institution, which acts as the true hub for knowledge exchange and future research. Case Study 2: Ceramics Industry of Bikaner As against Jewellery Industry of Jaipur, the Ceramics Industry of Bikaner is facing challenges of survival. It is considered to be an industry with tremendous potential, it has innovated considerably in the past and achieving distinct positions. It is dominated by small companies, who try to achieve market share through innovative designs, creative presentations and innovations. Due to small scale productions, the industry is facing the challenges of higher costs. However, through innovations in products, the industry is still able to survive. Once upon a time, the mosaic tiles of Bikaner was considered to be outstanding due to excellent design and finishing. However, mosaic tiles could not compete with vitrified tiles of Morbi and the producers had to shift to new product – insulators. Production of mosaic tiles dwindled, but the industry survived due to introduction of new products and technologies. This industry has following five players as its stakeholders: - 1. Raw material suppliers and mining industry 2. Research and Educational Institutions advancing Ceramics technologies 3. Entrepreneurs, who have established units in ceramics sector and companies working in this industry 4. Fuel industry – which should ideally be LPG based fuel. The ceramics industry is facing tough competition from Morbi (an Industrial cluster in Gujarat, India), which is the hub of ceramics in India. Morbi has competitive advantage of lower cost of production (due to LPG pipeline and other factors), better designs (due to a very well connected industrial ecosystem, where a large number of entrepreneurs exchange knowledge and expertise), better logistics (Morbi has location advantage - in being located near industrial clusters of Gujarat). The ceramics industry of Bikaner is finding it difficult to survive. The insulator industry (a type of ceramics product) is still able to survive, but all other ceramics products have faced cost overruns and accumulated inventories due to lack of competitiveness. Vision of the future Bikaner is rich in terms of raw material for Ceramics Industry. The vision of this industry is to become the ultimate destination of high quality ceramics products at competitive prices. To make this city the hub of Ceramics, the entrepreneurs are giving the lead. A few entrepreneurs formed an association to promote this industry. They have tried to establish linkages with the Ceramics Hub of India – Morbi (Gujarat). They have forced the government to establish ceramics research laboratory and ceramics study centre. The Engineering College of Bikaner was entrusted the task of starting engineering courses on Ceramics and a Ceramics research laboratory. The combined initiatives of the entrepreneurs resulted in development of an ecosystem for ceramics industry thereby enabling its growth and advancement. Open leadership Ceramics industry has enthusiastic entrepreneurs, who are taking the lead to connect with different bodies and institutions. However, there is still a lack of an overall ecosystem and
-4-
support mechanisms. Different stakeholders have yet to play the required leadership role to create an environment for future research and innovation. Process-model The process of information flow and knowledge exchange is yet to take a formal shape, because the institutions have yet to emerge and grow. The ceramics research centre has yet to make its mark. There is still a lack of required leadership on the part of ceramics research centre, government departments and other institutions. There is a need of an institution, which acts as the true hub for knowledge exchange and future research. Cross Analysis Between Case Studies The jewellery industry of Jaipur has been able to register better growth and better presence in international markets due to better institutional framework and better research support. Although both the industries still lack the required innovation systems, but comparatively the jewellery industry of Jaipur is better placed. The role of entrepreneurs is positive in both the cases, but there is still a lack of future research and innovation system in both the cases. Entrepreneurs cannot achieve excellence without being able to get support from other stakeholders. Innovation is possible in an ecosystem, where every stakeholder puts best possible efforts for excellence. The role of film industry, export promotion councils and tourism industry. Thus we can identify presence of “innovation ecosystem” in the success of this industry, which is yet to develop in the case of Ceramics industry of Bikaner. Conclusions There is a need of “Innovation Ecosystem” for success and growth of organisations. Innovation ecosystem is the outcome of combined efforts of different stakeholders in preparing for the future and strategising for achieving the vision. It is based on a process of exchange of information and knowledge to enable entrepreneurs to foster innovative practices. Based on the case studies, we can conclude that there is a need of institutions and research centres, which can help in creation of “innovation ecosystem”. Innovation helps in growth (Jewellery Industry of Jaipur) and it also helps in survival (Ceramics industry of Bikaner). However, innovation itself depends on support of stakeholders, particularly from institutions and research centres. The institutions and research centres help in creating future research, which contributes to “vision for innovation capabilities”. References Azaroff, L. V. (1982). Industry-University Collaboration: How to make it work. Research Management, 25 (3), 31. Berkhout, A.J., L. Hartmann, P.A. van der Duin & J.R. Ortt (2006). Innovating the innovation process. International Journal of Technology Management, 34 (3/4), 390-404. Berkhout, A.J., P.A. van der Duin, L. Hartmann & J.R. Ortt (2007). The cyclic nature of innovation: connecting hard sciences with soft values, Oxford: Elsevier. Bub U. and C. Schläffer (2008). Umsetzung von offener Innovation durch industrielle Cluster und Public Private Partnerships. In: Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, Hans-Jörg Bullinger (ed.). Beschleunigte Innovation mit regionalen und industrienahen Forschungsclustern. Stuttgart : Fraunhofer-IRB-Verlag. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press. Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators?. Research Policy, 31 (7), 11031122.
-5-
Cooper, R.G. (1980). Project NewProd: Factors in new product success. European Journal of Marketing, 14 (5/6), pp.277-291. Duin, P.A. van der (2006). Qualitative futures research for innovation. Delft: Eburon. Edquist, C, (Ed.) (1997). Systems of Innovation—Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London: Pinter Publishers. European Commission. (1996). Green Paper on Innovation. European Commission. (2005). Working Together for Growth and Jobs: A New Start for the Lisbon Strategy. Communication from Commission President Barroso (COM 2005) 24. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Faems, D., Van Looy, B., & Debackere, K. (2005). Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: Toward a portfolio approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22 (3), 238 - 250. Freeman, C. (1987), Technology policy and economic performance: lessons from Japan, London: Pinter Publishers. Gassmann, O. (2006). Opening up the innovation process: towards an agenda. R&D Management, 36 (3), 223-228. Geels, F. W. (2005). Technological transitions and system innovations: A co-evolutionary and sociotechnical analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Gracht, H.A. von der, C.R. Vennemann and Inge-Lena Darkow (2010). Corporate foresight and innovation management: A portfolio-approach in evaluating organizational development. Futures, 42, 380-393. Hekkert M.P., R.A.A Suurs, S.O. Negro, S. Kuhlmann and R.E.H.M. Smits (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological forecasting & social change, 74, 413-432. Larédo, P. (1998). The networks promoted by the framework programme and the questions they raise about its formulation and implementation. Research Policy, 27 (6), 589-598. Mirow, C., Hölzle, K., & Gemünden, H. G. (2008). Measuring Barriers to Innovation: Developing a new approach for better innovation management. Proceedings of the R&D Management Conference. Ottawa, Canada. Rohrbeck, R. & Gemünden, H.G. (2009). Making your R&D future proof: The roles of corporate foresight in innovation management. PICMET 2009 Proceedings, August 2-6 Portland, U.S.A., 835- 842. Rohrbeck, R. & Gemünden, H.G. (2010). Corporate Foresight: Its Three Roles in Enhancing the Innovation Capacity of a Firm. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77 (2), 231-243. Rohrbeck, R., & Pirelli, L. H. (2010). The European Institute of Innovation and Technology: How to steer a multistakeholder innovation ecosystem. Proceedings of the DIME Conference - Organizing for Networked Innovation. Milano, Italy. Stahlecker, T., & Koschatzky, K. (2010). New forms of strategic research collaboration between firms and universities in the German research system. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 9 (1), 94-110. Tidd, J., J. Bessant & K. Pavitt (1997). Managing innovation. Integrating technological, market and organizational change. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, first edition. Ughetto, E. (2007). Foresight as a triple helix of industry, university, and government relations. Foresight, 9 (5), 14-22.
-6-
