1. [1]
PROJECT REPORT
TO IDENTIFY INNOVATION POTENTIAL OF INDIAN
TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS
NAME : PRATEEK JAIN
ROLL NO: 1421000369
DATE OF SUBMISSION: 26 September 2015
INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY
CENTRE FOR DISTANCE LEARNING
GHAZIABAD

2. [2]
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
No work is a work of an individual. This project work is not an exception to it. I owe a sense of
gratitude to the co-operation and support of all those people who have let me understand what is
needed from time to time for the successful completion of this project. It is difficult to prepare a
research project especially for a novice who is new to the corporate world. Without any help or
guidance it is not easy to achieve this given task. So, I would like to thank all the patrons of this
project.
I am thankful to Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd for providing me substantial data in carrying out this
project work successfully.
I sincerely thank my project guide Ms Shweta Jain for having constantly guided & supported
me throughout the project work.
My heartfelt gratitude also goes to the faculty Ms Bharti Singh, IMT CDL for honing my
conceptual understanding of marketing research and recommending me changes to improve my
project work.
With reference to the modifications suggested in the approved synopsis, I have selected 44
technical institutions to be a part of study & have increased the number of questions in the
questionnaire sent to respondents.
Last but not the least, I take this as an opportunity to thank all those people who always stood by
me & offered moral support & guidance.
PRATEEK JAIN
Roll No: 1421000369

3. [3]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………………………………………………………6
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………...7
CHAPTER 1:
1.1: Research Objectives………………………………………………………….8
1.2: Research Methodology & Data Sources …………………………………….8-9
CHAPTER 2:
2.1: Questionnaire Development………………………………………………….10
2.2: General Questions……………………………………………………………10
2.3: Expatiate Questions ………………………………………………………….11
2.4: Target Population & Pre-testing …………………… ……………………….12
2.5: Sampling Plan……. ………………………………………………………….13
CHAPTER 3:
3.1: Project activities…………………………………………………………..13
3.2: Primary Findings (Analysis of Data Copy):
3.2.1: Key Findings…………………………………………………………..14-24
3.2.2: Data Analysis………………………………………………………….14-24
CHAPTER 4:
4.1: Suggestion / Recommendation………………………………………………..25-27
CHAPTER 5:
5.1: Key Learning’s………………………………………………………………....28
5.2: Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...29
5.3: Annexure & Bibliography……………………………………………………...30

4. [4]
LIST OF TABLES:-
Table 1: Annual reports of the Universities……………………………………………….9
Table 1.1: Expenditure on R&D by IARI………………………........................................14
Table 1.2: Patents filed by IARI…………………………………………………………...14
Table 3.1: Comparison of R &D Expenditure out of total allocated budget
Amongst two leading respondents in the same category………………………16
Table 3.2: Comparison of R &D Expenditure out of total allocated budget
Amongst two leading respondents in the same category………………………16
Table 5.1: Comparison of number of faculties per number of students
In the category of leading respondents…………………………………………18
Table 5.2: Comparison of number of faculties per number of students
In the category of leading respondents…………………………………………18
Table 5.3: Comparison of number of faculties per number of students
In the category of leading respondents…………………………………………18
Table 5.4: Comparison of number of faculties per number of students
In the category of leading respondents…………………………………………19
LIST OF ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1
ANNEXURE 2
ANNEXURE 3
ANNEXURE 4.

5. [5]
LIST OF CHARTS:-
Chart 2.1: Comparison of Number of faculties in R &D to Number of
Research Papers Published in (2009-10)…………………………………………15
Chart 4.1: Year-wise Analysis of total faculty strength in 44 institutions…………………..17
Chart 6.1: Graphical Analysis of Allocated Budget from Central/State Govt.
Grants under schemes/projects…………………………………………………...20
Chart 7.1: Graphical Analysis of Institutions giving Incentive to
Promote research………………………………………………………………..21
Chart 8.1: Graphical Analysis of Institutions with a Fixed
Process Time……………………………………………………………………..22
Chart 9.1: Graphical Analysis of Institutions with a
IPR/TOT Cell…………………………………………………………………...23
Chart 10.1: Percentage of Institutions with dedicated R&D
Cell or RAC committees for new projects……………………………………...24

6. [6]
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ernst & Young (EY) is one of the world’s largest professional service firms in the world with
four main service lines namely Assurance, Taxation, Transactions & Advisory.
 Assurance Services comprises of Financial Audit (core assurance), Financial Accounting
Advisory Services, Fraud Investigation & Dispute Services, Climate Change &
Sustainability Services.
 Tax Services includes Business Tax Compliance, Human Capital, Customs, Indirect Tax,
International Tax Services, Tax Accounting & Risk Advisory Services, Transaction Tax.
 Advisory Services, mainly consisting of four subservice lines: Actuarial, IT Risk and
Assurance, Risk, and Performance Improvement.
 Transaction Advisory Services (TAS) (9%): deals with companies' capital agenda –
preserving, optimizing, investing and raising capital..
Through their industry-focused Advisory Services, they help clients manage risk, improve
performance and sustain the results. Some consulting firms think only about business
strategy; some physically deploy technology; but they help execute enterprise-wide
performance transformation initiatives.
Figure: 1
I was ascribed to work with the Business Advisory wing of the firm where my key role was to
improve the performance of Government running projects. We were a team of five people,
who were rigorously involved in variety of jobs ranging from contriving a framework to
formulating a questionnaire to understand the market dynamics. I played an instrumental role
in designing the entire framework, based on which my colleagues prepared an exhaustive
questionnaire which was later sent to our target audience. In the latter half of the project, our
duties were re-invented & each individual was assigned the task of working on a niche
segment of the project. While some of my colleagues were equipped with the task of
interviewing a specific target group, I rendered my support in analyzing the responses &
suggesting an appropriate course of action to improve performance of the project. In the final
stage of the project, we started compiling the findings obtained by our research in the form of
a comprehensive report which was then submitted to the client.

7. [7]
INTRODUCTION
Assigned in Government Business Advisory Services, on a project commissioned by DSIR,
Ministry of Science & Technology to conduct a study on ‘Nurturing Innovation Potential of
Technical Institutions in the country’ .The primary objective of this research study was to
identify technical institutions which have contributed or have the potential to contribute to
innovation in scientific & technical research and to formulate interventions for enhancing their
innovation capabilities.
A plethora of tasks were assigned to me to prepare an exhaustive framework for assessing the
innovation in leading S&T institutions. This framework was developed & refined based on
India’s S&T papers indexed in Science Citation Index –Expanded Edition (SCIE) of web of
Science database. Besides, it has also looked at the India’s contributions reported in other
international multidisciplinary databases, such as SCI, SCOPUS and PASCAL, in addition to
international subject databases, such as Chemical Abstracts, INSPEC, COMPENDEX, PubMed
& CAB Abstracts.
This framework defined Innovation based on three criterions namely Input, Process & Output.
The first parameter called Input covered aspects like R&D Infrastructure, global research tie-ups,
budget & expenditure, talent like number of Ph.d’s, student-faculty strength ratios etc. The
second criteria called Process laid emphasis on Management, Institutional set-up, for instance
number of approvals for new project & process flow efficiency in an Institute. The last & the
final element of this framework was chosen as Output which covered various facets like number
of research papers published, number of patents granted, number of spin-off via IP transfers,
awards received etc
Based on this framework an extensive questionnaire was prepared & sent to the various S &T
institutions all across the country. Some of the institutions which did not answer within the
stipulated time frame were later interviewed & their responses were merged in the final study.
After receiving & recording the responses obtained from around 44 institutions across the
country, a structured data analysis was carried out to analyze & examine various trends &
patterns emerging out of our research.
After analyzing the data thoroughly using various tools, I furnished some insightful
recommendations which I think, if implemented properly will deliver great value in nurturing
innovation potential in leading technical institutions in our country.
In nutshell, working on this project helped me a great deal in understanding the vary intricacies
of project management & the endeavors made by the Government to facilitate a culture of
Innovation in the country.

8. [8]
ResearchObjectives
The Department of Science & Technology, Government of India has played the nodal
responsibility to promote the Indian Research & Development sector. The overall vision and
mission of the department has been to enable India becoming global knowledge power by
promoting basic research, development of cutting edge technologies and innovation for globally
competitive and inclusive growth to power technology led economic progress of the society.
The primary objective of the project is to strengthen the R&D base of the base the country
through funding, development and utilization of technologies, building entrepreneurs and
innovation, fostering international S&T cooperation, popularization and demonstration,
generating S&T database, mounting mission mode initiatives, attracting talent to science &
rejuvenating research in university & promotion of public-private partnership.
Some of the secondary objectives of the project were as follows:-
 Policy & Structural Support to Research & Development.
 Human Capacity Building for Research & Development.
 Strengthening Institutional Capacity for Research & Development.
 Support to Autonomous Research Institutions nurtured by the Department.
 S&T Interventions for socio-economic development.
 S&T co-operation / Partnerships and Alliances.
 International & Multi-lateral S&T Cooperation.
 Facilitating State –Centre Technology Partnerships.
 Creating a Platform for Global Innovation & Technology Alliance.
 Public & Private Partnership model in Innovation System.
ResearchMethodology& Data Sources
Two state universities from each region viz. East, West, North, South and North-East were
selected for this study. The criteria used for the selection of these universities were based on the
historical & regional importance of the university, National Assessment and Accreditation
Council , (NAAC) rating, funding received from various agencies (DST and DBT), successful
alumni members of the University, and the present status of higher education in these
universities as reported in the available literature.
The required information (credentials of the university faculty, Ph.D. awarded, research
publications, patents secured and recognition accorded via cited publications, major research
giants and awards) for this study was obtained through the Annual Reports (2007-2012) of the

9. [9]
respective Institution, pre-designed protocols and schedules, the official websites of the
universities, Google scholar, NAAC Reports and personal interactions with the concerned
officials.
TABLE 1
Region State
Universities
Faculty No: of
Research
publications
/ year
PhD
awarded/
year
In
house
journals
Books
published
/ year
GS*Cit
ations
as on
23 May
2011
NORTH
ZONE
University of
Rajasthan
Punjab
University
345
636
538
582
219
227
NA
4
50
25
12,400
5,610
EAST
ZONE
University of
Calcutta
Patna
university
650
345
664
47
139.6
101.2
20
NA
NA
4
35,300
3420
NORTH
-EAST
ZONE
Guwahati
University
Sikkim-
Manipal
University
401
102
221
5(GS)*
102.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
916
58
SOUTH
ZONE
University of
Madaras
University of
Mysore
306
354
600
328.33
381.2
152.66
5
3
50
86
34,800
10,400
WEST
ZONE
University of
Mumbai
University of
Pune
587
300
112.5
184.33
322
232.25
NA
NA
15
20
20,000
13,600
Source: (Annual reports of the Universities: University official websites: Google search:*GS
Google scholar: NA-Not Available, Validated data received from the universities).
After some exhaustive brain-storming sessions, an elaborate framework was prepared to
identify the list of important questions which were to be incorporated in the questionnaire to be
sent to these selected institutions. After this framework was finalized & discussed in length, a
structured methodology was followed to set the appropriate questionnaire design.

10. [10]
Questionnaire Development
On the basis of the framework developed, three factors were decided which were responsible for
determining the overall Innovation potential of the Institutions. Based on the framework, 14
general questions & 13 elaborate questions were drafted. After a detailed brain-storming, the
following format was finalized.
General Questions:-
1. Name of Institution
2. Year of Registration
3. Approval/Accrediting Body
4. Teaching College (Yes/No)
5. Focus on Technical R&D ( Yes/No):
6. Does Institution have a Research Centre of Excellence?
7. Key Programmes ( BSc, B.Tech, M.Tech, Ph.D etc.)
8. No. of Departments.
9. No. of Courses/Programmes:
10. Total Annual Student Intake Capacity:
11. Total Annual Output of Students:
12. Total No. of Permanent Faculty
13. Total No. of Ph.Ds in Faculty:
14. Sectors of national importance in which the institution is undertaking R&D. (e.g.
Health, Defense, Agriculture etc.)

11. [11]
Expatiate Questions:-
INNOVATION OUTPUT
1. Number of R&D projects completed (Units).
2. Number of research papers published in leading peer reviewed journals (Units)
3. Number of patents filed and granted (Units).
4. Awards/Recognition to the Institution for contribution to scientific innovation.
5. Revenue from IP transfers ( INR Lacs)
INNOVATION PROCESS
6. Management
A) Flexibility and autonomy to appoint global scientific talent.
B) How are new project ideas identified and selected?
C) What is the mechanism for IP management and technology transfer?
7. Institutional set up and process flow/efficiency
A) Time and steps taken internally for a new research project to be selected
before commencement.
B) Degree of autonomy enjoyed by a lead scientist/ researcher to recruit the
team and allot budgets.
1) Decision entirely of lead scientist/ researcher
2) Decision of a Board/ Committee
3) Combination of 1&2
4) No input from lead scientist/ researcher
5) Any Other

12. [12]
INNOVATION INPUT
8. Student intake capacity vs. admissions for the following courses (Number).
9. Faculty Strength.
A) Time and steps taken internally for a new research project to be selected before
commencement.
B) Total faculty strength and their qualification based distribution ( Number).
C) Involvement of faculty in terms of percentage time dedicated to.
10. Allotted budget and sources for Institution ( INR Lacs):
11. Allotted budget by nature of R&D ( INR Lacs):
12. Specialized R&D infrastructure available in the institution (e.g. lab space,
Specific equipments etc.)
13. Number of R&D/ commercial collaborations with other Institutes and Company.
Target Population:-
The study focused mainly on major technical institutions in the country which focused on
promoting a culture of Innovation in the country. Out of the Universities of the five different
zones, 44 technical colleges were selected after careful examination of their innovation potential.
These institutions were further segmented into four major categories namely Govt., Private,
Established & Upcoming colleges.
Pre-Testing:-
A pretest was conducted on one Govt. & one Private college out of the total 44 colleges selected
for study. The only reason for conducting this pretest was to find out the comfort & acceptance
level of respondents with the questionnaire. This lead to few necessary changes in some of the
questions & elimination of some irrelevant ones.

13. [13]
Sampling technique:-
A mix of cluster & convenience sampling was used, as in case of some upcoming colleges the
Number of research papers published, faculty to student’s ratio, number of patents etc were
significantly less as compared to the Established colleges which have ample resources to develop
their Innovation interface.
ProjectActivities
Primary Findings:-
After receiving the filled up Questionnaires from primary respondents, an excel tracker was
prepared (Refer to Annexure 1) with separate sheet highlighting summary of all questions along
with a dedicated sheet to questions themselves.
The summary sheet was classified into two parts, one comprising of 14 generic questions while
other containing the list of 13 elaborate questions based on Innovation Input, Innovation Process
& Innovation Output respectively.
Three markers were selected to record the response in the tracker:-
a) For positive response we used symbol ‘Y’.
b) For responses where there was lack of adequate information we used symbol ‘N.A’.
c) For responses recorded as NIL we used symbol ‘-‘.
In a similar fashion another excel tracker based on secondary inputs was prepared (Refer to
Annexure 2) from the secondary data*.
In order to analyze & derive meaningful outcomes out of the Innovation Processes, I have also
designed a comprehensive Process tracker (Refer to Annexure 3) to evaluate the responses of
various respondents in a lucid manner.
The purpose of making these excel trackers was to integrate all questionnaires & make them
readily available for easy reference & data analysis. Once the entire information (both from
primary & secondary data) was fed from questionnaires into the excel sheets, it became
apparently easier to observe & identify various trends & patterns.
Once the trackers were prepared, various filters were added to arrange the data in a sequential
manner for studying various trends & co-relations.
Note: *Secondary data here refers to the Questionnaires filled from Annual Reports &
Institutions’ website.

14. [14]
Key Findings & Data Analysis
1. Comparison of Patents filed by the *leading respondent with Expenditure on R&D
by the same respondent.
Table:1.1
Year Expenditure on R&D by IARI (INR LACS)
2006-07 16630
2007-08 1139.66
2008-09 2959.93
2009-10 3106.63
2010-11 3294.92
Table: 1.2
Year Patents filed by IARI
2006-07 22
2007-08 16
2008-09 24
2009-10 15
2010-11 13
(Source: Refer to attached Annexure 1& 2.)
Inference 1
In reference to Annexure 1 & 2, IARI (Indian Agricultural Research Institute) has maximum
number of patents amongst 44 institutions covered under study. Also, IARI has done massive
expenditure on R&D after Chennai Mathematical Institute ( which could not be compared since
its patent filed data is not available).This shows that more R&D expenditure facilitates the
filing of more patents.
Note:-*Leading respondent here refers to those Institutions which have answered majority of
questions.

15. [15]
2. Comparison of Number of faculties in R &D to Number of Research Papers
Published in (2009-10).
Chart: 2.1
(Source: Refer to attached Annexure 1& 2.)
Inference 2
The comparative analysis of Number of Faculties to Number of Research Papers Published in
2009-10 shows that institutions like IIBAT, ILS & CMI deploy more faculties in R&D activities
but have less Number of Research papers in comparison to colleges like Lakireddy Bali Reddy
College of Engineering, which publishes around 138 research papers in leading peer reviewed
journals (Highest amongst all). NIE & SJCIT further have less percentage of faculties in R&D
alone yet publishes a plethora of research papers highlighting great innovation potential. Thus,
we examine an ironical trend where the institute deploying less number of faculties
publishes greater number of research papers & vice-versa.
85
100
25
2
60
13 812
24
138
54
17 13
59
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Faculty in R&D
Number of Research Papers
Published

16. [16]
3. Comparison of R &D Expenditure out of total allocated budget amongst two leading
respondents in the same category.
Table: 3.1
Year Allocated Budget for IARI
(INR LACS)
R &D Expenditure by IARI
(INR LACS)
2006-07 15828.41 16630
2007-08 17413.28 1139.66
2008-09 22830.24 2959.93
2009-10 34167.30 3106.63
2010-11 36633.46 3294.92
Table: 3.2
Year Allocated Budget for CMI
(INR LACS)
R &D Expenditure by CMI
(INR LACS)
2006-07 20000000 20000000
2007-08 28700000 28700000
2008-09 90862672 39862672
2009-10 59050000 53050000
2010-11 128220000 81000000
(Source: Refer to attached Annexure 1& 2.)
Inference 3
Now if we compare the amount of R&D expenditure out of total allocated budget, we get the
following findings:-
1) In 2008-09, CMI spent 43.87 % of its allocated budget while IARI spent 12.96 % of its
total allocations.
2) In 2009-10, CMI spent 89.83 % while its counterpart spent an abysmally low 9.09 % of
their entire allocated budget.
3) In 2010-11, CMI spent 63.17 % while IARI spent a miniscule of just 9 % out of their
total budgetary allocations.
From the above analysis, we conclude that in the category of leading respondents, one
Institution allocates its majority stake in R&D activities out of the total allocated budget
while its counterpart spends considerably less percentage on its R&D activities out of total
allocations.

17. [17]
4. Year-wise Analysis of total faculty strength in 44 institutions.
Chart: 4.1
(Source: Refer to attached Annexure 1& 2.)
Inference 4
As evident from Chart 4.1, the total faculty strength has surged in the last five years & has
almost tripled since 2006-07. With the increase in number of PhD’s the county, the level of
research works will also increase, thereby enhancing the overall innovation potential of India.
Apart from this, the contribution of Post Doctoral faculties in the total faculty strength has
been abominably low in the past 5 years.
565
227
393 433
57 1 5 5
765
1080
1529
2295
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
P.Hd
Post Doctoral
Total

18. [18]
5. Comparison of number of faculties per number of students in the category of
leading respondents.
Table: 5.1
Year Total faculty strength in
Lakireddy Bali Reddy
College of Engineering
Student intake capacity of
Lakireddy Bali Reddy
College of Engineering
2006-07 135 480
2007-08 145 480
2008-09 162 591
2009-10 174 689
2010-11 - 746
Table: 5.2
Year Total faculty strength in
VELS Institute of Sciences
Student intake capacity of
VELS Institute of Sciences
2006-07 - -
2007-08 275 -
2008-09 320 850
2009-10 363 2120
2010-11 - -
(Source: Refer to attached Annexure 1& 2.)
Inference 5
Now, if we calculate the number of faculties per nos. of students, we get the following
outcomes:-
Table: 5.3
Year No. of faculties per no. of students in
Lakireddy Bali Reddy Col of Engg. (in %)
2006-07 28.125
2007-08 30.20
2008-09 27.4
2009-10 23.3
2010-11 N.A

19. [19]
Table: 5.4
Year No. of faculties per nos of students in VELS
Institute of Sciences (in %)
2006-07 -
2007-08 -
2008-09 37.64
2009-10 17.122
2010-11 -
On comparing Vels institute of Sciences with Lakireddy college of engineering, we find that
there is a marginal increase in percentage of faculty to student ratio in case of VELS Institute of
Sciences, which triggers a consequent increase in the number of patents ( 3 & 5 in 2008-09 &
2009-10 respectively).While Lakireddy college of engineering holds just 1 patent due to poor
faculty-students ratio.
Now, we compare the data of Lakireddy college of engineering with IARI, we derive at a more
concrete finding:-
 In 2009-10, total faculties in IARI were 515 while total students in Masters & Phd were
119 & 153 respectively. And, if we calculate the same faculty to student ratio it comes
out to be staggering 189.338 % which further validates the point that more faculty per
students results in an institute registering more number of patents ( since IARI has
13 patents in 2010-11 while Lakireddy college of engineering has just 1 patent in 2010-
11).

20. [20]
6. Analysis of Allocated Budget from Central/State Govt. Grants under
schemes/projects.
Inference 6
 Total Institutions who have been allocated Govt. Grants = 27
 % of Institutions who revealed information about Allocated Budget from Central / State
Govt. = 51.85
 % of Institutions who are dependent on Central & State Govt. Grants out of those who
revealed information = 92.85
 % of Institutions who are dependent on Central & State Govt. Grants out of total
institutions =48.15
 % of Institutions who did not give any information about Allocated Budget from Central /
State Govt. = 48.15
(Source: Refer to attached Annexure 1& 2.)
Chart: 6.1
(Source: Refer to attached Annexure 1& 2.)
51.85
48.15
48.15
GraphicalAnalysis ofAllocatedBudget from Central/State Govt.
Grants under schemes/projects.
% Institutes revealing
information on Govt. grants
% Institutes dependent on
Govt. grants
% Institutes who did not give
any info. about allocated
Govt.Grants

21. [21]
7. % of colleges providing Incentive for research work.
Inference 7
 Total colleges = 21
 Number of colleges providing incentive = 17
 % of colleges providing incentive = 81
 % of colleges which do not provide any incentive for research = 19
(Source: Refer to attached Annexure 3.)
Chart: 7.1
(Source: Refer to attached Annexure 3.)
19
8143
53
GraphicalAnalysis of Institutions giving Incentive to
promote research
% of colleges which do
not provide any incentive
for research
% of colleges which
provide incentive for
research
% of colleges giving
awards as an incentive for
research
% of colleges giving
financial support as an
incentive for research

22. [22]
8. % of colleges with a fixed process time for approval of new research oriented
project.
Inference 8
 % of institutions having a fixed process time = 38.09
 % of institutions having no fixed process time = 61.09
 Out of 38 % Institutions which have a fixed process time, 50 % of them are
Established Pvt. Institutions, 25 % are Established Govt. Institutions, 25 % are
Upcoming Govt. Institutions while there is no Upcoming Pvt. Institution.
(Source: Refer to attached Annexure 3.)
Chart: 8.1
Graphical Analysis of Institutions with a Fixed ProcessTime.
(Source: Refer to attached Annexure 3.)
0 10 20 30 40 50
% of Institutions with fixed
process time
50
25
25
% Upcoming Govt.
Institutions
% Upcoming Pvt. Institutions
% Established Govt.
Institutions
% Established Pvt. Institutions

23. [23]
9. % of Institutions with a dedicated IPR/TOT Cell for filing patents & sale of
Intellectual properties.
Inference 9
 % of Institutions which do not have an IPR/TOT Cell = 76.19
 % of Institutions which have an IPR/TOT Cell = 23.80
 Out of 24 % Institutions which have an IPR/TOT cell, 20 % of them are Established
Pvt. Institutions, 60 % are Established Govt. Institutions, and 20 % are Upcoming
Pvt. Institutions while there is no Upcoming Govt. Institution.
(Source: Refer to attached Annexure 3.)
Chart: 9.1
Graphical Analysis of Institutions with a IPR/TOT Cell
(Source: Refer to attached Annexure 3.)
20
60
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
% of Institutions which have an IPR/TOT Cell
% Established Pvt.
Institutions
% Established Govt.
Institutions
% Upcoming Pvt.
Institutions
% Upcoming Govt.
Institution

24. [24]
10. % of Institutions which have dedicated R&D cell or RAC committees for selecting new R&D
projects.
Inference 10
 Around 62 % of the Institutions have a dedicated R&D cell or RAC committees for selecting
newR&D projects.
 Out of this 62 %, 15.38 % of them are Established Pvt. Institutions, 38.46 % are Established
Govt. Institutions, and 23.07 % are Upcoming Pvt. Institutions while 23.07 % are Upcoming
Govt. Institutions.
(Source: Refer to attached Annexure 3.)
Chart: 10.1
(Source: Refer to attached Annexure 3.)
15.38 %
38.46 %23.07 %
23.07 %
% of Institutions with dedicated R&D cell or RAC committees for
selecting new R&D projects.
Established Pvt. Institutions
Established Govt. Institutions
Upcoming Pvt. Institutions
Upcoming Govt. Institutions.

25. [25]
Suggestions/Recommendations
The study provides a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the progress of Indian S&T
Institutions, as reflected in the mainstream national & international journals. The main objective
of the study is to critically examine the status of S&T in the country in relation to its stronger and
weaker areas of research, quantity & quality of research, and dynamics of research across
institutions, sectors, geographical areas and subjects. Such a study is significant & useful for
science planners & policy makers for gaining macro insights in the country S&T ecosystem.
It may be noted that there are limitations in analyzing research trends by using publications
output. This is because bibliometrics, infometric & scientometric techniques/ methods deployed
do not take into account the other outputs of research efforts, such as technology know-how,
patents, new or improved products, devices, processes, etc. However, publications in journals
have remained the most favored data source for mapping, despite limitations in quantitative
techniques, generally used.
In the light of above mentioned facts & findings, I would like to suggest a due course of action
could help Indian S&T Institutions in achieving global innovation potential. My
recommendations are as follows:-
1. Improving ResearchPublication Output & Quality.
India ranks 2nd in publications productivity amongst developing countries, following
China, in material sciences (8th world rank, 3.56 % contribution), chemistry (8th world
rank, 3.62 % contribution), physics ( 9th world rank, 2.26 % contribution), engineering
(11th world rank & 2.39 % contribution).
As per my findings, India is devoting comparatively fewer resources to S&T: India is
devoting fewer financial & human resources in comparison to China. Also, its annual
increase in manpower and financial resources is not commensurate with the size and
growth of its R &D infrastructure.
To catch up with the leading developing nations, we need to evolve strong & effective
research strategies to achieve higher annual publications growth and also significantly
improve its publication quality.
2. Increasing Investments In R&D Infrastructure With Manpower Deployment
Across Various Geographical Regions In The Country
One of the key finding of our study shows that R&D manpower is fast depleting, due to
lack of fresh recruitment, and retirement of scientist upon superannuation. Besides our
institutional management has failed to evolve policies to help scientist upgrade their
knowledge, and catch up with modern developments in various fields across the globe.
Thus we need heavy investment in R&D infrastructure to set-up new institutions of
excellence & build a robust system of incentives to motivate researchers in the country.

26. [26]
3. Catalyzing ResearchCapacities of Indian Universities
One of the vital recommendations is to build up scientific capacity, competence &
knowledge base of our Universities in terms of technical and computing infrastructure,
course-content, teaching methods, faculty development in the emerging fields, allocation
of funds in highly specialized areas, creating better industry linkages with R&D sector
companies, and by attracting bright talent at master’s and doctoral level.
This must be accompanied by strict criteria for the selection of students at Undergraduate,
Post-graduate & PhD level.
4. Planning For Systematic R&D Development
There is a dire need to formulate short-term & long-term plans for R&D development in
the country. We need to organize goal-oriented & need-based programs at the national
and institutional level, as well as change its method of deciding priorities for allocation of
funds, particularly the extra-mural funding, and also the priorities for awarding research
contracts. An element of competition should be brought into the bidding of funds for
large scale projects.
5. Effective policy making & its implementation
The policy making body in India like the Ministry of Science & Technology needs to
develop a robust model of Innovation by integrating the Institutes of National importance
and inter-university centers for influencing research activities in the country. There
should be strict guidelines for research institutions to ensure proper faculty to student’s
ratio, establishing sophisticated instruments & research labs, combining teachers and
research, stricter evaluation system, and selective areas of specialization.
The policy matters pertaining to Central/ State Govt. grants should maintain an unbiased
approach in allocating funds to regional universities which are in true requirement of
such grants. Also some special grant packages should be designed for enhancing the
innovation potential of less productivity states.
6. Reforming Job Opportunities & Strengthening Researchin Specific Sectors
One of the important suggestions in nurturing country’s innovation potential is to
improve the job opportunities & upgrade the incentive system attached to research
oriented jobs in India, so that scientist do not move abroad.
Apart from this, India should primarily focus more on Agricultural research given its role
in strengthening national GDP & consistent decline in agricultural research over the
years. It is desirable that agricultural science be accorded higher priority in terms of
allocation of funds.

27. [27]
7. Strengthening Current Arrangements for International Collaborations.
This study brings forth the need to review and strengthen current arrangements for
international collaboration in S&T with developed and developing countries.
Collaborative research, especially at international level must be encouraged for
accelerating the pace of growth and for ensuring quality and quantity in research output.
India’s collaborative research with countries like U.S.A, U.K, Russia and Canada is on
the decline, though it is on rise with Germany, France and Spain.
New initiatives are needed to strengthen India’s collaboration with select developed and
developing economies.
8. Introducing System of Professional Review of Research Proposals & Maintaining
Comprehensive Database For Indian S&T Publications
We need to introduce a system of professional review of proposals submitted for
financial support under extra-mural funding schemes of R&D agencies/departments. It is
suggested that a comprehensive database on Indian S&T publications, balanced in the
coverage of both local and international journals, be developed to present a total picture
of India in S&T at a global level.
Such a database could benefit national policy & planning process and also R&D Funding
agencies in judicious allocation of resources to researchers and institutions, and in linking
of research output to funding sources. It could be used to prepare the research profile of
scientists by age, gender, social and educational background.

28. [28]
Crucial Learning’s from Project Experience
Pursuing a project with Ernst N Young Pvt. Ltd was altogether a great learning experience, not
only in terms of professional growth but also for the all round development of my personality.
My knowledge was best put to test in intellectually stimulating environment which helped me a
great deal in understanding new problems everyday & find innovative solutions to resolve them.
I had access to hundreds of reports present in “EY Advisory mine” which was a collective
database of Advisory services in Ernst N Young. Reading these informative reports was learning
in itself as each one of it had an extensive coverage of some particular sector & provided
insightful eruditions.
Also, I underwent a mandatory learning course called “EY Independence Learning Program for
Interns” which enhanced my knowledge in all the four segments of EY namely Assurance,
Taxation, Advisory & Transactional services.
I also received practical hand on training on analytics software called Tableau which is
extensively used in EY’s Fraud & Investigating services for analyzing multiple databases.
Although I didn’t get a chance to use Tableau on any project but understood its applications
meticulously.
Apart from this, working on this particular project helped me understand the Innovation Potential
of our leading S&T Institutions & enhanced my content writing skills to draft high quality
reports. In nutshell, it was a delightful experience understanding the dynamics of the vast
education industry in India.

29. [29]
Conclusion
This project report aimed at elucidating the innovation potential of carefully selected 44
institutions in the field of Science & Technology. The project was assigned to Advisory Services
Wing of Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. by Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, Ministry of
Science & Technology. The premier objective of the project was to promote innovations in the
scientific & technical institutions in the country through its resources and to channelize the
benefit for public good.
Towards this objective, an exhaustive framework was developed to measure the Innovation
potential of India’s leading technical institutions. The framework was categorized under three
subheads viz. Innovation Input, Innovation Process & Innovation Output respectively. Based on
these three critical parameters, a brief questionnaire comprising of questions like Number of
research publications in leading journals, number of patents/I.P.R owned by an Institution,
Faculty strength etc was prepared.
A prototype of Questionnaire was sent to a Govt. & Pvt. College for seeking the feedback of
respondents on how they perceive the Innovation capabilities of their respective institution.
While some of the colleges sent the filled up questionnaire, there were a few which got delayed
& exceeded the deadline of sending in their filled responses. Such colleges were covered under
the secondary data & their inputs were being recorded using their annual reports on websites.
After the responses were received, the next task was to arrange & integrate them into an excel
sheet. Once the tracker was prepared, the next job was to examine the trend or the co-relations
that existed between various colleges. Some critical analysis was done using comparative year
wise analysis of given set of data & findings were recorded.
After going through the findings, the next course of action was to render some insights on how
the existing scenario of the Indian S&T institutions can be improved & perfected. Some
recommendations like improving the number & quality of publications, promoting
collaborations, bringing reforms in policy making, creating University linkages with R&D
agencies etc were suggested.
To conclude, the study not only did an exemplary exploration of our contemporary Innovation
ecosystem but also left some remarkable solutions to boost the performance of our S&T
institutions in the long run.

30. [30]
Annexure & Bibliography
Following are the online websites which have been referred to in the making of the project:-
1. http://ipindia.nic.in/
2. http://www.iitgn.ac.in/pdf/AnnualReport/chapter_1011_5.pdf
3. http://www.iitgn.ac.in/pdf/AnnualReport/chapter_1011_5.pdf
4. http://dsirwebcsirhq.csir.res.in/webdsir/#files/a_report/english/index.html
5. http://www.iitfoundation.org/docs/2006/AnnualReport-2006.pdf
6. http://amity.edu/admission/Research_Focus.asp
7. http://www.ilsresearch.org/research.php
8. http://www.iisc.ernet.in/academics/faculty-science.php#
9. http://admissions.iisc.ernet.in/web/Default.aspx?ses=%20jxrp1d2qvnymwr45shx54r55&
pid=InfoatGlance
10. http://icmr.nic.in/Publications/Publications.html
11. http://www.cdac.in/index.aspx?id=research
12. http://www.cmi.ac.in/teaching/
13. http://www.iari.res.in/files/iari-annual-report-2011.pdf
14. http://sjcit.ac.in/man.pdf