Rishikesha T. Krishnan

Bio: Rishikesha T. Krishnan is an academic researcher from Indian Institute of Management Indore. The author has contributed to research in topics: Emerging markets & Multinational corporation. The author has an hindex of 13, co-authored 37 publications receiving 525 citations. Previous affiliations of Rishikesha T. Krishnan include Indian Institute of Management Bangalore & Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad.

Characteristics of Indian Academic Research Underlying Industrial Innovations: An Empirical Analysis*

Abstract: There has nei ther been any systematic study on the characteri sti cs of academic research that has contributed to product or process improvements in the industry, nor do we know how these 'llrojects are funded, and their size. Th is paper based on 71 Indi an capital-goods firms· ofTers insights on the sources, characterist ics, and fin ancing of academic research underlying innovations. The finding should be of interest to policy makers concerned with the directions of technical change and attempting to increase the economic value of academi c research.

The Indian Innovation System

Abstract: The evolution of the Indian Innovation System is best understood in two phases – the first from Indian independence in 1947 till about 1990 (the “self-reliance” phase); and the second from 1991 to the present (the deregulation phase). Keywords: the self-reliance phase; the deregulation phase; output trends; commercialization of technology; national innovation policy; strengths in technology and innovation; challenges faced by the innovation system and future directions; challenges; future directions

Barriers to Innovation & the Creation of a Knowledge Society in India

Abstract: In this paper, we identify the principal societal, systemic, organizational and governmental barriers to innovation and the creation of a knowledge society in India. Societal barriers include an ambivalent attitude towards knowledge, a 'knowing-doing gap', hesitation to specialize, a static view of technology, intolerance of failure, and a declining respect for diversity and dissent. A lack of design and experimentation in engineering curricula, lack of cooperation between firms, lack of depth in different industries, absence of a culture of debate, and barriers to the founding and growth of high technology firms are systemic barriers.Organizational barriers to innovation start from a lack of ambition and vision at the top, and include the perception of loss of control by owner managers in issues related to technology development, inadequate investment in plant and machinery, the lack of the right people. and skills, and hierarchical structures.The government does not give enough flexibility to organizations under its control and emphasizes procedures over results. Long decision cycles, inappropriate choice of priority areas, and biases against start~ups in governmental support programmes for research and development are othergovernmental barriers to innovation.

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields (Chinese Translation)

Abstract: What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration

Abstract: Although the literature on university–industry links has begun to uncover the reasons for, and types of, collaboration between universities and businesses, it offers relatively little explanation of ways to reduce the barriers in these collaborations. This paper seeks to unpack the nature of the obstacles to collaborations between universities and industry, exploring influence of different mechanisms in lowering barriers related to the orientation of universities and to the transactions involved in working with university partners. Drawing on a large-scale survey and public records, this paper explores the effects of collaboration experience, breadth of interaction, and inter-organizational trust on lowering different types of barriers. The analysis shows that prior experience of collaborative research lowers orientation-related barriers and that greater levels of trust reduce both types of barriers studied. It also indicates that breadth of interaction diminishes the orientation-related, but increases transaction-related barriers. The paper explores the implications of these findings for policies aimed at facilitating university–industry collaboration.

Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning

Abstract: Much of the prior research on interorganizational learning has focused on the role of absorptive capacity, a firm's ability to value, assimilate, and utilize new external knowledge. However, this definition of the construct suggests that a firm has an equal capacity to learn from all other organizations. We reconceptualize the firm-level construct absorptive capacity as a learning dyad-level construct, relative absorptive capacity. One firm's ability to learn from another firm is argued to depend on the similarity of both firms' (1) knowledge bases, (2) organizational structures and compensation policies, and (3) dominant logics. We then test the model using a sample of pharmaceutical–biotechnology R&D alliances. As predicted, the similarity of the partners' basic knowledge, lower management formalization, research centralization, compensation practices, and research communities were positively related to interorganizational learning. The relative absorptive capacity measures are also shown to have greater explanatory power than the established measure of absorptive capacity, R&D spending. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Schumpeterian Analysis of Economic Catch-up: Knowledge, Path-Creation, and the Middle-Income Trap

Abstract: One of the puzzles about why some countries have stronger economic growth than others revolves around the so-called 'middle-income trap', the situation in which a country that has grown strongly gets stuck at a certain level. In this book, Keun Lee explores the reasons why examples of successful catching-up are limited and in particular, why the Asian economies, including China, have managed to move, or are moving, beyond middle-income status but economic growth has stalled in some Latin American countries. This is one of the first studies to demonstrate using patent analysis that the secret lies in innovative systems at the firm, sector and country levels which promote investment in what the author calls 'short-cycle' technologies and thereby create a new path different from that of forerunning countries. With its comprehensive policy framework for development as well as useful quantitative methods, this is essential reading for academic researchers and practitioners.