ArticlePDF Available

Exploring ‘Global Innovation Networks’ In Bio clusters: A Case of Genome Valley in Hyderabad, INDIA

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The Indian Biopharmaceutical landscape interests scholars from innovation studies, economic geography and policy learning to understand various regional dimensions that fuel knowledge production in relation to emerging technologies. Globalization has a strong influence on such high technology clusters, wherein ‘local’ play a significant role. With this prelude, the study attempts to understand the nature and typology of Global Innovation Networks (GINs), by assessing the degree of globalness, innovativeness and networkedness of firms, located in India’s first organized Biosciences R&D cluster, Genome Valley, Hyderabad (India). On reflecting over the typologies of GINs and their degrees of globalness, innovativeness and networked ness in Biopharmaceutical firms, the paper contends that firms have an export-oriented objective and are competing with their global competitors; innovation seems to be mostly incremental in nature; the sector is battling due to absence of linkages with funding agencies and basic research institutions. However, the entire cluster with pre-existing capabilities, vantage points and resources, coupled with GINs, is evolving as a potent site for innovation. Also, this paper opens up the scope for future research, by aligning socio-economic aspects of networks and linkages, in terms of the health outcomes or social relevance derived out of the networks and linkages across the globe.
Content may be subject to copyright.
J Scientometric Res. | Jan-Apr 2017 | Vol 6 | Issue 1 23
RESEARCH ARTICLEJSCIRES
Exploring ‘Global Innovation Networks’ in Bio clusters:
A Case of Genome Valley in Hyderabad, INDIA
Nimita Pandey1, Pranav N Desai2
1Phd Scholar, Centre for Studies in Science Policy, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, INDIA.
2Professor, Centre for studies in Science Policy, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, INDIA
*Address for correspondence:
Nimita Pandey, Phd Scholar, Centre for Studies in Science Policy, Jawaharlal
Nehru University, New Delhi, INDIA.
Email: nimitapandey@gmail.Com
Access this article online
Ofcial Publication of
Website:
www.jscires.org
DOI:
10.5530/jscires.6.1.4
ABSTRACT
The Indian Biopharmaceutical landscape interests scholars from innovation studies, economic geography and policy
learning to understand various regional dimensions that fuel knowledge production in relation to emerging technologies.
Globalization has a strong inuence on such high technology clusters, wherein ‘local’ play a signicant role. With this
prelude, the study attempts to understand the nature and typology of Global Innovation Networks (GINs), by assessing
the degree of globalness, innovativeness and networkedness of rms, located in India’s rst organized Biosciences
R&D cluster, Genome Valley, Hyderabad (India). On reecting over the typologies of GINs and their degrees of
globalness, innovativeness and networked ness in Biopharmaceutical rms, the paper contends that rms have an
export-oriented objective and are competing with their global competitors; innovation seems to be mostly incremental
in nature; the sector is battling due to absence of linkages with funding agencies and basic research institutions.
However, the entire cluster with pre-existing capabilities, vantage points and resources, coupled with GINs, is evolving
as a potent site for innovation. Also, this paper opens up the scope for future research, by aligning socio-economic
aspects of networks and linkages, in terms of the health outcomes or social relevance derived out of the networks
and linkages across the globe.
Keywords: Global Innovation Networks, Clusters, India, Biopharmaceutical, R&D, Regional Development
INTRODUCTION
The biopharmaceutical sector in India has undergone
different phases since 1980s, with the amalgamation of
biotechnology and pharmaceutics research. The indus-
try is the front-runner amongst other biotechnological
elds, currently growing at a CAGR of 13.61% and is
valued at INR 149.23 billion for the year 2012-13.[1] This
unprecedented growth is an outcome of many factors,
which have made biopharmaceutical sector a boon for
Indian economy.[2] As per the database of Biotechnology
Industry Research Assistance Council (BIRAC) Nearly
760 units are operating in the arena of biotechnology, of
which 63% units are engaged in healthcare biotechnology.
It has been observed that Indian rms have aggressively
increase in the number of linkages, formal or informal,
with pharmaceutical MNCs to capitalize on their manu-
facturing competencies and exploit marketing resources
of MNCs for diving in the global economic activities[3]
However, the determinants of ‘attractiveness’[1] is not
uniform across the country; certain ‘knowledge hubs’ or
clusters have emerged due to the institutional arrange-
ments, which may aid to innovation in biopharmaceuti-
cals. State and Central Governments, through policies,
have stressed on the importance of clusters (e.g. Biotech-
nology Policy, 2001; Biotechnology policy 2013),[2] lead-
ing to the construction of many state-initiated clusters,
in order to erect a robust regional system of innovation
for bio pharmaceutics.[4] Notably, there has been a sig-
nicant increase in the number of bio clusters in differ-
ent regions. Some of the emerging as well as established
biotech clusters are located in the Western (Maharash-
tra, Gujarat and Goa), Northern (Delhi, Haryana, Uttar
Pradesh) and Southern (Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and
Tamil Nadu) regions of India.[5] These clusters are seen
Pandey and Desai: Global Innovation Networks in Indian Biocluster
24 J Scientometric Res. | Jan-Apr 2017 | Vol 6 | Issue 1
as lucrative sites for business operations and collabora-
tions with entities like companies, universities and R&D
institutes, located at one geographic location. Also, the
state governments are supporting the industry players for
setting up their units at the parks by offering incubation
facilities, tax holidays and incentive package; venture fund-
ing initiatives etc. Moreover, the ‘global’ alliances, linkages
and networks also direct the growth and sustainability of
these clusters. It can be observed that the biosciences clus-
ters have become the most appropriate site of global-local
interactions in terms of the proximities amongst sources
of knowledge (like academic institutions, research orga-
nizations, R&D units), as well as due to the advent of
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and
virtual communication platforms.
With an overview of the biopharmaceutical landscape and
its regional character, the study attempts to analyze the
extent of global-local exchange of knowledge, experienced
by India’s rst organized Biosciences cluster, Genome Val-
ley, situated in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. In addition,
the objective is to understand the nature and typology
of Global Innovation Networks that is/are exhibited by
rms present in the Genome Valley cluster, which can be
further simplied under the following research questions:
Why global innovation networks exist in Genome Val-
ley?
What are the types of Global innovation Networks
existing within the cluster?
How are these networks relevant for the cluster?
How is the cluster orienting/reorienting itself to be a
part of the global innovation networks?
The taxonomy of GIN[6,7] is in terms of Globalness, Inno-
vativeness and Networkedness; the intensity and direction
of these concepts are determined by the internal (viz. orga-
nizational structure, type of operations, human resource,
etc.) as well as external (such as geographical settings,
infrastructure, collaborations and alliances) characteristics
of rms. This paper concludes that these indicators need
to be reected in context to the geography under study, as
Indian biopharmaceuticals have a very unique character.
Changing geography of innovation
Geography of innovation as a concept has been widely
discussed and debated by various scholars from economic
geography, international business and innovation studies.
On one hand regions, agglomerations, clusters have been
carefully examined by scholars such as[8] Marshall; Weber
and[9] Friedrich[10] Porter and others have used concepts
like clusters and industrial districts to analyze examined
local level innovation. Many scholars have advocated that
clusters provide respectable environment for nurturing
and sustaining competition and technological advance-
ment.[8] Marshall opined that the agglomeration of rms
lowered costs for clustered producers. In another words, a
cluster has been dened as a group of co-related rms or
enterprises involved in a similar business endeavor, mainly
driven by innovation, the catalyst for competitiveness and
economic growth[10,11,12] Further, concept of Regional
Innovation System (RIS) came into existence, visualizing
innovation as an outcome of interactive processes, leading
to adoption of ‘systemic’ approach to innovation policies
and strategies.[13]
Whereas, the proponents of globalization of innova-
tion[14-18] state that clusters or regions are not far away
from this global wave and have been experiencing a sense
of ‘liquidity’[19] Firms need to cross borders for accessing
knowledge competencies and sources, which is not pres-
ent in their proximities.[20-25] More importance is given to
external linkages with agencies (rm and/or non-rm),
for rapid technological advancements[26,27] concluding that
innovation can be generated by a combination of close
and distant interactions.[28,29] tacit knowledge remains local
in a cluster or region (local buzz), while codied knowl-
edge can be transferred through long and distant interac-
tions, i.e. global pipelines[30]
However, geography of innovation literature has neglected
developing countries, considerably. Firms of developing
countries are coming up not merely as outsourcing cen-
ters but are also engaged in off-shoring their innovation
activities[31] It has been observed that since the mid-1980s,
strategic initiatives were undertaken by MNCs to locate
R & D in some developing countries. The vast pool of
resources, cheap and technically efcient labour as well as
other factors of production present in developing coun-
tries, compared to the industrialized developed countries,
drove these initiatives[32] Considering all the prospects of
globally oriented innovation processes, it is signicant to
undertake a study for validating certain nations of innova-
tion capabilities and orientations for an emerging technol-
ogy like biopharmaceutical, in the Indian context. Hence,
the concept of Global Innovation Networks can be seen
as an apt framework for the given research.
Pandey and Desai: Global Innovation Networks in Indian Biocluster
J Scientometric Res. | Jan-Apr 2017 | Vol 6 | Issue 1 25
Global Innovation Networks
The widely discussed literature on innovation systems
contended that innovation is becoming a more global-
ized[33] and networked concept[34] and hence rms are
‘reorganizing’ innovation, ranging from R&D to market-
ing their products; under the realm of GINs.[35]
[36]Denes GIN as “A globally organized web of complex
interactions between rms and non-rm organizations
engaged in knowledge production related to and result-
ing in innovation”. This denition highlights the main
characteristics of a GIN: its global dispersion, its focus
on innovation (and not production) and the combination
of both internal and external networks. The actors found
in the GINs challenge existing theoretical frameworks
addressing the internal and external organization of inno-
vation.[37,38] These networks span across continents and
consist of a wider range of actors including headquar-
ters, afliates, suppliers, customers, competitors, research
institutions, universities and others.[16] Various scholars
have reected on GINs as a policy tool advocating inter-
national collaborations and knowledge bases[39] and also
strengthening domestic development, through accumu-
lation of specialized knowledge, by and within various
MNCs within a geographic location.[40] Interestingly, the
regions, or say, clusters are becoming nodes of knowledge
in GINs[41] resulting in expansion of clusters and industrial
districts within specic industries over several countries,
as rms are in search for new knowledge. These rms are
targeting locations with expected spillovers, arising due
to geographical proximity of institutions and actors.[42]
One may look at the variations in global innovation net-
works, specically in terms of the typology of networks
and the associated strategies[43] intra rm characteristics
(size, products, innovation)[44,38] characteristics of the host
economy (the attractiveness of the location).[45] and the
home country of MNC.[46]
On reecting over the literature of GIN, different param-
eters can be operationalized. Freeman (1995) documents
the rapid rise of innovation networks through the 1980s
and concludes that they tend to be localized. Over the past
decade, however, these networks have become increas-
ingly globalized, extending beyond the developed market
economies to the emerging market economies. Several
studies have discussed about informal non-contractual
innovation cooperation[47] weak and strong ties[48] strate-
gic alliances[49] and others. Clusters remain important with
globalizing market relationships. The ability to upgrade
regional assets using global networks requires the pres-
ence of local institutions able to sustain not only innova-
tion but to stimulate the local-global relationship.[30,16] On
the other hand, the Global Innovation Networks inu-
ence the innovation activities differently across countries,
regions and clusters. In some cases, MNCs act as interface
between local and global systems of innovation, subse-
quently, linking actors and institutions across borders.[50]
Methodologically, it is substantive to employ the typology
of Global Innovation Networks as discussed by[6,7] in this
work; through varying degrees of Globalness, Innovative-
ness and Networkedness of the rms, one can analyze
their respective typology(s) of GIN. For the given study,
Globalness implies extensive geographical spread and also
a high degree of functional integration[1] Innovativeness
refers to the proportion of rms introducing innovations
that are ‘new to the rm’ versus ‘new to the world’[36] and
Networkedness involves internalized networks of sub-
sidiaries of the same rm, located in different countries
and that are performing different functions[51] and also the
externalized networks, i.e., interactions between rms and
other organizations.[52,53]
Genome Valley: The Case Study
With the inception of the biotechnology policy in 2001,
that drew inspiration from the National Biotechnology
policy, the government of AP declared an area of 1283.06
acres in Ranga Reddy (RR) and Medak districts as Genome
Valley to host the biotech sector area mainly in Shamirpet
Mandal (RR district) and Mulugu Mandal (Medak district).
The conceptualization of Genome Valley took place in
1999, to attract R & D companies and boost the existing
life sciences companies. It came as a surprise for many as
there was handful of companies like Shantha Biotech and
Bharat Biotech which one could recall.[2] The inception of
Genome Valley is credited to KoduruIshwari Varaprasad
Reddy, the man behind Shantha Biotechnics, which came
into existence in 1993 from a small laboratory in Osmania
University’s Department of Biotechnology. He and other
entrepreneurs persuaded the government that the way to
strengthen the local biotechnology business is to attract
foreign funds, for promoting innovation and global com-
petitiveness. Consequently, with the proactive state poli-
cies to develop India’s rst recognised biotech cluster, the
Genome Valley came into existence.[5]
In the Industrial investment promotion policy (2005-2010)
of Andhra Pradesh, impetus has been given to aggressive
R&D activities, industry-academia linkages, export pro-
motion, incentives for FDI investments, etc. There is also
a mention of cluster development as a strategy for indus-
trial growth, under the “Industrial Infrastructure Up-gra-
Pandey and Desai: Global Innovation Networks in Indian Biocluster
26 J Scientometric Res. | Jan-Apr 2017 | Vol 6 | Issue 1
dation Scheme” of Government of Andhra Pradesh, 6
clusters have been identied.[6] Hyderabad houses some
of the major public research and development centres,
enlisted in the Table 2.1.
With a concentration of various pharmaceutical as well
biotech rms, it has evolved as the second largest recom-
binant DNA therapeutic production facility in the world.
It is called “Bulk drug Capital of India”, and is accounted
for nearly one third of India’s total bulk drug produc-
tion. It’s the one of the largest urban agglomerations, well
connected through rail, road and air. Hyderabad ranked
3rd amongst top 20 cities in the world to become ‘Global
Mega Hub’ by 2020. The added advantage is driven by
government policies, which encourage foreign as well as
domestic rms to station in these geographies.
In general, the broader picture of Genome Valley encom-
passes the entire Hyderabad. It is divided into four zones,3
namely:
The Life Science Zone
It comprises of regions like Shamirpet, Jawahar Nagar
and Kompally. Some of the enterprises located in these
Figure 2.1: Zone-wise classication of Genome Valley.
Table 2.1: Major Public R&D centres in Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh.
Life Sciences Research Centres
1)Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB)
2)Centre of DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD)
3)National Institute of Nutrition (NIN)
4)Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (IICT)
5)International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
(ICRISAT)
6)National Academy of Agricultural Research Management
(NAARM)
7)Institute of Life Sciences (ILS)
8)Center for Stem Cell Sciences (CSCS)
9)Directorate of Oilseed Research (DOR)
10)Directorate of Rice Research (DRR)
11)Laboratory for the Conservation of Endangered Species
(LaCONES)
Other Research Institutes
1)National Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI)
2)Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO)
3)Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratories (DMRL)
4)Electronic Corporation of India Limited (ECIL)
5)Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL)
6)Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL)
7)Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL)
8)Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL)
regions are GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Reddy
Labs and others.
Traditional Pharma Zone
It includes areas of Pashamylaram, Patancheru, Bollaram,
Jeedimetla, Kazipally, Bonthapally, Miyapur and Bala-
nagar clusters. There are predominantly pharma based
companies like Aurbindo Pharma, Lee Pharma, Vindhya
Pharma, etc.
Knowledge Zone
The Uppal region is covered under this zone, including
centres of excellence like CCMB, IICT, NIN etc and
Nacharam industrial area, including some prominent
pharma companies like Avra Labs, GVK biosciences and
Pathnstu Technologies, etc.
Technology Zone
It comprises of Hitec City, Gachibowli, Jubilee Hills,
Banjara Hills and Ameerpet. It houses technology based
companies like Novartis, Samaya Biotech and some major
educational hubs like Central University and IIIT, Hyder-
abad. The topographical illustration of these zones is
given in Figure 2.1.
After observing these gures, it can be said that the one
of the objectives of cluster, to position local rms, start-
ups and SMEs, in the given region, have been well incor-
porated. The on-going infrastructure development in this
clusters, including development of wet labs, constitution
of BRIC (BIRAC Regional Innovation Council); forma-
tion of SEZs are with due consideration to support the
local entities. As per the APIIC estimates, in total, the
direct employment generated is 4300 scientists and 1900
technicians and 700 individuals working on varied areas
of the cluster.
Pandey and Desai: Global Innovation Networks in Indian Biocluster
J Scientometric Res. | Jan-Apr 2017 | Vol 6 | Issue 1 27
statements from CMIE database and policy documents
from different government agencies were some of the
sources for secondary data.The study is predominantly
dependent on primary data, collected in the course of in-
depth personal interviews of the respondents, who were
employees of concerned rms, working at the strategic
level; scientists and academicians of respective research
organizations and academic institutions as well as ofcials
of government departments; the interviews were based
on a semi-structured questionnaire.
Measure of Global Innovation Networks: Globalness,
Innovativeness and Networkedness
The concept of Globalness, Innovativeness and Net-
workedness 6,7(Chaminade and Barnard 2012) has been
incorporated in the study, to understand the forms of
GINs prevailing in Genome Valley. A list of indicators
has been considered to measure the extent of Globalness;
Innovativeness and Networkedness is exhibited by the
rms present in Genome Valley. They have been exam-
ined as per the objective(s) of the study in the subsequent
sections.
Globalness
Several indicators have been used to measure Globalness,
include the geographical location of rms’ largest mar-
kets, location of partners with whom rms collaborate
for innovation, location of different functions of the
rm (by the unit in a location, by dispersed subsidiaries
or outsourced), and the percentage of total sales derived
from exports. Reecting on these indicators to measure
the globalness of the ten rms that were interviewed,
one may attempt to understand the nature of globalness
in Genome Valley. For the ten rms that were studied,
each indicator unveiled a new dimension to the globalized
character.
A) Geographical Location of Firms’ Largest Markets
As per the data obtained from the interviews, most of the
respondents preferred India as the largest market. Major-
ity of the respondents represented foreign and Indian
MNCs. It signies the ‘stickiness’ [8] of rms in selecting
their clientele in the home country. As stated by the Asso-
ciate Director, Business analytics division of a Foreign
MNC subsidiary in India:
Strengthening the local clientele is crucial not only to establish a
market for our goods, but also to build trust and brand image in one
location, in order to push operations at other places.’
Figure 2.2: Percentage of rms by the country of their ori-
gin.
Figure 2.3: Size-wise percentage of rms in Genome Val-
ley.
Data Collection and Analysis
A single case study approach (Yin 1994), has been con-
sidered, with multiple embedded units of analysis: rstly,
it is the rm(s) participating in the cluster; secondly, the
non-rm entities within the cluster and thirdly, the clus-
ter, itself. The data collection has been carried out with
the help of an array of tools like in-depth interviews,
semi-structured discussions, reports and policy docu-
ments, followed by the analysis. Due to lack of access to
rms, ten out of 54 rms were analyzed through in-depth
interviews. The eldwork was conducted in the month
of February-March 2013 and the analysis is based on the
collected data. The prole of the rms is described in
Appendix-1.
In this research, both primary and secondary data have
their signicance. The primary data is the information
collected with the help of an array of tools, namely, struc-
tured questionnaires, online survey, formal meetings and
discussions. Whereas, rms’ annual reports and nancial
Pandey and Desai: Global Innovation Networks in Indian Biocluster
28 J Scientometric Res. | Jan-Apr 2017 | Vol 6 | Issue 1
The respondents also informed that rms are developing
interest in Brazil, Venezuela, Japan, Australia, China and
some other South-Asian countries, while expanding their
markets. These countries have shown high potentialities
in terms of the consistent demand for biopharmaceutical
goods, steady manufacturing set-ups, corporate friendly
policies and trade relations. Under this indicator, the
typology of rms plays a crucial role in determining the
extent of globalness. It has been observed in the sample
that MNCs have a greater global market, and domestic
rms are also showing ‘outward’ ow of products and
services, in order to cater to markets beyond regional
boundaries. As per the primary data and an assessment
of investor reports, domestic rms are indulged in vari-
ous off-shoring activities as well as have built markets in
foreign location.
B) Location of partners with whom rms collaborate
for innovation
The focus of this indicator is to highlight the stretch of
collaborations of the rms for innovation. For each rm
under this study, its relation with different rms as well
as non-rm entities have been considered. During the
formal discussions with representatives of various rms,
it was evident that rms are collaborating with the cli-
ents, suppliers, competitors, consultancies, academic insti-
tutions, research labs, etc., in the home country, which
was further validated by the information in their annual
reports. For seven out of the ten rms, the home country
is India, whereas there are three foreign multi-nationals
companies (MNCs) belonging to United States (North
America) and Switzerland (Europe). It is interesting to
note that majority of the rms collaborate with entities in
the home country, whether it is informal or formal link-
ages. However, there is an emergence of collaboration
with entities beyond proximate locations, especially when
collaborating with clients, suppliers, and consultancies.
Moreover, one of the unique features of this emerging
trend is that rms are collaborating with universities and
research labs, in distant geographies, for R&D and basic
research.
C) Location of different functions of the rm (by
the unit in location, by dispersed subsidiaries or
outsourced)
The following indicator reects on centralized or decen-
tralized nature of different operations, undertaken by
rms. Figure 3.1 re-emphasizes on the ‘localness’ of vari-
ous functions, undertaken by the units present in genome
valley. It is to be noted that out of the ten rms studied
for the research, four are subsidiaries of MNCs (foreign
as well as domestic). And these subsidiaries, themselves,
can be connoted ‘global’. Some of the core activities like
strategic management; corporate governance; decisions
regarding marketing, sales and account management;
procurement, logistics, and distribution; human resource
management, are undertaken by the units present within
the cluster.
Whereas the activities pertaining to product development;
procurement, logistics and distribution; technology and
process development, have been assigned to the subsid-
iaries at developing and developed locations. The role of
subsidiaries is considered important, in the division of
responsibilities between the holding rm and its subsid-
iaries. The idea of outsourcing is evident, to vocalise that
a single entity incapable of performing tasks of high risks
and complexities.
D) Percentage of average sales derived from exports
(year-wise)
In gure 3.2, though the data conveys the fact that, for
the last ve years, the sampled rms show a similar trend
of exports, they do not similar kind of export patterns.
The MNCs were experiencing a rise in the percentage of
sales from exports, ranging from 30% in 2007-08 to 58%
in 2011-12. In the case of domestic rms, the export may
not be higher, but lies between the range of 18% (2007-
08) to 28% (2011-12). Some of Clinical Research Orga-
nizations (CROs) focus more on the clientele in foreign
countries and have recorded export revenues as high as
53% for 2011-12.
Innovativeness
Questions were asked to the respondents pertaining to
activities in the ve different categories. These catego-
Figure 3.1: Location-wise distribution of functions of
rms.
Pandey and Desai: Global Innovation Networks in Indian Biocluster
J Scientometric Res. | Jan-Apr 2017 | Vol 6 | Issue 1 29
Networkedness
The concept of networkedness is driven by two mea-
sures, span and depth. The degree of ‘span of network’
is considered to at the highest level, if the rm has con-
nections or relationships with many other people, enter-
prises or institutions 6,7 (Chaminade and Barnard, 2012).
The ‘depth of the network’ is measured in terms of the
informal or formal nature of linkages. Interestingly, areas
pertaining to research and development, which was earlier
restricted to the rm, is now forming the basis of various
linkages of rms with non-rms entities and thus create
external networks.
In one of the interviews conducted, the Chief Operating
Ofcer of a clinical research organization, stated of a
clinical research organisation, stated, Networks are the
ultimate unication of two or more entities, which is built
once the collaborate entities develop a sense of comfort
and trust, beyond strategic mergers and commercial
agreements.’ In other words, it is considered that the
depth of networks has its roots in the socially embedded
Figure 3.2: Year-wise average sales derived from exports.
Figure 3.3: Innovativeness of the rms.
ries are measured on three different levels of innovation,
ranging from ‘new to the rm’, ‘new to the industry’ to
‘new to the world.4 In Figure 3.3, it has been observed
that the range of products offered by the sample of rms,
are predominantly new to the rm (50%), followed by
being new to the industry (40%) and new to the world
(10%). In the case of new services, innovative activities
restrict to being new to rm and new to industry. For
the other novel practices and processes, the rms have
acquired ‘best practices’ from the industry, which are new
to the rms.
The Senior Vice-president of an Indian MNC rightly
quoted, “Innovation is very crucial for rms in the bio-
pharmaceutical sector. Different measures of innovation,
patents as well as non-patents, are required to create cut-
ting-edge technologies for development of novel drugs,
vaccines and other biopharmaceutical products. In doing
so, the quest for capabilities, nancial resources and mar-
kets in different geographies are inevi Table.
Figure 3.4: Formal and informal linkages of rms.
Pandey and Desai: Global Innovation Networks in Indian Biocluster
30 J Scientometric Res. | Jan-Apr 2017 | Vol 6 | Issue 1
Table 4.1: Typology of GINs of sample rms
Forms of GINs
Types of GIN Description Firms
Balanced GINs (GIN) All elements are in alignment A, E, G
Global asset exploiters Global reach is greater than the extent of innovation or networkedness D
Innovators Firms are relatively more innovative than their global reach I
Global asset exploiters + Innovators Firms are more global as well as innovative, but extent of network is less or
negligible.
B, F, H
Innovators + Networkers Firms are more innovative and extent of networks is large; innovation is low. J
Global networkers Innovation is not as high as both the globalness and the networkedness. This is the
only common combination of two stronger dimensions.
C
Source: Typology of GINs (Barnard and Chaminade, 2012); Firm classication based on eldwork
character of individuals, working in rms and non-rms
entities. This characteristic is coupled with mutual risk-
taking aptitude and sharing of resources and capabilities.
Academic institutions at local level qualify for having for-
mal, as well as informal linkages. Some of the institutions
like Hyderabad Central University (HCU), Jawaharlal
Nehru Technical University (JNTU), Andhra University
and Osmania University are hubs for basic research in
biomedicine, therapeutics and life sciences. Such collab-
oration aim for basic research expertise and in turn the
rms invite scholars, students for internships and spon-
sored research programs. Though from conversations
with scientists of CCMB and Dr. Reddy’s Institute of Life
Sciences (DRILS, previously institute of Life Sciences),
it was observed that these interfaces are occasional, and
efforts should be made to create proximity between
academia and industry. On the other hand, some rms are
‘skeptical’ to deepen relationships with academic institu-
tions, due to lack of condence in their capabilities. They
also believe that students are not trained to possess the
risk-taking aptitude and deal with pressure of the corpo-
rate world. Hence, minimal linkages are formed.
As far as foreign institutions are concerned, some promi-
nent collaborating institutions include the University of
Pittsburgh, Oxford University, University of Cambridge,
New York Academy of Sciences, University of Penn-
sylvania, University of Cape Town, Infectious Disease
Research Institute (IDRI), the City College of New York
(CCNY), University of Dundee, National Institute of
Health (NIH), etc.
Typology of Global Innovation Networks in
Genome Valley
In the Table 4.1, the typologies of GINs showcased by
those rms are enumerated. It is observed that apart from
the classical typology of GINs, there are two emerging
categories of GINs, exhibited by the rms in Genome
valley. Globalness has several interpretations ranging to
have technology oriented market expansion, to engage
with like rms across the globe and to make one’s pres-
ence in different geographies. Wherein, the connotation
of Innovativeness connes to novelty of products and
services as per the demand and requirements of the cli-
ents. The interpretation of Networkedness, is close to the
theoretical denitions, i.e. formal and informal linkages
with rms and non-rms entities.
The Innovators category, standalone rms with the abil-
ity to churn the efciently from local or regional institu-
tional setup, in terms of producing goods and services
with high novelty belong to this group. These rms are
very important for India’s economy, but due to lack of
support from the state, these rms fail to self-sustain and
are taken over or merged with big rms or MNCs. Never-
theless, these rms show a lower degree of exports and a
lower presence in the international markets. Fascinatingly,
some rms fall in particular overlaps of these typologies
of GINs. This ascertains the evolving nature of GINs,
and also of the rms’ capacity to globalize, innovate and
form networks.
In relation to Genome valley, the development of the
cluster is a collaborative effort of rms and non-rm
entities, which generate revenue for the region as well as
provide adequate employment to the people within the
region. There are underlying motivations for rms to be
a part of the cluster like, skilled human resources, acces-
sibility, and familiarity with the region and corporate-
friendly government policies. But, local level dynamics
may not be sufcient for the growth and sustainability of
the cluster. Hence, Global Innovation Networks (GINs)
is equally signicant as it results into enhancement of
capabilities of entities associated with it, foster academia-
government-industry linkages, and accelerate the process
of innovation, at local, regional and global levels
Pandey and Desai: Global Innovation Networks in Indian Biocluster
J Scientometric Res. | Jan-Apr 2017 | Vol 6 | Issue 1 31
(c) Catalysing capacity building and boost
employment
Many rms like GVK Biosciences, Novartis India, Firms,
of foreign and Indian origin, have bio-campuses to train,
educate and facilitate knowledge sharing among techni-
cal qualied individuals. Exchange Programmers are
organised by rms, for employees to explore avenues
of research in foreign universities. These individuals, in
turn, become assets for rms to accelerate their innova-
tive capacities. To some extent, GIN facilitates capability
enhancement and caters to the issue of unemployment of
competent technical human resource.
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION
On comparing the status of the biopharmaceutical sec-
tor in Andhra Pradesh before and after the inception
of Genome Valley, the cluster possessed pre-existing
resources of knowledge creation (universities, public
research organisations, government agencies), produc-
tion (producers, suppliers) and dissemination (clients and
consumers). But gradually, through policy interventions
and infrastructural development, attempts are being made
to elevate the essentials for a successful cluster, ranging
from adequate biotechnology education for better human
resource development to avenues for funding On the
hind side, these development and promotional activi-
ties haven’t really addressed the basic objective of these
clusters in providing facilities and incentives to domestic
rms, specically Small and Medium Scale Enterprises
(SMEs) and Start-Ups.
Much before the formation of Genome Valley, Hyder-
abad has been the hub for vaccine and bulk drugs, and
have some of the world- class research organisations;
domestic rms like Shantha Biotech and Bharat Biotech
have been leaders in therapeutics and vaccine manufac-
turing, since last few decades. Besides regulatory regimes,
infrastructural support and funding avenues, the success
of the cluster is highly dependent on the entrepreneurial
efforts, which are at the frontier to produce novel prod-
ucts and services, whilst linking with other knowledge
actors and institutions, for satisfying local and global
needs. The development of this cluster has emerged from
the socio-economic, political and historical transforma-
tions of the city and its peripheries.
On reecting over the typologies of GINs and their
degrees of globalness, innovativeness and networked-
ness, some implications can be concluded through the
Contribution of GIN in Genome Valley
Genome Valley’s attractiveness as a location for R&D and
innovation activity has grown manifolds due to the con-
ditions that affect the location of production as well as
costs (production, labour, tax) becomes critical. Global
Innovation Networks to some extent have contributed
in meeting socio-economic goals of Bio pharma sector,
in diversifying the typology of collaborations and in pro-
moting capacity building.
(a) Meeting socio-economic goals of Indian bio
pharma sector
It has been observed that rms characterized by Balanced
GINs, are playing a signicant role in meeting the socio-
economic objectives of Bio pharma. For instance, Bio-
con’s recent tie-up with Mylan, through the re-licensing
of three insulin bio similars analog products, is aiming to
reduce the cost of production, thereby lowering the price
of the drugs; also at regional level, Syngene, a subsidiary
of Biocon has collaborated with Abott, to develop afford-
able nutritive products, to ght against malnutrition and
other decient diseases. Another example is that of Bio-
logical E (BE), which has launched the rst indigenous
Vaccine, JEEV to prevent Japanese Encephalitis, through
a successful technological collaboration with Austrian
Vaccine rm, Intercell. Also, rms like Dr. Reddy’s Labo-
ratories and Bharat Biotech are catering to WHO, Gates
Foundation and UNICEF, to tackle issues of affordabil-
ity, access and to battle maladies of diseases in India.
(b) Diversifying the spread and typology of
collaborations:
Academic institutions, research labs, at global and local
level, are actively seen in the GIN of Genome Valley. Avra
Laboratories, a locally based CRO, stretches to harness
knowledge from foreign institutions, line Scripps Univer-
sity, the University of Cambridge; even a similar type of
organisation GVK biosciences has collaborations with
CCNY (US), NIH (US) and University of Dundee (UK)
for production of knowledge. Contrastingly, Foreign mul-
tinationals like Novartis, Mylan, have been collaborating
with regional and local institutions like Jawaharlal Nehru
technical University, Indian Institute of Sciences, Indian
Institute of Chemical Technology, Centre for Cellular and
Molecular Biology, Osmania University, the University of
Hyderabad (HCU), etc. For start-up rms, it is observed
that the government is one of the main actors for fund-
ing, building infrastructure, providing resources for pro-
duction, thereby facilitating innovative activities.
Pandey and Desai: Global Innovation Networks in Indian Biocluster
32 J Scientometric Res. | Jan-Apr 2017 | Vol 6 | Issue 1
rms’ characteristics. It can be drawn from the analysis
that, Biopharmaceutical rms in India, whether domestic
or multinational, have an export-oriented objective and
are competing with their global competitors. Certain large
Indian rms like Biocon, Dr. Reddys are making efforts
to achieve adequate health outcomes and aid in access to
medicines, for all. The global trajectories of these rms
are signicant, specically on their off-shoring activities.
Interestingly some SMEs, though not a part of the same,
are also attracting foreign rms, due to their service-ori-
ented characteristics.
The idea of innovativeness seems to be restricted to
incremental type of innovation, where Indian units are
producing drugs and vaccines, with minute modications.
These drugs are of higher market value, produced at low
labour cost and cater to a large number of global consum-
ers. Interestingly, India is known for its predominance in
biosimilars and generic drug supplies. However, rms are
also engaged in radical innovation, but their numbers are
considerably low. The bigger challenge lies in construct-
ing networks between entities to accomplish the health
needs of this country. Indian academic institutions and
research labs vis-à-vis the industry has their own conict
of interests as well as trust decit issues. Efforts are to
be made for mobilizing policy imperatives to create these
clusters as platforms for encouraging networks and alli-
ances. A greater and intensive institutional support will
strengthen the cluster building processes, synergise intra
and inter cluster networks and provide avenues and incen-
tives for safeguarding interests of local stakeholders of
knowledge creation & dissemination.
However, the variables measuring globalness, innovative-
ness and networkedness are not adequate to capture the
complexities of networks. In Indian context, there is a
need to reect on the type of drugs and vaccines pro-
duced by these rms, where debates around access and
availability of medicines have grown manifolds. An in-
depth reection is required to understand the techno-
logical competences of rms and the health outcomes,
derived out of these networks within the cluster, which
are shaping the global and regional landscape of innova-
tion.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge the Indian S&T
and Innovation Policy (ISTIP), a supra-institutional proj-
ect under CSIR-NISTADS for providing us the oppor-
tunity to present a earlier version of this research paper,
during the National Workshop on ‘Opportunities and
Challenges For Regional Innovation System (OCRIS)’,
held during October 06-07, 2016, New Delhi. The paper
was enriched by the valuable comments and suggestions
received during this workshop.
REFERENCES
1. Archibugi D, Michie J. “The Globalisation of Technology: A New
Taxonomy’. Cambridge Journal of Economics, no. 1995;121-40.
2. Asheim BT, Isaksen A. “Regional Innovation System: The
Integration of Local ‘Sticky’ and Global ‘Ubiquitous’ Knowledge”.
Journal of Technology Transfer, no. 2002;27(1):77-86. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1013100704794.
3. Asheim BT, Vang J. “Regional Innovation Systems in Asian
Countries: A New Way of Exploiting the Benets of Transnational
Corporations”. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice.
2006;8(1-2):27-44. https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.2006.8.1-2.27;
https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.2006.8.1.27.
4. Asheim BT, Gentler MS. “The Geography of Innovation: Regional
Innovation Systems”. In Fagerberg, Mowery JD and Nelson R
(eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, 291-317. Oxford
University Press: Oxford 2005. PMid:16286415.
5. Ebersberger B, Herstad SJ. MNCs between the Local and the
Global: Knowledge Bases, Proximity and Distributed Knowledge
Networks. Chapters. 2012.
6. Cantwell J, Barnard H. Do rms from emerging markets have to
invest abroad? Outward FDI and the competitiveness of rms.
The rise of transnational corporations from emerging markets:
threat or opportunity. 2008:55-85.
7. Bathelt H, Malmberg A, Maskell P” Clusters and Knowledge:
Local Buzz, Global Pipelines and the Process of Knowledge
Creation”. Progress in Human Geography. 2004;28:31-56. https://
doi.org/10.1191/0309132504ph469oa.
8. Berger M, Diez JR. Technological Capabilities and Innovation in
Southeast Asia Results from Innovation Surveys in Singapore,
Penang and Bangkok. Science technology & society.
2006;11(1):109-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/09717218050110010
5.
9. Beugelsdijk S. Strategic human resource practices and product
innovation. Organization Studies. 2008;29(6):821-47. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0170840608090530.
10. Biospectrum (2009), ‘Biotech Cluster in India’ [online web]
accessed on 12thJune, 2013, URL: http://www.biospectrumindia.
com/biospecindia/news/157110/biotech-clusters-india
11. Biospectrum (2013), ‘Industry Insights: Biopharma’, vol. 1 [online
web] accessed on 15th July, 2013, URL: http://www.ableindia.in/
pdf/BSI_June%202013_LowRes.pdf
12. Camagni, R. “Introduction: from the local ‘milieu’ to innovation
through cooperative networks”. In Camagni, R. (ed.).
Innovation Networks: Spatial Perspectives, London: Belhaven
Press.1991;1–12
13. Carmona-Lavado A, Cuevas-Rodríguez G, Cabello-Medina
C. Social and organizational capital: Building the context for
Pandey and Desai: Global Innovation Networks in Indian Biocluster
J Scientometric Res. | Jan-Apr 2017 | Vol 6 | Issue 1 33
innovation. Industrial Marketing Management. 2010;39(4):681-
90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2009.09.003.
14. Castellani D, Castellani D, Zanfei A. Multinational rms, innovation
and productivity. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2006. https://doi.
org/10.4337/9781847201591.
15. Chaminade, Vang .’Globalisation of Knowledge Production and
Regional Innovation Policy: Supporting Specialized Hubs in
Developing Countries’. Research Policy. 2008;37(10):1684-96
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.08.014.
16. Chaminade C, Barnard H. “Global Innovation Networks: Towards
a Taxonomy”, DRUID conference. Copenhagen, June 2012.
17. Chaminade C, Plechero M. “Do Regions Make A Difference?
Exploring The Role of Different Regional Innovation Systems
in Global Innovation Networks in The ICT Industry”. CIRCLE
Electronic Working Papers. Center for Innovation, Research
and Competences in The Learning Economy, Lund University:
Sweden 2012.
18. Chaminade C. “On the Concept of Global Innovation Networks”.
CIRCLE Electronic Working Paper Series, Lund University:
Sweden 2009;05.
19. Chaminade C. Are knowledge bases enough? A comparative
study of the geography of knowledge sources in China (Great
Beijing) and India (Pune). European Planning Studies.
2011;19(7):1357-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2011.573
171.
20. Chaturvedi S. Exploring interlink ages between national and
sectorial innovation systems for rapid technological catch-up:
case of Indian biopharmaceutical industry. Technology Analysis
& Strategic Management. 2007;19(5):643-57. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09537320701521408.
21. Coe NM, Dicken P, Hess M. Global production networks:
realizing the potential. Journal of economic geography. 2008
May 1;8(3):271-95. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbn006; https://doi.
org/10.1093/jeg/lbn002.
22. Department of Biotechnology, Government of India. 2012. “The
Annual report, 2011-12”. New Delhi, URL: http://dbtindia.nic.in/.
23. Department of Biotechnology, Government of India [online
web] accessed on 8th March, 2013, URL: http://dbtindia.nic.in/
uniquepage.asp?id_pk=4.
24. Department of Biotechnology, Government of India [online web]
accessed on July 3, 2013, URL: http://dbtindia.nic.in/uniquepage.
asp?id_pk=18on.
25. Desai PN. Globalization of innovations: changing nature of India’s
science and technology cooperation policy. Institutions and
Economies. 2009;1(1):53-78.
26. Desai PN. “Globalisation, Innovation and Social Capital: Changing
Nature of Indo-French S&T Cooperation”, CSSP Electronic
working Paper series, 2. New Delhi, India: CSSP, Jawaharlal
Nehru University 2010.
27. Dicken P. Geographers and ‘globalization’ (yet) another
missed boat?. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers. 2004;29(1):5-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0020-
2754.2004.00111.x.
28. Edquist C, Hommen L. “Small Country Innovation Systems:
Globalisation, Change and Policy in Asia and Europe”. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar 2008. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781847209993.
29. Economist Intelligence Unit. “Scattering the Seeds of Innovation:
the Globalization of Research and Development”. London: The
Economist Intelligence Unit 2004.
30. Ernst D, Kim L.”Global Production Networks, Knowledge
Diffusion, and Local capability Formation”. Research
Policy, 2002;31(8):1417-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-
7333(02)00072-0.
31. Ernst D. “Innovation Off-shoring: Asia’s Emerging Role in Global
Innovation Networks”. East-West Center Special Reports (10).
Hawai: U.S. -Asia pacic Council 2006.
32. European Commission DG XIII and XVI.”Methodology in Design,
Construction and Operation of Regional Technology Frameworks”.
Analysis of SME Needs. Brussels: Fraunhofer ISI, 1996;1(54).
33. Fifarek B, Veloso FM. “Off-shoring and the Geography of
Innovation”. Journal of Economic Geography, 2010;10(4):559-78.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbq013.
34. Garcia R, Calantone R. A critical look at technological innovation
typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review.
Journal of product innovation management. 2002;19(2):110-
32. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1920110; https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0737-6782(01)00132-1.
35. Genome Valley [online web] accessed on 23rdMay, 2013, URL:
http://www.genomevalley.co.in/gvevolution.htm
36. Gertler MS, Levitte YM. Local nodes in global networks: the
geography of knowledge ows in biotechnology innovation.
Industry and Innovation. 2005;12(4):487-507. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13662710500361981.
37. Haakonsson SJ. The globalization of innovation in the Danish
food industry: Exploitation and exploration of emerging markets.
Innovation and Development. 2012;2(2):230-47. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/2157930X.2012.722755.
38. Harvey D. “The condition of post-modernity”. Cambridge: Basil
Blackwell 1989.
39. Herstad SJ, Bloch C, Ebersberger B, Van De Velde E. National
innovation policy and global open innovation: exploring balances,
tradeoffs and complementarities. Science and Public Policy.
2010;37(2):113. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234210X489590.
40. Herstad SJ, Aslesen HW, Ebersberger B. On industrial knowledge
bases, commercial opportunities and global innovation network
linkages. Research Policy. 2014;43(3):495-504. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.08.003.
41. Hirshmann AO. “Essays in Trespassing: Economics to Politics
and Beyond”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1981.
42. Krugman P. Increasing returns and economic geography.
Journal of political economy. 1991;99(3):483-99. https://doi.
org/10.1086/261763.
43. Kuemmerle W. The drivers of foreign direct investment into
research and development: an empirical investigation. Journal of
international business studies. 1999:1-24. https://doi.org/10.1057/
palgrave.jibs.8490058.
44. Liu J, Chaminade C, Asheim B. “The Geography and Structure
of Global Innovation Networks: A Knowledge Base Perspective”.
Pandey and Desai: Global Innovation Networks in Indian Biocluster
34 J Scientometric Res. | Jan-Apr 2017 | Vol 6 | Issue 1
European Planning Studies, 2013;21(9):1456-73. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/09654313.2012.755842.
45. Lundvall B. National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of
Innovation and Interactive Learning. New York: Pinter 1992.
46. Marshall A. Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan 1920.
47. Meyer KE, Peng MW. Probing theoretically into Central and
Eastern Europe: Transactions, resources, and institutions. Journal
of international business studies. 2005;36(6):600-21. https://doi.
org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400167.
48. Moodysson J. Principles and practices of knowledge creation:
On the organization of “buzz” and “pipelines” in life science
communities. Economic Geography. 2008;84(4):449-69. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2008.00004.x.
49. Narula R. “Globalisation and Trends in International R&D
Alliances”, Research Memoranda. Maastricht: MERIT 2003.
PMCid:PMC1773889.
50. Nelson RR. National Innovation System: A Comparative Analysis.
New York: Oxford University Press 1993.
51. OECD, “Oslo Manual—Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting
Innovation Data”, 3rd edition. OECD Publishing 2005.
52. OECD. “Policy Brief: Open innovation in Global Networks”. [online
web] accessed on 19th February, 2013, 2008. URL: http://www.
oecd.org/sti/inno/41721342.pdf
53. Owen-Smith J, Powell WW. Knowledge networks as channels and
conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology
community. Organization science. 2004;15(1):5-21. https://doi.
org/10.1287/orsc.1030.0054.
54. Parashar M, Kumar S, S.”Innovation capability”. IIMB Management
Review 2005;17(4):115–s23.
55. Porter ME. On Competition. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press 1998.
56. Porter ME. Location, competition, and economic development:
Local clusters in a global economy. Economic development
quarterly. 2000;14(1):15-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242400
01400105.
57. Rosenfeld sa. Bringing business clusters into the mainstream of
economic development. European planning studies. 1997;5(1):3-
23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654319708720381.
58. UK Trade & Investment. 2012. “Sector Brieng: Biotechnology
and Pharmaceutical opportunities in India” [online web]
accessed on 17thMay, 2013, URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/
ProductionContentBucket/pdf/20101004080356.pdf
59. UNCTAD world Investment report, 2012 [online web] accessed
on 26thApril, 2013, URL: from http://www.unctad-docs.org/les/
UNCTAD-WIR2012-Overview-en.pdf
60. Vaidyanathan G. Technology parks in a developing country: the
case of India. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2008;33(3):285-
99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-007-9041-3.
61. Vang J, Chaminade C. Local innovation systems, upgrading
and innovation policy: lessons from the Bangalore cluster, India.
Business Networks in Clusters and Industrial Districts: The
Governance of the Global Value Chain. 2009:357-404.
62. Weber A, Friedrich CJ. Theory of The Location of Industries.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1929.
63. World Bank. 2011. “Doing Business 2011:Making a difference
for Entrepreneurs”. series 8. Washington D.C: World Bank
publication [online web] accessed on 17th June, 2013, URL: http://
www.doingbusiness.org/~/media/fpdkm/doing%20business/
documents/annual-reports/english/db11-fullreport.pdf
64. Yin RK. Case Study Research, Design and Methods. Newbury
Park: Sage Publication 1994.
Appendix 1
Prole of Sample Firms
Name
of
rm
Designation
of the
respondents
Year of
establi-
shment
Nature of the rm Size of the organization
| Valuation (1 Crore = 10
Millions)
Form of
organisation
Type of
organisation
Nature of
Business
(Areas of
operations/
com-
ponents of
manufacturing)
AScientic
Manager
1978 Indian
MNC
Public Large enterprise
(investment in plant and
machinery): More than
ten crore Rupees
Headquarter
of a MNC
Research and
Consultancy
Pharmaceut-
icals,
biomedicinal,
clinical research
B Senior Vice
President
Domestic Private Large enterprise
(investment in plant and
machinery): More than
ten crore Rupees
Headquarter Research and
Manufacturing
Pharma
outsourcing
C Chief
Operating
Ofcer
1996 Domestic Private Large enterprise
(investment in plant and
machinery): More than
ten crore Rupees
Headquarter Research and
Manufacturing
Pharma
outsourcing
D Operations
Manager
2008 MNC Public Large enterprise
(investment in plant and
machinery): More than
ten crore Rupees
Subsidiary of
a MNC
Research Biotechemical
research,
Agriculture
and Industrial
Biotechnology
Pandey and Desai: Global Innovation Networks in Indian Biocluster
J Scientometric Res. | Jan-Apr 2017 | Vol 6 | Issue 1 35
How to cite this article: Pandey N, Desai PN. Exploring ‘Global Innovation Networks’ In Bioclusters: A Case of Genome Valley in Hyderabad, INDIA. J
Scientometric Res. 2017;6(1):23-35.
E Senior
Director,
Clinical
Development
1993 Indian
MNC
Public Large enterprise
(investment in plant and
machinery): More than
ten crore Rupees
Headquarter Research,
Manufacturing
Pharma
services & API
F Associate
Vice
President
2007 MNC Public Large enterprise
(investment in plant and
machinery): More than
ten crore Rupees
Manufacturing Pharmaceutical,
API and clinical
research
G Associate
Director,
Business
Analytics
1996 MNC Public Large enterprise
(investment in plant and
machinery): More than
ten crore Rupees
Subsidiary
(formed by
the merger of
Ciba-Geigy
and Sandoz)
Research and
Manufacturing
Drug delivery,
clinical,
Biomedicin-al,
genetics
H Vice
President,
(R&D)
1989 Domestic Public Large enterprise
(investment in plant and
machinery): More than
ten crores.
Headquarter Manufacturing Biopharma-
ceuticals
I Head, Global
Business
Development
2000 Domestic Private Large enterprise
(investment in plant and
machinery): More than
ten crore Rupees
Headquarter Manufacturing Biopharma-
ceuticals
J Director,
Business
Development
2001 Domestic Public Large enterprise
(investment in plant and
machinery): More than
ten crore Rupees
Headquarter Manufacturing Biopharma-
ceuticals
... This vaccine has developed by the collaboration of NIV with Bharat Biotech in September 2013 ( Fig. 4; Tables 2 and 3) [44]. Biological E Ltd, a pharmaceutical company based in Hyderabad, has trademarked their first locally developed inactivated vaccine, JEEV (Tables 2 and 3) [45]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Emerging diseases are infectious diseases that pose significant threat to human health, causing millions of deaths and disabilities in the upcoming days. Periodic epidemics of new infections and old reinfections increase the global burden of disease prevalence. They can be caused by new pathogens or evolving ones, which change human behavior and environmental factors. Researchers have studied the dynamic connections between microbes, hosts, and the environment, but new infectious diseases like coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), re-emerging diseases, and deliberately disseminated diseases persist despite earlier hopes of elimination. With heavy privatesector investments, Indian pharmacology now provides core Expanded Programme on Immunization vaccines to United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, producing previously unattainable vaccines for diseases like meningitis, hepatitis B, pneumococcal conjugate, rotavirus, influenza A (H1N1), and COVID-19. India's vaccine sector has emerged, among the oriented leaders of the Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute of India, Panacea Biotech and Biological E. Specifically, the technology transferred from Western countries has benefited the sector, which produces 1.3 billion doses annually. The Serum Institute is the world's largest manufacturer of vaccines, providing measles and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccines to United Nations. The Serum Institute has developed several vaccines, including Nasovac, MenAfriVac, Pentavac, and an inactivated polio vaccine. India's success in vaccinations can be attributed to attractive investment conditions, government assistance, international alliances, and rising domestic technical talent. Despite its booming economy and technical advances, India's disproportionate share of the world's child mortality rate remains unchanged. However, the growing production and distribution of vaccinations in developing nations has initiated a new era, leading to a worldwide decline in childhood death and disease.
... As is indicated above, the triple helix has been heavily used in research and aspects of regional innovation. The model as such faces challenge when innovation systems are internationally interconnected, but for us to fully understand the conceptual dynamics of the triple helix, there is a dire need to explore the micro-mechanism associated with it (Pandey & Desai, 2017). In that direction, scholars have used social network theory while discussing academic collaborations with nonacademic stakeholder groups. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
The purpose of this chapter is to illustrate the role of higher education establishments in Middle Eastern countries specifically Saudi Arabia. The contributions of higher education establishments are particularly significant in relation to regional and national innovation system, which have been earmarked as engine for growth of the local economy across the region. Our study has chartered the dynamic nature of higher education in the region and their networking capabilities in order to be recognized as key stakeholders of the emerging economy. The study is informed by theoretical dimensions of "open innovation" and how the framework can accommodate the dynamic nature of higher education establishments in order to provide further impetus to ambitious projects such as Vision 2030 in Saudi Arabia. Our study is limited by further empirical evidence but has implication for the region in offering new insights around the evolving conceptualization of entrepreneurial universities and national innovation system.
... The transnational or 'multi-locational' feature of innovation ecosystems was noted by Sotarauta et al. (2016) and Carayannis et al. (2018), who stressed that knowledge flows and innovation processes take place in multiple geographical locations. The transnational dimension of innovation networks has been widely reported in innovation research (Barnard and Chaminade, 2011;Lundvall et al., 2014;Necoechea-Mondragón et al., 2017;Pandey and Desai, 2017) and geography studies (e.g., Wixted, 2009). The networks are primarily interlinked through international innovation cooperation between actors from multiple sectors, such as higher education, industry and government (Cai and Etzkowitz, 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper theoretically conceptualises and empirically explores the role of international university collaboration in building transnational university-industry co-innovation networks (TUICNs) in the EU-China context, and suggests a new model of international innovation cooperation. The theoretical framework was constructed by synthesising insights from social network theory and institutional theory. The empirical exploration was based on an analysis of interviews with 18 actors engaged in EU-China innovation cooperation. The findings suggest that international university collaboration could contribute to international industry collaboration and, therefore , to the development of TUICNs by 1) matching suitable industrial partners, 2) building trust between them, 3) giving industrial actors access to new resources, (4) enhancing the reputations of international companies in their cooperation countries, and (5) creating innovative business collaboration models. The study also addresses the following paradox in innovation studies: although the vital role of universities in national/regional innovation systems has been widely studied and the global interconnectedness of innovation networks is generally acknowledged, little attention has been given to universities' engagement in transnational innovation (eco) systems. Based on the findings, recommendations for policymakers, universities and companies are provided in light of the shifting balance of challenges and opportunities presented by China to the EU.
... The Global Dimension of Triple Helix While the innovation processes are becoming globally interconnected (Barnard & Chaminade 2011; J. Liu et al. 2013;Necoechea-Mondragón et al. 2017;Pandey & Desai 2017), the actors in a regional innovation system not merely interact with other actors in the same locality but also with those in the neighbor regions and the regions across national borders. As a response to such a situation, Cheng et al. (2019) proposed a novel model of Triple Helix, in which they add the dimension of globalization, positioning it in the middle of the Triple Helix framework. ...
Article
Full-text available
The Triple Helix of university-industry-government interactions, highlighting the enhanced role of the university in the transition from industrial to knowledge-based society , has become widespread in innovation and entrepreneurship studies. We analyze classic literature and recent research, shedding light on the theoretical development of a model that has engendered controversy for being simultaneously analytical and nor-mative, theoretical, practical and policy-relevant. We identify lacunae and suggest future analytical trajectories for theoretical development of the Triple Helix model. The explanatory power of Triple Helix has been strengthened by integrating various social science concepts, e.g. Simmel's triad, Schumpeter's organizational entrepreneur, institutional logics and social networks, into its framework. As scholars and practitioners from various disciplinary and inter-disciplinary research fields, e.g. artificial intelligence , political theory, sociology, professional ethics, higher education, regional geography and organizational behavior join Triple Helix studies or find their perspectives integrated, new directions appear for Triple Helix research.
... [31][32]. The transnational dimension of innovation ecosystems has also been reflected in innovation research [32][33][34][35][36] and geography studies [37], both addressing the direction of innovation systems becoming global or transnational. ...
Article
Full-text available
While higher education has been considered as both an 'engine' for innovation and a 'catalyst' for sustainability development, the integration of both the 'innovation engine' and 'sustainability catalyst' roles is best reflected in higher education's engagement in innovation ecosystems-the theme of this special issue, including 16 articles dealing with the topic from various perspectives. In this editorial, we outline an overarching framework about the relations between higher education and innovation ecosystem. When elaborating the framework, we provide a new definition of innovation ecosystem and identify three roles of university in innovation ecosystems, based on synthesizing relevant literature. The framework could facilitate readers to comprehend each of the collected articles and find synergy among them.
... Particularly, university and industry (U-I) interactions constitute a core area in innovation studies [10]. While the innovation processes are becoming globally interconnected [11][12][13][14], there is also an urgent demand to extend cross-sectoral organizational synergy building to the transnational context. For instance, it has been evidenced, though mainly in the industrial context, that technological capabilities for innovation are dispersed in international innovation networks [15] and the degree of R&D internationalization is increasing [16,17]. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper presents a potential solution to fill a gap in both research and practice that there are few interactions between transnational industry cooperation (TIC) and transnational university cooperation (TUC) in transnational innovation ecosystems. To strengthen the synergies between TIC and TUC for innovation, the first step is to match suitable industrial firms from two countries for collaboration through their common connections to transnational university/academic partnerships. Our proposed matching solution is based on the integration of social science theories and specific artificial intelligence (AI) techniques. While the insights of social sciences, e.g., innovation studies and social network theory, have potential to answer the question of why TIC and TUC should be looked at as synergetic entities with elaborated conceptualization, the method of machine learning, as one specific technic off AI, can help answer the question of how to realize that synergy. On the way towards a transdisciplinary approach to TIC and TUC synergy building, or creating transnational university-industry co-innovation networks, the paper takes an initial step by examining what the supports and gaps of existing studies on the topic are, and using the context of EU–China science, technology and innovation cooperation as a testbed. This is followed by the introduction of our proposed approach and our suggestions for future research.
Book
Full-text available
Reciprocal development cooperation refers to “all activities in the public and private sectors that benefit the donor country’s national interest as well as poverty eradication and economic and social development in the recipient country”. The Korean government's development cooperation paradigm is expected to gradually shift from a humanitarian level to a reciprocal level. However, in the case of science and technology innovation, it is difficult to acquire information about countries that are subject to reciprocal development cooperation. Therefore, in this study, the conceptual framework for reciprocal development cooperation was established and STI systems of major countries were analyzed to provide basic STI data and to suggest directions for reciprocal development cooperation. In this study, two countries, Brazil and India, were selected for analysis by applying three criteria: “differentiation from existing research,” “relevance to national interests and national tasks,” and “possibility of securing data”. In this study, the STI system components of Brazil and India were classified and analyzed into macro-environment, STI governance, STI investment and achievements, STI human resources, STI innovative actors, and STI support organizations. The reciprocal development cooperation agenda was described focusing on three dimensions: “what”, “how” and “who”. First, in the perspective of “what”, climate change, digital transformation, infectious diseases, and other issues were derived as cooperation contents. Second, policy advice and joint research, human exchange, and so on, were suggested as cooperation methods. Third, universities, GRIs, and companies were suggested as cooperation partner
Chapter
The COVID-19 pandemic revealed systemic weaknesses and gaps in healthcare systems globally. Ecosystems with more of an entrepreneurial, systems-change approach saw these gaps as opportunities. Entrepreneurs in emerging markets face specific hurdles their counterparts elsewhere may not. However, even with so many innovators at work, the crisis illustrated that healthcare remains deeply influenced by local conditions, resources, systems, and policy despite the global reach of technology and healthcare innovation. Though there is no single recipe for effective, scalable, sustainable, and equitable healthcare innovation, we have identified examples from across health systems that can offer a blueprint to which governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), investors, donors, universities, research institutions, and entrepreneurs around the world can refer. Several essential ingredients are common among high-impact innovators in emerging markets, including resilience, focus on mission and values, systems orientation, personal motivation, local ties, and global outreach. Also, innovation-driven healthcare ventures take many forms but follow common paths, including identifying and filling systematics gaps, investing in local capacity, blending technology with human intervention, focusing on business models with social purpose, blending local and global capital, and embracing consumers. Moreover, to build vibrant innovation ecosystems that accelerate healthcare innovation, low and middle-income countries (LMICs) must assess and develop their innovation and entrepreneurship capacities by collaborating to build needed capacities, involving stakeholders in a collective ecosystem approach, and adopting new mindsets. An ecosystem approach is required to build sustainable and scalable healthcare innovations with real potential to improve the health and lives of people in LMICs. Governments, universities, corporations, NGOs, entrepreneurs, and investors can and should collaborate to build a shared vision for local healthcare improvement.
Article
Full-text available
Innovation is seen as an essential ingredient for organisational growth and performance. The ability of an organisation to sustain long term success is largely dependent upon its ability to create and implement innovations. Innovation can be viewed as a process of knowledge creation, which involves making new combinations – incrementally or radically – either by connecting elements previously unconnected or by developing novel ways of combining elements previously associated. Taking a knowledge creation view of innovation capability, Manu Parashar and Sunil Singh propose a model that identifies the capabilities required in the process of novel knowledge creation and also sees innovation capability as a unique capability which can be built on the base of a few other capabilities. The capabilities contributing to innovation capability are: knowledge capability, creative capability and attitudinal capability. A diverse workforce, a deep understanding and knowledge of the customer, investment in R&D, networks for flow of information and multifaceted training programmes go towards building knowledge capability. Openness, awareness, curiosity and playfulness help cultivate the right attitude and should be inculcated consciously in organisations. Creative capability can be cultivated through enabling techniques – ‘metaphor’ and ‘reversal’ to name just two, communication methods that make use of information technology, and by providing the security and the space for people to innovate. These three capabilities operate at the levels of the individual, the team and the organisation and organisations must build interventions at all three levels to attain innovation capability. This view is more in line with the asset position part of the dynamic capability rather than the process view. Process alone may not be able to deliver innovation, what goes into the process is equally important. Like any other resource or asset, innovation capability needs to be built, maintained and enhanced and can deteriorate if it is not reviewed and revised.
Article
Full-text available
The process of knowledge production exhibits a very distinctive geography. This article argues that this geography is fundamental, not incidental, to the innovation process itself: that one simply cannot understand innovation properly if one does not appreciate the central role of spatial proximity and concentration in this process. The goal of this article is to demonstrate why this is true, and to examine how innovation systems at the subnational scale play a key part in producing and reproducing this uneven geography over time. This article addresses four key issues. First, it looks at the reason why location matters when it comes to innovative activity. Second, it turns to examine regional innovation systems, and the role played by them in generating and circulating new knowledge leading to innovation. Third, the article considers the relationship between regional systems of innovation and institutional frameworks at the national level. Finally, the relationship between local and global knowledge flows is examined.
Book
Full-text available
This major book presents case studies of ten small country national systems of innovation (NSIs) in Europe and Asia, namely, Denmark, Finland, Hong Kong, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden and Taiwan. These cases have been carefully selected as examples of success within the context of globalization and as ‘new economies’ where competition is increasingly based on innovation. To facilitate comparative analysis the ten studies follow a common structure, informed by an activities-based approach to describing and analysing NSIs, which addresses the critical issues of globalization and the consequences of innovation for economic performance. The final chapter compares ‘fast growth’ and ‘slow growth’ countries, concentrating on issues of innovation policy. The results illustrate the usefulness of an activities-based approach to studying NSIs, point to distinctive national roles within an increasingly differentiated international division of labour and address the key themes of ‘selectivity’ and ‘coordination’ in innovation policy. This valuable book presents one of the most significant, comprehensive and comparative country studies of NSIs in the last decade. It will have great import and should be widely read by every serious student and scholar of innovation studies.
Article
To match the global demand and supply of innovation, businesses increasingly internationalise their innovation activities while opening their innovation process by collaborating with external partners (e.g., suppliers, customers, universities). This book examines what drives these global innovation networks across different industries, how they are related to companies' overall strategies, whether they are accessible for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and what the consequences are.
Article
The internationalization of innovation in the food industry is becoming increasingly oriented towards emerging markets. Innovative lead firms express a need for ‘tapping into knowledge’ by collaborating with research facilities, customers and suppliers in these new locations. European firms experience a push towards market expansion and knowledge generation directed at emerging markets. This results in new network constructs: global innovation networks. The aim of this paper is twofold. First, it identifies and outlines the determining factors behind the internationalization of innovation due to the need to access new markets and knowledge. This unfolds through strategies of exploitation and exploration. Second, it investigates the extent to which these strategies connect to position in the value chain and factors in the host economy. In this, the potential impact at the receiving end of the offshore equation is also addressed. Through an analysis of the Danish food industry, the paper concludes that the internationalization of innovation is an emergent phenomenon predominantly associated with exploration strategies. As much as exploitation may neither rely on nor develop local technological capabilities, exploration seeks and engages with local capabilities in the host economy.