Content uploaded by Pranav Desai
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pranav Desai on Mar 12, 2018
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
Ofcial 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 inuence on such high technology clusters, wherein ‘local’ play a signicant 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 reecting 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-
nicant 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 simplied 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 reected 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 dened 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 codied 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 efcient 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 signicant 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]Denes 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 denition 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, afliates, suppliers, customers, competitors, research
institutions, universities and others.[16] Various scholars
have reected 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 specic 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, specically 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 reecting 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 inu-
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 identied.[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 classication 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 ofcials
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. Reecting 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 signies 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 prole of the rms is described in
Appendix-1.
In this research, both primary and secondary data have
their signicance. 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 reects 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
Ofcer of a clinical research organization, stated of a
clinical research organisation, stated, Networks are the
ultimate unication 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 classication 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 condence 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 connes 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 denitions, i.e. formal and informal linkages
with rms and non-rms entities.
The Innovators category, standalone rms with the abil-
ity to churn the efciently 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 sufcient for the growth and sustainability of
the cluster. Hence, Global Innovation Networks (GINs)
is equally signicant 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 qualied 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, specically 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 reecting 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 signicant 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 decient 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 signicant, specically 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 modications.
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 conict
of interests as well as trust decit 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 reect 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 reection 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 Benets 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 pacic 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 Brieng: 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
Prole 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)
AScientic
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
Ofcer
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