foresight study ict r&d trends in india

7/18/2019 Foresight Study ICT R&D Trends in India

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/foresight-study-ict-rd-trends-in-india 1/64

Forsigt StudICT R&D Trnds in Indi

MaRy MaThew

Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

for

eUROPeaN COMMISSION, BRUSSeLS



Forsigt StudICT R&D Trnds in Indi

Mary MathewIndian Institute of ScienceBangalore 560012

Email: [email protected]

FOR

eUROPeaN COMMISSION, BRUSSeLS

Projct no. 248867

SyNChRONISeR

Synchronising the Research Policy Dialogue to the

Indian Dimension

SyNChRONISeR PROJeCT MaNaGeR

Katja Legiša, TESEO, Brussels

wORK PaCKaGe LeaDeR

Kay Matzner, Fraunhofer, Magdeburg

June 2012



4

Foresight Study, June 2012

acknoldgmnts

As the SYNCHRONISER team and on behalf of Katja Legiša and Kay Matzner, we

thank the European Commission for this opportunity to conduct such an important

study. Foresight studies are important to understand and course correct economic

growth. We had an opportunity to do this for Indian ICT R&D.

We thank TESEO and its members, especially the very visionary Mauro Bianchi for

all their support.

We thank the three reviewers and our Project Coordinator Mr Alvis Ancans

for their detailed advice, critique and suggestions to improve this study and its

reporting.

Most gratefully, we thank the visionary sample of CEOs, CTOs, Founders, and

Professors, who so graciously gave us time to understand their mental models

when they describe ICT R&D trends for India. We also thank the experts who

participated in the panel discussions and the venture capitalists who helped us

validate our ndings.

We thank all partners of the SYNCHRONISER, Surbhi Sharma, Sourabha and

Sandhya from EIRC, Bangalore, Jasjit Singh and Mahesh Kulkarni from CDAC, Delhi

and Pune, Amit Bansal from STPI, Delhi and Julian Seseña from ROSE Vision, Spain

for their contributions to this report.

We thank the research team that played various roles on this study. We personally

thank Dr. Gautam Rangan, Pratheeba S., Rejin Issac, Farah Ahmed, Bharathi

T.G., Annapoornima Koppad, Komala, Pranav P.T., and Sushantika S., for all their

support.

Lastly, we thank the Indian Institute of Science and specic members namely,

Manivanan, Salim Ahmed, Bhanumathy, and Umashankar, who helped with the

administrative aspects of this study.

Mr Mt Ktj Lgiš K Mtznr




5

Tbl of Contnts

1.0 AbstrAct............................................................................................................................................................ 6

2.0 ExEcutivE summAry........................................................................................................................................... 7

3.0 introduction................................................................................................................................................. 10

4.0 Eu-indiA rEsEArch collAborAtion ............................................................................................................ 11

5.0 PurPosE of this study ................................................................................................................................... 14

6.0 litErAturE rEviEw .......................................................................................................................................... 15

7.0 mEthodology ................................................................................................................................................ 17

7.1 dEsign of thE dElPhi intErviEw ................................................................................................................ 19

7.2 thE visionAry sAmPlE................................................................................................................................ 121

8.0 r&d trEnds for indiAn ict....................................................................................................................... 26

8.1 corE tEchnology dEvEloPmEnt: round 1 .......................................................................................... 26

8.2 sEctorAl APPlicAtions of ict: round 1 ............................................................................................. 27

8.3 socio-Economic trEnds thAt will govErn indiAn ict r&d

in thE nExt 2, 5 And 10 yEArs: round 1 .................................................................................................... 29

8.4 consEnsus: round 2................................................................................................................................ 31

8.5 vEnturE cAPitAlists’ viEw Points: round 3............................................................................................ 35

8.6 visionAriEs’ viEws on thE Jwg list ....................................................................................................... 36

9.0 collAborAtion ............................................................................................................................................... 38

9.1 KnowlEdgE And intEntions of indiAn visionAriEs on Eu................................................................. 38

9.2 suggEstions from indiAn visionAriEs ...................................................................................................... 42

10.0 conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 47

11.0 bibliogrAPhy ................................................................................................................................................. 51

12.0 AnnExurE ...................................................................................................................................................... 53

12.1 AnnExurE 1: r&d trEnds world-widE in

ict tArgEtEd oPEning in wP2011-12.............................................................................................. 53

12.2 AnnExurE 2: fP6 ProJEcts in ict in indiA ......................................................................................... 54

12.3 AnnExurE 3: fP7 ProJEcts in ict in indiA ......................................................................................... 55

12.4 AnnExurE 4: budgEt distribution for ict 2011-2012 in Ec ........................................................ 57

12.5 AnnExurE 5: intErviEw schEdulE for round 1............................................................. 5912.6 AnnExurE 6: sAmPlE list......................................................................................................................... 61



6


1.0 abstrct

This report aims to provide insights that will help enhance the on-going research

partnership in Information and Communications Technology (ICT) R&D between

India and European Union (EU) member states. The European Commission (EC)

is keen on enhancing the partnership with India in the ICT R&D domain, via the

Framework Programmes (FP). This report also aims at augmenting the goals

of the Joint Working Group (JWG) set up to identify the technology priorities

areas common to India and EU member states such that their collaborations be

accelerated.

This report describes results of a foresight study on the ICT R&D priority areas

which India will work upon in the next 2, 5 and 10 years. The delphi method

was used. Three rounds were conducted to understand whether the technology

priorities identied in the rst round were valid and accurate. Thirty visionaries

were interviewed to obtain the results reported here. Visionaries were carefully

selected based on criteria described in the report.

From the study, the core technologies, sector technologies and socio-economic

factors that are critical to India’s ICT R&D decisions have been identied.Furthermore, the study helps gain insight into the extent of awareness the

visionaries possess of the EU ICT R&D activities, the European Commission calls,

experience in EC proposal writing, and JWG priority areas. Most visionaries intend

to collaborate with the EU. Measures needed to better the relationship between

India and EU member states were described in this report. Limitations of using the

delphi method in the context of developing countries is also discussed.




7

2.0 excutiv Summr

ICT collaboration is one of the most important topics of discussion in several

nations. This report aims at providing insights that can enhance collaborations

between EU states and India in the area of ICT R&D. ICT is a key driving force

of economic and technological growth in India. In the past two decades, Europe

has demonstrated a keen interest on expanding their longstanding relationship

with India in the ICT R&D space. Indian research partnerships via the European

Commission’s Framework Programme, with EU states are on going. To augment

this partnership in ICT R&D, the European Commission has established an Indo-

EU ICT Joint Working Group consisting of policy makers, researchers and industrystakeholders, who will work together to identify mutually suitable topics for EU

and India to collaborate on.

The foresight study described in this report, identied priority areas in ICT R&D

that India and the EU states can work upon together. The broader aim is to augment

the EU-India political dialogue in the ICT domain, and most importantly, the mission

of the ICT Joint Working Group. The study has identied Indian focus areas with

regard to technology priorities in ICT R&D. It is envisioned that the data from this

study, amongst others, will serve as a planning input for the European Commission,

in order to identify technology priority calls for India.

Thirty Indian ICT experts with an average experience of 20 years in the Indian

ICT industry and academia were interviewed using the delphi method. The experts

interviewed include 10 professors and 20 industry experts at the CEO and CTO

levels. The industry experts were representatives of leading large companies and

small and medium enterprises, including start-ups. These experts called visionaries

in the study, provided insights into the technology priority areas India must focuson, and provided valuable suggestions to enhance EU-India collaboration. A total

of 3 rounds were conducted using the delphi approach. The rst round consisted

of interviews with the 30 visionaries. These inputs were taken and analysed, and the

priority list of technologies elicited. In the second round, round 2, two consensus

meetings were held. These were panel discussions with a public audience and an

expert panel who discussed the technology priority areas. There was a consensus

with the audience and panel experts on the list of technology priorities in the

area of ICT R&D. A third round namely round 3, was conducted with venture

capitalists, whose goals are to typically invest in such priority areas. Round 3 aimed

at understanding whether nanciers will invest on these identied areas. There

were two views that emerged; one was that they will invest only in some areas. The



8


second was that these priority areas were too generic and they will need more

specic descriptions of ICT R&D to invest their nances on.

The results of the foresight study can be describes R&D trends for Indian ICT.

The results consist of six parts. First, are core technology areas in ICT R&D that

India will focus on in the next 2, 5, and 10 years. The second, are sector specic

application areas in ICT R&D. The third were certain socio-economic factors that

India will consider when engaging in ICT R&D. The fourth is the results of the

consensus round 2. The fth one is the view points of the venture capitalists, round 3.

The last and sixth part is the visionaries’ view on the Joint Working Group (JWG) list.

The core technologies pointed out by the visionaries include (a) Internet access:

allocation of bandwidth, last mile connectivity, convergence of mobile and

internet technologies; (b) Networking technologies: large networked systems,

machine to machine communication, cloud computing, wireless networks and

smart networks; (c) Monitoring systems: sensors for measurement and remote

diagnostics, integrated with wireless networks, generic and mobile devices; (d)

Cloud Computing Applications and (e) Security algorithms for various systems and

devices. The mobile phone is seen as a device of centricity.

The sector specic areas were mainly healthcare and energy management. The

following healthcare development areas were highlighted by the visionaries:

Bioinformatics for better diagnostics, information management and retrieval;

connectivity and networking of medical devices; smart medical systems with

learning ability, patient monitoring, monitoring devices to capture and transmit data;

security in data management systems; large storage systems and cloud computing;

integration of medical data and monitoring systems with mobile and telemedicine.

Several focus areas in energy conversion, generation and management were

suggested by the visionaries: ICT for smart grids, solar panel electronics, solar

gadgets, green devices with low power consuming displays, storage devices, and

longer life batteries, e-Waste management, redesign of consumer goods electronics

with energy and green consciousness are the important ones.

There are many important areas of governance and education that India will invest

in as per the foresight study: Governance related to land records, digitization,

database maintenance, secure storage systems, person identication and tracking

systems, transportation identication systems and RFID, banking identication;

mobile based payment system, education and skills training using ICT and mobile




9

applications for education. Mention was also made about gamication, and the

development of games with various applications.

Some India specic societal and economic trends will govern ICT R&D in India.

Indian researchers and technologists will be conscious of these goals. They include,

low value (low cost) high volume products and services, consciousness of green

computing, green devices and low energy consuming solutions, predominance of

software over hardware solutions, conscious integration of rural consumers and

language diversity.

The study also ascertained the visionaries’ views and thoughts on the priority

areas identied by the EU-India Joint Working Group. Technologies such as RFID,

biometrics and smart cards were the endorsed list of technology priorities chosen

by visionaries.

Other major highlights of this study include the visionaries’ level of awareness

about EU, their intentions to collaborate and suggested measures to improve EU-

India collaboration in ICT R&D.

An important aspect that emerged clearly through the survey was that the visionarieswho represent the Indian ICT diaspora were very positive to collaborate with EU

member states both at the academic and industry levels. If the Indian ICT industry

is exposed to the benets of the EC funding opportunities, then the number of

proposals will certainly go up from the Indian side.



10


3.0 Introduction

It is known for over hundred and fty years that predicting the happening of events is anactivity of estimates and guesstimates. There are only two methods that science uses in

predicting. The rst is a reference to past data in time series and the use of this data in

predicting a future trend. The second method is preferred, when past data is unavailable

to predict the future. In this second method, experts forecast predictions. Experts use

their past experiences, gut feelings and mental models to say that a particular R&D

area or technology is the one to focus on in the future. In this second method, there

is an element of chance and possibilities of errors unless a sample of relevant and

representative experts is used to describe the forecast. This process is easier done for

a company than for a country or nation as a whole.

Predicting what a country will do in the near future is a challenge. Describing predictions,

Niels Bohr (1885-1962) adequately stated that, “Prediction is very difcult, especially

about the future”. Prediction nevertheless has benets if done in an objective and

unbiased manner. This is more so in developing countries where planning is not as

sophisticated as it is in the case of developed countries like Europe. In developing

countries, planning, adherence to planning, monitoring and evaluation is an evolving

process. Developing countries often have to re ght real life issues that are unexpected

yet high priority, and thus, planning goes awry and needs to evolve changes in direction,

constantly. According to Blind et al., 1999, “the term foresight is used in the sense of outlook. This is not the same connotation as prediction which would be closer to forecast.

Foresight takes into account that there is no single future. Depending on action or non-

action at present, many a future is possible, but only one of them will happen.”

Foresight in the Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) area poses

special challenges. It is an area that is growing very fast, has a large number of players

in its space, and has applications in a multitude of areas making its proliferation

rapid and expansive. This being the case, what is new today need not be new in

three months time. Estimations of future R&D trends are made by experts and it isassumed that these experts are aware of these changing trends in ICT.

Despite the difference between forecast and foresight, in this report we request

visionaries in India to provide foresight into what India will do in the next 2, 5, and

10 years. Whilst this involves a fair amount of prediction, this report prefers to take

the title of foresight. Providing foresight into what a country like India will engage

in with ICT R&D is fascinating not only because of the fact that ICT is currently a

agship technology area in India, but also because of the pervasive nature of ICT

and what it can do to develop a country whose population is expected to equal

China by 2025 (World 2025 Report). This foresight gets even more excitingbecause of the possible ICT R&D collaborations between India and EU member

states, thanks to the futuristic funding activities of the European Commission.




11

4.0 eU-Indi Rsrc Collbortion

ICT is currently the leading sector in R&D investments worldwide, emphasizing the

importance of this sector. With a rapidly growing image that ICT has, the role of

R&D in galvanizing this growth is imperative. A list of ICT areas typically invested

worldwide is provided in Annexure 1. A wide range of technologies are mentioned

in this Annexure meant mainly for high income and BRIC countries. These areas

will have activities related to “research projects, joint road mapping, awareness

raising and dissemination for standardization activities” (FP World Programme

Orientation, Proposal, 2011-2012 p.26). The emphasis in India is shown to be in

areas of: Radio Frequency Identier (RFID) and beyond, complex systems research,trust and security, embedded systems control and ICT for transportation. It is also

noticed that developed countries world over invest in these areas.

In EU alone, ICT is expected to be an important contributor to the 2020 goal of

achieving R&D investments close to 3% of the European GDP (Turlea, et al, 2010). ICT

is also seen employing more researchers than any other sector. Given the importance

of ICT, EU sees the need for internationalization of ICT activity and partnership or

collaboration with other countries in meeting its ICT R&D needs. Cooperation with

developing Asia is seen as important, considering that Asia is becoming a competing

base in development as well as a market for ICT services and products.

Amongst the developing Asian giants, India is seen as an emerging force in ICT

manpower. Rich in logic and mathematics, the software development skills of

Indians are an asset of the country. Whilst R&D investments are not as high (in

comparison to other countries) in ICT, a developing country like India poses as

an important partner for Europe in meeting global challenges. The need for EU

and India to collaborate for R&D is seen as critical by the European Commission.

The aim is to pool in the strengths of various ICT experts of the two geographies.

Given the win-win opportunity, today collaboration is seen as a better approach for

social and economic progress.

The European Commission puts aside investments in various thematic areas of

ICT for cooperation with other countries. Some of these investments are also

for cooperation between EU and India in projects related to ICT R&D. In the

last two Framework Programme calls for the thematic area of ICT, India has been

seen participating in collaborative projects with EU. Details of these collaborative

projects are provided in Annexure 2 and Annexure 3. In FP6 and FP7, approximately

21 projects in R&D (including support action), were sanctioned between EU and



12


India. The areas of cooperation in ICT R&D were the following:

e-Inclusion•

Mobile and wireless systems beyond 3G•

Software and services•

ICT for networked businesses•

ICT for environment risk management•

Examples of Indian partners who participated on these ICT projects with EU were

as follows:

Ma• hindra and Mahindra Ltd.

Tech Mahindra Ltd.•

Association of Intelligent Transport Systems India•

Tata Consultancy Services•

Center for Development and Advanced Computing•

Indian Institute of Science•

Interactive Technology Software and Media Association•

International Institute of Information Technology, Bangalore•

Tata Sons Ltd.•

Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur•

Tata Institute of Fundamental Research•

Antrix Corporation Ltd.•

Amrita VishwaVidyapeetham•

The Energy and Resources Institute•

Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai•

Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry•

Center for the Study of Developing Societies•

Resource Management Group•

GS1•

Documentation Research and Training Center•

Indian Statistical Institute•




13

Whilst there is evidence of cooperation between EU and India, the numbers and

project statistics are expected to rise if the right promotion is made. Cooperationbetween two geographies is difcult to achieve when information about the nature

of either one country is scarce and less understood. It is in this context that this

India specic trend study was initiated.

In the recent announcement for proposals (2011-2012), the European Commission

appears to have a budget for the following areas. These areas are listed below so

as to understand the technical terminology used by EU in describing ICT, an area

that is constantly growing, loosing its boundary and difcult to classify as a family

of sub technologies.

Networ• king, computing and service infrastructure

Cognitive systems, robotics•

Alternative paths to components and systems•

Technologies for digital content and languages•

Towards sustainable personalized healthcare•

ICT for low carbon economy•

ICT for enterprise and manufacturing•

ICT for learning and cultural resources•

Future and emerging technologies•

More details of this budget are provided in Annexure 4.



14


5.0 Purpos of tis Stud

ICT is currently the leading sector in R&D investments worldwide. This importance

is also seen from the list of ICT prevalent in different countries (Annexure 1).

International cooperation between the European Commission and China and Brazil

is growing. Greater incidence of cooperation and collaboration between India and

EU is seen as possible.

This study is aimed at obtaining information from experts who are experienced in

the ICT sector and with the Indian industry landscape in particular. These experts

are referred to as visionaries who can see into the future in a manner that others

less skilled cannot.

The need to identify what a developing country like India wants to focus on is seen

as an important input to the European Commission’s policy making. The policy being

referred to here is about ICT R&D areas the European Commission will invest in,

in the coming 2, 5 and 10 years. When the European Commission announces

for proposals between EU and India they do so in specic R&D areas. Thus, the

European Commission is keen on understanding what ICT R&D areas India will

focus on in the next 2, 5, and 10 years. Knowing this information will help the

European Commission design or re-design calls suitable for India and EU to work

on jointly. Inputs from this study will help synchronize the European Commission

calls of technology priorities with that of India’s ICT R&D needs. Such an input

can help bridge greater collaboration and translate to incidences of collaboration

between EU and India.

This study is also aimed at augmenting the efforts of the Joint Working Group (JWG)

consisting of members from the Indian government, mainly from the Department

of Information Technology (DIT), New Delhi and the members of the European

Commission. It is hoped that this report serves as an input to their efforts to

strengthen the R&D collaboration between India and EU member states through

the aegis of the European Commission.




15

6.0 Litrtur Rvi

There is much literature on various approaches to handle forecasting research.

Most studies are on technology based forecasts (Loikkanen et al., 2009) and even

ICT diffusion forecasts (Weber & Kauffman, 2011). Some of the research focused on

forecasts for collaborations between countries (Santangelo, 2000, Dan and Xiao-na,

2009). The delphi method is one of the most popular ones in technology forecasts

and much is written about the method (Linestone and Turoff, 1975). Reviews of

the delphi method often show variations and modications constantly made by

researchers. These depend on the needs of the research problem being addressed

and the cooperation of experts (Brancheau et al., 1996, Czinkota and Ronkainen,1997, Hayne and Pollard, 2000, Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004, Ahlqvist, 2005). Others

have clearly differentiated between forecast and foresight (Blind, 1999, Boutellier

et al., 2007).

With reference to classications and denition of ICT, the best source appears to be

the OECD. There are various ways that ICT is classied. The OECD classication,

2009 is one such important piece of literature to follow. Many delphi studies are

seen focused on ICT and areas related to ICT, including e-commerce and ICT

diffusion. However, there is little clarity on a clear denition of the spectrum of

technologies that make up ICT. This may be true because of the all pervasive

characteristic of ICT.

According to Blind et al., 1999, by the 1990s it was said that technology foresight

became an important exercise, subsequent to political changes and tighter national

budgets in Europe (Blind et al., 1999). Ahlqvist in 2005, described a study in Finland

that dened key technology areas and their impacts on professions. The method

used in this study was that of the delphi with variations that were suitable for theresearch problem. A mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods was followed

and 2-3 rounds of the delphi method were practiced. Ahlqvist identied a list of

technology priorities and had the delphi visionaries verify them. The researcher

also noticed a wave of the Bio Society emerging and described this in his paper.

Hayne and Pollard in 2000, described a study they conducted using a modied

version of the delphi method. They studied critical issues that Canada must address

in the next 5 years with reference to Canadian information systems personnel. They

found building a responsive IT infrastructure, improving IS project managementpractices, planning and managing communication networks as critical in 1999.



16


Around 2000, Santangelo found ICT to be leading in strategic technological

partnerships in European ICT. This pattern was noticed since the 1970s in theUSA. It was felt that partners with similar technological capability could absorb

each other’s complementary technology better. Corporate specializations help in

inter relationships of companies.

Okoli and Pawlowski, in 2004, conducted an extensive review of literature on the

delphi method in order to clarify its role and popularize its use. Again it was seen

that modications were commonly made to the delphi method. They used it in the

context of e-commerce diffusion in Sub Saharan Africa. They differentiated the

delphi from a traditional survey.

Dan and Xiao-na, in 2009, found variables that enhanced collaborative behaviour.

The variables were - the companies’ general attitudes to collaboration, the reasons

behind their collaborative initiatives (drivers), types of collaborating experience,

types of relationship with other companies, the geographical locations of their

partners as well as the success of their collaborating experiences against original

goals or targets (results of collaboration). Conclusions were drawn on what

Chinese companies looked for in collaborations with European partners.

In 2008 Boutellier et al., used the term technology foresight and described

approaches to study technology foresight in their paper.

The outcome of such foresight and forecast studies was a series of graphics in the

form of Technology Road Maps (Kostoff and Schaller, 2001, Vojak and Chambers,

2004, Petrick and Echols, 2004, Gokhale and Myers, 2007, Lee and Park, 2005,

Vatananan and Gerdsri, 2010, Phaal et al., 2011, Geum et al., 2011).

To summarize, researchers have extensively used the delphi method to forecast and

provide foresights. Variations in the exact methodology are obvious. An outcome is

a road map where in technologies are clearly put on a time line.




17

7.0 Mtodolog

Using the expert approach to read into the future, the delphi method was utilized withminor modications. Figure 1 describes the methodology followed for this study. The

delphi method was used mainly to elicit the R&D priorities from Indian visionaries. The

gure shows the three rounds conducted during this entire study. The rst round was

the base round. In this round data was collected from the sample and this data was

analysed. The results of this round became the input for the consensus round, namely

round 2. In round 2 the validity and consensus about the data namely, the R&D priority

list derived from round 1 was assessed. The results from this round became the inputs

for round 3. Round 3 used an assessment from the perspective of investors.

The interview design and the sample used in round 1 are described in detail in this

section. More about round 2 and 3 are described in section 8.0.

Figur 1: Mtodolog follod

ROUND 1 of DELPHI

Survey question developed

Panel discussion 1

Sample identied and screened

Panel discussion 2

Summing up

ROUND 1Survey interview method conducted

ROUND 1Analysis of interview data

ROUND 1

Reporting of results

ROUND 2Consensus on results

ROUND 3Venture Capitalist assessments of

identied priority areas for ICT R&D



18


Background research on the delphi method elicited large amounts of literature where

the method was either evolved or used. What was apparent was that the delphi methodis an assessment method which integrates the judgments of a number of experts who

cannot come together physically (Linstone and Turoff, 1975). Yet, at the same time

the method allows for feedback, debate and comment. The overall objective of this

method is to achieve consensus among a diverse group of experts on a topic where

there are many controversial or opposing views among researchers. It is commonly

used in technology forecasting where quantitative data is lacking. Unlike the famous

regression analysis that forecasts based on trend analysis of structured time series

data, the delphi method probes the minds of experts to elicit future pictures that do

not directly have structured data from the past to support their predictions. In itstraditional form, the delphi method employs a series of survey questions to a selected

set of experts. Responses are aggregated and the feedback is synthesized for the next

set of rounds with the experts (Adams, 1980). There is no direct interaction among the

panelists and all feedback and responses take place through the delphi administrator.

The delphi method has been explored in a variety of areas which include forecasting

sales, developing a list of policies, predicting the direction of IT industry, developing

measures and denitions (Adams, 1980, Gupta and Clarke, 1996, Okoli and Pawloski,

2004, Kesten, et al., 2007). There are three key characteristics to be met for classifying a

procedure as ‘delphi’. The rst is anonymity. Panelists and their responses must be kept

anonymous during the entire process of data collection thus avoiding the problems of

‘group think’. Panelists are allowed to freely express their own opinion without being

forced to adhere to viewpoints of more powerful or dominant individuals within the

group. The second is the role of iterations. Unlike other traditional group interviews, the

delphi studies take place through a series of iterations where survey questionnaires for

the subsequent rounds are rened based on the inputs from the previous rounds. The

third is that of feedback. In between survey iterations, controlled feedback is provided

to the participants allowing the participants to rethink their opinions. Feedback maybe

provided in two ways. If the study done is quantitative in nature, such as forecast of

revenue or sales, a statistical summary maybe provided. If the response requestedfrom the participants is more qualitative in nature, the researcher may collate selected

feedback and judgment, and this is provided as an input for the next round of interviews.

In qualitative questionnaires, the rst round of delphi interviews is typically open ended

allowing the panelists to freely express their opinion. Subsequent iterations take place,

till the researcher perceives that adequate consensus among the panelists has been

reached on the topic. The delphi method is not without challenges (Stewart, 1987).

The rst challenge is about sample bias. The delphi results are strongly correlated with

the diversity and composition of experts in the panel. If a diverse set of experts is not

chosen, there may be considerable bias towards the agenda or research objective. Thesecond is the researcher’s own bias. Since the researcher or the delphi administrator

plays a key role in consolidating the responses and providing feedback, the process




19

is subjective to biases and views of the researcher. The last is that it requires a lot

of patience on the part of the researcher and her team since it is a slow andlengthy process. The process may run into many rounds resulting in delays, or

terminated by the delphi administrator as required. Further, since experts are being

interviewed, there is likely to be delays in achieving face to face meetings, simply

because experts are busy.

7.1 Dsign of t dlpi intrvi

In Round 1 of the delphi method, the rst step was to design the delphi for the

SYNCHRONISER project requirements. Adopting the delphi method for the

SYNCHRONISER amounted to deciding the following:

What questions will be asked to meet the research objectives of the(a)

SYNCHRONISER foresight study?

Who will these experts referred to as visionaries be in the SYNCHRONISER(b)

foresight study?

Both these questions are answered below in the context of how the delphi method

was used for the SYNCHRONISER project.

For the success of a delphi foresight study, it was critical to secure the participation

of diverse experts, who understood the issues of ICT R&D in India, have a vision,

and represent a substantial variety of viewpoints. To achieve this objective, a panel of

30 visionaries having a very profound understanding of the Indian ICT industry was

identied. Past studies using such an approach have typically used thirty experts based

on the nding that larger groups generate few additional ideas and limit the in-depth

exploration of the ones already generated (Czintoka and Ronkainen, 1997).

The questions to be asked of the visionaries were standardized after much discussionwithin the SYNCHRONISER team. Such standardization was important to compare

insights of visionaries and draw conclusions. Hence, while certain amount of

exibility was retained while probing the area with a visionary, a structured set of

stimuli (questions) were posed to all visionaries. The mind of the visionary was

followed and further questions were asked if necessary to clarify points raised

by the visionary. Care was taken to follow this standardized procedure for all

interviews. The procedure followed was as follows:

(a) Assessed what the visionary said were the ICT R&D areas that will interest

Indian technologists in the future.

(b) Veried the above by obtaining details of why the visionary suggested these

technologies.



20


(c) Assessed whether these technologies fell in the innovation space, in India or in EU.

(d) Assessed if the visionary had EU proposal experience when he or she describedthe above.

(e) Assessed other factors that might inuence the Indian–EU ICT R&D relationship

for cooperation.

(f) Made a judgment on what technology was suggested.

Using the above assessment approach, the delphi method was applied for data

collection from visionaries in round 1.

The questions the visionaries were asked is available in Table 1.

Tbl 1: Soing t qustions skd during t SyNChRONISeR forsigt studintrvis

The main query posed was:wt k tcnolog/tcnologis in t ICT spc ou nvision ttIndin compnis ill rsrc nd dvlop in t nxt 2, 5 nd 10 rs?

In relation to the above question, the visionary was asked to elaborate his or her response as follows:

w do ou coos ts tcnologis?•

ho do ou fors Rsrc & Dvlopmnt (R&D) tking plc in ts•

tcnologis? will t R&D ctivit b focusd on bsic or pplid domins? wtpplictions do ou tink ill b dvlopd from ts tcnologis? will t b

brk troug or incrmntl?will t commrciliztion ctivit b dominnt tords dvlopmnt of •

product or srvics for t bov pplictions?

Do ou nvisg opn sourc pltforms for t bov tcnologis?•

ar ts tcnologis n to Indi or eU or non eU countris?•

Do ou fors n cngs in t ICT industr structur (.g., n ntrnts,•

smll plrs, forign ntrnts, problms for xisting incumbnts, tc.) s rsult of ts n tcnologis?

A short survey was administered to capture the awareness of the visionary to the happenings inthe EU ICT Industry.

The questions relating to other factors like regulations and consumer needs including how to improve therelationship were posed. These included:

Are there any trends and preferences in Indian consumers that will inuence•

t eU – Indi collbortion?

Do ou tink tr is dmnd for eU drivd tcnologis in t Indin mrkt?•

Are there any regulatory issues that will inuence the collaboration between India•

nd eU?

wt r t s of improving t currnt cooprtion btn eU nd•

Indi (suc s complmntr funding or otr mcnisms of support for jointrsrc ctivitis btn eU nd Indi)?

T ltst Indi-eU Joint working Group (JwG) Mting on Informtion Socit,•

in Brussls, s rrivd t cooprtion rs for Indi nd eU. T tcnolog rsfor cooprtion r: IPv6 nd NGN, Opn Sourc Softr, RFID, Biomtricnd Smrt Crd, Indi-eU rsrc ntork connctivit, -Infrstructur, IntrntGovrnnc, 3G Dplomnt, Frqunc Mngmnt, nd Univrsl Srvic. Do

ou fors t bov s importnt?Do ou or our tm mmbrs v xprinc in riting proposls for R&D collbortionit eU prtnrs?




21

The questions were formatted into a guideline or questionnaire that was used

during the interviews with visionaries. This guideline is provided in Annexure 5.

For the rst round of the delphi method, face-to-face meetings with all the identied

visionaries were conducted. Interviews began with the question such as: what do

you think are the technologies in the ICT space in India that you foresee will receive the

highest attention in the next 2, 5 and 10 years ? The visionaries needed to justify why

they chose these technologies. Each visionary received a copy of the guideline

prior to the interview.

The questions an expert was to be asked were formulated and a pilot run of the data collection was initiated with members of the SYNCHRONISER team. A

modied version of the interview questions was made. Visionaries were not aware

of other visionaries in the sample and privacy was thus maintained so that ideas

were not inuenced.

It must be stated that there was a difference in the way a visionary saw foresight,

compared to the intent of the researcher or the delphi administrator. When asked

what India will do, often the answers came instead from the perspective of, I do not

know exactly what India will do, but I am certain about what India must do . In other

words being a large democratic country, visionaries clearly saw difculty in giving

an accurate trend of what such a complex country will do, since such a judgment

is not in the control of even a visionary to forecast. Such a view comes from a

pragmatic perspective that many other things can happen despite a prediction of

what may happen. It is probably a characteristic dilemma of experts intending

to predict, or possibly a characteristic of experts living in complex realities of

developing countries like India, intending to predict.

7.2 T visionr smpl

The sample of visionaries consisted of academicians (n=10) and experts from

industry (n=20). The total sample of visionaries was 30. Since the demographics of

the visionary sample was a critical aspect of this survey, care was taken to select

the visionaries with a stringent criterion. A certain mix of the prole of visionaries

was maintained to ensure sample validity and avoid certain errors. The criterion

used to select the visionaries is shown in Table 2.



22


For this study, the denition of a visionary was a person who has a minimum of

10 years of experience in ICT R&D activity. He or she must have this experience

from within India which meant the individual should have resided in India for this

period. Both Indian and foreign nationals qualify to be called a visionary in the

SYNCHRONISER foresight study. The visionaries were from Indian companies,

Indian MNCs, foreign origin companies, academia, and technology consulting

organizations. Individuals from large, medium and small companies qualied. The

visionary was one who could visualize how ICT will grow in the next 10 years

within an economy like India. Visionaries were researched to assess if they have

patents, have contributed to society signicantly, and thus can be referred to as a

visionary.

Of the 30 visionaries, 28 engaged in direct face-to-face interviews with the research

team, and 2 interviews were conducted telephonically. One key researcherconducted the entire 30 interviews together with a supporting team.

Five visionaries were associated with foreign multinationals. However, all these

visionaries were in India and worked with Indian ICT industry for over 20 years.

Only 2 of these 5 were foreign nationals, namely the visionary who was the ex

CEO of Philips Innovation India (European origin), and is currently the CEO of

Palandrome, a startup in India. The second is the President and CEO of Korean

Science and Technology Institute, who also headed the IT operations of a leading

Indian ICT organization, L&T Infotech (Korean origin). Both these foreign nationalvisionaries stayed in India for over 20 years and knew the Indian landscape very

well and hence qualied for this study.

Tbl 2: Critrion to slct visionris

T visionr kn t Indin lndscp dqutl. Cr s tkn to nsur tt t•

visionary was sufciently experienced and knowledgeable of the Indian ICT industry. Alck of tis undrstnding ill rsult in t visionr providing insigts itout tru ndrlistic pictur of Indi. hnc, if t visionr s bsd outsid Indi nd orkd brodtr in USa, eU or n otr countr, t did not qulif for t intrvi. w costo v visionris o r om gron, nd v bn in Indi t lst 10 rs orkingin Indin ICT industr.

Cr s tkn to nsur tt t visionr did not projct visions of orld trnds in ICT R&D•

s if t r Indi’s trnds.

Cr s tkn to nsur tt t visionr did not provid insigts skd tords Indi’s•

businss intrctions it USa nd USa’s nds, s USa is dominnt clint of Indin ICTbusinss, but instd providd insigts on t Indi nds s sn from itin Indi nd b

bing in Indi.

Cr s tkn to nsur tt t visionr spok from is or r vst xprinc in dling•

it t Indin lndscp nd not from gusstimts of trnd, colord b tougts of otr mrkts nd orld trnds in ICT. altoug it s xpctd tt som of tis ill occur, otr qustions r skd to vrif r t visionr s coming from in is or r dilogu.




23

Their experience, designation, foreign MNC afliations, education, organization

afliation sector, and gender are shown in Figures 2 to 7.

() exprinc:

It was felt that the years of experience the visionary had in his or her career and in

Indian ICT industry in particular was critical for validity of the response he or she

gave. A large chunk, i.e. 15 out of 30 of the sample of visionaries had a minimum of

20-29 years of experience. Five had experiences of about 10-19 years, and 10 had

experiences spanning over 30-40 years. Figure 2 shows this distribution.

Figure 2: Showing the experience prole of the visionaries (n=30)

(b) Designation: The designations of these visionaries were understood further; senior

experts were desired for this trend study. It was assumed that a certain designation is

indicative of the professional experience of the visionary. The designations captured in

this study were Professor, CEO, CTO, Vice President and founder (startups after a stint

in industry). None from the managerial and lower management cadres were used in

this study. The designations shown in Figure 3 indicate a rather senior expert group of

visionaries.

Figure 3: Showing the designations held by the visionaries (n=30)

Years of experience of visionary

0

10

20

10-19 years 20-29 years 30-40 years

Years

C o u n t

Count

Visionaries classified by designation

0

5

10

15

Professor CEO CTO VP Founder

Designation

C o u n t

Count



24


(c) Organizational afliation foreign or Indian: Care was taken not to choose many

visionaries from multi-national organizations whose orientation was some othercountry other than the EU states and India. Nevertheless, 5 of the visionaries

were from foreign multi-nationals such as SAP, Siemens, Philips, Korean Science

and Technology Institute and IBM. The remaining 25 visionaries were from Indian

organizations. Figure 4 describes this distribution.

Figure 4: Showing whether the visionary had a foreign MNC afliation

or s from n Indin orgniztion

(d) eduction: The education prole of visionaries showed a range of higher

education amongst them. Sixteen of the visionaries had doctoral degrees. This impliesthat they had R&D and scientic backgrounds. About 9 of the visionaries had masters

degrees and about 5 had bachelors degrees.

Figure 5: Showing the education prole of the visionaries

() Organizational afliation: Visionaries were carefully picked from both

academia and industry. There were 10 Professors from academia and about 20

industry experts from the Indian ICT industry. All Professors had academic

experiences only and industry visionaries ranged from large to small and medium

organizations. Seven of the industry experts were from large companies such as

Wipro, Infosys, HCL and TCS. The remaining 3 were from large organizations that

were foreign multi-national, namely SAP, IBM and Siemens. One of the visionaries

Indian origin and foreign origin organizational

affiliation of visionary

02040

Indian origin organization Foreign origin organization

Foreign/Indian origin

C o u n t

Count

Education of visionary

0

10

20

Ph.D. Masters Bachelors

Education level

C o u n t

count




25

was the ex CEO of Philips, but is currently the CEO of an SME, hence he is classied

under the SME list.

Figure 6: Showing the sector classication of visionary’s organizational

afliation

(f) Gndr: There was difculty nding female visionaries in the Indian industry

and special efforts were made to identify them. Four of the visionaries were female

with experience in the Indian ICT industry. Twenty six of the visionaries were male.

This is not surprising as the Indian industry is a male dominated one in higher levels

of management especially amongst seniors in top management.

Figur 7: Soing t gndr distribution of t visionris

To summarize, the sample of visionaries in this delphi study were experienced,

knowledgeable about India, working in the ICT R&D space for a long time, and

were individuals who have displayed leadership in society.

Gender of visionary

0

10

20

30

Female Male

Gender

C o u n t

count

Sector of visionary's affiliation

0

5

10

15

Industry large orgn Indust ry SME Academia

Sector

C o u n t

Count



26


8.0 R&D Trnds for Indin ICT

This section consists of 6 parts. The rst lists core technology areas that visionariesidentied. The second part lists sector specic applied technologies that the

visionaries identied. The third part consists of the societal and economic trends

that will govern ICT R&D investments in India. The results communicated from

these 3 parts are from round 1 of the delphi study. The fourth part consists of the

consensus building rounds. This fourth part consists of results from round 2 of the

delphi study. The fth consists of few comments from the perspective of nanciers

(venture capitalists) with reference to these listed technologies. This fth part

is round 3 of the delphi study. The sixth and nal part refers to the technologypriority list provided by the Joint Working Group and the visionaries agreement

with reference to these mentioned technologies.

8.1 Cor tcnolog dvlopmnt: Round 1

Visionaries listed core technologies that India needs to focus on. These involve

basic and applied R&D activities in core technologies area as mentioned in Figure

8. These are technology development activities that are not related to a sector

per se. There will be good amounts of basic R&D activity in these priority areas,

implying that the university systems will play an active role here. Once the university

develops such technologies, industry will take it further and apply it to a sector such

as health care, education, energy, agriculture and such. Amongst the technologies

listed, technologies of the mobile device were mentioned by many visionaries.

However, the success of mobile technologies may relate to the proliferation of 3G

and 4G and the penetration which is nevertheless growing increasingly.

Cor tcnologis tt Indi ill focus on in t nxt 2, 5 nd 10 rs includ:

Internet access: allocation of bandwidth, last mile connectivity, convergence(a)

of mobile and internet technologies. Increasing bandwidth demands bring a

pressing need for better utilization of bandwidth through efcient spectrum

allocation, IPV6 methodologies, and long term evolution (LTE).

Networking technologies: large networked systems, machine-to-machine(b)

communication, cloud computing, wireless networks and smart networks.Since ICT permits the scope for devices to be linked to larger networks and

thus communicate with each other, generic device specic protocols using

embedded systems can be developed to facilitate linkages.




27

Monitoring systems: sensors for measurement and remote diagnostics, low(c)

cost cameras, integrated with wireless networks and mobile devices. Since thepopulation is large and phenomenal data will be lost if not monitored, there

is a need to evolve low cost monitoring technologies, using DSP algorithms,

many low cost sensors and error compensating software.

Cloud Computing Applications: Since there is expected large numbers of (d)

data, or what is today referred to as big data, cloud computing will push down

costs and offer low cost storage, computing, analytics and accessibility. Core

technologies developed for this purpose may facilitate further development

and customization in specialized sectors.

Security algorithms for various systems and devices including the mobile.(e)

Figur 8: Soing trnds in Indi for cor ICT dvlopmnt

8.2 Sctorl pplictions of ICT: Round 1

ICT solutions for various sectors like health care and energy were more frequently

highlighted by visionaries. Figure 9 describes the visionary insights on technology

priority trends in the sectors where visionaries felt ICT R&D will occur. Health

care emerged as the most important area India will focus on in the next 2, 5 and 10

years. Visionaries did feel that some of the various solutions that will emerge from

for these applications need not be classied. The over riding role of the mobile

phone in these sectors is stressed often.

ICT R&D Sctorl focus of Indi in t nxt 2, 5 nd 10 rs:

hltcr:(f) The important development areas within healthcare include:

Bioinformatics for better diagnostics, information management and-

retrieval. This area is certainly associated with cloud computing and

algorithm development.

Connectivity and networking of medical devices (to be redesigned or-

Trends in core ICT development

0

510

15

Mobility

applications

Monitoring

systems

(sensors,

cameras)

Internet and

networks

Security

technologies

Printed circuit

3D printing

Cloud

computing

Service

accelerators

(software)

Core technologies

C o u n t

Count



28


newly designed such that connectivity is included).

Smart medical systems with learning ability, patient monitoring systems, low-

cost monitoring cameras, and monitoring devices to capture and transmit

data.

Security in health care data management systems.-

Large storage systems and cloud computing-

Integration of medical data and monitoring systems with the mobile phone-

Telemedicine-

(g) enrg: The important areas mentioned were related to energy conversion,

generation, management and green environment consciousness. Specicallythey included:

ICT for Smart Grids: India is moving towards convergence of ICT-

networks and the existing electric grids. A few applications include smart

grids with smart metering, bi-directional information ows in networks,

and distributed power generation.

Solar panel electronics, solar gadgets-

Green devices, with low power consuming displays, storage devices, and-

longer life batteries

e-Waste management-

Redesign consumer goods electronics with energy and green consciousness-

() Govrnnc nd duction: There are many focus areas of governance

that India will invest in, these are listed below:

Governance related to land records, digitization, database maintenance,-

secure storage systems

Person identication and tracking systems-

Transportation identication systems and RFID-

Banking identication-

Mobile based payment systems-

Education and skills training using ICT-

Mobile applications for education-

(i) Gamication: This newer area was highlighted by fewer visionaries,

but was thought to have potential both by virtue of user markets and

development in India. These involve the use of gaming in various functional

and activity related to entertainment.

(j) Applications in agriculture more from an information dissemination, analyticsand retrieval in nature were mentioned. Other areas like 3D printing,

distributed manufacturing systems (with connectivity in rural and less urban

areas), and automobile electronics were mentioned.

-




29

Figur 9: Soing t trnds in Indi for ICT in sctors

Some visionaries mentioned product integration collaboration. Visionaries felt that not

all components of these sector specic applications need to be made within India.

Some of the components can be bought from other countries like EU for example, and

integrated into solutions here in India. It will not be necessary to reinvent the wheel

in such products. However, some visionaries expressed that the unique application of

these technological components and the identication of user needs will be more the

focus of the Indian side of R&D. Language diversity will also have to be addressed, sinceIndian languages vary much, and so does literacy and per capita income in rural India.

They feel integrating the rural areas is critical for the overall growth of India. Hence,

ICT applications cannot be an urban agenda but must also be a rural agenda.

8.3 Socio-conomic trnds tt ill govrn Indin ICT R&D in

t nxt 2, 5 nd 10 rs: Round 1

(k) Cost ovr prformnc

Indian consumers do not compromise on cost over performance (Figure 10). As

the gure describes, Indian consumers want more functionalities and features

at lower costs. Hence, unless development happens around this rule success of

product/service diffusion will be low.

Trends in India ICT for sectors

05

101520

I C T o f

H e a l t h c a r e

D i s t r i b u t e d

m a n u f a c t u r i n g

A u t o m o b i l e

e l e c t r o n i c s

E n e r g y a n d

g r e e n

c o m p u t i n g

G o v e r a n c e

E d u c a t i o n

S o c i a l

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n

A g r i c u l t u r e

Sectors

C o u n t

count



30


Figur 10: Soing t cost ovr prformnc trnd xpctd of

Indin ICT R&D

(l) Lo vlu ig volum

Indian ICT business is evolving a business model to serve low value and yet highvolumes in products and services. For example, as the mobile penetrates further

into the population of one billion the price of communication will tend towards

zero. As mobile devices become more pervasive in the Indian population, companies

will create mobile value added services at cheaper rates for customers.

(m) Grn computing nd grn dvic dsigns

There is a strong need to arrest power consumption by developing more energy

efcient devices whether in large storage, display technologies, embedded devices,

or software systems. Experts felt that the country is conscious of minimizingcarbon foot prints and designing ICT solutions around this theme. Visionaries

were of the view that if India consumes energy at the rate the western countries

have and are currently consuming energy, the world will become energy bankrupt

in a few decades.

(n) Dominnc of softr solutions ovr rdr

Since the Indian manpower skills are largely rooted in software programming,

algorithm development, design, and software architecture, Indian ICT solutions will

capitalize on this trend and have a preference for software based product solutionsover hardware based products.




31

(o) Consciousnss bout intgrting rurl consumrs

A large percentage of Indians live in rural settings with low literacy rates and

poor per capita incomes (of about 1100 Euro per year). This strata of consumers

need to be integrated into solutions and technology development, and their needs

identied and enabled by ICT.

(p) T lngug divrsit cllng

Additionally, with more than 300 living languages in India, language diversity poses a

challenge in developing inter-operability of ICT display and interactive systems. Hence,

unless the language challenge is addressed proliferation of ICT will remain low in theseconsumers. ICT solutions in India cannot be an English language solution alone. Although

visionaries felt that Europe has a similar situation with multiple languages spoken in

various EU member states adopting their language solutions into an Indian context may

not be feasible, thus these have to be developed in India itself.

8.4 Consnsus: Round 2

To validate the technology priorities obtained from round 1 it was necessary to

assess for consensus and feedback on the obtained results. This was achieved bytwo consensus building events.

In the rst event, there were 4 participants in the panel discussion, and the discussion

was coordinated by the delphi administrator who conducted round 1. Three participants

were from the visionary group (sample in this report), and one was a European familiar

with the FP activities of the European Commission. The delphi administrator presented

her ndings, namely the technology priorities obtained from round 1 to the panelists

and the audience. The panelists had received inputs on the technology priorities the

previous day itself. After this introductory presentation each panelist was required to

comment on whether they agree with these technologies or not. Subsequent to the

panelists presenting their views, the views of the audience (about 150 ICT industry

personnel) were sought. There was consensus. There was no perceived deviation

on the part of the panelists from what the delphi administrator presented were the

technology priorities. The technologies mentioned in this report appeared to have

acceptance from the audience also.

One panelist stressed the importance of product innovation through (smart)technology integration. The panelist repeated the same technology areas in

healthcare that were mentioned during her visionary interviews. She described



32


how she used to ask customers what they want to see in a mobile, whether a

camera or MP3 player, clock, GPS, and a mobile phone. This integration is calleda smart phone. She stressed the need for gadgets like the mobile or other stand

alone gadgets that will help as a BP measure for example. The panelist stressed

on a single gadget that can process data reaching the masses. The next panelist

expressed that the ICT area is vast and each one will focus on something or

the other. He chose to give a perspective on what must be done in the next 2, 5

and 10 years. He said one of our major challenges is ‘education’ and it needs top

priority from the Government. He felt we need indigenous solutions not developed

country solutions. The other sector which he emphasized on is health care. He felthealth care should be made accessible. ICT, medical electronics and its integration

with ICT must help solve this problem. It is not so much about accuracy and

condentiality it is more about accessibility. Regulatory mechanisms for health

care are needed for India. We will develop applications on mobile phones. We need

to think of what can run on a mobile phone that costs not more than Rs 1300/-.

He felt only such low cost phones can reach the masses. Less than 10% use smart

phones and others use ordinary phones. The rst step he felt was regulations for

these devices. In 2 to 3 years he felt we need to have access via networks for all.

After we put in place regulations and standards we should develop applications.

Mobile is the medium, India will work on. And in 5 to 10 years India will need to

fund and work on nano technology and its integration with ICT. The third panelist

began his speech by speaking about Mr. Sanjoy Das Gupta and his vision to start

this kind of conference (IT.BIZ) many years ago. That’s when the panelist and his

team discussed the beginning of the Simputer, with Mr. Sanjoy Das Gupta. They had

made a Management Declaration for ICT. One phrase from the declaration is that

“you need to keep local solutions for any three local problems”. The panelist said,

“Money spent on those below poverty lines is about INR 80,000 crores and mostly

by the Government, only governments can spend this kind of money. However,

only 20% reach the beneciary and the 80% is used for administration and other

costs, not reaching the beneciary. How do we make the money reach the right

beneciary? Can ICT play a role for this? Local solutions for local problems will

only solve the problem. The “Electricity bill metering” product of Balaji is case in

point. It was a dream in 2001. Now Balaji has put 50,000 meters everywhere.

The technology was not fancy. Technologists think technology is a fancy thing

and consists of 90% of the solution and the remaining 10% was other things. Tenyears later, we realized that technology is 10% and 90% is something else in India,

if we don’t realize this, we will fail. None of the technology evolved in mobile




33

phones was developed here. However, we used it a lot. Our Bharathi’s and Airtel’s

changed the Business Model and made everything, cost per minute. Technology notinvented here is reinvented and used to reach 600 million here. Modication and

customization is also required, not just innovation and R&D, which is possible in a

few Institutes like IISc.” The fourth panelist spoke from his European experience.

He found that to some extent, there is a difference between Europe and India since

India has real problems to solve. He works close to the research side and makes

applications at the lower levels (not close to products levels and real solutions to

real people like India is planning to do). He said that, the “Computing systems market

is rising although laptops are lowering. We see penetration in such devices. Tools that weuse will have to change to meet the broader requirement. My mobile phone is smarter

than my desktop today. He sees a convergence of technologies onto the mobile rather

than desktop.” He felt that the challenges are programmability, stability, efciency,

and legacy software migration. He felt security is more important although the

Indian partners have a difference in mindset. He said that there should be more

international collaborations to solve such problems and importance should be

given to core ICT side and not from the sector side.

In the second event, there were 3 panelists. The difference with this panel is that

none of the panelists were visionaries of this study; they were IT experts external to

this study and were asked to provide an external view on the technology priorities

listed in this report. Each panelist presented their views on what should be the

focus of India in the next 2, 5 and 10 years. Consensus on the ndings of this study

was remarkable.

The panelists agreed with the areas presented by the delphi administrator and panel

discussion moderator. One panelist expressed that in India presently, there are 3grand challenges that India is currently facing and will continue to face for the next

20 years; these are utilization of natural resources, quality of education and problems

in healthcare. He spoke of 4 steps that are common across these challenges. He

felt only ICT can address these problems. The steps are: measurements (whether

it be measurements of natural resources or healthcare, for example a patient’s

blood pressure), second was that data is to be collected, third, was connectivity

that is centralized in order to analyse, wired and wireless connectivity is implied.

Fourth was that this data must be analyzed and further optimized. He put these

aspects in ICT terms as ‘process of connectivity, cloud infrastructure and massive

computing infrastructure’. These according to him should be the focus of the Indian



34


government and ICT industry for the next 2, 5 & 10 years. These overlapped with

the technology priorities found in round 1. The next panelist, highlighted the factthat ICT plays a dominant role in almost all sectors and therefore there is a great

need to encourage the growth of ICT. He mentioned that in India ‘core technology

for ICT’ has to be developed at a fast pace. He said that the two emerging areas

under ‘core technology for ICT’ that he thought will be the focus are: ‘big or large

data’ and ‘internet of things’ (with network devices and signalling). Most of the

people complain that ‘big data’ is complex and voluminous and this needs to be

addressed. According to him ‘ICT for sectors’ or ‘ICT for application’ areas would

be e-health, e-governance, and e-learning which he termed ‘social infrastructure’.According to this panelist in the next 2, 5 and 10 years the following areas will be

the focus in India: big data, real time data generation, communication infrastructure,

building algorithm and data analytics with sector specications. The third panelist,

said that Indian government is encouraging certain high end technologies and the

12th ve year plan and the 13th ve year plan in the coming years will invest

more in high performance computing (HPC), super computers (to develop large

scale computing environment with innovative methods), cloud computing and

mobile technologies with emphasis on reaching to village communities in India. He

mentioned that there are several research organizations focusing on communication

technologies and language technologies. Collaborations between European and

Indian private educational institutions are being encouraged by the government. He

said that the 12th ve year plan and the 13th ve year plan will also focus on skilled

manpower development with ICT intervention or innovative training methods.

Another important area would be ‘smart grids technology’ where much research

is presently going on in the Indian context. He also said that EU and India can

collaborate in ‘multi-language and language technology’ areas as both regions are

multilingual. He felt that development of ‘communication infrastructure’ will need

5 years and development of ‘compute infrastructure’ will need another 5 years.

According to him, 3 main areas that would gain importance in the next 2, 5 and

10 years are language technologies, communication technologies and computing

infrastructure, respectively.

The qualitative assessments in round 2 were concluded to be useful for the

validation process. There appears to be consensus about the technology priorities

identied in round 1. No one raised an opposing view regarding the technologiesidentied in this report.




35

8.5 Vntur cpitlists’ vi points: Round 3

In the last round it was felt that the nancier will be the best one to validate the

technology priorities obtained in round 1 and validated in round 2. It was felt that

if the venture capitalist found it valid to invest in these technologies then the list is

one with wider consensus. Keeping this view 5 venture capitalists were approached.

Only 2 cooperated in responding. The responses are described here. The rst venture

capitalist was older in age, and having more than 35 years of experience in the ICT

sector and investments in the ICT sector. This nancier is quoted as saying: “The areas

and trends identied are too broad and generic. It may be alright for academic purposes

but not from an investment perspective. For example, who predicted social media growth or ascendency of cloud computing 5-10 years ago? In today’s pace, a period of 5-10 years is too

long. Though academic research has to explore long term areas businesses and investors look

for short term returns. As India is a large country we need to investigate many areas and also

tune to specic needs of our country as detailed in the technology priorities of this study. One

area where India is doing a good job is to come up with low cost health care devices that have

potential to reduce cost of service delivery. India can develop ‘open source with commercial

bent’ platforms like Red Hat and Hadoop that can push technology adoption faster. Another

opportunity for India relates to build on current platforms like Android, Apple iOS, sales force

dot com on micro-scale as marketing such products will be easy ”.

The second venture capitalist is younger and with more than 20 years of experience

in the venture capitalist arena. The words of this nancier is as follows: “ As an

investor, core technologies mentioned i.e.: I (c), I (d), I(e) and I(g) are areas of interest. I don’t

believe India has the institutional capabilities, capacities, processes and mindset to create

interesting R&D or solutions in this category I. The Government needs to make enormous

policy changes as well as make huge funding available. In the sector applications: All

are interesting but again there are enormous challenges from policy, regulations and

government involvement!”.

This round with nanciers was interesting as it provided a reality check. While

the investors did validate some of the areas mentioned they did not highlight

any disagreement to the classication of core technologies and sector specic

applications. Some core technologies were endorsed by them. These were

monitoring systems and sensors, cloud computing, and security algorithms. Both

venture capitalists supported ICT for healthcare as an area that India will invest

in, in the future for ICT R&D. There was scepticism about the R&D capabilities

of Indians. There was also a strong mention about policy changes and the role of government in facilitating such R&D oriented changes. Low cost development was

also strongly supported. Thus, parts of the technology priority list evolved during



36


the delphi study is valid from the venture capitalist’s perspective.

8.6 Visionris’ vis on t JwG List

Visionaries were required to comment on the technology areas agreed upon by

the members of the JWG representing the European Commission and Indian

government in the last JWG meeting. The technologies mentioned by the JWG are:

(i) IPv6 and NGN, (ii) open source software, (iii) RFID, biometrics and smart cards,

(iv) India EU research network connectivity infrastructure, (v) internet governance

(vi) 3G deployment (v) frequency management, and (vi) universal services.

The visionaries commented on these technologies and felt that some technology

priorities were more critical than others. Not all visionaries were willing to

comment on all mentioned technologies. Figure 11 shows what visionaries felt

about this list of technology priorities.

Figur 11: Soing t importnc visionris gv t tcnologis in

t JwG list

Of the lot of technologies listed by the JWG this sample of visionaries preferred to

state that RFID, biometrics and smartcards were the priority in India.

Some visionaries made comments on the technologies in the JWG list. These

comments are quoted below:

“These are hardly technologies, some are regulations topics, they are generic and vague,

and they have less of a research component in them”.

Yet another mentioned that, “TRAI, the regulator must be consulted about these topics”.“This is a traditional list nothing new in it”. “I am not sure if these technologies are a goal

for the collaboration between India and EU ”.

Verification of JWG technology priorities

0

5

10

15

20

IPv6 Open RFID IND EU

netw ork

Internet

Gov

3G Freq

Mgmt

Univ

Service

Mention by visionaries

F r e q u e n c y




37

“Open source must not be under such a collaboration, (implying that it’s an approach)

open source needs lower infrastructure levels, most innovations come from open source”.

“Some of these technology areas are relevant to a pure ICT company and not so important

for those using ICT, say for bio initiatives”.

The implications of Figure 11 are many. The JWG from India and EU are engaged in

deciding what areas of ICT India and EU might want to cooperate upon. The ndings we

have obtained show that the technologies mentioned by JWG are more in the domain

of core ICT developmental areas. Applications of ICT are totally missed out of the

JWG list. The focus of the JWG is more on internet access infrastructure management,and facilitation of mobile based infrastructure. Both of which are very critical to India

and also mentioned by the visionaries in this report. The only challenge is that some

of the developmental activities under internet access and mobile infrastructure, also

involve standards and regulations which is an area related in some ways to R&D activity.

Standards and regulations in India, related to telecommunications which can be a broad

label for internet access and mobile infrastructure, apparently, is not very different

from that of EU as stated by one of the visionaries in this report. This is possibly the

reason for the emphasis on core ICT development in the JWG technology priorities

list. Additionally, it must be stated that RFID, biometrics and smartcards are also

mentioned by the visionaries in this report. This is the area that visionaries feel must

have greater focus for R&D collaboration. The role of open source although popular

with some visionaries received various view points on the way it must be promoted.

On the one hand some visionaries emphasize joint ownership of intellectual property,

others mentioned support for open source. This divide is echoed world over and India

appears to only mimic this divide about intellectual property versus open source in

ICT activity.

The main point to note in the analysis of JWG technology priorities is that while

this list is an important one as seen by some visionaries, there may be many more

technologies to be mentioned for the India – EU ICT R&D cooperation. However,

the technologies mentioned in the JWG list are critical for telecommunication

expansions in India and low cost high volume developmental solutions in these

areas may benet both India and EU. As one of the non-visionary JWG ofcials put

it whilst this report was being developed, “after all the technology list by JWG is

only illustrative and it is not the only list to be followed”.



38


9.0 Collbortion

Visionaries responded to queries on collaboration between India and EU memberstates. The views of all visionaries are taken into consideration at 2 levels. First, their

level of current awareness about EU is assessed followed by their intentions to

collaborate. A rating scale is used to assess this. Second, qualitative statements made

by various visionaries from ICT SMEs, larger ICT companies and academia show where

improvements can be made in order to have better cooperation between India and EU

in ICT R&D. Suggestive measures to improve the collaboration are listed out.

9.1 Knoldg nd intntions of Indin visionris on eUIn order to nd out the knowledge and intentions Indian visionaries had about EU 4

questions were asked. The rst 3 questions asked if the visionaries had experiences

with EU collaborations, had monitored changes in EU by reading information on EU via

reading material and participation in conferences and whether they had worked with

EU experts. The last question asked if the visionaries had intentions of working with EU

in the near future. Analyses of these questions are presented below:

() ho do ou rt our collbortiv xprinc it eU in t bov

tcnologis?

The current level of experience visionaries had with EU is seen in Figure 12. Figure

12 below shows that their experience is leaning away from ‘a lot’. Their experience

leans towards ‘none or some’. In other words the current levels of Indian experience

with EU are poor and insufcient to galvanize into an active one. More exposure

of Indians to EU technologies is called for.

Figur 12: Soing t xprincs of visionris it eU tcnologis

How do you rate your collaborative experience

with EU in the above technologies?

0

2

4

6

8

None Some Part much A lot

Rating provided by visionaries

F r e q u e n c y




39

(b) Dos our ork xprinc involv monitoring cngs occurring in

t eU-ICT industr?

The second query related to the degree with which Indian visionaries in the sample

monitored changes in the EU ICT industry. It is clear that Indian visionaries will

monitor changes in EU ICT industry only if they are aware of the Information and

Communications Technologies being developed in EU and thus motivating their interest

in collaborating with EU on these technologies. Again the summary of Figure 13 below

shows experience in monitoring changes in EU is only ‘some, part or even none’.

Indians do engage with EU ICT industry as mentioned by few visionaries during their

interview in round 1, however these collaborations are in the arena of “out sourcing”

and not R&D collaborations. One of the visionaries had mentioned that maximum

revenues of his company come from EU and not USA, the company being in the

telecommunications sector. Another visionary had mentioned that their relationship

with EU is more to do with “client-vendor” oriented transactional relationships rather

than a collaborative R&D relationship. While monitoring for vendor – client relationships

is occurring on the side of Indian industry in some sectors like telecommunications and

chip design of the EU, monitoring for R&D activity in EU member states appears to bemissing completely from the Indian side.

Figur 13: Soing tr Indin visionris monitor cng in eU

Does your work experience involve monitoring

changes occurring in the EU-ICT industry ?

0

2

4

6

8

10



F r e q u

e n c y

(c) Do ou rd eU trd journls, mgzins, ttnd eU ICT rltd

confrncs?

The third query related to active reading about EU ICT activities on the part of

the Indian visionaries. The answer to this query appears to be closer to no reading

or some or part reading. None of the visionaries mention ‘a lot’. Hence, unless an



40


active interest is created amongst Indian ICT industry members to pursue information

on EU ICT R&D, the collaborative efforts will not increase. Methods to bring out anactive interest must be pursued either at the industry level or the Government level if

this collaboration must grow. Figure 14 shows the results of this query.

Figur 14: Soing t rding bout eU ICT ctivitis on t prt of

Indin visionris

(d) In t nr futur, do ou v n intntions to collbort it neU prtnr?

The fourth query is an eye opener and a happy one at that. Figure 15 shows a complete

contrast in comparison to Figures 12, 13, and 14. Indian visionaries clearly have an

intention to collaborate with EU ICT industry both at the academic and industry levels.

Both academic and industrial visionaries share this view. One of the visionaries clearly

stated that although we work closer with USA, our psyche is more matched with the

Europeans, and our fore fathers worked with Europeans more.

Figur 15: Soing t intntions of visionris to collbort it eU

Do you read EU trade journals, magazines, attend

EU-ICT related conferences?

0

2

4

6

8

10

None Some Part much A lotRating provided by visionaries

F r e q u e n c y

In the near future, do you have any intentions to

collaborate with an EU partner?

0

5

10

15


Ratings provided by visionaries

F r e q u e n c y




41

() a pictur of op

Figure 16 is a picture of much hope. A comparison was made between the current

practice (Figure 12) and the intended practice (Figure 15) and it was seen that

Indians are very positive about collaborating with EU ICT industry although their

current practices do not engage in information seeking about EU. Hence, since

the intention is clearly identied as positive, the mechanisms to encourage this

intention must be put in place. This nding in Figure 16 is an excellent one in

a foresight study when two geographies are keen to initiate collaboration. The

intention is shown in red color and the current practice of information seeking is

seen in blue color. If the blue can also be increased, more proposals will happen

between India and EU.

Figur 16: Soing t currnt prctic in blu nd t intntion of

visionris in rd

The importance of the ndings in Figures 12-16 is many. It means that Indian

visionaries who represent the Indian ICT diaspora are not seen actively seeking

information on the EU ICT industry. There must be reasons for this. Most certainly

they have not been exposed to the benets of this information seeking activity. If

the benets are made clear, then the number of proposals will certainly increase

from the Indian side. It is important to do a similar study for EU and assess

whether they monitor changes in India more than Indians monitor changes in EU.

Nevertheless, there is much hope for collaboration as stated by Indian visionaries.

Picture of hope

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0



F r e q u e n c y o f

p r a c t i c e v s

i n t e n t i o n s



42


9.2 Suggstions from Indin visionris

Regarding suggestions to improve the participation between India and EU member

states in the area of ICT R&D collaborations, Indian visionaries made suggestions

worthy of mention. Some points stated by them are critical of the European

Commission’s proposal practices and others are ways in which the collaboration

can be improved. These insights will be important for European Commission’s

understanding of India. Much of what has come out in this section reects an

emerging market syndrome.

Visionaries from smaller ICT companies like SMEs and start-ups clearly nd the

overhead of working with EU for funds difcult. Since these Indian companies aretypical of the emerging market syndrome characterised by speed, impatience, desire

for low bureaucracy and lengthy procedures, the highly procedure oriented EC

proposal writing, is seen as a deterrent to joint collaboration. One of the visionary

says, “I have no experience with EU, but I am open to the opportunities available. I think

the factors that will enhance this cooperation are the following: minimum overheads when

working with EU members on proposals, avoidance of uncertain timelines, for example

if one has spent bandwidth writing and modifying a proposal but may not get funding

it is frustrating, there must be clarity in getting these budgets. Such overheads (time)

will demotivate Indian companies, for us time is too risky, and I would rather get a real customer and get money, than spend time on such uncertainty ”.

Specically from the perspective of “languages”, one of the visionaries said, “I don’t

know what has been done in EU in languages, since I have not worked with EU on this

topic, also nding a large number of partners is unwieldy and not easy to achieve, but this

is an EU requirement”.

From an academic perspective, one of the female visionaries had interesting things

to say. “Normally academics have a lot of freedom and work on something exciting. In

the issues of intellectual property we prefer joint ownership. I have noticed that in visitsfrom EU, they are very formal in their approach, but research needs personal networks.

It is better if researchers (EU and Indian) visit each other rather than agents. I have not

heard much about EC grants to collaborate. But if EU Professors come and give talks to

Professors in India we will get interested. Unfortunately in Indian institutions we are not

evaluated on grant money brought, so academics may not actively seek such money. But,

student travel grants must be encouraged in these projects. Researchers are individualistic

people, if we see someone from EU whose name we read about in journals then we get

interested if that person comes to India and talks to us”.

Another visionary who is an SME had this to say. “I had good relationships with EU

companies Symbian initially. It was an outsourcing relationship and later on we worked on the

core operating systems for the mobile, some of their EU people even came here to Bangalore




43

and worked here. We also worked with GE in Sweden, and a company in Finland. We had

associations with Germany, Finland, Denmark, France, Switzerland, and Sweden. I have notcollaborated for EC grants and only had vendor client relationships with EU. In the case of

intellectual property sharing this must be made clear up front. Also how to value intellectual

property and who will do what with the property is also to be understood ”.

One of the EU multinationals felt that there is a need for EU to “understand the

Indian eco system and we here need to revitalize our system here in India too. Delegations

from other funding agencies come and go to India to seek partners, EC does not do this.

EC tends to be far too bureaucratic ”.

One of the more senior academicians felt, “matching grants from India will help in

such cooperations. I feel the EC is caught in the processes and hence the soul is missing.

Processes are important for evaluation etc., but the soul is missing. Having collaborations

is not about more travel and this will not help, as no one has time, everyone must pause

to think and conceptualize, rushing around cannot help”.

One of the free software expert visionaries felt that, “There is learning in this collaboration.

I missed my last proposal by half a mark, so we revamped the partners and got the project

through. My experience was that writing had structure. It was nice to see the management and

administrative package in the budget, someone has to oversee the project, project accounting is intense, i.e. it takes time, it is nice if EC simplies that by making formats and templates

for accounting. We were able to nd partners but we need more information about the EU

companies that are willing to collaborate, smaller ones are not known, some large ones are.

It’s nice if there can be an EU SME road show which can be a virtual album of small EU

companies initially, and then later this can become a face to face EU road show. Likewise,

Indians may have to do similar things, and Indian SMEs must collaborate”.

Another academic stated clearly that, “there is a lack of awareness, EU should visit us

and push for collaborations. I have not been seeing them push for it. We need to exchange

this information much more and Indians will be receptive. USA is more aggressive about thismarketing. Europeans are more closed and keep amongst themselves. As a commission we

have not seen any marketing. Individual countries come and market themselves, but not the

European Commission. SAARC countries come. There is a lot of scope for collaboration”.

Another academic stated that, “the initial effort to obtain projects takes a lot of effort.

After that, working with EU partners is nice. In my project there are two persons here

full time to take care of all project related paper work. Another thing is the review process

that EC uses, I think people who are qualied should review the proposal not government

ofcials. The reviewer should have the same training and give the right feedback about the

proposal. We have to gradually build relationships through faculty and students exchanges.

Your social networks matter, how transparent the process is and whether you understand



44


the rules of the game matters. In USA I have a network but in EU I don’t have such a

good social network, but it’s a transparent system. Exchange of students is the best way to start these relationships with EU ”.

One of the visionaries from an SME in the health care sector stated that, “There

should be an institution in EC that believes that collaboration with India is meaningful and

giving value. We made attempts to work on the REACH standard for toxicity proles of

synthetic chemicals. This is needed for therapeutic and medicine oriented solutions. The

EU will be held to this standard and animal testing will be restricting to essential drugs and

so one needs a different approach to verifying these drugs, it’s an opportunity to predictive

science. We hope to reach out to some EU companies and academic Institutes in the

REACH standard; we tried to reach out but did not get a response when we reached out.

We have not closed the door, we are already working with two institutions. Although we

are more US oriented and trained that way, our parents had more European orientation

like us who now have US networks”.

Another academic visionary had this to say, “EU projects have too much of overheads,

travel, and meetings, on the other hand the Indo-French relationship, (IFCPAR), with one

French collaborator and one or two from my Institute is easier to handle, it is leaner. The

UKERI is also easy to handle but they too promote large consortiums. Large consortiums

are a drawback. The research community in India is not too large and for the small size

of researchers we have here in India, there is money in India too for R&D. The Indo French

model and Indo Swiss programs are worth looking at. In partnerships it is important to

maintain equal partnerships and an Indian should not be made a lesser partner. We in

India need money for infrastructure and not money for student scholarships. The model of

collaboration should be worked out properly ”.

The bigger ICT companies had this to say, “There is much possible, look at the clusters

of groups for Life Sciences in the Cambridge area. Although this is UK, EU has much

inventive capability too. The Nordic areas have great capability in design, their designs

are user friendly, and the people there are good at communications technologies. IndianICT is on a develop and innovate cycle and not in the invent cycle which EU is in, and

unless we are into invent cycles we do not go to some conferences, this awareness is to be

made known. The top Indian ICT companies are already in these EU countries, we have

a presence and we are aware of these countries. There are barriers such as culture and

language, and interaction barriers (visa). We have less contact with EU countries from

India’s side. European companies reach out to India, less. Oxford and Cambridge have an

Indian forum. EU does not have such organized forums. Motivation for EU to look to India

is limited. Fraunhofer has been around for decades yet they just made an ofce in India,

so there is less push from EU to see India as a R&D destination. For example, in Cloud Computing or Frugal Engineering of Health, new entrants and entrepreneurial activities

will happen. These will be in analytics, social media, cloud, etc., and in the services base

such cooperation is unlikely. Indians will adapt to new technology changes as there is




45

awareness with Indians about what technology can do. The art of the possible is visible to

a large part of our population, and the success of the mobile phone will determine how adaptation will happen. It’s all about what I can do with the device or technology that is

the much bigger deal. In designing the ‘water lter’ for example we were able to get low

value high volume. Awareness is needed with large and small companies. We need to

stay in touch with the EU partners; else I do not know what I can do with all EU countries.

Some European institutions have reached out to us. Different tiers of companies need

different inputs. We deal with start up companies in France and UK ”.

Another SME visionary in the energy for ICT sector said the following, “to improve

the relationship, awareness of India’s capability must be made known, and this exposure

must be made known to EU companies. The level of comfort to do work with India in ICT

is not so high in EU. EU is more closed to us, compared to US. For example EU knows India

more as a software service provider, rather than an analog circuit chip designer. Another

thing is the motivation to work with Indian companies is low because if EU companies

work with other EU companies they get a tax break, hence Indian companies lose out this

way, US does not do that. Indian presence in EU is not strong as it is in UK. US is a melting

pot of cultures, a lot of Indians are there so it was easy to work with them”.

Another SME visionary in the telecommunications area said that, “telecom

technologies and standards of EU are similar to what India uses. Most of us have USexposure more because we studied there (education), this makes US collaboration easier,

but in technologies and standards we are closer to EU ”.

Another SME visionary also in the telecommunications area said that, “the cost

structures between EU and India are very different. Technology can be substituted with

labour in India but when EU substitutes technology for labour the cost goes up, this must

be understood. My company has more revenue from EU than any other country because

it’s in the telecom sector ”.

Another large ICT company visionary stated that, “We will put in place a few employeesdedicated to write EU proposals to assess how we can make use of this opportunity. There

is a lack of awareness in EU about working with India. I feel fewer managers the better

in a consortium, more the partners, more the governance and less the actual research.

There should be mechanisms in place to spend the money in the right way. Need reviews

through the journey. If few companies work successfully with EU this information will

spread by word of mouth and more companies will join in project proposals that are

governed well. The real issues are one of awareness: a 2-4 year plan is needed to target

companies, doing general seminars will not help”.

These statements are illustrative of the things needed to be understood for thebigger collaboration picture. Summing up the suggestions it can be said that:



46


(a) Whilst, the European Commission is not likely to change its proposal writing

and accounting practices for India alone, more training programs and workshopson proposal writing must be encouraged. Clarity about accounting practices must

also be made clear. There is an assumption that India must make its own efforts

at understanding the EU accounting procedures. This assumption can be avoided

and hence, more clarity must be made during kick off meetings by the project

managers, most often from the EU partner’s side in helping Indian partners manage

the accounting requirements.

(b) Since the emerging markets syndrome is going to be common across a few

countries, it is possible that European Commission makes plans for “fast track

proposal assessments and feedback” to countries with companies for who time is

critical. It is possible to have a membership drive of such companies and evolve a

new program for them.

(c) There is a view that the European Commission does not market itself as much

and marketing strategies of EC may help in countries like India. Road shows on EC

activity in India will help.

(d) The view that most of the activity in proposal seeking and submission is made by

agents and not by researchers is also the view of the visionaries. Bringing university

Professors from EU in various areas of ICT on a road show to India will make the

difference an agent cannot make in this collaboration. European Commission can

initiate practices similar to the UK practice of bringing top Scientists and Professors

for exclusive talks in India.

(e) A directory of EU companies interested in cooperating with Indian partners will

help Indians nd partners. Disseminating this information will help.

(f) Lastly, whilst most of the suggestions appear to be to-do actions on the side

of the European Commission, Indian visionaries also state that interest must be

shown on the Indian side, to make this success happen. Since, large amountsof nancial support is already available to Indian researchers from the Indian

government, collaborative R&D with EU will require an extra bit of effort to make

it all happen.




47

10.0 Conclusions

This study identied ICT R&D priority areas that India may want to focus on

in the next 2, 5 and 10 years. The purpose of this study stemmed from the fact

that proposals for joint R&D collaboration between India and EU in ICT were

fewer in number, compared to other countries like China and Brazil. The European

Commission has currently sponsored a large number of activities to sensitize India

of such collaboration opportunity and the importance of it. This study is one such

activity. It is felt that identifying technology priorities of India as seen by important

visionaries of India, may help the European Commission revise and call appropriate

technology challenges relevant to India. The ndings described in this report canserve as inputs for decision making with reference to the design and policy around

technology priority calls between India and EU. Hence, possibly a separate program

can be considered for India and EU in European Commission’s planning activities.

Those R&D priorities of India that are aligned with the priorities of the EU have

greater chances of making it to the recommended calls for future cooperation

initiatives. It is true that some technology priorities of India are better funded

indigenously from within India, and it is not necessary to look for collaborative

funding in such areas. An example is the Indian languages and user interfaces

relevant to our rural populations, some visionaries feel that such R&D activities

can be indigenously funded.

A total of 30 visionaries were interviewed in this study. The average experience

of the visionaries was 20 years and they were individuals who understood the

Indian landscape very well. One key researcher conducted the entire 30 interviews

together with a supporting team.

The conclusions of this report are manifold; the rst is the main conclusion covering

the technology priority areas for India. It is therefore hoped that these priorities

constitute information useful to the authorities of both regions and more widely,

to the European and Indian ICT communities. The following research topics are of

interest to India and India may develop them further. The rst amongst the topics are

core ICT areas and the second, is ICT for sectors. These 2 classications emerged

as the 2 routes India will take into the future. It was interesting that a developing

country like India mentioned core ICT areas, since most economies in such a stage

of development normally prefer to focus on applications that are sector specic

and not core technologies. This is so because core technologies require more basic

R&D oriented activity and efforts from universities to do research on such areas,

and in developing countries’ university – industry relations are normally weak.



48


As far as core ICT technology priorities are concerned, India will mainly focus on

the following areas:

internet and networks, improving access, spectrum and bandwidth-

management technologies

network management and wireless machine to machine communications-

monitoring systems, low cost sensors and, cameras-

embedded systems and semi conductors-

security technologies, and algorithms as core solutions for any system-

that can later be applied in various applications

cloud computing and large data management, access, storage, distribution-

systems on the mobile-

As far as ICT for sectors is concerned the main sectors mentioned are:

ICT for healthcare-

ICT for energy-

ICT for education and governance-

ICT for gamication-

Brief mention is also made about ICT for distributed manufacturing, 3D-

printing, and agriculture

Where India is concerned there will be certain values that will underline ICT

R&D, possibly because India is a developing country, conscious of costs and energy

consumption. In other words, R&D activities in India will have the following areas

of value in relation to society, economics and the environment:

India will prefer R&D related to low value, high volume-

India will prefer to go green and lower energy consumption for all solutions-

India will prefer software solutions over hardware solutions-

India will be conscious of integrating the rural consumer into solutions-

India will develop multi-language solutions-

Regarding the listed JWG technologies, visionaries are in partial agreement with

the listed technologies of the JWG, but they note that, there are many more

technology areas to add into such a list and this report has mentioned many

additional technology priorities. The focus in the JWG list is more about internet

access, management and identication technologies.

Regarding collaboration enhancement between EU and India, there is a predominant

positive attitude towards such collaboration from the Indian side. Some visionaries

do also feel that the Indian psyche is matched with the European psyche in many

ways and if efforts are made to work together success will be met. For example, both

Indians and Europeans may be interested in together making long term, long lasting




49

relationships as professionals in ICT R&D. This stems from the observation that both

Indians and Europeans are likely to prefer long term relationships as against shorteeting relationships as professionals. Amongst suggestions to improve the situation

at hand, there is a request to expose European researchers, namely Scientists and

Professors to the R&D communities of India, and this will motivate Scientists and

Professors of India to engage in collaboration with them. Thus greater Europe to

India cooperation amongst university systems will help. Currently, the exposure

in India is more with European companies and less with European academia or

European Commission fund seeking procedures academia can use in India. USA

created an environment where Indians had opportunities to educate themselves

there. They thus built networks and created a US-India collaboration opportunity

over time. Encouraging student exchanges and education opportunities in Europe,

including exposure to EU fellowships and scholarships available will help build an

Indian human base that will work with Europe over time. There is a clear need to

expose Indians to European Commission proposal writing, possibly through writing

labs and other such activities, to engage the Indian ICT expert in understanding

the proposal writing process of EU. Corporate organizations in India assume that,

if this is started it will take few years (2-4) to catch up.

In terms of the procedures, whilst Indian experts feel there is a great interest fromthe Indian side to cooperate with Europe, Indians feel there should be much done

to lower administrative burdens in accessing European Programmes by Indians.

Being a fast emerging economy, the level of human patience is low in India, and

burdens of proposal writing become an overhead to Indian companies in such a

situation. Also, there is a felt need that Europeans should demonstrate a greater

willingness to cooperate with India as Americans do. Even large European players

such as Fraunhofers have shown limited activities in India considering that they

only recently set up an ofce in India.

On the methodology side of foresight studies, rich insights were gained. First, is the

use of foresight studies at the national level. Conducting a national level foresight

study is very much different from that of a corporate level study. In corporate

organizations goals and consensus are easily arrived at, as they are driven by a CEO.

In comparison goals and consensus of national planning activity that too in R&D

investments is more complex in a democractic government where a multitude

of opinions exist and circulate. This is even more complicated when India is the

largest democratic country in the world. Decision making is always more political,

polarized and difcult to converge with fair consensus. This being the case, when30 visionaries were asked to project R&D ICT trends of India, each presented

their views based on their given technical backgrounds. There was therefore a



50


tendency for each visionary to say “what India must do” and not “what India will

do”. Another point worthy of mention in this context is the use of road mappingtechniques in a national level of analysis, and the need to generate a clear time

line. Since, visionaries prefer to dwell on what should be done they shy away

from committing to clear time lines. Thus visualization of a road map with mile

stones becomes a challenge. Second, confounding this aspect of being unclear

if India will actually do what they say she must do, is the fact that Information

and Communications Technologies itself posed a complex problem because of its

diversity. The ICT spectrum of technologies is vast due to the all-pervasive nature

of ICT. Hence, a visionary whose expertise is ICT for healthcare will not be in

a position to rank and rate sensor development that is low cost. This being the

case the range of technologies mentioned by visionaries was large and thus, it was

difcult to administer round 2 in true delphi mode. This is so because one cannot

ask an expert in big data analytics for healthcare to rank or rate low cost cameras

applicable to smart houses and energy saving. They simply will not do it, leave it

out, or will rank it lower to their areas of expertise. A modied version of round 2

is thus described using the consensus method. Whilst, the delphi method has wide

spread popular usage in forecasting and foresight studies, and thus was adopted

for this study, when used for a broad range of Information and Communications

Technologies at the national level of analysis, it has limitations in direct application.

The use of the Delphi mehtod can be more relevant if the range of technologies

was just ICT for network management, or ICT for healthcare or just ICT for

energy and such. The visionary sample therefore will also have to be either network

management experts, or healthcare ICT experts or energy ICT experts. On the

other hand, there is a fear that silos will be created when using this mode of

high specializations, and that cross pollination, so common in R&D and innovative

product development, will be under played. However, the key researcher or delphi

administrator conducting the visionary interviews can be sensitive to statementswhere cross pollination is being stated, pick these up and follow through with them.

Nevertheless, the focused denition of technologies will help greatly when the

delphi method is used in the future in the context of ICT.

Cooperation on ICT Research with India is a priority for progressive open innovation

approaches of managing excellence in R&D. The European Commission, the EU

member states as well as India, can mutually benet from increasing participation

in common ICT research programmes. As shown in this study there are strong

positive intentions from the Indian visionary side to collaborate with European

Union in terms of R&D in ICT.




51

11.0 BibliogrpAdams, L.A., 1980,1. DELPHI FORECASTING: FUTURE ISSUES INGRIEVANCE ARBITRATION, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,Vol. 18, Issue 2, pp. 151 -160.

Ahlqvist, T., 2005,2. FROM INFORMATION SOCIETY TO BIOSOCIETY? ONSOCIETAL WAVES, DEVELOPING KEY TECHNOLOGIES, AND NEWPROFESSIONS,Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Vol. 72, Issue 5,pp. 501-519.

Blind, K., Cuhls, K., and Grupp, H., 1999, CURRENT FORESIGHT ACTIVITES3.IN CENTRAL EUROPE, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol.60, Issue 1, pp. 15-35.

Boutellier, R., Deplazes, U., and Lofer, K., 2007, MODEL OF TECHNOLOGY4.FORESIGHT: AN INNOVATIVE APPROACH, IEEE International Conferenceon Engineering Management, pp.7-14.

Brancheau, J.C., Janz, B. D., and Wetherbe, J.C., 1996, KEY ISSUES IN5.INFORMATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT: 1994-95, SIM DELPHIRESULTS, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 225-242.

Czinkota, M.R., and Ronkainen, I.A., 1997, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS6.AND TRADE IN THE NEXT DECADE: REPORT FROM A DELPHI STUDY, Journal of Business Studies, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 827-844

Dan, W., and Xiao-na, Y., 2009, ON BUSINESS COLLABORATION7.PATTERNS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN EUROPE AND CHINA,International Conference on Management Science & Engineering, Moscow,IEEE, pp. 344-349.

FP World Programme Orientation, Proposal, 2011-2012 p.26,8. http://www.gtti.it/uploads/fp7-ICT2011-2012%20clean.pdf, accessed on January 2012).

Geum, Y., Lee, S., Kang, D., and Park, Y., 2011, TECHNOLOGY9. ROADMAPPING FOR TECHNOLOGY-BASED PRODUCT-SERVICEINTEGRATION: A CASE STUDY, Journal of Engineering and TechnologyManagement, Vol.28, pp. 128-146.

Gokhale, M.M., Myers, D.D., 2007, TECHNOLOGY AND COMPETENCE10.ALIGNMENT TO THE ROADMAP, IEEE International Conference onEngineering Management, pp. 118-123.

Gupta, U. G., and Clarke, R. E., 1996,11. THEORY AND APPLICATIONS OFTHE DELPHI TECHNIQUE: A BIBLIOGRAPHY (1975-1994), TechnologicalForecasting and Social Change, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 185-211.

Hayne, C.S., and Pollard, E.C., 2000, A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF12.CRITICAL ISSUES FACING CANADIAN INFORMATION SYSTEMSPERSONNEL: A NATIONAL AND GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE, Informationand Management, Vol. 38, pp. 73-86.

Kesten, G., Scott, A. J., and Graefe, A., 2007,13. METHODS TO ELICITFORECASTS FROM GROUPS: DELPHI AND PREDICTION MARKETSCOMPARED, Foresight: The International Journal of Applied Forecasting,International Institute of Forecasters, Issue 8, Fall, pp. 17-20.



52


Kostoff, N.R., and Schaller, R.R., 2001, SCIENCE AND TECNOLOGY14.

ROADMAPS, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 48, No.2,pp. 132-143.

Lee, S., and Park, Y., 2005, CUSTOMIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY15.ROADMAPS ACCORDING TO ROADMAPPING PURPOSES: OVERALLPROCESS AND DETAILED MODULES, Technological Forecasting andSocial Change, Vol.72, pp. 567-583.

Linstone, H.A., and Turoff, M., Editors, 1975, THE DELPHI METHOD:16.TECHNIQUES AND APPLICATIONS, Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

Loikkanen, T., Ahlqvist, T., and Pellinen, P., 2009, THE ROLE OF THE17.TECHNOLOGY BAROMETER IN ASSESSING THE PERFORMANCE OF

THE NATIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEM, Technological Forecasting andSocial Change, Vol. 76, Issue 9, pp. 1177-1186.

Okoli, C., and Pawlowski, D. S., 2004, THE DELPHI METHOD AS A18.RESEARCH TOOL: AN EXAMPLE, DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ANDAPPLICATIONS, Information & Management, Vol.42, pp. 15-29.

Petrick, J. I., and Echols, E.A., 2004, TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING19.IN REVIEW: A TOOL FOR MAKING SUSTAINABLE NEW PRODUCTDEVELOPMENT DECISIONS, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,Vol. 71, Issues 1-2, pp. 81-100.

Phaal, R., O’Sullivan, E., Routley, M., Ford, S., and Probert, D., 2011, A20.

FRAMEWORK FOR MAPPING INDUSTRIAL EMERGENCE, TechnologicalForecasting and Social Change, Vol. 78, Issue 2, pp. 217-230.

Santangelo, D.G., 2000, CORPORATE STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGICAL21.PARTNERSHIPS IN THE EUROPEAN INFORMATION ANDCOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY, Research Policy, Vol.29, pp. 1015-1031.

Stewart, T.R., 1987,22. THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE AND JUDGMENTALFORECASTING, Climatic Change, Vol. 11, pp. 97 - 113.

Turlea, G., Nepelski, D., Prato, G., Lindmark, S., Panizza, A., Picci, L., Desruelle, P.,23.and Broster, D., THE 2010 REPORT ON R&D IN ICT IN THE EUROPEAN

UNION, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre,European Commission, 2010, http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC57808.pdf.

Vatananan, S.R., and Gerdsri, N., 2010, THE CURRENTSTATE OF24.TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING (TRM) RESEARCH AND PRACTICE,Technology Management for Global Economic Growth (PICMET),Conference Proceedings of PICMET ‘10, pp. 1-10.

Vojak,A.B., and Chambers,A.F., 2004, ROADMAPPING DISRUPTIVETECHNICAL25.THREATS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN COMPLEX, TECHNOLOGY-BASEDSUBSYSTEMS: THE SAILS METHODOLOGY, Technological Forecasting andSocial Change, Vol.71, Issues 1-2, pp. 121-139.

Weber, M.D., and Kauffman, J.R., 2011, WHAT DRIVES GLOBAL ICT26.ADOPTION? ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH DIRECTIONS, ElectronicCommerce Research and Applications, Vol. 10, Issue 6, pp. 683–701.

World 2025 Report:27. http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/the-world-in-2025-report_en.pdf, accessed on January 2012).




53

12.0 aNNeXUReS

12.1 aNNeXURe 1: R&D trnds orld-id in ICT Trgtdopning in wP2011-12

ICT topic Instrumnt Tp of ctivitIndustrilisd

countrisBRIC

Dvl. countr,

NMPC

Future Internet R&D, CSA Common/ harmonised standards US, Japan -

FIRE + Living Labs R&D, CSAProject twinning, joint test

facilities- Brazil

Search Engine R&D, CSA Common/ harmonised standards Japan - -

RFID, beyond RFID R&D, CSA Common/ harmonised standardsUS, Japan, South

KoreaChina, India -

Green Cloud

ComputingCSA Benchmarking, validation Japan - -

Access to Cultural

Heritage CSARaising awareness on standards,

competences, tools - Russia -

Language technologies CSAWorking groups, consultations,surveys

- - Arabic countries

Nano-, molecularelectronics

R&D, CSA Research, joint road mapping

US, Canada,

Australia, Japan,

Singapore

Russia, Brazil -

Quantum info.processing and

communications

R&D, CSA Research, joint road mappingUS, Canada,Australia, Japan,

Singapore

Russia -

Complex Systems

ResearchR&D , CSA Research, joint road mapping - China, India -

Neuro-engineering R&D , CSA Research, joint road mapping US - -

Trust and security R&D , CSACommon RTD priorities, project

twinning, joint test facilities

US, Japan, Australia,

S. Korea, Canada

Brazil, India, S.

Africa-

Micro, nano electronics,and Microsystems

R&D, CSA RTD, dissemination, road mapping US, Japan, Taiwan Russia, Braz il -

Embedded Systems and

ControlR&D, CSA RTD, dissemination, road mapping

US, Australia,

Canada

Russia, Brazil,

India-

Photonics R&D, CSAResearch, Interoperable solutions

and standards

US, Japan, Canada,

Austra-lia, South

Korea, Taiwan

Russia -

Flexible, Organic and

Large Area ElectronicsR&D, CSA Research, Equipment

Japan, South Korea,

Taiwan- -

ICT for Transport R&D, CSA

RTD, technology transfer,

interoperable solutions andstandards road mapping

USA, Canada, Japan,

Australia

Russia, China,

India

Latin America,

Africa

ICT for Health R&D, CSATechnology transfer on

Telemedicine- - Latin America

e-Government R&D , CSA ICT for Governance and policymodelling US, Canada - -

e-Inclusion CSA

Standardization, bench-marking

on e-accessibility and ICT for

independent living /ageing well

US - -

Sustainable Growth CSA Harmon. standard, measurement US, Japan - -

Source: FP7 ICT work Progrmm 2011-12 Orinttions, Drft rport (ICT

wP2011-12)

Pg 28, INFSO 08/2/2010



54


12.2 aNNeXURe 2: FP6 Projcts in ICT in Indi

PROJeCT TITLe FP6

INDIaN INSTITUTe

PaRTICIPaTINGChaLLeNGe aRea

Collaborating working environment for ageing workforceMahindra and Mahindra Ltd, India.

Tech Mahindra Ltd

IST-2005-2.5.11

e-Inclusion

Cooperation between EU and India on safetyAssociation of Intelligent TransportSystems India (AITS), India

End to End Recongurability (E2R) II Tata Consultancy ServicesIST-2002-2.3.1.4 Mobile and

wireless systems beyond 3G

Free Libre and Open Source Software-Worldwide Impact

Study

Centre for Development and

Advanced Computing.

IST-2004-2.3.6.2 To prepare for

future international co-operationin IST

Future action on software and services based on market

analysis of market evolution, effects of international factors

and return on European research investment.

Indian Institute of ScienceIST-2005-2.5.5 Software andServices

Intelligent modular open source Platform for interculturaland cross-domain SME Networks

Flame-Tao Knoware PrivateLimited

IST-2005-2.5.8 ICT forNetworked Businesses

Indian networks co-operation in IST with Europe

C-DAC-Pune

IISc

ITSMAIIIT-B


future international co-operation

in IST

Mentoring Indian IT organisations in the participation in the

ICT programme of FP7

ITSMA

IIIT-B

CDAC -PuneRMG

IST-2005-2.6.4 Accompanying

actions in support of

participation in Community ICTresearch

Legal knowledge transfer accelerator for SME clusters and

digital business ecosystems.ITSMA

IST-2005-2.5.8 ICT for

Networked Businesses

My personal adaptive global net Tata sons Limited

Monitoring And Addressing Synergies And Opportunities

Between Europeans And Indians

Intelligent modular open source Platform for intercultural

and cross-domain SME Networks

Flame-Tao Knoware Private

Limited



Indian networks co-operation in IST with Europe

C-DAC-Pune

IIScITSMA

IIIT-B


future international co-operation

in IST

Legal knowledge transfer accelerator for SME clusters and

digital business ecosystems.ITSMA



My personal adaptive global net Tata sons Limited

Monitoring And Addressing Synergies And Opportunities

Between Europeans And Indians

Open philosophies for associative autopoetic digital

ecosystems.

Indian Institute of technology

Kanpur



Science, education and learning in freedomTata Institute of FundamentalResearch

IST-2005-2.5.5 Software andServices

Wireless sensor Networks with self organisations

capabilities for critical and emergency applications

Antrix Corporation Limited, India.

Amrita VishwaVidyapeetham, India

IST-2005-2.5.12 ICT for

Environmental Risk Management

Greenhouse Gas and Air pollution Interactions and

SynergiesThe Energy and Resources Institute

POLICIES-3.4 Forecasting anddeveloping innovative policies for

sustainability in the medium and

long term

The Nitrogen cycle and its inuence on the European

Greenhouse gas balanceThe Energy and Resources Institute

Wireless sensor Networks with self-organisations

capabilities for critical and emergency applications

Antrix Corporation Limited, India.

Amrita VishwaVidyapeetham, India

IST-2005-2.5.12 ICT for

Environmental Risk Management

Greenhouse Gas and Air pollution Interactions andSynergies

The Energy and Resources Institute

POLICIES-3.4 Forecasting and

developing innovative policies forsustainability in the medium and

long termThe Nitrogen cycle and its inuence on the European

Greenhouse gas balanceThe Energy and Resources Institute

Source : http://www.euroindiaresearch.org/fp7_india_indiaFP6.htm, Accessed in November 2011




55

12.3 aNNeXURe 3: FP7 Projcts in ICT in Indi

Projct acronm Projct Titl Indin Institut Prticipting Cllng r

EUROINDIAEuro-India ICT Co-operation

Indian Institute of Technology Bombay•

Federation Of Indian Chambers Of •

Commerce And Industry (FICCI)

ICT-2007.9.1 Internationalcooperation

GENESYS

Good practices for

European developers of

advanced ICT enabled

energy- efciency

systems

RMG - Resource Management Group

ICT-2007.6.3 ICT for

environmental management and

energy efciency

GRIFS

Global RFID

Interoperability Forum

for Standards

GS1 , New DelhiINDIA

ICT-2007.1.3 ICT in support of thenetworked enterprise

LivingKnowledgeLivingKnowledge – Facts,

Opinions and Bias in

Time

Documentation Research and Training Center,

Indian Statistical Institute, India

ICT-2007-1.3-ICT forever yours

SYNCHRONISER

Synchronising the

Research Policy Dialogueto the Indian Dimension

EIRC Consulting Private Limited (EIRC)

Centre for Development of AdvancedComputing (CDAC)

Software Technology Park of India (STPI)

Indian Institute of Science (IISc)

FP7-ICT-2009.9.1: International

Cooperation – target outcome (a)

Euro-India SPIRIT

Enhancing the Impact

of Euro-India Policy

Dialogue and Promotion

of Joint Researchin Information &

CommunicationTechnologies (ICT)

FICCI

Centre for Science, Development and Media

Studies (CSDMS)

Administrative Staff College India (ASCI)

FP7-ICT-2009.9.1: International

Cooperation – target outcome (a)

My-FireMultidisciplinarynetworking of research

communities in FIRE

ERNET INDIAICT-2009.1.6 Future Internetexperimental facility and

experimentally driven research

CASAGRAS2

Coordination and

Support Actionfor Global RFID-

related Activities and

Standardisation - 2

GLOBAL ICT STANDARDISATION FORUM

FOR INNOVATION

EUCLID

Strengthening EU-

India collaboration innetworked monitoring

and control systems

technologies

HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS

LAB PRIVATE LIMITED*HTS

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE

ICT-2009.3.5 Engineering of Networked Monitoring and

Control Systems

GEYSERSGeneralised architEcturefor dYnamic

infraStructure sERvices

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

BOMBAY

ICT-2009.1.1 The Network of the

Future

FREEDOM

Femtocell-based

netwoRk Enhancementby intErference

managEment and

coorDination of

infOrmation forseaMless connectivity

PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA*TELKOMICT-2009.1.1 The Network of theFuture

Ideal-IST

Trans-national

cooperation among ICT

national contact points

INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGY, SOFTWAREAND MEDIA ASSOCIATION

ICT-2007.9.3 Transnational

cooperation among National

Contact Points

EU-INCOOPEU-INdia FosteringCOOPeration in

Computing Systems

INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGY, SOFTWARE

AND MEDIA ASSOCIATION

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT FOR

ADVANCED COMPUTING

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE

ICT-2011.3.4 Computing Systems



56


WIBRATE

Wireless, Self-Powered

Vibration Monitoring and

Control for ComplexIndustrial Systems

HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS

LAB PRIVATE LIMITED*HTS

ICT-2011.3.3 New paradigms for

embedded systems, monitoring

and control towards complexsystems engineering

Ideal-IST 2011Trans-nationalcooperation among ICT



AND MEDIA ASSOCIATION ICT-2007.9.3 Transnationalcooperation among National

Contact Points

COCKPIT

Citizens Collaboration

and Co-Creation in

Public Sector Service

Provision

IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDICT-2009.7.3 ICT for Governance

and Policy Modelling

Ideal-IST 2014Trans-nationalcooperation among ICT



AND MEDIA ASSOCIATION

ICT-2010.11.3 Transnationalcooperation among National

Contact Points

TRENDMINER

Large-scale, Cross-

lingual Trend Mining andSummarisation of Real-

time Media Streams

HARDIK FINTRADE PVT LTD.

Source:http://www.euroindiaresearch.org/fp7_india_indiaFP7.htm accssd in Novmbr, 2011




57

12.4 aNNeXURe 4: Budgt distribution for ICT 2011-2012 in eC

wP 11-12

(including PPPs) wP 09-10 Cng

1. Ntorking, computing nd srvic infrstructur 625 540 15,7%

1.1 Future Networks 160 190 -15,8%

1.2 Software, services and cloud computing technologies 70 110 -36,4%

1.3 Networking architecture for IoT 30 20 50,0%

1.4 Trustworthy ICT 80 90 -11,1%

1.5 Networked Media and Search Systems 70 80 -12,5%

1.6 Future Internet Experimental Facility.. 45 50 -10,0%

PPP Future Internet 170 0 NA

2. Cognitiv Sstms nd Robotics 155 153 1,3%

2.1 Cognitive Systems and Robotics 155 153 1,3%

3. altrntiv pts to componnts nd sstms 400 375 6,7%

3.1 Nanoelectronics components 60 60 0%

3.2 Integration of smart components and systems 80 80 0,0%

3.3 Embedded systems and cooperative monitoring and control 50 60 -16,67%

3.4 Computing systems 45 25 80,0%

3.5 Core and disruptive photonics 115 90 27,8%

3.6 Organic electronics and photonics 50 60 -16,7%

4.Tcnologis for Digitl Contnt nd Lngugs 165 126 31%

4.1 SME Initiative 35 NA

4.2 Language Technologies 50 26 92,35%

4.3 Digital preservation 30 30 0,0%

4.4 Information Management 50 70 -28,6%

5. Tords sustinbl nd prsonlisd ltcr 256 234 9,4%5.1 Personal Health Systems 60 63 -4%

5.2 ICT for Patient Safety 33 30 +10%

5.3 Virtual Physiological Human 68 68 0%

5.4 ICT and Ageing 35 24 45,8%

5.5 ICT for smart and personalized inclusion 35 34 2,9%

5.6 ICT for Governance and Policy Modelling 25 15 66,7%

6. ICT for lo crbon conom 280 189* 48,15%

6.1 Smart energy grids 30 20 50%

6.2 ICT systems for Energy Efciency 35 10 250%

6.3 ICT for water management 15 0 NA

PPP ICT for energy-efcient buildings and spaces of public use 50 25 100,0%

6.4 Mobility and freight transport 50 53 -5%

6.5 Cooperative systems 40 37 8%

PPP ICT for the Fully Electric Vehicle 60 20 200,0%

7. ICT for t ntrpris nd mnufcturing 140 52 169,0%

PPP ICT for agile manufacturing and customization 40 35 14,3%

PPP Manufacturing solutions for ICT products 20 0 NA

PPP Virtual factories and enterprises 45 17 165%

PPP Design & product life cycle management 35 0 NA

8. ICT for lrning nd ccss to culturl rsourcs 100 88 13,6%

8.1 Technology-Enhanced Learning 60 49 22,4%

8.2 ICT for access to cultural resources 40 39 2,56%

Futur nd emrging Tcnologis** 260 171 52%

FET-Open TBC 61 NA



58


FET-Proactive TBC 110 NA

horizontl actions nd spcil inititivs 26 26 0%9.1 International Cooperation 15 12 25,0%

9.2 NCP 3 NA

9.3 General Accompanying Measures (PCP, ..) 8 14 -42,86%

Totl 2407 1954 23,81%

* This includes the budget for WP 09-10 Objective “ICT for Environmental Services and Climate Change Adaptation”

(24M€) which is discontinued. Funding is reattributed to Objectives 6.1-3

** including exascale computing

Source:FP7 ICT work Progrmm 2011-12 Orinttions, Drft rport (ICT wP2011-12)




59

12.5 aNNeXURe 5: INTeRVIew SCheDULe FOR ROUND 1

Min Qur:

What are the key technology/technologies in the ICT

space that you envision that Indian companies will

research and develop in the next 2, 5 and 10 years?

In rltion to t qustion bov pls lbort t folloing:

Why do you choose these technologies?1.

How do you foresee Research & Development taking place in these2.

technologies? Will the R&D activity be focused on the basic or applied

domains?

What applications do you think will be developed from these3.

technologies?

Will the commercialization activity be dominant towards development4.

of product or services for the above applications?

Do you envisage open source platforms for the above technologies?5.

Are these technologies new to India?6.

Are these technologies new to EU?7.

Are these technologies new to the other parts of the world (non EU, non8.

India?)

Are these technologies breakthroughs or incremental?9.

Do you foresee any changes in the ICT industry structure (eg.,10.

new entrants, small players, foreign entrants, problems for existing

incumbents, etc) as a result of these new technologies?



60


Pls rt t folloing non som part muc lot

1How do you rate your collaborative experience with EU inthe above technologies?

0 1 2 3 4

2Does your work experience involve monitoring changesoccurring in the EU-ICT industry?

0 1 2 3 4

3Do you read EU trade journals, magazines, attend EU-ICTrelated conferences?

0 1 2 3 4

4In the near future, do you have any intentions tocollaborate with an EU partner?

0 1 2 3 4

Otr Qustions:Are there any trends and preferences in Indian consumers that will1)

inuence the EU – India collaboration?

Do you think there is demand for EU derived technologies in the Indian2)

market?

Are there any regulatory issues that will inuence the collaboration3)

between India and EU?

What are the ways of improving the current cooperation between EU and4)

India (such as complementary funding or other mechanisms of supportfor joint research activities between EU and India)?

The latest India-EU Joint Working Group Meeting on Information5)

Society in Brussels has arrived at cooperation areas for India and EU. The

technology areas for cooperation are:

IPv6 and NGN•

Open Source Software•

RFID, Biometric and Smart Card•

India-EU research network connectivity and e-Infrastructure•

Internet Governance•

3G deployment•

Frequency management•

Universal Service•

Do you foresee the above as important?

Do you or your team members have experience in writing proposals for6)

R&D collaboration with EU partners?




61

12.6 annxur 6: Smpl List

Since the sample in a foresight is critical, the names of the visionaries from round 1

are mentioned below. Also mentioned are the names of experts who participated

on the panel discussions of round 2. Lastly names of the two venture capitalists

who responded to the technology priority list in round 3, are mentioned.

Indin visionr group

Nm of Visionr Orgniztion

1 Prof. Ashok Jhunjhunwalla Indian Institute of Technology

2 Prof. H S Jamadagni Indian Institute of Science

3 Prof. N Balakrishnan Indian Institute of Science

4 Dr. Bob Hoekstra Palindrome Technology Solutions Pvt. Ltd

5 Mr. Vinay Deshpande Encore Software

6 Dr. Vijay Chandru Strand Life Sciences

7 Dr. Swami Manohar Limberlink Technologies

8 Mr. Anant Koppar Ktwo Technology Solutions

9 Mr. Anil Kumar SLN Technologies

10 Prof. Veni Madhavan Indian Institute of Science

11 Prof. Balaji Parthsarathy Indian Institute of Information Technology

12 Dr. Mukul Saxena Siemens Corporate Technology

13 Dr. G Venkatesh Sasken Technologies

14 Prof. (Ms) Varsha Apte Indian Institute of Technology

15 Prof. (Ms) Kumkum Garg Manipal Institute of Technology

16 Mr. Vijaya Kumar Wipro Technologies

17 Mr. Subrahmanyam Goparaju Infosys

18 Prof. Sandeep Sancheti National Institute of Technology

19 Prof. Anurag Kumar Indian Institute of Science

20 Mr. Gopi Garge Founder Free Software Movement Bangalore

21 Mr. Ananth Krishnan Tata Consultancy Services

22 Prof. Partha Ramachandran Indian Institute of Science

23 Mr. Paul Jeong Indo Korean R&D Center

24 Dr. Kumar Sivarajan Tejas Networks

25 Mr. Manjunatha Hebbar HCL Technologies

26 Ms.. Chitra Hariharan Concept2Silicon

27 Dr. Satya Gupta Indian Semiconductor Association

28 Mr. C. Srinivasan Cosmic Circuits

29 Mr. Ravichandran Mahadevan SAP

30 Ms. Pamela Kumar IBM India



62


Pnl discussion xprts

Panel discussion 1

Delphi administratorand panel discussionmoderator

Prof Mary Mathew, Indian Institute of Science

Panelists

1 Dr. Swami Manohar LimberLink Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

2 Mr. Ananth Koppar Ktwo technologies Pvt. Ltd

3 Mrs. Chitra Hariharan Concept2silicon

4 Dr. Sotiris Ioannidis Institute of Computer Science of the Foundation for Research andTechnology

Panel discussion 2

Delphi administrator

and panel discussionmoderator

Prof Mary Mathew, Indian Institute of Science

Panelists

1 Mr. Vinod P Deshmukh MindTree Technologies Pvt Ltd.

2 Mr. Raghuveer B K Infosys

3 Mr Ganga Prasad TCS

Vntur cpitlists

1 Dr Sridhar Mitta CEO, Next Wealth

2 Mr Sanjay Anandaram Co Founder, Jumpstartup

foresight study ict r&d trends in india

Documents