Measuring R&D Demographics to Assess the Potential for Technological Innovation of SMEs in India



Mary Mathew, Anirudha Dambal and V. Chandrashekar


“Innovation is one of the best-known indicators of organizational competitive advantage. However, little is known about the innovation behavior of SMEs in developing countries. The capacity of SMEs to be lean, flexible and agile makes their potential for innovation, high. Their R&D demographics is a good indicator of whether they will be potentially innovative or not. It is with this aim that we studied the R&D characteristics of Indian SMEs. The survey methodology was used. The questionnaire method was used for data collection. A sample of 55 Indian SME organizations in the pharmaceuticals, information technology, machine tools and precision tools sectors were surveyed. The metrics used to measure R&D demographics included spread of R&D activities within the SMEs, R&D expenditure of the SMEs, education levels of the SMEs, collaborations of the SMEs for technology acquisition and clients of the SMEs between foreign and Indian markets. Implications and policy suggestions are also discussed.


Indian SMEs R&D Demographics, measuring R&D demographics


  • Atkins, M H, Lowe, J F., 1996, \"Sizing up the small firm: UK and Australian experience\", International Small Business Journal, Vol. 15 No.3, pp.42-5.
  • Chandy R., Hopstaken B, Narasimhan O, Prabhu J, 2006, “From Invention to Innovation: Conversion Ability in Product Development”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XLIII (August 2006), pp. 494–508.
  • Damanpour, F, 2001, E Business E commerce evaluation: perspectives and strategy, Journal of Managerial Finance, Vol 27, No 1, pp 16-33.
  • Furtado A, Costa M C, Gitahy L, Quadros R, Queiroz S R and Salles Filho S, 1994, “Capacitacao Tecnologica na Industria Brasileira: Um Estudo de Empresas Lideres”, IPEA––Textos para Discussao, No. 346, Brasilia.
  • Garcia R and Calantone R, 2002, “A Critical Look at Technological Innovation Typology and Innovativeness Terminology: A Literature Review”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 19, Issue 2, pp. 110-132.
  • Gopalakrishnan S and Damanpour F, 1994, “Patterns of Generation and Adoption of Innovation in Organizations: Contingency Models of Innovation Attributes”, Journal of Engineering & Technology Management, Vol. 11, Issue 2, pp. 95-116.
  • Johannessen J A, Olsen B and Lumpkin G T, 2001, “Innovation as Newness: What is New, How New, and New to Whom?”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Bradford, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 20-31.
  • Mathew, M. and Chattopadyay, 2001, U., Entrepreneurial R&D: An Organizational Design for Enhanced Patent Productivity, paper presented at the PICMET, Portland, Oregon, USA.
  • Osborn R N, and Hagedoorn J, (1997), \"The institutionalization and evolutionary dynamics of interorganizational alliances and networks\", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No.2, pp.261-78.
  • Oslo Manual, 1993, “The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities, Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpretation Technological Data”, OECD, European Commission.
  • Sorescu, A.B., Chandy, R.K. and Prabhu, J.C., 2003, \"Sources and financial consequences of radical innovation: insights from pharmaceuticals.\" Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67, No. 4, pp. 82-102.
  • Stock, Gregory N, Noel P, Greis and William Fischer A, Sep 2002, “Firm Size and Dynamic Technological Innovation”, Technovation, Vol. 22, Issue 9, pp. 537-541
  • Twiss, B, 1992, Forecasting for Technologists and Engineers: A Practical Guide for Better Decisions, Herts, Peter Peregrinus Ltd.
  • Xu Qingrui, Guo Bin and Wang Yi, 1999. Development of Technological Innovation in China: Core Competence-based Innovation Portfolio. PICMET\'99, Portland, Oregon, USA.

RNI Registration No. CHAENG/2016/68678