Research on organizations has shown that the survival and growth of enterprises in dynamic business environments would depend largely on their ability to promote innovations within their organizations. The innovation process with its various stages of idea conception, development, implementation, and integration to the existing business portfolio is naturally an organizational process which inevitably requires intrapreneurial orientation among the employees. Above all, the entire process calls for an enabling culture and appropriate systems so that employees are motivated to take up intrapreneurial ventures. The aggressive efforts by companies from developed countries for capturing global markets, encouraged by the liberalized economic policies of the Indian government, have drastically changed the business scenario in India and probably the worst affected by such changes are the public sector companies in India. Whether in the private or public sector, companies are faced with only two options: innovate or perish! It is in this context that the present study was undertaken in large public sector corporations in India. The major objective of this study was to identify the organizational constraints against innovations. The best way to understand such issues is to interact with the innovators themselves because it is they who have experienced these constraints. The first step in the methodology, therefore, was to identify a few highly innovative projects from public sector organizations which was done by rating the innovativeness of 162 projects submitted for an innovation award in the petroleum sector. Thirty-one highly innovative cases were thus selected for a detailed study. A qualitative analysis of the cases brought out the following organizational constraints against innovation: Absence of failure-analysis systems (100%) Lack of patenting initiatives (97%) Lack of recognition for innovations in non-core areas (94%) Poor handling of change management (90%) Informal team formation (81%) Low emphasis on dissemination and commercialization (77%) Inadequacy of rewards and recognition (65%) Procedural delays (58%) Poor documentation and maintenance of records (58%) Easy access to foreign technologies (55%) Unclear norms on linking innovations with career growth (48%) Lack of recognition for contributions by support functions (45%) Ambivalent support from the immediate supervisor (39%) Inadequate systems for the promotion and management of ideas (35%) Lack of facility for pilot testing (29%). The study clearly shows that Indian organizations are yet to institute many systems and procedures required for supporting innovations. Although many of these organizations have formal R&D departments/divisions, it appears that R&D without the necessary organizational support is merely a ritual rather than the part of a proactive innovation strategy. R&D facilities and organizational support for innovation are not to be treated as independent arrangements but have to emerge from an overall innovation strategy as complementary systems supporting each other. Absence of such an integrative perspective and strategy seems to be the overarching constraint against innovations in Indian public sector organizations.

Research literature on innovation in established firms has made a useful distinction between radical innovation and incremental innovation and identified the organizational features associated with each. An implied assumption of many such studies is that radical innovations (compared to incremental) would have a greater impact on the organization as well as the economy. While this is generally true, it is incorrect to assume that all incremental innovations could be uniformly categorized as low-impact innovations. In a study of 31 cases of innovation implemented in large corporations in India, it was observed that though all of them could be classified as 'incremental', their impact varied considerably. A combined index for assessingthe impact based on the novelty of the idea, revenues generated/costs saved, dissemination within and outside the organization, extent of commercialization and patentability, was used to categorize the innovations into high impact (HI) and low impact (LI) groups. The analysis of the two groups was qualitative and was based on the detailed case studies prepared through extensive interviews of people involved in the projects. Inferences from the comparative analysis are explained under six sub-themes that emerged as important in differentiating between low and high impact innovations, namely: individual versus team action; the top management support; the role of the immediate supervisor; rewards, recognition and incentives; focus on core versus non core areas; and documenting and patenting practices. An important factor that enhances the impact of innovations is that organizations should have a deliberate innovation strategy and corresponding organizational structures and processes. Coupled with the innovation strategy, organizations should also develop and implement a value appropriation strategy.

No abstract

No abstract

The research literature is rich on innovations in R&D-specific organizations and provides useful information on support systems and other organizational features associated with such specialized organizations. An implied assumption of many studies is that R&D exists as an independent entity, without controls or influences from the other functions of an organization. While this may be true for purely R&D organizations, the picture is different when R&D is organized as part of a larger system in which the core activities centre on operating departments. This is the pattern in developing countries like India, where most R&D activities are carried out in departments/divisions of companies that were established primarily for operational purposes. In this study, 31 cases of innovation (15 from R&D centres and 16 from operating departments of large corporations in India) are analysed using a qualitative method of content analysis of data collected through in-depth interviews. While this comparative analysis highlights the need for specific organizational support systems to cater for the specific requirements of the two groups, the most prominent findings on intrapreneurship are that it is facilitated primarily by the flexibility of the R&D scientists to work in their core as well as related areas and the continuous and issue-based interaction between the R&D centres and operating departments.