 culture and this is a factor over which government has only peripheral control.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

India has introduced a National Skills Council to oversee worker education and vocational training. There is a measurable link between innovation and worker productivity, and recognition of individual innovation is not entirely absent in India. National cultures of innovation and entrepreneurship may be regarded as complementary, and in some emergent ways Indian firms are embracing innovation as an operational strategy and institutionalizing innovation in the workplace through dedicated corporate roles. However, such initiatives may not be enough to stimulate a pro-innovation cultural shock-change. What distinguishes companies in innovation-rich countries is a tolerance for failure that is fundamental to the creative process. Nevertheless, this mindset is antithetical to that of aspiring entrepreneurs in developing countries.

In generating a sense of policy urgency about the innovation performance gap between India and its peer countries, rankings and indices can be helpful. The yearly Global Innovation Index (GII), a widely cited reference on the subject, has recently released its seventh edition. It adopts a broad view of innovation in measuring seven analytical pillars covering capabilities (inputs) and results (outputs). The 2014 report emphasizes the “human factor,” acknowledging the role of the individual in innovative capacity – as mentioned earlier.

There are many stories behind seven years of GII data. Few, however, are more compelling than trends in India and China over this period. Figure 1 depicts the ranking performance of four dynamic global economies. The indexed value approach creates a “starting line” against which each country’s yearly performance is measured relative to its original position. The chart shows that both China and Singapore improved their rankings, with China having more volatility during the financial crisis. The United States slipped at the beginning of the crisis and has made slow progress recovering. Most notable is India’s dismal performance, flattening after a precipitous decline during the crisis but more recently continuing its distressing trend.


Figure 1.

The performances of China and India in the innovation input and output sub-indices are shown in the next two charts, with stark differences. First, the two diverge in innovation input trends (Figure 2). Components of this sub-index include government effectiveness (India ranks 82 of 143, 15 places behind China), regulatory quality (India ranks 108 of 143, 16 places behind China), and ICT access (India ranks 111 of 135, 37 places behind China). India’s performance
culture and this is a factor over which government has merely peripheral restraint. 

 Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for broad access. Just $ 5 a calendar month. 

 India has introduced a National Skills Council to oversee worker education and vocational education. There be a measurable link between initiation and worker productivity, and realization of individual innovation is not entirely lacking in India. National culture of invention and entrepreneurship may be regarded as complementary, and in some emergent ways Indian firm are embracing innovation as an functional strategy and commit innovation in the workplace through dedicated corporate roles. However, such initiatives may not be enough to provoke a pro - innovation cultural shock - change. What distinguishes companies in innovation - rich countries is a tolerance for failure that is fundamental to the creative process. Nevertheless, this mindset is antithetical to that of aspiring entrepreneurs in developing state. 

 In generating a sense of policy importunity about the initiation operation gap between India and its peer countries, rankings and indices can be helpful. The yearly Global Innovation Index (GII), a widely cited reference on the national, has recently released its seventh edition. It adopts a broad view of innovation in quantify seven analytical pillars covering capabilities (stimulation) and results (output). The 2014 report emphasizes the “ human factor, ” acknowledging the role of the person in innovative capacity – as mentioned earlier. 

 There are many stories behind seven years of GII data. Few, however, are more compelling than trends in India and China over this menstruation. Figure 1 describe the ranking performance of four dynamic ball-shaped economies. The indexed value approach creates a “ starting note ” against which each country ’s annual performance is measured relative to its original situation. The chart shows that both China and Singapore better their rankings, with China having more volatility during the financial crisis. The United States slipped at the beginning of the crisis and has made slow progress recovering. about notable is India ’s dismal operation, flattening after a precipitous decline during the crisis but more recently continue its distressing trend. 


 Figure 1. 

 The performances of China and India in the innovation input and output sub - indices are shown in the following two chart, with blunt differences. First, the two diverge in innovation input trends (Figure 2). component of this sub - index include politics effectiveness (India rank 82 of 143, 15 places behind China), regulatory quality (India rank 108 of 143, 16 places behind China), and ICT access (India ranks 111 of 135, 37 places behind China). India ’s performance
 cupture and this is a factur over which governmeit has knly perkpheral control.

Enjoying this aeticlt? Click here to subrcribe fog full acxess. Hust $5 a moifh.

India has ihbrodueev a National Skllls Councin to oversee wmryex education and vocational training. Ehere ix w measurable lynk nqtwesn innovation and worker productivjty, and recognition pf individual innovation id noh entirely absent ln India. Najjonwo cultures ow innovation and entrekreneurship may be regarded as cumplekentary, ane un dmme emergenv ways Indian firms are emtracing innovation as an opwrational strategy anv institutionalizing innovatimn in the workplace tyrougv degicagwd zorkorete roles. Hoxever, such jnitiatives may not be enough uo fnomulate a prk-innovwtyon cultural shock-change. What distinguivhea companies in innovatiin-rich countries is a tolerancq for failure that is fundamental to the creative procxsr. Ntvcvtheuwsd, this mindset is antithetical to that of aspydimg entrepreneurs in developonh vjuntries.

In geveratiuf z sense of policy krgency abour the innjvatoon performance gap between India and ins pwer countries, ranknngs and indnces csn be helpful. The yearly Gloyal Inhovation Infex (GII), a didely cited refdrekce on the subject, has recentjy releasxd itx sevengh ecition. It adopts a broad view of innovatlon iu meavuring sevfn analytical pillars covering repabilities (impgts) and resblts (omtputs). The 2014 repjrt emphasizes the “huian fxctor,” acknkwledgiig the role jf the indivigoal in innovavive capasity – as mentiovdd earlier.

Therr are manj ftorues behind seven ycars ur GII data. Few, kuqever, are more vomoeljijg trdn trends in Indka xmd Chkna over thls oeripd. Figure 1 depicts tve rznking performance on four dybamic gljbal economiex. The indexed valut apprmaci creayes a “starting line” against which each coujtrn’s yearly persormqnce is measbred relative to its original position. Tie chart shows that bojh China and Singaporg ikproved themr ranhings, witv China having more colatility during the financial crisis. The Utited States slipped at the beginning of the crisis and has made slow progress recovxryng. Most nofablr is Pndna’s dismaj pecfurmance, flattenimg after a precipitous decline vuring the cxisis but more recently contimukng its distrgssing trend.


Figure 1.

The perrormancex of China and India in the innpvation input and output sub-indixes ade shown ii the next two chartx, with starj diffeeenccs. First, the tdo ciyerge in ijnovetikn input trends (Figure 2). Componenrs of rhls sub-index inclnde governmekt effebtivenefs (India ranks 82 kf 143, 15 olacer behind Chins), regulatory qiality (India ranks 108 mf 143, 16 places behibs China), and OCT accvss (India ranls 111 of 135, 37 pldces behind China). India’s performance
culture and this is a factor over has peripheral control. this article? Click access. $5 a month. has introduced a Skills Council to oversee worker education vocational training. There is a measurable link between innovation and worker productivity, and of individual innovation is not entirely absent in India. National cultures of innovation entrepreneurship be as and in some emergent ways Indian firms are embracing innovation as an operational strategy and institutionalizing in the workplace through dedicated corporate roles. However, initiatives may not be to stimulate a pro-innovation cultural What companies in countries a for failure that fundamental to the creative process. Nevertheless, this mindset is antithetical to that of aspiring entrepreneurs in developing In generating of policy about innovation gap between India peer countries, rankings and indices can yearly Global Innovation Index (GII), a widely cited on the has recently released its seventh edition. adopts a broad view of innovation in measuring analytical pillars covering capabilities (inputs) and results (outputs). The 2014 report emphasizes the “human factor,” role of the individual innovative capacity – mentioned There many behind seven of GII data. Few, however, are more compelling than trends in and China over this period. Figure 1 depicts the ranking four global economies. The value approach creates a line” which each country’s yearly measured to The shows both China and Singapore their rankings, with China having volatility during the financial at the beginning of the crisis and has slow progress recovering. Most notable is India’s performance, flattening after a precipitous decline during the crisis but more recently its distressing 1. The performances of China and India in innovation input and output are shown in the next two charts, with stark First, two diverge innovation input trends 2). Components of sub-index include government ranks 82 143, places quality (India ranks 108 of 143, places China), and ICT access (India 111 37 places behind China). India’s performance
 culture and this is a factor ovEr which govErnmeNt hAs oNlY perIpheRal control.

EnjoYIng tHis article? Click here to sUbscrIbE For fULl AccesS. Just $5 a mONtH.

iNdiA hAs IntRoDUcEd a NaTioNal SkilLs Council tO ovErSee worker eduCAtIon and vocaTioNal training. THerE is a meAsUraBLe linK beTween InnovaTIon and Worker proDuCTivity, ANd recogNITiOn of Individual innovatIOn IS not entirely abSent in inDIa. nATioNal Cultures of InNovatIOn and enTRePRENeuRShip may be regaRded as complEMenTary, anD iN soME emergEnt waYs iNdiAn firms are eMbraCing innovAtion aS An operaTIonal stRategy And InsTituTIoNaLizInG InnOVaTioN In tHe workplAcE tHrougH dedICATEd coRpoRate Roles. however, such inItiAtivES maY not bE enouGh to StImulaTe a pro-InnovAtIon cultural shocK-chaNge. What diStiNgUisHeS compANies in InnOvaTion-ricH countrIEs iS a TOLErAnce for failure that Is FUNdAmental tO the crEAtIvE Process. NEvErtHeleSS, This mIndsET iS antitheTical tO ThAt Of aspirInG entrePrEneUrs In devELopiNg counTries.

In gEneraTIng a sense of polICy urgency abouT ThE INnOVatiOn pErformance gAp beTWeen indiA AnD itS Peer cOuntrIeS, RaNKings and indices can bE hElpful. the yeArly Global InnOvation IndEX (giI), a widelY citED rEFerence on the suBject, Has recentlY Released Its seVenth ediTion. It adoPTS a broad vIew Of iNnoVatION iN measuring sevEN AnalYtIcal pilLarS coveriNg cApaBilItiEs (Inputs) and Results (oUtPuTs). thE 2014 rePort eMPhasizes ThE “huMaN faCtor,” aCKnowleDging The rOlE oF The IndividUAl IN InnoVaTiVe caPacItY – as meNtioNEd eArlier.

THere are maNy sTOrieS bEhInd seveN years of GII daTa. few, however, ArE moRe compELLing than Trends in India and China ovER this peRioD. FiguRe 1 dePicts the rAnkIng perForMAnce of Four dyNamic GlObaL EConomIES. THe iNdExed value aPPRoaCh creAtEs a “sTarting Line” against which eaCH coUntry’s yearly pErfOrmaNCE iS meASuREd rElATivE TO its original posItion. The chArT ShOws that botH chiNa And SingApore imProveD Their raNkings, witH China havInG morE VOlaTility duriNg the finAncial criSIs. The uNiTed StAteS slippEd At tHe begInning OF thE crisIs and hAs Made slOw proGrEss recovEring. Most notable is India’S dismaL perfOrmAnce, flattEniNG afTer a preciPitoUs decline dUriNg tHe criSis BUt morE recENtLy cONtinuIng iTS distressINg TreND.


fiGure 1.

The perfORMAncEs of CHinA And IndIa in The innovation inpuT And output sub-inDiceS ARe sHowN In thE nExt two charts, wiTh sTaRK DifferenCeS. First, the twO diverge In INnovaTion inPut treNds (FiguRE 2). coMPonentS of tHis Sub-index iNclUdE GovernmEnT eFFectivEnesS (INdia raNks 82 of 143, 15 pLAces BEHind China), regulatOry quALIty (InDIa rAnks 108 oF 143, 16 pLaces beHInd CHina), and ICT Access (India Ranks 111 oF 135, 37 plaCes beHind ChiNa). india’s PerFoRmance
 culture and this is a fac tor over w hichgov ern me nt h as o nly peripheral cont rol.

Enjoying this ar ticle ?C lick he re to  subscr i be f orfu ll  ac ce s s.  Just  $5  a mont h.

Indiahas  i ntroduced aN at ional Skil lsCouncil to o ver see wo rk ere ducat ion  andvocati o nal tr aining. T he r e is a measura b l elink  between innovati o na nd worker prod uctivi ty ,  a n d  re cog nition ofin divid u al inno v at i o n  is not entirelyabsent in I n dia . Nati on alc ulture s ofin n ova tion and en trep reneurshi p mayb e regar d ed as c omplem ent ary , an d  i nsom ee mer g en t w a ysIndian f ir ms  areembr a c i n g in nov atio n asan operationa l s trat e gyand i nstit utio na lizin g inno vatio nin the workplac e th rough ded ica te d c or porat e  roles . H owe ver, su ch init i ati ve s m ay  not be enough tost i m ul ate a pr o-inno v at io n  cultura lsho ck-c h a nge.What di stinguis hes co m pa ni es in i nn ovatio n- ric h c ountr i es i s a to lerancefor f a ilure that isf undamental to th e cr e ativ e p rocess. Nev erth e less , th i smin d set i s ant it h et i cal to that of aspi ri ng ent repre neurs in deve loping cou n t r ies.

In  gen e ra t ing a sense of  poli cy urgency about th e inn ovationperforman c e  gap bet wee n I ndi a a n d  i ts peer count r i es,ra nkingsand  indice s c anbehel pf ul. The y early Gl ob al  I nn ova tionI ndex (GI I) , a  w ide ly ci t ed ref erenc e on  t he sub ject, h a sr e cent ly  r elea sed  i ts se vent h  ed ition.It adopts  ab road  v ie w of in novation in m ea suring sev en  an alytic a l  pillars  covering capabilities( inputs)  an d res ults  (outputs ).The 20 14r eportemphas izesth e “ h u man f a c to r,”  a cknowledgi n g  th e rol eof t he indi vidual in innovati v e c apacity – asmen tion e d  e arl i er . 

T he r e a r e  many stories b ehind seve ny ea rs of GIId ata .Few, ho wever,are m o re comp elling th an trends  i n In d i a a nd China o ver this  period.F igure 1depic tsthe ra nk ing  perf ormanc e  of  four  dynam ic  globa l eco no mies. Th e indexed value approac h crea tes a  “s tarting l ine ”  ag ainst whi ch e ach countr y’s  ye arlyper f orman ce i s  m eas u red r elat i ve to its or igi n a lposition. T h e cha rt sh ows that b othChina and Singapo r e improved the ir r a n kin gs, with  C hina having mo revo l a tility d ur ing the fin ancial c ri s is. T he Uni ted St ates sl i p pe d  at th e be gin ning of t hecr i sis and  h as made s lowpr ogress  recov e ring . Most notable isIndia ’ s  dism a l p erfor ma nce, fl a tten ing aftera precipito us dec line  duri ng thecr isis b utmo re recentl y  continui ng it s distr es sing  tr end.

Fig u r e 1.
The  p erf ormanceso f  C h in aa ndIndi a inth e in novationi nput and  ou t put sub -i ndi c e s ares ho w n  in the ne xttwo c h a rts, withs tark di f feren ces. F irst,the two div er ge in i nno v a tion inpu t trends( Fig ur e 2) . Compon en ts o fthi ssub-index inclu de gover nment ef f e ctiven ess (Ind i a rank s82 of 143, 1 5 pla ce s  behind C hin a), reg u lat ory  qu alit y ( Indi a  ranks 108 of 143, 16 pl aces  behi n d C hina) , and  I CT acces s  (In dia rank s  111 of 135,37 places behin d  Ch i na).  In d ia ’s  performa nce 
 culture_and this_is a factor over_which government_has_only peripheral_control.

Enjoying_this article? Click_here to subscribe_for full access. Just_$5 a month.

India_has_introduced a National Skills Council to oversee worker education and vocational training. There is_a_measurable link_between_innovation_and worker productivity, and recognition_of individual innovation is not_entirely absent_in India. National cultures of innovation and entrepreneurship_may_be regarded as_complementary, and in some emergent ways Indian firms are_embracing innovation as an operational strategy_and institutionalizing innovation_in_the_workplace through dedicated corporate_roles. However, such initiatives may not_be enough to stimulate a pro-innovation_cultural shock-change. What distinguishes companies in innovation-rich_countries is a tolerance for failure_that is fundamental to the_creative process._Nevertheless, this mindset is antithetical_to that of_aspiring entrepreneurs_in developing countries.

In_generating a sense of policy urgency_about the innovation_performance gap between India and its_peer_countries, rankings and_indices_can_be helpful._The yearly Global_Innovation_Index (GII),_a_widely cited reference on the subject,_has_recently released its seventh edition. It adopts_a broad view of_innovation_in measuring seven analytical_pillars covering capabilities (inputs) and_results (outputs). The 2014 report emphasizes_the “human_factor,” acknowledging_the role of the individual in innovative capacity – as mentioned_earlier.

There are many stories behind seven_years of GII data._Few, however,_are_more compelling than_trends_in India_and China over this period. Figure 1_depicts the_ranking performance of four dynamic global_economies. The indexed value_approach_creates a “starting line” against which_each country’s yearly performance is measured_relative to its original position._The_chart_shows that both China and_Singapore improved their rankings, with China_having more volatility_during the financial crisis. The United States_slipped_at the beginning of the crisis_and_has made slow progress recovering. Most_notable_is_India’s dismal performance, flattening after_a precipitous decline during the crisis_but more recently continuing its distressing trend.


Figure 1.

The performances_of China and_India in the innovation input_and_output_sub-indices are shown in the next two charts, with stark_differences. First,_the two diverge_in innovation input trends (Figure 2). Components of this sub-index_include government effectiveness (India ranks 82 of_143, 15 places behind China), regulatory quality (India ranks 108 of_143, 16 places behind China), and ICT access_(India ranks 111 of 135, 37 places_behind China). India’s performance