Commercialization of new technologies in India: an empirical

study of perceptions of technology institutions1^

V. Kumar a,*, P.K. Jain b
a

Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, New Delhi 110 016, India
h
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi 110 016, India

Abstract
In recent years technology has become not only an important dimension of national development and growth but also essential
for survival in this competitive world. Consequently, development and commercialization of new technologies has become an
activity of focal attention and a force to reckon with.
India had started development of its scientific infrastructure in a planned way immediately after independence, however, technology development/commercialization attracted due attention of policy makers only since 1980s. The papers presents findings of
field research undertaken by the authors to study the status of new technology commercialization practices in the country. The
focus is on the parameters that influence the decision regarding commercialization of new technologies and the success of new
technology ventures, the efficacy of existing financing/support mechanisms and the further actions required by stakeholder agencies,
viz., industry, technology institutions, financial institutions and the government for further development of commercialization of
new technologies in India. For better exposition the presentation is divided into sections dealing with introduction, technology
commercialization policy initiatives in India, need for the study, design and methodology, study findings and is summed up
with concluding remarks.

Keywords: Technology; Technology transfer; Technology commercialization; New technologies; Innovation; Development through innovation;
Research and development; Technology institutions; Technology stake holders; Technology research

1. Introduction
The importance of technology in the current era has
been brought out very explicitly by Jospin (1998) when
he concludes "new products and processes will be
required to move today's industries into the next century
and to achieve industrial competitiveness and sustainable
growth". The notable studies of Kuznets (1961), Denison
(1962), Derry and Williams (1965) and Schmookler
(1966), etc. have also shown that technology of late has
become the most important factor for national growth.
Historically, price and quality determined the competitiveness, but in recent years technology has become the
significant factor affecting it (Seong-Youn, 1997).

The fast pace of technology developments and obsolescence has left very little choice on technology front
for developing countries like India. The complete dependence on the import of technology from developed countries could lead to perpetual technology subordination on
the one hand, and may hamper development of indigenous technology on the other. The technology anchor of
a nation needs to be within the country to achieve self
sustaining and self propagating prosperity; de facto it
provides intrinsic strength for development of own technologies, inter-alia, technological capabilities.

2. Technology commercialization policy

initiatives in India
Recognizing the importance of science and technology as a major force in national development, India
laid special emphasis on creating a strong research and
development infrastructure during initial years after

114

V. Kumar, P.K. Jain / Technovation 23 (2003) 113-120

independence. A chain of about 3000 scientific institutions of which 2000 are devoted to research and development (including about 1400 in-house research and
development units of industrial sector, academic institutions, testing laboratories and technology centres) were
created (Research and Development Statistics, 1998).
Establishment of venture capital funds was started
during the mid 1980s and Technology Policy Statement
(1983), Research and Development Cess Act (1986) and
Technology Development Board Act (1995) were
enacted by the Government with an objective to provide
risk-sharing funds as well as the managerial expertise
for technology development and commercialization.
In addition, as follow-up actions of the Technology
Policy
Statement
(1983),
a
few
special
mechanisms/schemes were initiated during late 1980s
and early 1990s to facilitate and promote technology
proving, up-scaling and commercialization. The major
ones are: "Programme aimed at technological self
reliance" (PATSER), a scheme of Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR); "The sponsored
research and developments" (SPREAD) and "Programme for acceleration of commercial energy research
(PACER)" schemes of Industrial Credit and Investment
Corporation of India Limited (ICICI) and Home Grown
Technology (HGT) of Technology Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council (TIFAC) an autonomous body of the Department of Science and Technology (DST).
3. Need for the study
In spite of the above mentioned initiatives, the desired
impact has not been made by new technologies, albeit,
a beginning has been made in a modest way. There are
some weighty reasons for such a state of affairs. Many
of the technologies developed in Indian laboratories have
remained unexploited as they have not been proven on
adequate prototype or pilot plant scale (Sikka, 1997).
4. The study
The authors undertook a field research to study the
current status and practices of commercialization of new
technologies in India with perspective of four major
stakeholder groups, viz., industrial firms (sample size:
200 numbers), financial institutions (sample size: 55
numbers), technology institutions (sample size: 175
numbers) and policy-makers and facilitators (sample
size: 50 numbers).
The study made a modest attempt in its holistic nature
to: (i) study and analyse the practices of commercialization of new technologies in India, in terms of important
parameters that influence the decision of commercialization of a new technology; (ii) identify the thrust parameters, inter-alia, their relative importance for successful

commercialization of new technologies; (iii) study and

identify the vital parameters (thrust areas) that can
improve the ability and effectiveness of financing mechanisms for commercialization of new technologies; (iv)
study and identify the challenges, inter-se, recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of facilitation/policy
measures towards building a culture of "commercialization of new technologies" in India.
This paper presents the perceptions of technology
institutions with respect to commercialization of new
technologies in India, based on field research study
(sample size: 175 numbers) and aggregate analysis of
their past experiences of transfer of 369 new technologies to industry during the period of study (1985
1999).

5. Design and methodology

The sample size of 175 units of technology institutions
was taken by stratified random sampling from the purposive universe of about 1500 technology institutions
consisting of in-house research and development laboratories of industrial firms, national/state government/
academia research laboratories and private research
institutions/bodies. The study has been limited to two
broad sectors of Indian industry, namely: (i) metal, metallurgy and mechanical engineering related and (ii)
chemical and pharmaceutical related. The first sector has
a lower rate of technology obsolescence and the second
sector a higher one. This being the first study on the
topic in Indian context, the sectors with extreme rates of
obsolescence have not taken; these can be taken up in
future studies. The selection of the sample is not without
reasons. It is partly to keep the study within manageable
limits. Nevertheless the selection of the sample from the
technology institutions engaged in commercialization of
new technologies and having national/state approved
status and spread through out the country, cutting across
the scales of operation (small/medium/big), can be said
to be fairly representative for the study.
The data were collected directly from the sample technology institutions through the questionnaire sent by
mail and followed personally. This exercise has resulted
in total 117 responses out of which 99 have provided
most of the data. The respondent technology institutions
have a fairly good spread (Appendix A) with respect to
their type, location, marketing channel, age, number of
technologies transferred for commercialization, success
rate and degree of success, etc. In addition, information
has also been collected about the practices followed during the transfer of 369 technologies by the respondent
technology institutions during the period of study (1985
1996) and the performance level of these transferred
technologies. The data collected has been organized and
collated by using standard and well-accepted statistical

V. Kumar, P.K. Jain / Technovation 23 (2003) 113-120

techniques and norms. The data processing and analysis

have been done by using a standard software package
termed the "Statistical Package of Social Science" (SPSS).
Frequency distribution, weighted average scores, correlation analysis and regression analysis, etc. have been
extensively used for analysis of data (Edwards, 1957;
Simon, 1968).
6. Study finding
6.1. Decision to commercialize new technologies
The most important three parameters for the decision
to commercialize a new technology are: 'status of technology' (score 1153), 'source of technology' (score
1087) and 'market potential for end product' (score
1013). Table 1, lists the important fourteen parameters
in the order of importance based on the weighted score
obtained by each of them. The three factors considered
the least important are 'capacity of company to expand
in future' (rank 12, score 402), 'geographical location of
company' (rank 13, score 395) and 'size of industrial
firm' (rank 14, score 360).
The most notable finding of the survey is that contrary
to the importance given by WTO and others to the
patentability of technology, the technology institutions
have placed it at the seventh rank of importance. It
appears reasonable considering the overall patent scenTable 1
Factors Important for decision to commercialize a new technology
(note: the maximum weighted score a parameter can secure is 1386)
Factor

Weighted score

Rank

Status of technology
Source of technology
Market potential for end
product
Company's business
philosophy
Financial status of the
industrial firm (ability to
bring in its share and over
run, if any)
Tie-up for technical
backup support
Patentability of technology
Entrepreneurial experience
of the proposer
Educational background of
entrepreneur
Import-export policy
Fiscal policies
Capacity of company to
expand in future
Geographical location of
company
Size of the industrial firm

1153
1087

1
2

1013

921

847

779
648

6
7

639

504

469
427

10
11

402

12

395

13

360

14

115

ario in the country. It can be expected that with time the

awareness of patents and their usefulness would
improve.
6.2. Parameters important for the success ofNTCV
The weighted score and the rank order (Table 2)
reveal that 'timely availability of required funds'
(weighted score 359), 'no-repayment during gestation
period' (weighted score 347) and 'nil or low interest rate
during gestation period' (weighted score 338) are the
most important three parameters for the success of a
NTCV. These primarily relate to the financial dimension,
especially pertaining to the availability and cost of capital.
These parameters directly reflect on the financial burden during pre-operation and gestation period of
NTCVs. The parameters at next two ranks of importance
pertain to readiness of technology. Three parameters
rated the least important are: 'aesthetics of product and
Table 2
Parameters that contribute to the success of the NTCVs (note:
maximum weighted score that a parameter can achieve is 396)
Parameter
Timely availability of
required funds
No re-payment during
gestation period
Nil or low interest rate
during gestation period
Optimisation of
technology at pilot plant
In-advance completion of
plant engineering and
design including
instrumentation
Commitment and sincerity
of entrepreneur/company
Support from technology
supplier
Concurrent engineering
Product engineering to
market needs
Efficient erection and
commissioning
Use of easily available
inputs
Training of technical and
market staff
Pricing, product
positioning and product
launch
Aesthetics of product and
packaging
Low interest rate during
re-payment period
Longer re-payment
periods

Weighted score

Rank

359
347
338
332

327

326

316
314

7
8

301

298

10

285

11

277

12

275

13

273

14

266

15

261

16

116

V. Kumar, P.K. Jain / Technovation 23 (2003) 113-120

packaging' (score 273), 'low interest rate during re-payment period' (score 266) and 'longer re-payment periods' (score 261).
6.3. Appraisal of funding mechanisms
Only 11 (11 %) of technology institutions feel that
sufficient mechanisms exist in the country to finance
NTCVs and just 6 (6 %) said that desired impact is being
made by these mechanisms. The majority of respondents
(98%) are of the opinion that much more is required to
be done.
Improvements desired for various features of the
existing mechanisms are presented in Appendix B. The
highlights are:
(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

The number of special financing schemes for

NTCVs be increased from existing about 10
schemes to 15 to 20 schemes (96% respondents),
the
number
of
proposals
to
be
considered/year/scheme be increased from around
250 to about more than 500 numbers (85%
respondents) and the number of proposals
approved/year/scheme be increased from about 10
to around 30 to 50 numbers (67% respondents).
Regarding the upper limit of financial support in
terms of monetary value, the majority of respondent
technology institutions (62%) have suggested it to
be Rs. 500 million as against current practice of
about Rs. 50 million. In terms of percentage of project cost, the majority (74%) have suggested that
the upper limit be increased from about 50-75%.
The majority (76%) of respondents have suggested
that the rate of interest during the gestation period
be 2-6% per annum as against the current rate going
up to 16%. Charging of royalty @ < 2 % of sales as
against current practice of royalty charges of up to
5% of sales is recommended by 63% of the respondents. Further, the period over which royalty is to
be paid is recommended as 7 years by the majority
of respondents (63%) as against the current practice
of royalty charges up to 10 years.
The processing time of proposals be reduced from
6 to 12 months to 3 to 6 months (86% respondents)
and release of the first instalment be done within
2-3 weeks of project approval as against 6-15
weeks being taken currently (80% respondents).
Most of the respondents (61%) have desired that
application processing charges should be Rs. 10,000
per application and the balance 39% have suggested
it to be kept at about Rs. 5000/- which can easily
be afforded by most of the applicants.

As far as the desirability of mode of surety (say, bank

guarantee, hypothecation or mortgage and personal
guarantee, the majority of respondents have not answ-

ered this part of the questionnaire; a few have ticked

some of the items. This aspect was discussed during the
personal visit to select technology institutions. It
emerged that scientist/technologists working at technology institutions are generally not conversant with
these terms. The setting up of monitoring or review committees to overlook the progress of the project is acceptable to the majority (91%) of technology institutions
while placement of member on the board is acceptable
only to 88% of respondents.
6.4. Appraisal of facilitating measures
The majority of technology institutions (98%) are of
the opinion that each of the stakeholder agencies need
to facilitate further the development and promotion of
'commercialization of new technologies' in the country.
Specific action points that have emerged for industrial
firms, research and development institutions, financial
institutions and the Government are summarized below:
6.4.1. Actions to be taken by Industrial Firms
(weighted score)
In order of importance
(1) To have a longer perspective of research and development activities as an investment for the future
(368).
(2) For nearly developed technologies to work with laboratories to set up demonstration/pilot plants (307).
(3) To promote sponsored research with Indian laboratories (281).
(4) To have research and development laboratories as
corporate members in the company (225).
(5) To take corporate membership in research and
development laboratories (211).

6.4.2. Actions to be taken by Technology Institutions

(weighted score)
In order of importance
(1) To concentrate on emerging and innovative areas
(674).
(2) To undertake more projects of industrial importance
with market oriented approach (613).
(3) To have collaborative projects among laboratories,
industrial firms and academic institutions (548).
(4) Do not stop at laboratory scale, take it up to demonstration plant level with industry participation (519).
(5) To do proper documentation of technology, design
and techno-economics of commercial plant (471).
(6) To work in industry for technology transfer cases,
till they are established (405).
(7) To be a corporate member in companies (355).

V. Kumar, P.K. Jain / Technovation 23 (2003) 113-120

(8) To be a corporate sponsored agency (to have corporate membership from industry) (309).

(i)

6.4.3. Actions to be taken by Financial Institutions

(weighted score)
In order of importance

(ii)

(1) To share the risk with entrepreneurs (492).

(2) To provide required funds in time (457).
(3) To charge no interest during the gestation period
(391).
(4) To have no re-payment during the gestation period
(269).
(5) To have lower re-payments in the initial stages of
commercialization (171).
(6) To have 5-8 years repayment period after the gestation period (120).

(iii)

(iv)

6.4.4. Actions to be taken by Government (weighted

score)
In order of importance
(1) To declare commercialization of new technologies
as a priority activity and to make available all
facilitations/incentives including soft loans that are
available to priority sectors (479).
(2) To provide incentives to research and development
institutions and industrial firms to commercialize
new technologies (423).
(3) To provide sales tax, excise duty and local taxes
exemption for new technology products and plant
and machinery used for it (including customs duty
if applicable) for 5 years from the date of start of
production (391).
(4) Government domain agencies to quickly patronize
the products/services of new technologies, even at
slightly higher cost during initial years (327).
(5) To open up government laboratories for industrial
corporate members (234).
(6) To allow government laboratories to become corporate members of industrial firms (148).

6.5. Aggregate analysis of part experience

Performance and experience of transfer of 369 new
technologies by the respondent technology institutions
during 1985 to 1996 has been analysed. Correlation
analysis as well as stepwise multiple regression have
been used to identify the parameters that have significant
association with the rate and/or degree of success and
their relative hierarchical importance.
The salient findings are:

(v)

117

The level of rigour practised to asses the technology

risk and market risk have positive correlation as
well as association of highest degree with the success of NTCV.
Readiness of technology in terms of demonstration
at pilot plant scale, working out of plant and equipment specifications/details, firming up of operational parameters, product/technology orientation
to market needs and availability of low cost and risk
sharing funds are the next important parameters that
govern the success of NTCVs.
The level of rigour practised to assess financial risk
has not shown any correlation or association with
the success of NTCV. This is understandable, as the
practice of assessing financial risk is not yet
developed/practised in India. It may take some more
time to develop to appropriate level.
'Age of technology institution' and 'number of new
technologies transferred for commercialization'
have exhibited strong negative correlation with the
success parameters. The negative values of coefficient of correlation indicate that as the technology
institutions grow old or the number of technologies
transferred for commercialization increase, they
(technology institutions) possibly get busy in a
number of activities resulting in lower attention to
each project and thus, lower success rates. On the
other hand the number of technologies transferred
successfully has positive correlation with the success parameters of NTCV
The success parameters have positive correlation
with 'type of technology institution', inter-se, as
technology source shifts from private research and
development laboratory to in-house research and
development laboratory the chances of success
increase significantly. It may be so because risk
evaluation exercises are performed to higher levels
of rigour in the case of in-house technologies than
in the case of technologies coming in from outside.

7. Conclusion
The study has brought to the fore the important parameters that influence the decision of commercialization
of new technologies, their success as well as the significant features of the developmental phase of commercialization of new technologies in India. These can be
of beneficial use for practising agencies. In addition, the
findings bring out clearly the areas/aspects that need to
be developed further with focussed thrust. Further, it
provides a well researched and in depth studied material
for researchers and scholars working in the area of commercialization of new technologies in particular and
technology management in general.

V. Kumar, P.K. Jain / Technovation 23 (2003) 113-120

118

Appendix A. Spread of respondent technology

institutions

Table A4
Respondent spread: sectorwise-agewise
Sector Age in years

The following notes refer to Tables A1-A7.

Number of technologgy institutions

Sector 1: Metal/ metallurgy sector.

Sector 2: Chemical/ pharmaceuticals sector.
NRDC: National Research and Development Corporation, New Delhi, India.
'Success rate' is the number of new technologies
commercialized successfully expressed as the percentage of the total number of new technologies taken
up for commercialization.
'Degree of success' is the measure of performance
on a five point scale (0=very poor, 0.8=poorer than

1-3

Sector 1
Sector 2
Total

>15

Total

27

35

Sector
2
Total

11

44

64

11

15

71

99

Zone

Number of new technologies transferred for

commercialization

Number of technology institutions

Number of technology institutions

North

South

East

West

Total

16
31
47

8
21
29

6
5
11

5
7
12

35
64
99

Table A2
Respondent spread: sectorwisetechnology institution typewise
Sector

11-15

Sector

Sector

Sector 1
Sector 2
Total

7-10

Table A5
Respondent spread: sectorwise based on number of technologies
transferred for commercialization

Table A1
Respondent spread: sectorwisezonewise
Sector

4-6

Sector 1
Sector 2
Total

1-3

4-6

7-10

More
than 10

Total

4
8
12

9
24
33

11
14
25

11
18
29

35
64
99

Type of technology institution

Table A6
Respondent spread: sectorwise based on success rate of commercialization of new technologies

Number of technology institutions

Sector

In-house
National
Private
research lab. lab./academia research
lab./govern. body
lab.

Total

8
24
32

35
64
99

20
32
52

7
8
15

Success rate in percent

Number of technology institutions

Sector 1
Sector 2
Total

Up to 25 25-50

51-75

75-100

Total

8
17
25

10
13
23

9
11
20

35
64
99

8
23
31

Table A3
Respondent spread: sectorwisemarketing channelwise

Table A7
Respondent spread: sectorwise spread on degree of success

Sector

Sector

Marketing channel
Number of technology institutions

1
Sector 1
Sector 2
Total

Degree of success
Number of technology institutions

Direct

Agent

NRDC

Others

2
27
58
85

3
1
1

4
8
5
13

5
35
64
99

Sector 1
Sector 2
Total

0.010.80

0.810.99

1.001.20

>1.20

Total

17
35
52

6
11
17

5
6
11

7
12
19

35
64
99

V. Kumar, P.K. Jain / Technovation 23 (2003) 113-120

expected 1.0= as expected 1.2=better than expected

and 1.5= much better than expected). A technology
commercialization project with the value of 'degree
of success' equal to or more than1.0 has been taken
as a successful venture.

119

Appendix B. Technology institutions' response to

the features of special mechanisms to finance
NTCV
Table B1

Table B1
S. no. Feature

Current level

Desired level

1.

Number of schemes operational in the country

810

15-20 ( 9 6 % respondents)
21-30 (4% respondents)

2.

Average number of proposals considered/year/per scheme or

mechanism

[Al]~250

500-750 (85% respondents)

1000250 (15% respondents)

3.

Average number of proposals approved/year/per scheme

10-25

30-50 (67% respondents)

50-100 (33% respondents)

4.

Processing time for proposal (months)

=6-12

<3 (14% respondents)

3-6 (86% respondents)

5.

Time required to release first instalment after approval of the

project (weeks)

=6-15

2 (12% respondents)
2-3 (80% respondents)
4-6 (8% respondents)

0.550

50 (26% respondents)
100 (12% respondents)
500 (62% respondents)

6.

Upper limit of financial support (Rs. Million)

7.

Upper limit of financial support (as percentage of total project cost) 50-50

66 (16% respondents)
75 (74% respondents)
90 (10% respondents)

8.

Application processing charges (Rs. per proposal)

Nil to 50,000

5000 (39% respondents)

10,000 (61% respondents)

9.

Interest rate during gestation period (percent per annum)

018

0 (18% respondents)
2-6 (76% respondents)
10 (6% respondents)]

10.

Interest rate after gestation period (percent per annum)

6-18

0 (9% respondents)
5-10 (39% respondents)
11-15 (52% respondents)

11.

Royalty (percentage of sales)

0-5

<2% (63% respondents)

>2% (37% respondents)

12.

Time period over which royalty is to be paid (number of years)

0-10

5 (26% respondents)
7 (63% respondents)
10 (11% respondents)

13.

Time period allowed for refund of financial support provided

(number of years after gestation period)

35

5 (14% respondents)
7 (65% respondents)
10 (16% respondents)

14.

Hypothecation/mortgage of assets

Applicable in some

Yes (88% respondents)

No (12% respondents)

15.

Bank guarantee

Applicable in some

Yes (32% respondents)

No (18% respondents)

16.

Personal guarantees

Applicable in some

Yes (27% respondents)

No (73% respondents)

17.

Placement of member on the board

Applicable in some

Yes (88% respondents)

No (12% respondents)

18.

Setting up of monitoring/review committee

Applicable in some

Yes (91% respondents)

No (9% respondents)

120

V. Kumar, P.K. Jain / Technovation 23 (2003) 113-120

References
Denison, E., 1962. The Sources of Economic Growth in the United
States. Committee for Economic Development, New York.
Derry, T.K., William, T., 1965. A Short History of Technology: from
the Earliest Times to A.D. 1900. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Edwards, A.L., 1957. Technique of Attitude Scale Construction.
Appleton Century Craft, New York.
Jospin, L., 1998. Towards the factory of next century. In: Innovation
and Technology Transfer. European Commission, Luxembourg,
January, pp. 16-21.
Kuznets, S., 1961. Capital in the American Economy. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Research and Development Cess Act, 1986. Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, New Delhi, India.
Research and Development Statistics, 1998. Department of Science
and Technology. Government of India, New Delhi, India.
Schmookler, J., 1966. Invention and Economic Growth. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Seong-Youn, K., 1997. Technology selection strategy for the enhancement of technological competitiveness. In: Karunes, K.S., Momaya,
K. (Eds.), Proceedings of International Conference on Management
of Technology, 'Globalization, Flexibility and Competitiveness'.
Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, pp. 177-186.
Sikka, P., 1997. Technology support and financing system for development and commercialization perspectives in India. Technovation
17 (1I/12), 707-714.
Simon, J.L., 1968. Basic Methods in Social Science. Random House,
New York.
Technology Development Board Act, 1995. Government of India, New
Delhi, India.
Technology Policy Statement, 1983. Government of India, New
Delhi, India.

Vimal Kumar is an adviser in the Department

of Science and Technology (DST), Ministry of
Science and Technology, Government of India,
in the area of technology management. He holds
a mechanical engineering degree with Honours
from the University of Delhi and an MBA from
the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India. Prior to joining DST in early 1990,
he has 13 years of industrial experience in the
areas
of technology management and
expansion/diversification projects. His other
interest areas include technology forecasting,
technology assessment, technology monitoring, techno-economic studies,
systems management and national level programmes of technology development and commercialization (conceptualisation, design and
implementation). Currently he is implementing "Fly Ash Mission" a Technology Project in Mission Mode of Govt. of India, as Mission Director
with focus on development, demonstration and large scale commercialization of flyash utilisation and safe disposal technologies. He has travelled
abroad, published/presented more than 150 technical/management papers
and contributed to six books. He is also a visiting faculty to a number
of technical/management institutes and has been associated with several
consultancy projects.
P.K. Jain is Professor of finance and former
Head of Department of Management Studies,
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), New Delhi
110 016, India, holds a Doctorate Degree in the
area of finance from the University of Delhi.
With more than 25 years of teaching experience
at Shri Ram College of Commerce, University
of Delhi, he has organized a large number of
management development programmes. He has
been visiting Professor to the University of
Paris-I and School of Management, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok in addition to
many more in India. He has authored two books and co-authored six books
and contributed more than 50 research papers in international/national
journals in addition to contributions to a large number of
workshops/seminars. He has carried out and was associated with several
consultancy and sponsored research projects.

.7