Dr Gautam Shroff (Vice President, Tata Consultancy Services; Head - TCS Innovation Lab - Delhi), the moderator of the session welcomed the audience at IITM Research Park and introduced the panellists comprising of academic & industry leaders focusing on research & technology. Talking on the preparation (and making) for this session on Research, Gautam said that the process began with two IIT Directors presenting their suggestions on how can IIT research inputs and outputs be improved, which was then followed by thoughts and views from Panellists. The views of the distinguished speakers are available on the site.

Prof. Sanjay G. Dhande (Director, IIT Kanpur) was the first speaker of the research track. He began his presentation by pointing out that the state of research and the state of the audience present here is similar – like in the case of research, we needed to wait for the audience to began the session. The location (and thus the distance) of the IITM research park from other conference venues contributed to the delay of this session.

Prof Dhande stated that any institute of higher education has two roles – knowledge dissemination (teaching) and knowledge creation (research). Research so far has been unfortunately a push model unlike teaching which has always been a pull model. Universities around the world have learned to convert research into wealth but India is far behind. Four specific areas to impact for improving research inputs & outputs are:

1. Students - Getting students for research has always been a major challenge. Networking between educational institutions is important across the globe. It requires aggressive marketing policy to attract talent for post graduate courses in research.
2. Faculty - Another challenge is attracting and retaining high quality faculty. The common myth that teaching load (in research at undergraduate institutions) is high contributes to this challenge. Incentivising the faculty’s efforts is an important requirement to address this challenge.
3. Infrastructure - Experimental aspects of the research have been missing in the research curriculum. So far, the focus has been only on competitive research.
4. Research Programs – Specialized research groups and programs need to be formed. Unlike programs like B. Tech which have a standardized curriculum, research needs much more flexible & evolving environment including defining the research programs.

Prof. Gautam Barua (Director, IIT Guwahati) – He highlighted his views in form of the challenges faced by research at IITs. He elaborated on the two issues faced by PhD students:

1.       Students Training - Although PhD students are growing in number but the challenge is the ability to train the PhD students before they get into research. The quality of the students however is not an issue.

2.       Faculty is another issue – revolving around both quantity and quality. PhD students taking on professor role is the possible solution but a major challenge.

Talking on the output, he highlighted the importance of great infrastructure as the pre-requisite for producing quality research output. He said that over the recent years, there has been an improvement in the infrastructure due to available funding options. However, issues related to government policies such as purchasing, tendering is another issue – govt needs to aggressively liberalize the policies.

Similarly, IITs in the limelight (for the bad reasons such as reservation) is another issue. In addition, there are myths like IITs don’t have research capabilities and resources, which contribute further to the poor condition of research at IITs. Doing a good job on marketing (not inherent to researchers) is the need of the hour.

Dr. Vishy Poosala (Head, Bell Labs India, Alcatel-Lucent) – He started his session by thanking everyone for skipping the chess competition to be hereJ. He was happy to be back at IIT Madras after a long time.  Humbly, he mentioned that he is really not connected with research inputs and outputs with IITs. However, in his view, Bell Labs has the similar issues and he drew parallels from his experience at Bell Labs – which can be used to address the challenges at IIT.

Like earlier speakers, he also listed Students, Faculty, Infra, and Programs as the key areas to impact the quality of research.

How to attract great students? Today, Entrepreneurship is considered more attractive than research (due to competition & peer pressure among IITians). IITs need a clear definition of value proposition for research opportunities as done by Bell Labs.  For e.g., Bell Labs value prop revolves around

1. Quality of research work is incredibly high compared to a typical job; the researcher gets to work with the great minds in the world. Ability to innovate – create something big which changes the way world is moving.
2. Salaries – Don’t just look for the short term gains. PhD students doing great work are paid exceptionally well. In US, there is a huge premium associated with PhD degrees even if you go to industry.
3. Incubators for disruptive research ideas to create internal start-ups can make Entrepreneurship and Research co-exist. Needs more emphasis by IITs.

How to create a structure so as to continue to do great research work? ‘Open Innovation – Collaborative work’ is the buzz word today. Industry-academia partnership is the key. It will significantly contribute to the output of the research work. As considered by global companies including Bell Labs, emerging markets such as India have much better opportunities and excitement for doing world class research.

Finally, Vishy also acknowledged the fact that we lack marketing - it is undervalued across our educational system. Talking straight, he said that “we totally suck in marketing”. What can we do? Liked an organizations, IITs should hire right people who can do a great job in marketing & promotion. Create right buzz about research programs & opportunities offered at IITs.

Prof. Jayant R. Haritsa (Faculty, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore) – The focus of his presentation was ‘Rethinking the Research Crisis at IITs’.

He said that over the years, IIT system is using low input quality ass the justification for the low output quality. In addition, insufficient acceptance & encouragement from the Industry contributes to the current situation. Let’s not point fingers outside and instead enquire inwards. He shared some of the data on Research Productivity for CS @ IISC (2005): only 0.1 really good (i.e. tier I) research publication/per year/per person.

Quality of intellectual input at IIT is far better. Failure to mentor and train the quality input is the key reason for the current research situation at IITs. Dropout rates of PhDs is obvious  and validates this point. Can we produce 1.0 (tier I) pub/person/year?

Sure. What’s needed?

1. Change the current approach of ‘input evaluation’ to ‘output accountability’. Liberally provide physical & financial resources and ask for research outputs in return.
2. Choose one metric – research publications.
3. Develop appropriate policies/regulations and enforce them. Examples:
   1. B Tech/M Tech can get good grade in the final year only if s/he submitted paper in Tier I general
   2. No part time PhD students
   3. No student start-ups – confuses the students and get them caught up in marketing hype. Eg. At IIT Mumbai 3^rd year students were interviewing 2^nd years students
   4. Faculty policies

                                                               i.      Time bound response to the new applicants

                                                             ii.      Work-places and home accommodation should be adequate

                                                            iii.      Meeting with director on frequent basis

                                                           iv.      Clearly specified promotion criteria

                                                             v.      Do not force for locally relevant (e.g. rural research) research – give them the flexibility or be prepared to accept bad quality output

                                                           vi.      No faculty companies – creates severe conflicts of interests

To summarize, he reminded of ‘output accountability’. Hopefully we won’t need this panel at next PanIIT at IIT Chennai J, were his final remarks.

Dr C. Mohan (IBM/ACM/IEEE Fellow and IBM India Chief Scientist; Distinguished Alumnus of IIT Madras) - He started with his passion not only on research but also on advanced technology careers. He emphasised the importance of giving credibility and acknowledging people doing research – he finds it hugely missing. To make his point, he said that his manager’s manager is the CEO of IBM – he is not a manager and thus he is not looked highly. Technical careers should be highlighted as premium through Press and media.

We also need to make sure that people become good not only at the technical work but also in marketing their work. Selling the research idea is important to build right research ecosystem. Instead of just doing the lip service (as done currently) to training on marketing, we must take the required actions.

Also he confirmed the fact that remunerations for research professionals are reasonably good and are at par with salaries received by industry professionals. In his view, commercialization of research (faculty taking on roles in industry) is fine as long it is placed in the right structure. Universities such as Stanford, Berkley and MIT are great examples.

Prof Raj Bordia (Professor of Materials Sci & Engg, U Washington, Seattle) - He introduced himself as the only one outside the IT industry. He shared his experience of the last 3-4 months on his sabbatical at IIT Kanpur, where he analyzed the situation of research work.

The problem of good Input (Quality and Quantity of PhD) in his view is absolutely true. He validated the same through his interactions at IIT Kanpur. Students have thought about it and know the advantages but see more problems such as:

1. Limited career prospects
2. Significant financial penalty

At his time, at least 20% of his batch mates dream job was to be faculty at IIT. In US, 20-50% undergraduates go for research/faculty positions. Indians are interested in going to US if they choose to do research. Engineering research is perceived as inferior compared to scientific research.

Suggestions for input challenge:

1. Careers options (including salaries) must be improved
2. National missions to motivate students to do research
3. Recruit and admit non-Indian students
4. Encourage undergraduate to be involved in research
5. Mentoring by academicians at IIT

On the faculty issue, he said:

1. If we lose the input quality game, the chance of good faculty is negligible
2. Create a non-tenure faculty track
3. Flexibility of work for faculty
4. Networking and co-operation between IITs
5. Actively publicize the role of IITs in addressing the needs of the country

National missions such as Man on Moon are really required to motivate and inspire both faculty and students. Talking on structural changes, research priorities are defined by scientific community and not technology. They should be separate – ‘science and technology’ research doesn’t work together– they both have different dynamics.

Dr. K. Ananth Krishnan (Chief Technology Officer, Tata Consultancy Services) – He represents the voice of Industry. Talking on the quality of research in India, he highlighted two aspects:

1. Global Problem - The problem being talked is not limited to IITs; it’s everywhere even in US (except international hires, rest of the input for research is a huge challenge). China may be an exception in his view – they have a military of researchers.
2. Has India bypassed the academics in the area of research (where is research happening?)? For e.g., quality of the research work (and people doing the same) at ISRO is exceptional. They’ve critical mass for doing scientific research.

Specific suggestions:

1. Input Quality
   1. The Research mindset from the UG level, and certainly into the PG level must be identified (in say 20% of the students) and strengthened - the ability to tackle open ended problems, peer review, imagination and originality, perseverance.
   2. Strengthen the research component in UG and PG theses - don’t know what the standard of these is right now - but the 20% of people with the right mindset, must work on really interesting areas.
   3. Set targets to get 25% of the target set of students at UG level (ie 5% of total UG intake) to register for PhDs eventually - keep track of this on a personal basis, assign mentors from 2nd year onwards etc.
   4. Re-look at the entry criteria for PhD students, like many MBA schools - mandate some work experience in the domain (preferably in R&D-friendly companies) before accepting a candidate for a PhD
2. Faculty
   1. Industry style treatment of the faculty is critical
   2. Endowment funds such as being given to US universities are required
3. Output Quality
   1. Need a PR mechanism – promote the successes and accomplishments. Setting up a dean of public relations if required will be great. He said that his role as a CTO at TCS is like that of Chief Talking Officer – promote the culture for high quality research work.

Research in my opinion needs to be encouraged. Talking on the global conferences, he said the current structure of high registration fees, travel cost and limited visibility to people who want to showcase their work are prohibitive. Virtual conferences are a solution! You can bet that industry sponsorship for conferences and events will dry up in 2009! Can the IITs lead this?