TFS-18484; No of Pages 11

Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best–worst

multi criteria decision making method
Himanshu Gupta ⁎,1, Mukesh Kumar Barua 2
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee 247667, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: MSMEs (Micro-small and Medium Enterprises) can alter the economic scenario of any developing nation owing
Received 27 October 2015 to their inherent ability to transform new ideas into innovations and thus successful business enterprises. How-
Received in revised form 7 March 2016 ever transforming the socio-economic status of a developing country is not an easy task. Manufacturing organi-
Accepted 19 March 2016
zations especially MSMEs need to focus on important enablers of innovation to sustain global competition. This
Available online xxxx
study aims at identifying important enablers of technological innovation in the context of Indian MSMEs. Extant
Keywords:
literature review and expert judgment are used to identify enablers of technological innovation. A novel multi-
Best–worst method criteria decision making technique called best–worst method is applied to find out most important enablers
Entrepreneur among these. Research results indicate project resources and capabilities; technical know-how of entrepreneurs
Innovation and government policies as most important enablers contributing significantly towards technological develop-
MSMEs ment of MSMEs.
Resources © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
MSME growth is a prerequisite for the growth of a developing econ-
omy as these organizations comprise more than 50% of the manufactur-
ing output of the economy (Eniola and Entebang, 2015). MSMEs
contribute substantially to the economic growth of developing coun-
tries (Keizer et al., 2002; Gupta et al., in press; Manhas et al., 2015).
Due to liberalization and advent of globalization developing economies
are finding it difficult to sustain cut-throat competition among different
firms and stay competitive (Gupta and Nanda, 2015). Competitiveness
of a nation largely depends on innovation (Freel, 2000). The ability of
small organization to bring out innovations is the prime element for
competitiveness of that economy (Madrid-Guijarro et al., 2009). How-
ever to sustain competitiveness is not an easy task for small organiza-
tions as these are most susceptible due to variety of problems, like
resource constraints, difficult access to advanced technologies, incapa-
ble managers, limited access to finance, lower production level, poor
quality and regulatory obligations (OECD, 1997). These barriers are
most prominent for developing countries like India which stands at a
relatively lower position on the global competitive index (over all
rank 60 among the 148 participating nations) (World Economic
Forum, 2014). Technological innovations help organizations establish
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: himanshuguptadoms@gmail.com (H. Gupta),
baruafdm@iitr.ernet.in (M.K. Barua).
1
Research scholar.
2
Associate professor.
their own competencies and propel them to stay ahead of their compet-
itors and remain competitive. The need of the hour is to identify en-
ablers of innovation for MSMEs of a developing economy.
With this objective in mind this research aims at identifying and
rank enablers of technological innovation for MSMEs in the context of
a developing economy like India. Extant review of literature has been
done to identify enablers of technological innovation and a novel
multi-criteria decision making technique called best–worst method de-
veloped by Rezaei (2015a) has been utilized to rank these enablers.
The rest of this paper is structured in the following manner. In
Section 2, an extant literature review of possible enablers of technolog-
ical innovation is presented. Section 3, elaborates the steps involved in
the best–worst method. Section 4, presents the results and discussions
of this study. Section 5 presents the managerial implications of the re-
sults obtained and finally Section 6 highlights the limitations of this
study and discusses possible future research in this area.
1.1. Definition of micro, small and medium enterprises in India
Every economy has their own criteria for defining small and medium
enterprises. Most of the countries do not differentiate between micro
and small enterprises as they are considered the same, the only differ-
ence is among small, medium and large enterprises. But India as per
MSMED Act 2006 differentiates these organizations as micro, small
and medium enterprises. Some define MSMEs in terms of number of
employees; some defined it in terms of annual sales and turnover,
whereas some defined it in terms of investment in plant and machinery.
In India, MSMEs are defined in terms of investment in plant and ma-
chinery by MSMED Act 2006 (See Table 1). This act classified enterprises

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.028
0040-1625/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Gupta, H., Barua, M.K., Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best–worst multi criteria
decision making method, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.028
2 H. Gupta, M.K. Barua / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
in two categories: one is manufacturing enterprises and the other is ser-
vice enterprise.
2. Literature review
2.1. Technological innovation
According to the World Economic Forum (2014) technological inno-
vation is one of the twelve pillars determining productivity, growth and
competitiveness of a country. The term ‘Innovation’ seems to be derived
from the Latin word ‘novus’ (Hsu, 2005), which means new, young or
novel. A substantial group of people view innovation as a means of cre-
ativity and creation of invention. Different authors have described tech-
nological innovation in different contexts at different points of time.
OECD (1997) describes technological product innovation as improving
performance characteristics of the product so as to deliver a commer-
cially successful product. A technological innovation process can be con-
sidered as the adoption of new technology or implementation of an
improved production process at the organization. Technological innova-
tion might involve change in organization structure, working processes
or new and innovative ways of human resource management (OECD,
1997; Madrid-Guijarro et al., 2009). According to Tidd et al. (2001) tech-
nological innovation involves converting newly generated ideas into ac-
tions that results in visible improvement in organization. Cummings
and Oldham (1997) described technological innovation as integrating
new technologies, operations and most adept processes for the genera-
tion of innovative ideas adoptable by market. Further Terziovski (2008)
defines technological innovation as a process of first generation of new
ideas than successfully implementing those ideas for successful running
of businesses. At large scale technological innovations benefit the socie-
ty by proliferating growth of the whole industry and at grass root level it
influences individual enterprises and partners involved by their growth.
Relatively younger MSMEs and firms at entry level have enormous po-
tential for technological innovation across different countries of the
world (Chaminade and Vang, 2007; Verhees and Meulenberg, 2004).
Various researchers over the time have identified many enablers of
technological innovation for MSMEs. Rothwell (1991) explained the im-
portance of subcontracting relations and networking among small firms
as potential enablers of innovative performance of small firms. Lee
(1995) in their study of Korean electronic industry identified that in-
house R&D and technical linkage with buyers, suppliers and educational
institutes have strong impact on radical innovations of organizations.
On a similar line Hayashi (2002) in the context of Indonesian SMEs ar-
gued that inter-firm cooperation through subcontracting ties would in-
crease productivity and innovativeness of SMEs. Further Narayana
(2004) focused on infrastructure facilities including transport, market
information, credit, power, water, telecom, technology upgradation
and quality certification as enabler of competitiveness in Indian small
scale industries. Subrahmanya, 2005 and Kumar and Subrahmanya
(2010) in a study of SMEs of India concluded that innovative activities
are motivated by firm owners and also through linkages with large en-
terprises. Nanda and Singh (2009) in their study of Indian MSMEs pre-
sented the five main components comprising the technology
development implementation program. These included, Manpower
Competence and Management Commitment; Technology Infrastruc-
ture; Regulatory Support; Interaction with Others and Research Out-
puts. Kang and Park (2012) examined that internal R&D human
capital or workforce and collaboration with universities as well as sup-
port from government have shown significant improvement in innova-
tion performance of Korean SMEs. Very recently Krishnaswamy et al.
(2015) studied the impact of external customer interaction and assis-
tance on firm innovation and found that strong external networks
have positive impact on innovations and thus firm growth. Also Bala
Subrahmanya (2015) in his research on SMEs of India found that
entrepreneur's qualification, skilled labor, relationship with suppliers,
collaborations with customers and support from technology resource
Please cite this article as: Gupta, H., Barua, M.K., Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best–worst multi criteria
decision making method, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.028
centers are determinant for innovation related growth of SMEs. Gupta
and Nanda (2015) identified four main drivers of innovativeness for
MSMEs viz. entrepreneur, linkage capability, regulatory corroboration
and technology infrastructure. Based on the extensive review of litera-
ture few enablers of technological innovation for MSMEs have been
identified and discussed in the following paragraphs.
2.2. Entrepreneur Role
Innovation in new firms is generally actuated by a single person
called entrepreneur (Garnsey, 1998). Entrepreneur is a representative
of society for change. The inherent characteristics of entrepreneur are
to perform old or erstwhile activities in a new or innovative manner.
(Schumpeter, 1947). It was Schumpeter (1959) who analyzed the theo-
ry of entrepreneur from a new perspective. According to him, develop-
ment is the burst of economic activities. When the stationary
equilibrium is disturbed, development takes place. This change or dis-
turbance comes forth in the form of ‘innovation’. For Schumpeter, the
entrepreneur is an ‘innovation’ who is characterized by potentialities
of doing new things or doing things in a new way. The entrepreneur
must lead an innovation project in order to build a successful and com-
petitive business (Ottosson, 2004). The entrepreneur represents an in-
novative person who aims for maximum profit with cost
minimization by making various innovations (Örnek and Danyal,
2015). Entrepreneur success can be measured through a number of
components such as spread of knowledge (Grossman and Helpman,
1991); enhancement of competition among firms (Feldman, 1999) or
diverseness (Hassan and Olaniran, 2011). All the vital resources like
technical skills, knowledge about day to day working, ability to take
risks and decisions, past experience in other organizations and most
necessary education are held by an entrepreneur (Edelman et al.,
2002). Entrepreneur age, technical competencies, know-how and
prior experience are the important enablers for innovative growth of
SMEs (Mazzarol et al., 1999; Indarti and Langenberg, 2005; Islam
et al., 2011; Startiene and Remeikiene, 2015).
2.2.1. Education level of entrepreneurs
The technical capability of the firm will be reflected in the education-
al qualification of the entrepreneur/s, and proportion of skilled labor in
the total employees of the firm. Firms with a technically qualified entre-
preneur as its head and skilled workforce as its base will be better
equipped to undertake innovations (Subrahmanya, 2015). Even though
a firm is having highly skilled and qualified staff but the decisions re-
garding acquiring new technology, organization-wide changes and ex-
ternal investments in machinery lies with the entrepreneur (Clancy,
2001). An educated entrepreneur is bound to make better decisions re-
garding these (Jagersma, 2008). Education level of entrepreneurs is di-
rectly proportional to the firm's success, a university level graduate
often makes better decisions than a school dropout (Meng and Liang,
1996; Zaridis and Mousiolis, 2014). The advantage of having technical
education background is that it would enable an entrepreneur to im-
press upon a trans-national-corporation towards forging
subcontracting relationship and receive more technical assistance as
compared to a non-technical entrepreneur (Subrahmanya, 2010).
2.2.2. Technical know-how and training of entrepreneur
Jamieson (1984) categorize entrepreneurial education into three
different classes viz. first one in which entrepreneur is learning about
organization, second one in which entrepreneur is learning for organi-
zation and last one in which entrepreneur is learning in the organization
(i.e. training). The success of an organization mostly is affected by entre-
preneurs' learning in organization. Training infuses the necessary skills
and working knowledge among that have profound impact on decisions
related to production activities (Jagersma, 2008). Entrepreneurs need to
develop technical knowledge regarding necessary procedures and tech-
niques relevant to work and must make use of these techniques to fulfill
 H. Gupta, M.K. Barua / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
the operational responsibility he is assigned with (Chandler and Jansen,
1992; Winterton, 2002).
In order for birth and survival of any business entrepreneurs need to
develop certain competencies. These include ‘strategic competency’, ‘in-
novative competency’, ‘opportunity competency’, ‘organizing and lead-
ing competency’, ‘relationship and networking competency’, ‘technical
competency’ and ‘personal competency’ (Ahmad and Seet, 2009). Tech-
nical competencies are essential for entrepreneurs in order to make rel-
evant business related decisions and also train its workforce in areas
related to their work. Training employees internally by entrepreneur
himself would reduce cost of training (Ahmad et al., 2011) and help ac-
cess loans from banks (Jamak et al., 2014).
2.2.3. Prior working experience and occupational background
A large number of MSMEs are falling sick due to lack of business and
financial planning skills apart from insufficient working knowledge of
day to day activities of young entrepreneurs (Zaridis and Mousiolis,
2014). Ronstadt (1989) argues that success of an organization largely
depends on entrepreneurs past working experience. Experience related
to a specific area ensures growth and success of enterprise (Cooper
et al., 1994). Working experience in some organizations inculcate inno-
vative thinking and culture among entrepreneurs (Kolvereid, 1996).
Further Panda (2008) and Dahlqvist et al. (2000) emphasize that orga-
nization success largely depends on entrepreneur attributes like knowl-
edge related to technical competencies, experience acquired on a
previous job and decision making ability. Entrepreneur age and previ-
ous experience have a significant effect on performance of SMEs
(Kemayel, 2015). Performance of an organization is significantly corre-
lated to entrepreneur knowledge acquired due to experience gained by
working in related organizations (Ferrante, 2005; Song et al., 2008). En-
trepreneurs with prior working experience possess requisite set of
knowledge, creativity and access to necessary finance, these set of skills
help grow a strong and innovative organization (Ahmad et al., 2014).
2.2.4. Entrepreneur network
Efficient entrepreneurs extend themselves beyond the traditional
boundaries and reach to other organizations and partners to gain access
to resources, financial help, staff exchange, technology exchange, idea
sharing, etc. (Slotte-Kock and Coviello, 2010). Stewart et al. (1999) ar-
gued strong tie-up and linkages with other organizations as a measure
adopted by entrepreneurs to overcome resource constraints. Entrepre-
neurs' networks and tie-ups facilitate resource acquisition, access to ex-
ternal knowledge and innovative technologies (Davidsson and Honig,
2003). Suitable assistance from external partners acts as a facilitator
for technological innovations by converting the customer requirements
into products or services and delivering them to the market. It also helps
build up a strong technology capability base for the organization
(Krishnaswamy et al., 2015). Ferri et al. (2009) concluded that wide net-
work and strong linkages of entrepreneurs even out lack of other assets.
2.3. Linkage capabilities
“Linkage capabilities are the skills needed to transmit information,
skills and technology to, and receive them from, component or raw ma-
terial suppliers, subcontractors, consultants, service firms, and technol-
ogy institutions” (Lall, 1992). In order to sustain themselves in today's
environment of fierce competition organizations must develop linkages
with other organizations so as to gain access to their expertise and tech-
nology thus supplementing their own capabilities (Edwards and
Delbridge, 2001; Sen and Egelhoff, 2000). Jagersma (2008) differentiat-
ed linkage capabilities under three categories, the first category involves
gaining by involving themselves with their suppliers for exchange of
technology and information, the second category involves transferring
products or designs from abroad by aligning with partners and the
third category involves collaborative research and permitting others to
Please cite this article as: Gupta, H., Barua, M.K., Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best–worst multi criteria
decision making method, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.028
3
use your technology. All these are essential for corroborating innovation
related activities of organizations.
2.3.1. Technological collaboration between firms and subcontracting firms
Researchers have identified various means of technological collabo-
ration which includes merging company with other company, syndicat-
ing with few companies to work on common goal, permitting other to
use your technology through permits, joint research, acquiring new
technology. Collaboration with subcontracting firms and other organi-
zations to share technology has most profound impact on technological
innovations of SMEs (Newbert, 2008; Radas and Božić, 2009).To acquire
vital resources which organizations generally lack themselves they need
to extend their limits and collaborate with their suppliers and other or-
ganizations which supplements innovation ability of the organizations
(Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1996; Chesbrough, 2003, 2007). Accord-
ing to King et al. (2003) weakness of small firms to innovative can be
utilized as an opportunity to collaborate with large organization thus
sharing their resources and counterbalancing each other's strengths
and weaknesses. The subcontracting relationship is like supplier-
customer relation in which SMEs act as suppliers and large organiza-
tions act as their customers or original equipment manufacturers. Orig-
inal equipment manufacturers i.e. large organizations provide all the
required help by sharing technology, sharing knowledge, providing
training to their workforce to produce better product with superior
quality, thus contributing to the growth of small organizations (Kumar
and Subrahmanya, 2010).
2.3.2. SME networks
Networks are characterized by the conglomerate of three or more
organizations sharing their resources (Polenske, 2004). Networks en-
able organizations to associate with other organizations to achieve a
complimentary goal of technological innovation (Davidow and
Malone, 1992; Chesbrough and Teece, 1998). National and international
conferences, symposiums and research labs facilitate collaboration of
small organizations by providing a common platform for these organi-
zations to interact with their competitors and discuss their issues.
OECD countries support networking by providing direct financial assis-
tance for these kind of activities (Bougrain and Haudeville, 2002). Net-
works generally act as a platform for small organizations lacking
internal capabilities by clubbing together their capabilities and re-
sources and perform collaborative research which otherwise they can-
not do on their own (Hanna and Walsh, 2002). Innovation process is
not a cake walk and organizations involved in innovation mostly face
a lot of problems in their path, networks can promote small organiza-
tions to solve problems encountered in their innovation journey
(Rosenfeld, 1996; Wincent et al., 2010).
2.3.3. Collaboration between industry and academia
European Union and OECD countries consider the Industry–
University alliance as most important for technological innovation cul-
ture development in the country (Okubo and Sjöberg, 2000; OECD,
1997; Patel and Pavitt, 1998). The collaboration of university and indus-
try leads to mainly two types of transfers from university to industry,
these are R&D results transfer and technology transfer. The R&D results
transferred lead to innovative ideas in the industry which leads to a new
product development with the help of technology transfer from univer-
sity to industries (Guan et al., 2005). Linkages with R&D institutions and
long standing experience with respect to a particular technology tend to
facilitate SME innovations (Krishnaswamy et al., 2015). Alliance with
universities leads to sustained development and leads to development
of technological mindset for the organizations (Feng et al., 2010).
Among partners external to the firm, collaboration with universities
has been championed as a vital component of innovation in
knowledge-intensive sectors within regions (Mansfield, 2000). New in-
novative technologies can be developed and the latest technologies can
4 H. Gupta, M.K. Barua / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
be incorporated in industries through collaboration with academia
(Betts and Santoro, 2011).
2.4. Technology Infrastructure
Technology oriented firms are technically proficient and flexible, fa-
cilitating the refinement of existing technologies to leverage innovation
efforts to meet broader stake-holders' needs (Filipescu et al., 2013).
Technology can be especially important in designing sustainable new
products and solving seemingly intractable problems that are not ad-
dressable easily without technology (Nidumolu et al., 2009).
Manufacturing firms need to develop their structure such that there
are sufficient finance, raw materials, necessary equipment and knowl-
edge base to carry on continuous innovation activities (Amabile, 1996;
Ghorbani and Bagheri, 2008).
2.4.1. Information and communication technology
Given the specificities of SMEs with regard to their environment,
strategy, structure, and technology, more research in this specific con-
text is needed, including consideration of information technology (IT)
in particular (Gable and Stewart, 1999; Premkumar, 2003). The rapid
development and spread in ICT arena are providing remarkable changes
both economically and socially, throughout the world (Fulantelli and
Allegra, 2003; Barton and Bear, 1999). Information technology suffices
SMEs with the ability to build strong tie-ups with their customers as
well as suppliers, think innovatively, cut down on costs and establish a
superior position in market (Kutlu and Özturan, 2008). Adoption of in-
formation and communication technology by small firms has
overturned their fortunes and brought them to a respectable position
on economic front (Apulu and Latham, 2011). Managers/owners of
small and large organizations both have identified information and
communication technology as an important control instrument which
has impeccable capability to transform their business in order to com-
pete in this rapidly changing business economy across the world (Ion
and Andreea, 2008; Pavic et al., 2007).
2.4.2. Project resources and capabilities
“Project resources include an array of elements: people with neces-
sary expertise, sufficient funds, material resources, systems and pro-
cesses for work, and relevant information” (Amabile and Gryskiewicz,
1989; Amabile, 1996). Entrepreneurial start-up firms usually begin
with high hopes for what they want to achieve, but many fail because
they do not have the requisite capabilities and resources (Dosi et al.,
2000). Realizing the profits obtained by converting an innovation into
a financially successful product can be achieved only through access to
all the required resources (Teece, 1986; Teece et al., 1997). According
to Hunt and Madhavaram (2006), resources are “tangible and intangible
entities available to the firm that enable it to produce efficiently and ef-
fectively a market offering that has value for some market segment”
(Hunt and Madhavaram, 2006, p. 69). Teece (2014, p. 14) defines a ca-
pability as “the capacity to utilize resources to perform a task or activity,
against the opposition of circumstance”. Firms need to have technical
know-how, relevant resources including assets, firm attributes, infor-
mation and knowledge in conjunction with the necessary capabilities
to sustain these resources and thus sustain their organization by
transforming an innovation into a commercially viable product
(Paradkar et al., 2015).
2.4.3. R&D spending by organizations
Manufacturing organizations in developed countries spend substan-
tial fraction of annual turnover on technology development
(Chandrasekhar and Sen, 1995). Having an innovation budget is one
of the main factors that distinguish innovative firms from their less in-
novative counterparts. Organizations assign special funds for research
activities in order to enhance innovation level and this special
budget allocation for research activities help organizations to
Please cite this article as: Gupta, H., Barua, M.K., Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best–worst multi criteria
decision making method, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.028
differentiate themselves form others through enhanced scientific and
technological expertise (Huang, 2008; Parthasarthy and Hammond,
2002). Investments in research activities are mostly made by large orga-
nizations only but to strengthen the technological base and increase
their competitiveness small firms also needs to invest substantially in
their research activities, this not only will strengthen their position
globally but also develop their technological infrastructure base which
is an absolute necessity to sustain innovation. (Lee and Lee, 2010;
Guariglia and Liu, 2014). Acquiring capital infrastructure is vital for in-
novation (Krishnaswamy et al., 2015), but this alone is not ample. De-
veloping knowledge base, necessary skills is also important, so
organizations also needs to focus on ways in which to spend their
R&D budget rather than only increasing the spending on R&D (Herbig
et al., 1996).
2.5. Government support
Providing essential support to SMEs is the responsibility of local as
well as national governments. SMEs which are generally more prone
to failure and require working capital and funds depend largely on gov-
ernment support to survive and local governments on being more close
to SMEs are liable to support them in their innovation growth. Gupta
and Nanda (2015) identified various key issues of government support
as drivers for MSME innovation, they include, assistance in acquiring the
latest technology and quality certifications, providing adequate rail-
road infrastructure and electricity at subsidized rates, supportive poli-
cies and measures of government, allocation of funds for R&D activities
for MSMEs and training unskilled workers for MSMEs at government in-
stitutes and tool rooms. Two major modes of government support for
SMEs include monetary and technical support. Government provides
loans at discounted interest rates, often forgives them for payment of
some part of loan, also loans are provided with longer payback period,
and moreover governments encourage small businesses by providing
subsidies on exports and imports. Under technical category government
supports small firms through various schemes for training their work-
force, providing knowledge base and quality enhancement programs
(Masakure et al., 2009; Zeng et al., 2010).
2.5.1. Government policies and programs
Bureaucratic and multitude of unwanted government policies is one
of the most crucial barriers in the growth of small firms (Beaver and
Prince, 2002; Hyland and Beckett, 2005). SME sustenance programs
are developed mostly by policy makers at the top government level.
These policy makers must work in close proximity with other partners
of economic growth like organizations themselves and develop policies
for the benefit of these (Seeman et al., 2007). Governments facilitate
technological development and innovation of SMEs by creating a
niche and supportive environment and setting quality standards to
match international requirements. These standards and working proce-
dures are then regularly monitored to ensure compliance (Asrawi,
2010). Establishing technology development centers, technical consor-
tiums, technology incubation centers and similar platforms for sharing
of resources and technologies should be the priority of local government
to support innovation programs (Hansen et al., 2009). Since there is a
high degree of uncertainty about the effect of implementing innovative
activities in the innovation process, the qualified legal environment and
efficient government operations will help a firm to carry out innovation
activities (Jiao et al., 2015).
2.5.2. Government funding for technology development programs
Financial growth of any economy is directly related to pace of tech-
nology development in that economy (DTI, 2000). But most of the small
organizations in developing economies are unable to match with the
pace of technology development in developed countries due to financial
constraints. It is the liability of government to provide resources and fi-
nance to these firms in order to develop countries economy (Lee et al.,
 H. Gupta, M.K. Barua / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 5

2010). Patanakul and Pinto (2014) also reaffirms that development ac- Table 2
tivities of economy can be sustained only through continuous financial Enablers of technological innovation.

support of government bodies. Promoting regularization, financial sup- Abbreviation Technological innovation Supporting references
port to creative and innovative ideas and tax benefits can help organiza- main criteria/enabler and
tions to be more innovative and competitive. (Laforet and Tann, 2006; sub-criteria

Fajnzylber et al., 2009). Policy measures of government for technologi- C1 Entrepreneur Role Schumpeter (1959), Grossman and
cal innovation includes monetary benefits like as tax rebate, loans, Helpman (1991), Garnsey (1998),
Edelman et al. (2002), Ottosson
grants, special organizations (like mini tool rooms set up government
(2004), Startiene and Remeikiene
in collaboration with foreign agencies), information supply on latest (2015), Hassan and Olaniran (2011),
technologies and trends, government procurement of technology and Islam et al. (2011) and Örnek and
machinery at subsidized rates, education and training the work force, Danyal (2015)
help in registration, and regulation of organizations (Guan and Yam, E1 Education level of Meng and Liang, Subrahmanya,
entrepreneurs (2010), Zaridis and Mousiolis
2015). (2014), Subrahmanya (2015),
Clancy (2001) and Jagersma (2008)
E2 Technical know-how and Jamieson (1984), Chandler and
2.5.3. Financial support by government to research initiatives
training of entrepreneur Jansen (1992), Winterton (2002),
Over the past decade funding by government for research and devel- Jagersma (2008), Ahmad and Seet
opment related tasks of small organizations has gained significant im- (2009), Ahmad et al. (2011) and
portance, it enriches innovation and in turn help develop economy of Jamak et al. (2014)
E3 Prior working experience Ronstadt (1989), Cooper et al.
the country (Feldman and Kelley, 2006). Government can promote in-
and occupational (1994), Kolvereid (1996), Dahlqvist
novation by purchasing products (Georghiou et al., 2014), higher R&D background et al. (2000), Ferrante (2005), Song
financing and promoting tie ups (Wang and Kim, 2007). Financial et al. (2008), Ahmad et al. (2014),
input from the government may signal out its attitude of sustainable Zaridis and Mousiolis (2014) and
support to the indigenous innovation (Georghiou et al., 2014). Gao Kemayel (2015)
E4 Entrepreneur network Stewart et al. (1999), Davidsson and
(2015) identified the instruments for financial support by government
Honig (2003), Ferri et al. (2009),
for technology innovation which includes giving subsidy and compen- Slotte-Kock and Coviello (2010) and
sation, allocating special budget and securing bank loans at competitive Krishnaswamy et al. (2015)
interest rates for organizations. Government sets aside R&D budget and C2 Linkage capability Lall (1992), Sen and Egelhoff (2000),
Edwards and Delbridge (2001) and
fixes goals to achieve higher technology development levels through
Jagersma (2008)
collaborative research with other firms (Fajnzylber et al., 2009). Finan- L1 Technological collaboration Chesbrough (2003, 2007), Newbert
cial support for research activities which is an integral part of working between firms and (2008), Radas and Božić (2009),
capital is the most important aspect for an organization to carry out re- subcontracting firms Subrahmanya (2010) and Kumar
search and development activities and thus technological innovations and Subrahmanya (2010)
L2 SME networks Davidow and Malone (1992),
(Guan and Yam, 2015). Government corroboration for research activi-
Chesbrough and Teece (1998),
ties helps develop sustainable business environment and higher Bougrain and Haudeville (2002),
manufacturing output (Nelson, 1993; Porter, 1998). The enablers iden- Polenske (2004) and Wincent et al.
tified through literature review are presented in Table 2 with (2010)
L3 Collaboration between OECD (1997), Patel and Pavitt
supporting references. (See Table 2.)
industry and academia (1998), Okubo and Sjöberg (2000),
Guan et al. (2005), Lee et al. (2010),
3. Methodology Betts and Santoro (2011) and
Krishnaswamy et al., 2015
C3 Technology Infrastructure Amabile (1996), Ghorbani and
3.1. Best–worst multi-criteria decision making method Bagheri (2008), Nidumolu et al.
(2009) and Filipescu et al. (2013)
Every day we are involved in making decisions related to some as- T1 Information and Barton and Bear (1999), Gable and
Communication Technology Stewart (1999), Premkumar (2003),
pect either of our work or related to our personal life. Decision making
Swift (2009) and Apulu and Latham
helps to identify, evaluate and select alternatives on the basis of values (2011)
and preferences of the decision makers. MCDM a subset of operations T2 Project Resources and Amabile and Gryskiewicz (1989),
research helps in structuring and solving decisions and planning related capabilities Amabile (1996), Dosi et al. (2000),
problems on the basis of multiple criteria. Many MCDM techniques have Hunt and Madhavaram (2006),
Teece (2014) and Paradkar et al.
been used in the past decade in various fields of operations manage- (2015)
ment, healthcare management, energy management, etc. All of these T3 R&D spending by Smilor et al. (1989), Chandrasekhar
techniques require pairwise comparison among various criteria. How- organizations and Sen (1995), Parthasarthy and
ever according to Rezaei (2015a) most of these techniques suffers Hammond (2002), Huang (2008),
Lee and Lee (2010) and Guariglia
from lack of consistency during pairwise comparison. To overcome
and Liu (2014)
this problem a novel MCDM technique called the Best–Worst Multi- C4 Government support Masakure et al. (2009), Zeng et al.
(2010), Doh and Kim (2014) and
Gupta and Nanda (2015)
G1 Government policies and Beaver and Prince (2002), Hyland
Table 1
programs and Beckett (2005), Asrawi (2010)
Description of MSMEs in India.
and Jiao et al. (2015)
Enterprises Manufacturing sector (investment Service sector G2 Government funding for Laforet and Tann (2006), Fajnzylber
in (investment technology development et al. (2009), Lee et al. (2010),
plant and machinery) in equipment) programs Patanakul and Pinto (2014) and
Guan and Yam (2015)
Micro enterprises Up to five 25 rupees Up to 10 lakh rupees G3 Financial support by Porter (1998), O'Regan et al. (2006),
Small enterprises 25 lakh to 5 crore rupees 10 lakh to 2 crore rupees government to research Wang and Kim (2007), Fajnzylber
Medium More than 5 crore rupees 2 crore to 5 crore rupees initiatives et al. (2009), Georghiou et al.
enterprises (2014) and Gao (2015)

Please cite this article as: Gupta, H., Barua, M.K., Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best–worst multi criteria
decision making method, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.028
6 H. Gupta, M.K. Barua / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

criteria Decision-making Method (BWM) is developed by Rezaei 4. Results and discussions

(2015a). This technique solves the inconsistency problem during
pairwise comparison by using a new approach for comparing alterna- As mentioned earlier this paper aims at identifying the enablers of
tives and also it requires lesser number of comparisons as compared technological innovation in MSMEs of India. In this paper we have uti-
to other MCDM techniques. lized the best–worst method for identifying the most critical enablers
Hence in order to evaluate scores of different enablers of technolog- for technological innovation. In total 16 experts were chosen for the
ical innovation in Indian MSMEs, a novel technique called best–worst study (eight from industry and eight from academia) having minimum
method developed by Rezaei (2015a) and successfully applied by 10 years of experience. The experts chosen from industry were man-
Rezaei et al. (2015) and Rezaei et al. (2016) has been used. The steps in- agers/owners of MSMEs having experience of running their own enter-
volved in this technique are described below (Rezaei, 2015a; Rezaei, prise or having past experience in any other organization and now
2015b): started their own enterprise. Also two persons among them were per-
sons working in large organizations but dealing directly with MSMEs
Step 1: Identify a set of decision criteria. for supplying their parts. Eight persons from academia were chosen
In this step based on literature review and expert opinions set of n having experience of at least 10 years in teaching technology and inno-
criteria {c1, c2, ….., cn} are identified to make a decision. vation management at their institutes and also providing training to
employees of these MSMEs. Experts from academia are chosen because
Step 2: Determine the best (e.g. most desirable, most important) and
they are directly involved in providing training to employees of MSMEs
the worst (e.g. least desirable, least important) criteria.
regarding technology innovation and technology management through
Step 3: Determine the preferences of the best criterion over all the
industry–university interaction programs, also most of the universities
other criteria, using a number between 1 and 9. The best-to-others are running technology management and entrepreneurship develop-
(BO) vector can be represented as: ment programs to promote entrepreneurship, so experts form academia
also have requisite knowledge related to enablers of technological inno-
AB ¼ ðaB1 ; aB2 ; ……; aBn Þ;
vation in MSMEs and their views are also taken for the study.
Based on the review of literature and discussions with experts four
where aBj indicates the preference of the best criterion B over criteria
main criteria namely Entrepreneur Role, linkage capability, technologi-
j. Also here aBB = 1.
cal infrastructure and government support have been identified
The final value can be arrived by consensus of all the experts in- (Table 2), also a total of 13 sub-criteria are identified (Table 2) as possi-
volved in decision making. ble enablers of technological innovation of MSMEs.
Step 4: Using a number between 1 and 9, determine the preference Each of the experts were asked to identify the best enabler i.e.
of all the criteria over the worst criteria. The others-to-worst (OW) most desirable and worst enabler i.e. least desirable among the iden-
vector can be represented as: tified criteria and sub-criteria. Panel consensus assumes that several
experts can arrive at a better solution to the problem than an individ-
AW ¼ ða1W ; a2W ; ……:; anW ÞT ; ual expert (Hirschey, 2008). This technique involves bringing to-
gether experts from the field in study at a common platform and
where ajW indicates the preference of the criteria j over the worst discussing the problem to obtain a common solution. All the experts
criterion W. Also here aWW = 1. in this study were asked to rank enablers of technological innovation
In this case also the final value can be arrived by consensus of all the identified through literature review, initially there was varying re-
experts involved in decision making. sponses from few experts but after detailed discussion by experts re-
Step 5: Finding the optimal weights (w1⁎, w2⁎, ……., wn⁎). garding each enablers experts were able to build a consensus on
Here the aim is to determine the optimal weights of the criteria, such relative ranking of each enabler and sub category enablers on the
scale provided to them.
that the maximum absolute differences for all j is minimized of the
Based on consensus of all the experts technological infrastructure
following set {| wB - aBjwj |,| wj - ajwww |}. This can be converted into
(C3) is identified as best enabler and linkage capability (C2) is identified
following minimax model: as worst enabler among the main criteria.
After identifying the best and worst enablers among the main




 criteria, experts were asked to rate the preference of the best criteria
min max
wB −aBj w j
;
w j −ajW wW
over all the main criteria and similarly all the other criteria with respect
s:t:
X to the worst criteria on a scale of 1 to 9 (Table 3).
w ¼1 ð1Þ
j j Similar to pairwise comparison for the main criteria experts were
w j ≥0; for all j: asked to formulate a consensus on pairwise comparison on all the
sub-criteria of the main criteria. The resulting best to others and others
Model (1) can be solved by converting it into the following linear to worst pairwise comparison for all the sub-criteria is shown in
programming problem model: Tables 4–7.
The pairwise comparison for Entrepreneur Role main criteria is
represented in Table 4 below.
L The pairwise comparison for the Linkage Capability main criterion is
minξ
s:t:


represented in Table 5 below.

wB −aBj w j
≤ξL ; for all j The pairwise comparison for Technology Infrastructure main criterion




w j −ajW wW
≤ξL ; for all j ð2Þ is represented in Table 6 below.
X
wj ¼ 1 The pairwise comparison for the Government Support main criterion
j is represented in Table 7 below.
w j ≥0; for all j: After obtaining the pairwise comparison score for all the main
criteria and their respective sub-criteria the next step is to find the op-
timal weights for each of the main criteria and their respective sub-
Solving the linear model (2) we will get optimal weights (w1⁎, w2⁎, criteria. This can be done by first formulating a linear programming
……., wn⁎) and optimal value ξ. problem as model (2) for main criteria and respective sub-criteria and

Please cite this article as: Gupta, H., Barua, M.K., Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best–worst multi criteria
decision making method, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.028
 H. Gupta, M.K. Barua / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 7

Table 3
Best-to-others (BO) and others-to-worst (OW) pairwise comparison for main criteria.

BO Entrepreneur Role (C1) Linkage capability (C2) Technological infrastructure Government support
(C3) (C4)

Best criterion: 2 5 1 3
Technological infrastructure (C3)

OW Worst criterion: linkage capability (C2)

Entrepreneur Role (C1) 4

Linkage capability (C2) 1
Technological infrastructure (C3) 5
Government support (C4) 2

then solving these models to obtain weights of each criteria and sub-
criteria.
Solving the linear programming problem for optimal weights w1⁎,
w2⁎, w3⁎, w4⁎ and ξL we get the optimal weights for each of main criteria
as represented in Table 8.
A value of 0.0616 indicates a high consistency.
Similarly for all the sub-criteria optimal weights are calculated by
first formulating linear programming problems according to Eq. (2)
for sub-criteria under each main criterion separately and then solving
these models for scores given in Tables 4–7.
The results obtained for each criterion and sub-criterion are repre-
sented in Table 9.
According to results obtained from the best–worst method (Table 8),
Project resources and capabilities (T2) with a global weight of 0.325 is
the most important enabler of technological innovation in MSMEs of
India. Extensive and efficient infrastructure and resources necessary
for ensuring economic growth of a country. But according to the
World Economic Forum (2014) India ranks at the 87th position in
terms of infrastructure among 148 participating countries, this per se,
highlights the importance of necessary infrastructure and resources
for enhancing competitiveness of Indian MSMEs. Resources which in-
clude necessary information, technical know-how, trained and capable
people, requisite infrastructure and adequate systems and processes
to perform work are indispensable to bring forth a breakthrough inno-
vation and transforming this innovation to a commercialized product
(Paradkar et al., 2015). Apart from providing functional support, re-
sources also influence workers' perception towards organization thus
motivating them to work creatively towards sustained organizational
performance (Amabile, 1996; Arad et al., 1997). Sufficient resources
and competencies fuel innovative capabilities of organization
(Moulaert and Hamdouch, 2006). Technical know-how and training of
entrepreneur (E2) with a global weight of 0.141 is the next important
enabler for technological innovations. Entrepreneur training generally
defined as education in enterprise has a more profound impact than ed-
ucation. Lack of technical know-how often acts as a barrier in technolog-
ical development of MSMEs (Jamak et al., 2014). According to Panda
(2008) strong technical competencies provide a base for decision mak-
ing related to raw material selection, selection of suitable technology
and also entrepreneurship development (Baum et al., 2001). The Minis-
try of small and medium enterprise of India is running various programs
for enhancing the technical competencies of entrepreneurs' viz. training
entrepreneurs'/owners about the latest technologies and methods at
central tool rooms and running programs for training entrepreneurs'
for implementation of various quality programs and lean manufacturing
schemes. Entrepreneurs' need to focus on these training programs and
peer exchange programs for evolving technical skills and competencies
necessary for technological innovations (Garavan and O'Cinneide,
1994). Further altering stringent policies and rules is prerequisite for
enhancing growth and development of MSMEs (Beaver and Prince,
2002). Our research results are well in corroboration of this finding,
Government Policies and Programs (G1) with global weight of 0.120 is
the third most important enabler for technological innovation in
Indian MSMEs based on the evaluation of experts. Government must
support innovation dissemination among SMEs thus encouraging and
supporting national competitiveness (Freitas and von Tunzelmann,
2008). Stringent policies restrict growth of small firms, government
must slack down its policies and also investigate whether they them-
selves are innovative in terms of policies and laws implemented so as
to support innovation (Kharbanda, 2001; Gupta, 2009).
R&D spending by organizations (T3), Entrepreneur Network (E4), In-
formation and Communication Technology (T1), Technological collabo-
ration between firms and subcontracting firms (L1), Prior Working
Experience and Occupational Background (E3) and Government
Funding for Technology Development Programs (G2) with weights
equal to 0.089, 0.063, 0.059, 0.055, 0.047 and 0.044 respectively are of
intermediate or moderate importance for technological innovation in
Indian MSMEs. Huang (2008) is also of the view that allocating separate
funds and budget for research and development by organizations differ-
entiate them from non-innovative organizations. Previous research on
entrepreneur networks highlight various benefits of networks including
increasing market knowledge, acquiring market resources and most im-
portantly innovations (Davis and Klassen, 1991; O'Donnell et al., 2001).
Ion and Andreea (2008) and Kutlu and Özturan (2008) in their research
also concluded that use of information and communication technology
in SMEs helps build strong ties with customers and suppliers and also
support innovation within organizations. In line with our results for
technological collaborations, Deardorff and Djankov (2000) in their
study found a significant relation between technological collaborations
and firm efficiency. Further regarding prior working experience our
finding also corroborates Kolvereid (1996) according to which for

Table 4
Best-to-others (BO) and others-to-worst (OW) pairwise comparison for Entrepreneur Table 5
Role (C1) main criteria. Best-to-others (BO) and others-to-worst (OW) pairwise comparison for Linkage capability
(C2) main criterion.
BO E1 E2 E3 E4
BO L1 L2 L3
Best criterion: 8 1 3 2
E2 Best criterion: 1 6 3
L1
OW Worst criterion: E1
OW Worst criterion: L2
E1 1
E2 8 L1 6
E3 2 L2 1
E4 3 L3 2

Please cite this article as: Gupta, H., Barua, M.K., Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best–worst multi criteria
decision making method, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.028
8 H. Gupta, M.K. Barua / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Table 6 Table 8
Best-to-others (BO) and others-to-worst (OW) pairwise comparison for Technology Infra- Optimal weights for the main criteria.
structure (C3) main criterion.
Criteria Weights ξL
BO T1 T2 T3
Entrepreneur Role (C1) 0.267
Best criterion: 5 1 4 Linkage Capability (C2) 0.082
0.0616
T2 Technological Infrastructure (C3) 0.473
Government Support (C4) 0.178
OW Worst criterion: T1

T1 1
T2 5 access to finances or loans from banks and moreover leads to their in
T3 2
entrepreneur to be innovative prior working experience is a necessary
requirement.
Lastly based on analysis of enablers by experts, Collaborations be-
tween industry and academia, entrepreneur education, Financial Sup-
port by Government to Research Initiatives and SME networks with
calculated weights of 0.018, 0.016, 0.014 and 0.009 respectively are of
least importance for driving innovation activities in case of Indian
MSMEs.
5. Managerial implications
Our study has significant implications for managers/owners of
Indian MSMEs. The contribution of this paper to literature is twofold,
first it holistically identifies different enablers of technological innova-
tion in MSMEs from extensive literature available in this field. Most of
the past studies focused on few enablers at a time but this study ana-
lyzed in total 13 enablers of technological innovation and analyzed
them to find out best and worst enabler among them. By identifying
most prominent enablers through ranking them, future researchers
and studies can focus on analyzing the impact of these prominent en-
ablers on other enablers like demographic factors and also future stud-
ies can evaluate the interrelationship of one enabler over other using
techniques like DEMATEL. Secondly this study employs a novel MCDM
technique to rank various enablers. Ranking helps managers to focus
on few important enablers only rather than wasting resources on all
the enablers.
To sustain competition in this dynamic economy organizations need
to develop their innovative capabilities. Research results indicate that
access to resources is most crucial for innovation related activities of
MSMEs. Organizations need to acquire resources necessary to sustain
competition. Resources take many forms, they may be knowledge rele-
vant to work, tools and equipment, some sort of latest machinery, work-
ing capital, skilled workforce etc. As a manager/owner of a MSMEs one
needs to ensure availability of these resources. These resources act as
stepping stones for organizational success without these no organiza-
tion can perform innovative activities in spite of having creative ideas.
Many organizations fail to convert their idea into final product due to
lack of such resources. Second important enabler for technological inno-
vations is technical know-how of the entrepreneurs. Many small units
in India fall sick during first few years of their inception, this condition
is due to the fact that MSMEs owners lack technical competency regard-
ing organization running. This lack of technical know-how limits their
Table 7
Best-to-others (BO) and others-to-worst (OW) pairwise comparison for the Government
Support (C4) main criterion.
BO G1 G2
ability to operate various tools and machinery. Owners must first them-
selves enhance their technical competencies in order to support staff
which look up to them in case of any requirement or emergency.
Third important enabler found to enhance technological innovations
in Indian MSMEs is government policies and programs. Stringent gov-
ernment policies often lead to unfavorable conditions for MSMEs
which ultimately leads to their failure. Governments need to loosen
their policies, provide tax rebates, provide cheaper land, impart training
to employees about latest technologies and thus make environment
conducive for these organizations to sustain and grow. Indian govern-
ment is making substantial efforts in this direction through its various
programs for MSMEs, they are providing special schemes for producing
few products, by providing trainings on various quality management
tools like six sigma and TQM under its quality enhancement schemes.
Moreover they are providing tax benefits and subsidies for MSMEs
and many state governments waived off taxes for MSMEs to encourage
these organizations to set up new businesses. Also to impart training to
MSMEs workforce government in collaboration with other countries
have opened tool rooms like Indo-Danish tool rooms providing training
in specialized and advanced technologies.
Finally to conclude this study has applied a novel approach of the
best–worst method to identify important enablers of innovativeness
for Indian MSMEs and found three most important enablers for the
same. Although other enablers are not found to be of that significance
but they cannot be ignored to achieve goal of sustained innovation
and competitiveness. All the enablers are interlinked and to achieve
one organizations need to have expertise in other, to elaborate further
in order to acquire resources for innovation organizations need to
have sufficient competencies in technical know-how of entrepreneur
to identify important resources, also since small organizations cannot
acquire all the resources themselves and rely on external linkages for
many of the resources so organizations must also have strong linkage
capabilities and all this cannot be achieved without the necessary sup-
port of the local and national governments. Managers of small organiza-
tions must therefore take into consideration all the enablers with special
attention on important enablers identified through this research in
order a build a strong innovation development program for their
organization.
6. Limitations and future scope
The major limitation of this study is that it is based on identification
of enablers through experts' opinions only. Future work could include
taking a significant sample of various MSMEs and then validating the re-
sults through statistical analysis. Another limitation is that in this study
interrelationship among various identified enablers is not studied, mul-
tivariate analysis can be applied in future to study the effect of one
enabler on other.
G3

Best criterion: 1 3 8 Acknowledgments

G1
The authors would like to thank Dr. Atilla M Öner, Associate Editor
OW Worst criterion: G3
and anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments in improv-
G1 8 ing the paper. Also the authors would like to thank MHRD, Government
G2 4 of India and IIT Roorkee India for providing support under MHRD/IITR/
G3 1
DOMS/15918002 for conducting this research.

Please cite this article as: Gupta, H., Barua, M.K., Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best–worst multi criteria
decision making method, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.028
 H. Gupta, M.K. Barua / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 9

Table 9
Weights of the main and sub-criteria.

Main criteria Main criteria weights Sub-criteria Sub-criteria weights Global weights

Entrepreneur Role (C1) 0.267 Education level of entrepreneurs (E1) 0.059 0.016
Technical know-how and training of entrepreneur (E2) 0.529 0.141
Prior working experience and occupational background (E3) 0.177 0.047
Entrepreneur network (E4) 0.235 0.063
Linkage Capability (C2) 0.082 Technological collaboration between firms and subcontracting firms (L1) 0.667 0.055
SME networks (L2) 0.111 0.009
Collaboration between industry and academia (L3) 0.222 0.018
Technological Infrastructure (C3) 0.473 Information and communication technology (T1) 0.125 0.059
Project resources and capabilities (T2) 0.687 0.325
R&D spending by organizations (T3) 0.188 0.089
Government Support (C4) 0.178 Government policies and programs (G1) 0.677 0.120
Government funding for technology development programs (G2) 0.246 0.044
Financial support by government to research initiatives (G3) 0.077 0.014

References
Ahmad, N.H., Seet, P.S., 2009. Understanding business success through the lens of SME
founder–owners in Australia and Malaysia. Int. J. Entrep. Ventur. 1 (1), 72–87.
Ahmad, N.H., Wilson, C., Kummerow, L., 2011. Assessing the dimensionality of business
success: perspectives of Malaysian SME owner–managers. J. Asia Pac. Bus. 12 (3),
207–224.
Ahmad, N.H., Nasurdin, A.M., Halim, H.A., Taghizadeh, S.K., 2014. The pursuit of entrepre-
neurial initiatives at the “silver” age: from the lens of Malaysian silver entrepreneurs.
Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 129, 305–313.
Amabile, T.M., 1996. Creativity in Context. Westview Press, New York.
Amabile, T.M., Gryskiewicz, N.D., 1989. The creative environment scales: work environ-
ment inventory. Creat. Res. J. 2 (4), 231–253.
Apulu, I., Latham, A., 2011. Drivers for information and communication technology adop-
tion: a case study of Nigerian small and medium sized enterprises. Int. J. Bus. Manag.
6 (5), p51.
Arad, S., Hanson, M.A., Schneider, R.J., 1997. A framework for the study of relationships
between organizational characteristics and organizational innovation. J. Creat.
Behav. 31 (1), 42–58.
Asrawi, F., 2010. Assessing the business environment for small and medium size enter-
prises in Lebanon. Int. J. Bus. Public Adm. 7 (1), 103–116.
Barton, C., Bear, M., 1999. Information and communications technologies: are
they the key to viable business development services for micro and small en-
terprises? Report for USAID as Part of the Microenterprises Best Practices
Project
Baum, J.R., Locke, E.A., Smith, K.G., 2001. A multidimensional model of venture growth.
Acad. Manag. J. 44 (2), 292–303.
Beaver, G., Prince, C., 2002. Innovation, entrepreneurship and competitive advantage in
the entrepreneurial venture. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 9 (1), 28–37.
Betts, S.C., Santoro, M.D., 2011. Somewhere between markets and hierarchies: controlling
industry university relationships for success. Acad. Strateg. Manag. J. 10 (1), 19.
Bougrain, F., Haudeville, B., 2002. Innovation, collaboration and SMEs internal research
capacities. Res. Policy 31 (5), 735–747.
Brandenburger, Adam M., Nalebuff, Barry J., 1996. Co-opetition. Currency/Doubleday,
New York.
Chaminade, C., Vang, J., 2007. Innovation Policies for Asian SMEs: An Innovation System
Perspective. In: Yeung, H. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Asian Business.
Chandler, G.N., Jansen, E., 1992. The founder's self-assessed competence and venture
performance. J. Bus. Ventur. 7 (3), 223–236.
Chandrasekhar, C.P., Sen, Abhijit, 1995. Labour Scene in Perspective. Business Line, Macro
Scan (July 25).
Chesbrough, H., 2003. The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual property. Calif.
Manag. Rev. 45 (3), 33–58.
Chesbrough, H., 2007. Business model innovation: it's not just about technology anymore.
Strateg. Leadersh. 35 (6), 12–17.
Chesbrough, H.W., Teece, D.J., 1998. When is virtual virtuous? Organizing for innovation.
Strateg. Manag. Intellect. Cap. 27.
Clancy, J., 2001. Barriers to innovation in small-scale industries: case study from the
briquetting industry in India. Sci. Technol. Soc. 6 (2), 329–357.
Cooper, A.C., Gimeno-Gascon, F.J., Woo, C.Y., 1994. Initial human and financial capital as
predictors of new venture performance. J. Bus. Ventur. 9 (5), 371–395.
Cummings, A., Oldham, G.R., 1997. Enhancing creativity: managing work contexts for the
high potential employee. Calif. Manag. Rev. 40 (1), 22.
Dahlqvist, J., Davidsson, P., Wiklund, J., 2000. Initial conditions as predictors of new ven-
ture performance: a replication and extension of the Cooper et al. study. Enterp.
Innov. Manag. Stud. 1 (1), 1–17.
Davidow, W.H., Malone, M.S., 1992. The Virtual Corporation. Harper Collins, New York,
pp. 102–107.
Davidsson, P., Honig, B., 2003. The role of social and human capital among nascent entre-
preneurs. J. Bus. Ventur. 18 (3), 301–331.
Davis, C.H., Klassen, M.L., 1991. What entrepreneurs need to know: are we researching it?
Research at the Marketing/Entrepreneurship Interface, AMA, University of Illinois at
Chicago, pp. 107–118
Deardorff, A., Djankov, S., 2000. Knowledge transfer under subcontracting: evidence from
Czech firms. World Dev. 28 (10), 1837–1847.
Doh, S., Kim, B., 2014. Government support for SME innovations in the regional indus-
tries: the case of government financial support program in South Korea. Res. Policy
43 (9), 1557–1569.
Dosi, G., Nelson, R., Winter, S. (Eds.), 2000. The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational
Capabilities. Oxford University Press.
DTI, 2000. Excellence and Opportunity, White Paper. HMSO, London.
Edelman, L.F., Brush, C.G., Manolova, T.S., 2002. The impact of human and organizational
resources on small firm strategy. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 9 (3), 236–244.
Edwards, T., Delbridge, R., 2001. Linking Innovative Potential to SME Performance: An As-
sessment of Enterprises in Industrial South Wales. Paper for 41st European Regional
Science Association Meeting, Zagreb, Croatia, August 2001 (Available on www.ersa.
org/ersaconfs/ersa01/paper/full/135.pdf).
Eniola, A.A., Entebang, H., 2015. Government policy and performance of small and medi-
um business management. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 5 (2), 237–248.
Fajnzylber, P., Maloney, W.F., Montes-Rojas, G.V., 2009. Releasing constraints to growth or
pushing on a string? Policies and performance of Mexican micro-firms. J. Dev. Stud.
45 (7), 1027–1047.
Feldman, M.P., 1999. The new economics of innovation, spillovers and agglomeration: a
review of empirical studies. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 8 (1–2), 5–25.
Feldman, M.P., Kelley, M.R., 2006. The ex ante assessment of knowledge spillovers: gov-
ernment R&D policy, economic incentives and private firm behavior. Res. Policy 35
(10), 1509–1521.
Feng, C., Qi, D., Sun, B., 2010. Policy suggestions on innovation and development of China's
industry–university-research strategic alliance. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 6 (1), p269.
Ferrante, F., 2005. Revealing entrepreneurial talent. Small Bus. Econ. 25 (2), 159–174.
Ferri, P.J., Deakins, D., Whittam, G., 2009. The measurement of social capital in the entre-
preneurial context. J. Enterp. Communities: People Places Glob. Econ. 3 (2), 138–151.
Filipescu, D.A., Prashantham, S., Rialp, A., Rialp, J., 2013. Technological innovation and ex-
ports: unpacking their reciprocal causality. J. Int. Mark. 21 (1), 23–38.
Freel, M., 2000. External linkages and product innovation in small manufacturing firms.
Entrep. Reg. Dev. 12 (3), 245–266.
Freitas, I.M.B., von Tunzelmann, N., 2008. Mapping public support for innovation: a com-
parison of policy alignment in the UK and France. Res. Policy 37 (9), 1446–1464.
Fulantelli, G., Allegra, M., 2003. Small company attitude towards ICT based solutions:
some key-elements to improve it. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 6 (1), 45–49.
Gable, G., Stewart, G., 1999. SAP R/3 implementation issues for small to medium enter-
prises. AMCIS 1999 Proceedings, p. 269.
Gao, P., 2015. Government in the catching-up of technology innovation: case of adminis-
trative intervention in China. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.
Garavan, T.N., O'Cinneide, B., 1994. Entrepreneurship education and training
programmes: a review and evaluation–part 1. J. Eur. Ind. Train. 18 (8), 3–12.
Garnsey, E., 1998. A theory of the early growth of the firm. Ind. Corp. Chang. 7 (3), 523–556.
Georghiou, L., Edler, J., Uyarra, E., Yeow, J., 2014. Policy instruments for public procure-
ment of innovation: choice, design and assessment. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.
86, 1–12.
Ghorbani, A.A., Bagheri, E., 2008. The state of the art in critical infrastructure protection: a
framework for convergence. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. 4 (3), 215–244.
Grossman, G.M., Helpman, E., 1991. Quality ladders in the theory of growth. Rev. Econ.
Stud. 58 (1), 43–61.
Guan, J., Yam, R.C., 2015. Effects of government financial incentives on firms' innovation
performance in China: evidences from Beijing in the 1990s. Res. Policy 44 (1),
273–282.
Guan, J.C., Yam, R.C., Mok, C.K., 2005. Collaboration between industry and research insti-
tutes/universities on industrial innovation in Beijing, China. Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag.
17 (3), 339–353.
Guariglia, A., Liu, P., 2014. To what extent do financing constraints affect Chinese firms'
innovation activities? Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 36, 223–240.
Gupta, A.K., 2009. Innovations for reviving small-scale industries. Research and Publica-
tions IIMA, pp. 2–13.
Gupta, H., Nanda, T., 2015. A quantitative analysis of the relationship between drivers of
innovativeness and performance of MSMEs. Int. J. Technol. Policy Manag. 15 (2),
128–157.
Gupta, H., Das, S., Kumar, S., Bisen, J., 2016. Developing a model of critical success factors
for TQM implementation in MSMEs in India and their effect on internal and external
quality of organization. Int. J. Bus. Excell. (in press, in press).

Please cite this article as: Gupta, H., Barua, M.K., Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best–worst multi criteria
decision making method, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.028
10 H. Gupta, M.K. Barua / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Hanna, V., Walsh, K., 2002. Small firm networks: a successful approach to innovation?
R&D Manag. 32, 201–207.
Hansen, H., Rand, J., Tarp, F., 2009. Enterprise growth and survival in Vietnam: does gov-
ernment support matter? J. Dev. Stud. 45 (7), 1048–1069.
Hassan, M.A., Olaniran, S.O., 2011. Developing small business entrepreneurs through as-
sistance institutions: the role of Industrial Development Centre, Osogbo, Nigeria.
Int. J. Bus. Manag. 6 (2), p213.
Hayashi, M., 2002. The role of subcontracting in SME development in Indonesia: micro-
level evidence from the metalworking and machinery industry. J. Asian Econ. 13
(1), 1–26.
Herbig, P., Palumbo, F., O'Hara, B., 1996. Differences in trade show behavior between
manufacturers and service-oriented firms. J. Prof. Serv. Mark. 14 (2), 55–78.
Hirschey, M. (2008). Fundamentals of managerial economics. Cengage Learning, p-204.
Hsu, C.W., 2005. Formation of industrial innovation mechanisms through the research in-
stitute. Technovation 25 (11), 1317–1329.
Huang, S.C., 2008. Efficient industrial technology policy, high government industrial R&D
expenditure: does one require the other? Int. J. Technol. Policy Manag. 8 (3),
211–236.
Hunt, S.D., Madhavaram, S., 2006. Teaching marketing strategy: using resource-advantage
theory as an integrative theoretical foundation. J. Mark. Educ. 28 (2), 93–105.
Hyland, P., Beckett, R., 2005. Engendering an innovative culture and maintaining opera-
tional balance. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 12 (3), 336–352.
Indarti, N., Langenberg, M., 2005. A study of factors affecting business success among
SMEs: empirical evidences from Indonesia. Asian Soc. Sci. 7 (5).
Ion, P., Andreea, Z., 2008. Use of ICT in SMES management within the sector of services.
Analele Universităţii Din Oradea, p. 483.
Islam, M.A., Khan, M.A., Obaidullah, A.Z.M., Alam, M.S., 2011. Effect of entrepreneur and
firm characteristics on the business success of small and medium enterprises
(SMEs) in Bangladesh. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 6 (3), p289.
Jagersma, T., 2008. Innovation in small scale industries in Kerala. Bachelor Assignment.
Universiteit Twente, Technology and Development Group, Enschede, The
Netherlands.
Jamak, A.B.S.A., Ali, R.M.M., Ghazali, Z., 2014. A breakout strategy model of Malay
(Malaysian indigenous) micro-entrepreneurs. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 109, 572–583.
Jamieson, I., 1984. In: Watts, A.G., Moran, P. (Eds.), Education for Enterprise. CRAC,
Ballinger, Cambridge, pp. 19–27.
Jiao, H., Koo, C.K., Cui, Y., 2015. Legal environment, government effectiveness and firms'
innovation in China: examining the moderating influence of government ownership.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.
Kang, K.N., Park, H., 2012. Influence of government R&D support and inter-firm collabora-
tions on innovation in Korean biotechnology SMEs. Technovation 32 (1), 68–78.
Keizer, J.A., Dijkstra, L., Halman, J.I., 2002. Explaining innovative efforts of SMEs: an ex-
ploratory survey among SMEs in the mechanical and electrical engineering sector
in the Netherlands. Technovation 22 (1), 1–13.
Kemayel, L., 2015. Success factors of Lebanese SMEs: an empirical study. Proc. Soc. Behav.
Sci. 195, 1123–1128.
Kharbanda, V.P., 2001. Facilitating innovation in Indian small and medium
enterprises—the role of clusters. Curr. Sci. Bangalore 80 (3), 343–348.
King, D.R., Covin, J.G., Hegarty, W.H., 2003. Complementary resources and the exploitation
of technological innovations. J. Manag. 29 (4), 589–606.
Kolvereid, L., 1996. Prediction of Employment Status Choice Intentions. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Fall, pp. 47–57.
Krishnaswamy, K.N., Subrahmanya, M.H. Bala, Mathirajan, M., 2015. Technology innova-
tion induced growth of engineering industry SMEs: case studies in Bangalore. Asian
J. Innov. Policy 4 (2), 217–241.
Kumar, R.S., Subrahmanya, M.B., 2010. Influence of subcontracting on innovation and eco-
nomic performance of SMEs in Indian automobile industry. Technovation 30 (11),
558–569.
Kutlu, B., Özturan, M.E.L.T.E.M., 2008. The usage and adoption of IT among SMEs in
Turkey: an exploratory and longitudinal study. J. Inf. Technol. Manag. 19 (1),
12–24.
Laforet, S., Tann, J., 2006. Innovative characteristics of small manufacturing firms. J. Small
Bus. Enterp. Dev. 13 (3), 363–380.
Lall, S., 1992. Technological capabilities and industrialization. World Dev. 20 (2), 165–186.
Lee, J., 1995. Small firms' innovation in two technological settings. Res. Policy 24 (3),
391–401.
Lee, K.S., Lee, H.S., 2010. The activation of technology finance through support for small
and medium-sized enterprises in Korea. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 5 (4), p75.
Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B., Park, J., 2010. Open innovation in SMEs—an intermediated net-
work model. Res. Policy 39 (2), 290–300.
Madrid-Guijarro, A., Garcia, D., Van Auken, H., 2009. Barriers to innovation among Spanish
manufacturing SMEs. J. Small Bus. Manag. 47 (4), 465–488.
Manhas, V., Gupta, H., Gupta, P., 2015. Developing and validating critical success factors of
TQM implementation in MSMEs of Punjab in India. Int. J. Indian Cult. Bus. Manag. 11
(4), 405–420 (accepted for publication).
Mansfield, E., 2000. Intellectual property protection, direct investment and technology
transfer: Germany, Japan and the USA. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 19 (1–2), 3–21.
Masakure, O., Henson, S., Cranfield, J., 2009. Performance of microenterprises in Ghana: a
resource-based view. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 16 (3), 466–484.
Mazzarol, T., Volery, T., Doss, N., Thein, V., 1999. Factors influencing small business start-
ups: a comparison with previous research. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 5 (2), 48–63.
Meng, L.A., Liang, T.W., 1996. Entrepreneurs, Entrepreneurship and Enterprising Culture.
Addison-Wesley, Paris.
Moulaert, F., Hamdouch, A., 2006. New views of innovation systems: agents, rationales,
networks and spatial scales in the knowledge infrastructure innovation. Eur. J. Soc.
Sci. Res. 19 (1), 11–24.
Please cite this article as: Gupta, H., Barua, M.K., Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best–worst multi criteria
decision making method, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.028
Nanda, T., Singh, T.P., 2009. An assessment of the technology innovation initiatives in the
Indian small-scale manufacturing industry. Int. J. Technol. Policy Manag. 9 (2),
173–207.
Narayana, M.R., 2004. Determinants of competitiveness of small-scale industries in India.
J. Bus. Dev. Nations 8, 93–142.
Nelson, R.R. (Ed.), 1993. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford
University Press.
Newbert, S.L., 2008. Value, rareness, competitive advantage, and performance: a
conceptual-level empirical investigation of the resource-based view of the firm.
Strateg. Manag. J. 29 (7), 745–768.
Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C.K., Rangaswami, M.R., 2009. Why sustainability is now the key
driver of innovation. Harv. Bus. Rev. 87 (9), 56–64.
O'Donnell, A., Gilmore, A., Cummins, D., Carson, D., 2001. The network construct in entre-
preneurship research: a review and critique. Manag. Decis. 39 (9), 749–760.
OECD, 1997. National Innovation Systems. OECD, Paris.
Okubo, Y., Sjöberg, C., 2000. The changing pattern of industrial scientific research collab-
oration in Sweden. Res. Policy 29 (1), 81–98.
O'Regan, N., Ghobadian, A., Sims, M., 2006. Fast tracking innovation in manufacturing
SMEs. Technovation 26 (2), 251–261.
Örnek, A.S., Danyal, Y., 2015. Increased importance of entrepreneurship from entrepre-
neurship to techno-entrepreneurship (startup): provided supports and conveniences
to techno-entrepreneurs in Turkey. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 195, 1146–1155.
Ottosson, S., 2004. Dynamic product development—DPD. Technovation 24 (3), 207–217.
Panda, T.K., 2008. Entrepreneurial success key indicator analysis in Indian context. avail-
able at http://dspace.iimk.ac.in/bitstream/2259/199/1/entrepreneurial+success.pdf
(Accessed on March 15, 2014).
Paradkar, A., Knight, J., Hansen, P., 2015. Innovation in start-ups: ideas filling the void or
ideas devoid of resources and capabilities? Technovation 41, 1–10.
Parthasarthy, R., Hammond, J., 2002. Product innovation input and outcome: moderating
effects of the innovation process. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 19 (1), 75–91.
Patanakul, P., Pinto, J.K., 2014. Examining the roles of government policy on innovation. J
High Technol. Manag. Res. 25 (2), 97–107.
Patel, P., Pavitt, K., 1998. National Systems of Innovation Under Strain: The
Internationalisation of Corporate R&D. Science Policy Research Unit, England.
Pavic, S., Koh, S.C.L., Simpson, M., Padmore, J., 2007. Could e-business create a competitive
advantage in UK SMEs? Benchmarking 14 (3), 320–351.
Polenske, K., 2004. Competition, collaboration and cooperation: an uneasy triangle in net-
works of firms and regions. Reg. Stud. 38 (9), 1029–1043.
Porter, M.E., 1998. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Macmillan Press, London, UK.
Premkumar, G., 2003. A meta-analysis of research on information technology implemen-
tation in small business. J. Organ. Comput. Electron. Commer. 13 (2), 91–121.
Radas, S., Božić, L., 2009. The antecedents of SME innovativeness in an emerging transition
economy. Technovation 29 (6), 438–450.
Rezaei, J., 2015a. Best–worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53, 49–57.
Rezaei, J., 2015b. Best–worst multi-criteria decision-making method: some properties
and a linear model. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.001.
Rezaei, J., Wang, J., Tavasszy, L., 2015. Linking supplier development to supplier segmen-
tation using Best Worst Method. Expert Syst. Appl. 42 (23), 9152–9164.
Rezaei, J., Hemmes, A., Tavasszy, L., 2016. Multi-criteria decision-making for complex bun-
dling configurations in surface transportation of air freight. J. Air Transp. Manag.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2016.02.006.
Ronstadt, R., 1989. The corridor principle. J. Bus. Ventur. 3 (1), 31–40.
Rosenfeld, S.A., 1996. Does cooperation enhance competitiveness? Assessing the impacts
of inter-firm collaboration. Res. Policy 25 (2), 247–263.
Rothwell, R., 1991. External networking and innovation in small and medium-sized
manufacturing firms in Europe. Technovation 11 (2), 93–112.
Schumpeter, J.A., 1947. The creative response in economic history. J. Econ. Hist. 7 (02),
149–159.
Schumpeter, J.A., 1959. The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge.
Seeman, E.D., O'Hara, M.T., Holloway, J., Forst, A., 2007. The impact of government inter-
vention on technology adoption and diffusion: the example of wireless location tech-
nology. Electron. Gov. Int. J. 4 (1), 1–19.
Sen, F.K., Egelhoff, W.G., 2000. Innovative capabilities of a firm and the use of technical al-
liances. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 47 (2), 174–183.
Slotte-Kock, S., Coviello, N., 2010. Entrepreneurship research on network processes: a re-
view and ways forward. Enterp. Theory Pract. 34 (1), 31–57.
Smilor, R.W., Gibson, D.V., Kozmetsky, G., 1989. Creating the technopolis: high-technolo-
gy development in Austin, Texas. Journal of Business Venturing 4 (1), 49–67.
Song, M., Podoynitsyna, K., Van Der Bij, H., Halman, J.I., 2008. Success factors in new ven-
tures: a meta-analysis. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 25 (1), 7–27.
Startiene, G., Remeikiene, R., 2015. The influence of demographical factors on the interac-
tion between entrepreneurship and unemployment. Eng. Econ. 64 (4).
Stewart, W.H., Watson, W.E., Carland, J.C., Carland, J.W., 1999. A proclivity for entrepre-
neurship: a comparison of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and corporate man-
agers. J. Bus. Ventur. 14 (2), 189–214.
Subrahmanya, M.B., 2005. Pattern of technological innovations in small enterprises: a
comparative perspective of Bangalore (India) and Northeast England (UK).
Technovation 25 (3), 269–280.
Subrahmanya, M.B., 2010. Auto SMEs in Bangalore: does innovation promote employ-
ment and labour productivity? Econ. Polit. Wkly. 45 (11), 59.
Subrahmanya, M.B., 2015. Innovation and growth of engineering SMEs in Bangalore: why
only some innovate and only some grow faster? J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 36, 24–40.
Swift, M., 2009. ICTs for SMEs — How ICT Can Be a Force of Viability. ICT for SMEs Seminar,
The Cascadia Hotel & Conference Centre Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago Wednesday,
25th March, 2009.
 H. Gupta, M.K. Barua / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 11

Teece, D.J., 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, World Economic Forum, 2014. The global competitiveness report. World Economic
collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy 15 (6), 285–305. Forum.
Teece, D.J., 2014. A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multination- Zaridis, A.D., Mousiolis, D.T., 2014. Entrepreneurship and SME's Organizational Structure.
al enterprise. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 45 (1), 8–37. Elements of a Successful Business. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 148, 463–467.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A., 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Zeng, S.X., Xie, X.M., Tam, C.M., 2010. Relationship between cooperation networks and in-
Strateg. Manag. J. 18 (7), 509–533. novation performance of SMEs. Technovation 30 (3), 181–194.
Terziovski, M., 2008. Energizing Management Through Innovation and Entrepreneurship:
European Research and Practice. Routledge.
Himanshu Gupta is a research scholar at the Department of Management Studies, Indian
Tidd, J., Pavitt, K., Bessant, J., 2001. Managing Innovation vol. 3. Wiley, Chichester.
Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India. His research interest includes technological inno-
Verhees, F.J., Meulenberg, M.T., 2004. Market orientation, innovativeness, product innova-
vation, quality management and green supply chain management.
tion, and performance in small firms. J. Small Bus. Manag. 42 (2), 134–154.
Wang, J., Kim, S., 2007. Time to get in: the contrasting stories about government interven-
Dr. Mukesh Kumar Barua is an Associate Professor at the Department of Management
tions in information technology standards (the case of CDMA and IMT-2000 in
Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India. He obtained his masters and PhD
Korea). Gov. Inf. Q. 24 (1), 115–134.
both from IIT Chennai. His research interest includes operations management, and supply
Wincent, J., Anokhin, S., Örtqvist, D., 2010. Does network board capital matter? A study of
chain management. He has published numerous research papers including papers in In-
innovative performance in strategic SME networks. J. Bus. Res. 63 (3), 265–275.
ternational Journal of Production Economics.
Winterton, J., 2002. Entrepreneurship: Towards a Competence Framework for Developing
SME Managers. United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Conference Proceedings (January).

Please cite this article as: Gupta, H., Barua, M.K., Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best–worst multi criteria
decision making method, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.028