ann rep 40pp - sussex.ac.uk groák, director of ove arup ... key findings the organisational methods...

Annual Report

cademic/industry links analytical methods adiotechnology Science bibliometrics biotecuilt environment and chemical and biologicaommunication Technology collaborationomplexity Policy defence industries dereguevelopment Research economic policy environmental1998 energy consumption evalobalisation government housing industrialisnnovation intelligent systems intellectual propnowledge management life-cycle analysis neegulation renewable resources research and development risk-assessment sustainable devekills standardization strategy structural chang

ms analysis systems management sustainabilitechnology telematics training transition econ

Annual Report

SPRU is one of the world leaders

in policy research on science,

technology and innovation (STI).

Our objectives are:

● to advance knowledge of STI

developments and their impact

on society through

multidisciplinary research

● to generate new empirical data,

methods, concepts and theories

which explain the role of STI in

the global economy

● to deliver postgraduate training

which provides the analytical and

practical skills needed to

understand and respond to the

STI challenges of the future

● to advise those concerned with

the development and

implementation of science and

technology policy

● to work with firms to develop

the tools and techniques needed

to manage STI for

competitiveness

1 Director’s Introduction

3 SPRU Advisory Panel

SPRU Research Themes

Technology and Innovation in Industry and Firms

4 The Strategy, Structure and Dynamics of Innovating Firms

6 Innovation Management in Complex Product Systems (CoPS)

8 Innovation in the Built Environment

10 Research and Innovation in Biotechnology

12 Technological Change in the Defence Industries

Science,Technology and Development

14 The Evolution of Research Systems

16 Issues in Technology Policy

18 Technology and Innovation in Central and Eastern Europe

19 The Technological Dynamics of Industrialisation

Energy and Environmental Policies

20 Technology and Liberalisation

22 Energy Markets and Regulation

24 Towards Energy Sustainability

26 Integrated Approaches to Environmental Policy

28 Implementing Environmental and Consumer Protection

Knowledge Networks and Technology Governance

30 Knowledge Networks for Social Development and Economic Growth

32 Technology Control in Non-proliferation Regimes

33 SPRU Library and Information Services

34 SPRU Postgraduate Study and Research

SPRU Staff

36 Research and Teaching Staff

37 Administrative, Library and Support Staff

38 Associate Staff

40 Sponsors of SPRU Research

Inside back cover Contacts for further information

contents

Di

ectos Int

oductio

nSPRU Annual Report 1998

During the last year SPRU hascontinued to address pressingglobal issues where science,technology and innovation have amajor role to play.These includeeconomic development,globalisation, industrialcompetitiveness, marketliberalisation, regulation,sustainability, and the emergence ofthe knowledge-based society.Thesmall but significant change to theorganisation’s name, for which wereceived formal University approvalin 1998, reflects these interests.Wehave retained the acronym ‘SPRU’,a name which is known andrespected internationally, but thedescription following it – ‘Scienceand Technology Policy Research’ –reflects more fully the range ofactivities in which we are engaged.

As this report shows, there are certaindistinguishing characteristics to SPRU.First, our work is truly international inscope, purpose and ambition. Secondly, assubsequent pages reveal, our approach topolicy and management issues associatedwith science, technology and innovationis intrinsically interdisciplinary. Thirdly,the work of staff and students is closelyintegrated, with DPhil students inparticular both deepening SPRU’sresearch and taking it in new directions.

The combination of these threecharacteristics – internationalperspectives, interdisciplinary approaches,and the integration of research andteaching – lies behind SPRU’s continuingsuccess on three fronts:

● the development and transmission ofknowledge and skills to students;

● influencing the thinking and decisionsof policy-makers in government,managers in industry, and others,including the general public; and

● contributions to the social sciences –empirical, theoretical andmethodological.

Among the influential contributions Iwould highlight are: an enhancedunderstanding of knowledgemanagement in firms; the nature of riskwith its various, often incommensuratedimensions; the impact of informationand communication technologies ondevelopment; and the identification ofpower law phenomena in scientificoutput and impact.

ResearchSPRU now contains five majorprogrammes, each with approximatelyhalf a dozen staff members. One of theseis the ESRC Complex Product Systems(CoPS) Innovation Centre which hasachieved an impressive amount in its

Director’s Introduction

second year. The Centre is based on acollaboration between SPRU andCENTRIM in the University ofBrighton, a collaboration which isproving increasingly fruitful. Theresearchers have focused on analysingcomplex products, systems, networksand capital goods. Such CoPS perhapsrepresent the ‘hidden backbone’ of themodern economy. One aim of the Centreis to establish whether the UK possessescertain competitive advantages inrelation to CoPS and, if so, to identifyhow these might be strengthened.Working with some of the largest globalsuppliers of CoPS, the Centre hasgenerated new insights into the nature ofthe innovation process for CoPS andbegun to develop tools for improvingperformance in major CoPS projects.

The Innovative Manufacturing Initiative(IMI) Chair and the associatedProgramme on the Built Environment hasrecruited several new staff to create astrong international and interdisciplinaryteam. Its work on managing innovation inproject-based environments, in housinginnovation and in complex buildings andinfrastructures involves collaborationwith over 30 industrial and public sectorpartners. The impact of its work isalready being felt across the sector.Sadly, the Programme and SPRU as awhole lost a good friend and colleaguewith the untimely death in 1998 ofSteven Groák, Director of Ove ArupR&D Group and SPRU Visiting Fellow.

The Centre for Information, Networksand Knowledge (INK) had a mostsuccessful first year, launching a numberof new projects. Its empirical research iscasting considerable doubt on thepopular view that the presence of newelectronic services necessarily putscustomers into a more powerful position

Di ecto s int oduction

SP

RU

Adviso

y Panel

SPRU Advisory Panel

The Advisory Panel advises the Director and the University about theoverall content and balance of SPRU’s work.

External members

Dr Clive BradleyManaging Director, Sharp LaboratoriesEurope Ltd

Professor Umberto ColomboFormer Minister for Universities andScientific and Technological Research,Italy

Gerard Fairtlough CBEFormer Chairman, Therexsys Ltd

Dr David FiskChief Scientist, Department of theEnvironment, Transport and the Regions

Ian HarveyChief Executive, BTG plc

Dr David LeechDirector of Planning andCommunication, Engineering andPhysical Sciences Research Council

Professor Richard LipseyDirector, Canadian Institute forAdvanced Research, Economic Growthand Policy Program, Simon FraserUniversity, Vancouver

Professor Franco MalerbaUniversità Commerciale Luigi Bocconi,Department of Political Economics

Dr Frieder Meyer-KrahmerFraunhofer Institut für Systemtechnikund Innovationsforschung, Karlsruhe(Germany)

Professor Richard NelsonSchool of International and PublicAffairs, Columbia University, New York

Professor Howard Newby CBE(Chair) Vice-Chancellor, University ofSouthampton

Professor John SuttonLondon School of Economics, Suntoryand Toyota International Centres forEconomics and Related Disciplines

Suzanne Warner (The Lady Warner)Deputy Chairman, BroadcastingStandards Commission

David WhittletonChairman, Industrial Division, Ove Arup& Partners

University of Sussex members

Professor Alasdair SmithVice-Chancellor

Professor Gerald GazdarSchool of Cognitive and ComputingSciences

Professor Helen WallaceDirector, Sussex European Institute

SPRU Annual Report 1998

Pari Patel

Professor Keith Pavitt

Andrea Prencipe(part-time)

Professor Nickvon Tunzelmann

Dr Qing Wang

Orietta Marsili (part-time to December 1998)

Modesto Vega (to April 1998)

Susan Lees Programme Assistant

The focus of this research is the co-evolution over time oftechnology, products andorganisation (ie systems ofcoordination and control) within thebusiness firm. Past research hasshown that products, processes andservices embody an increasingrange of technological knowledgethat firms must master. Developingthe organisational arrangementsand competencies to access andexploit this knowledge has thereforebecome one of the major challengesof innovation management.

Key findingsThe organisational methods to tap intonew sources of knowledge vary amongstindustries. Empirical evidence for theelectronics industry (an upstream high-tech industry) and the food-processingindustry (a downstream, supposedlylow-tech industry) show firms exhibitinga delicate balance betweenspecialisation and diversification in thetechnologies which they patent. Incontrast to the increasing spread ofcompetencies within high-tech firms, thediversification of technologies requiredin the downstream, technology-usingindustry is often met by outsourcing andby the survival of suppliers ofspecialised goods and services.

More generally, the growth oftechnological complexity underlies thechanging organisation of firms. Businessfirms encounter significant difficultieswhen attempting greater cross-functionalintegration. The effectiveness of businessprocess re-engineering tools as a changedevice is limited. Organisationalcomplexity depends on both the breadthand the depth of the knowledge to beaccessed and exploited. Preliminaryresearch suggests that organisationsdevelop along both dimensions inattempts to find solutions to complexproblems.

The challenges of increased complexityin technological development cannot beavoided by increased modularity, iedecomposing product and processsystems into subsystems linked bysimple and invariant interfaces.Empirical studies of the development ofaero-engines and chemical processesshow that even after such decompositionand the increasing out-sourcing ofproduction, systems integrators maintaina full range of technologicalcompetencies in order to cope with thedynamics of change in the performancecharacteristics of sub-systems.

Technological convergence must not beconfused with organisational or productconvergence. In the early 1980s, there

The Strategy, Structure and Dynamics of Innovating Firms

were high hopes of convergence inelectronic technologies based on digitaltechnology. Corporations reorganised tointegrate this convergence, but thereorganisations generally disintegratedfairly quickly. The differences in marketrequirements and associatedorganisational structures were too greatto reconcile within the same firm. Somedegree of convergence has come about inthe 1990s, for example multimediaproducts, but this has often been led bythe rise of new companies.

The rapid performance improvements ininformation technologies (IT) arecreating firms based on, or integrating,‘new science’. Case studies of thecommercialisation of computationalchemistry and speech recognitiontechnologies show that ‘new sciences’have emerged from the combination ofIT with traditional disciplines, eg withphysical chemistry to formcomputational chemistry, and withacoustics to form speech recognition. Inboth cases, commercially active firms areboth small and specialised suppliers oftechniques and services (emergingdirectly from advances in geographicallyproximate, university-based research),and large established firms intent onintegrating the new competence intotheir technological portfolio (very oftenthrough alliances with the small and

Select bibliographyBrusoni S,Prencipe AModularity in complexproduct systems:managing theknowledge dimension.In: Economics ofTechnological andInstitutional Change(ETIC) 1998 Conference,Strasbourg, 16–17October 1998.Proceedings.Vol. 1.Presentations.Strasbourg: ETIC, 1998,40p.

Koumpis KCorporatetechnologicalpositioning inautomatic speechrecognition andnatural languageprocessing. MScThesis. Brighton:University of Sussex,1998, 59p.

Le Jan BInternationalisation ofGerman large firms’ R & D illustrated bySiemens. MSc Thesis.Brighton: University ofSussex, 1998, 75p.

Meyer M,Persson ONanotechnology:interdisciplinarity,patterns ofcollaboration anddifferences inapplication.Scientometrics, 42 (2)1998, 195–206.

Pavitt KTechnologies, productsand organization inthe innovating firm:what Adam Smith tellsus and JosephSchumpeter doesn’t.Industrial and CorporateChange, 7 (3) 1998,433–452.

4 Technology and Innovation in Industry and Firms

specialised suppliers). Similar patternsare emerging in nanotechnology.

We still do not have precise methods formeasuring corporate knowledge-generating activities, and of linking themwith corporate performance. AlthoughR&D statistics are a useful andirreplaceable measure, they do not reflectall the corporate activities directed towardsknowledge accumulation and technicalchange. There also remain unansweredquestions about the relationship betweentechnology and economic performance atthe firm level. While cross-section studiesshow a statistically significantrelationship, this becomes less robust overtime and within specific industrial sectors.This points to the need for more firm-specific data on both technological andfinancial performance over longer periodsof time, and a wider set of approachesthan those based on just the productionand the market value functions.

Multinational firms still build mainly ontheir home-based technologicalstrengths. An analysis of the 220 firmswith the highest volume of technologicalactivities outside their home countriesshowed that although these firms areactive abroad in ‘high technology’ fieldssuch as computers, pharmaceuticals andtelecommunications, a sizeableproportion of their foreign activities are

concentrated in process and machinerytechnologies. Moreover, in a largemajority of cases, firms tend to locatetheir technology abroad in the core areaswhere they are strong at home.

These results suggest that adaptingproducts, processes and materials to suitforeign markets, and providing technicalsupport to off-shore manufacturingplants remain major factors underlyingthe internationalisation of technology.They are also consistent with the notionthat firms are increasingly monitoringand scanning new technologicaldevelopments in centres of excellence inforeign countries within their areas ofexisting strength. There is little evidenceto suggest that even these mostinternationalised firms routinely goabroad to compensate for their weaknessat home. These results are confirmed bycase studies of the 3M Corporation andof Siemens.

In trying to understand the contemporaryinnovating firm, we owe a majorintellectual debt to Adam Smith. Smithsaw clearly the links between increasingspecialisation, the development of skills,and the need for coordination, not onlyin the production of goods, but also inthe production of useful knowledge.Most of the major innovativeopportunities today emerge from

advances in specialised knowledge, andmost of the management problemsinvolve the coordination and integrationof an increasing range of fields ofspecialised knowledge.

Future workFuture research will address thefollowing questions: What are thecharacteristics of the successfulinnovating firm? What factors determinethe knowledge boundaries, as distinctfrom the production boundaries, of theinnovating firm? How are processes oforganisational change influenced by thebreadth and depth of the requiredknowledge base? To what extent arelinks between corporate R&D and theknowledge base becominginternationalised?

Technology and Innovatio

n in Industy and F

im

sSPRU • Annual Report 1998 5

In trying tounderstand thecontemporaryinnovating firm,we owe a majorintellectual debtto Adam Smith.Smith sawclearly the linksbetweenincreasingspecialisation,the developmentof skills, and the need forcoordination,not only in theproduction ofgoods, but alsoin theproduction of usefulknowledge.

von Tunzelmann G NLocalizedtechnological searchand multi-technologycompanies. Economicsof Innovation and NewTechnology, 6, 1998,231–255.

von Tunzelmann G N, Wang QThe dimensions ofcomplexity inproduction andmanagement. In: RHirasawa (ed)Challenges for the 21stCentury: Networking Eastand West. Proceedingsof the 7th InternationalForum on TechnologyManagement, Kyoto,Japan, 3-7 November1997.Tokyo: NISTEP,1997, 21–127.

Wood PThe internationalisationof research anddevelopment activitywithin the MinnesotaMining andManufacturingCompany (3M)between 1969 and1994. MSc Thesis.Brighton: University ofSussex, 1998, 52p.

The Complex Product Systems(CoPS) Innovation Centre, fundedby the Economic and SocialResearch Council, is the firstconcentrated research programmeon innovation in high value,complex products, systems,networks and constructs. It is ajoint venture between SPRU andthe Centre for Research inInnovation Management(CENTRIM) at the University ofBrighton, and is jointly directed byProfessors Mike Hobday andHoward Rush.

In contrast to innovation in massproduced goods, very little is knownabout how innovation is managed inone-off, complex, high value products,systems, networks and constructs. Yetcomplex product systems (CoPS) forma large part of the economy and providemuch of the infrastructure for modernmanufacturing and service activities.Important examples includetelecommunications exchanges,business information networks, flightsimulators, internet superservers, highspeed train engines and systems forelectricity grids. Unlike mass producedgoods, CoPS are usually tailor-made forspecific users in projects or in smallbatches. The user, often an ‘owner-operator’, is heavily involved in theinnovation process.

The Centre has two main objectives.The first is to conduct in-depthempirical research into CoPS, both tocontribute to our knowledge ofinnovation processes and to provideadvice on company strategies, bestmanagement practices and governmentpolicies. The second objective is toprovide an umbrella for other leading-edge research by forging researchcollaborations with other groups in theUK and abroad.

Innovation Management in Complex Product Systems (CoPS)

ActivitiesDuring the past year we deepenedindustrial collaboration with our threeexisting partner research companies:Thomson Training and Simulation,Cable & Wireless and Ericsson, andrecruited new partners, including OxfordInstruments, British Steel, Rolls-Royce,GKN, BAA, Drake Electronics andMorgan Stanley. These companies haveprovided a great deal of data and time,which has helped to build up ourknowledge of innovation processes inCoPS. We have also raised industrialawareness of our work through our website and industrial networking activities.

One of our aims is to use research data toimprove practice. During the year wefurther developed and refined our tools foranalysing and improving complex projectsand applied these to four of our industrialpartners. We now have a method forintervening in real time to improve projectperformance through rapid feedback tomanagers and practitioners. We alsodeveloped specific tools with our clientcompanies: to standardise internationalbest practices in installing mobile phonesystems, in collaboration with Ericsson; todeliver a company-wide new productdevelopment process guide, with GKN;and to assess a firm’s ability to learn fromproject to project, carried out with variouscompanies.

Professor MikeHobday

Dr Andrew Davies

Dr PaulNightingale

Jeremy Hall (part-time)

Andrea Prencipe (part-time)

Tim Heighes (part-time)

Pat BeestonProgramme Assistant

Select bibliographyDavies A, Brady TPolicies for a complexproduct system.Futures, 30 (4) 1998,293–304.

Hansen K L,Rush HHotspots in complexproduct systems:emerging issues ininnovationmanagement.Technovation, 18 (8/9)1998, 555–561.

Hobday MProduct complexity,innovation andindustrial organisation.Research Policy, 26 (6)1998, 689–710.

Hobday M, Brady TRational versus softmanagement incomplex software:lessons from flightsimulation. InternationalJournal of InnovationManagement, 2 (1)1998, 1–43.

Nightingale PA cognitive model ofinnovation. ResearchPolicy, 27 (7) 1998,689–709.


In order to develop new themes for thefuture we have been successful inbuilding up a small cadre of DPhilstudents, three of whom are focusing onone important CoPS sector – aerospace.Others are examining the start-up phaseof major projects, CoPS innovation lifecycle models, trade and industrialperformance, and innovationmanagement in the chemical engineeringindustry.

Key findingsDue to the complex, non-routine natureof CoPS production, project teams haveto be non-hierarchical, flexible and‘empowered’ to be successful. Toolsand procedures have to be consistentwith the informal, complex, non-routine and unpredictable nature ofmany of the tasks involved. However,the software engineering andinformation technology communitiescentral to most CoPS deploy highlyrational, top down techniques and toolswhich generally fail to address theinformal, human side of complexproducts and projects. Our researchindicates that this is one of the mainreasons why software-intensive projectsso often fail to meet delivery, budgetand technical targets. With users andsystems designers co-located andworking together collaboratively,

conventional project management andrisk control techniques appearinadequate. A vital ingredient forsuccess in complex projects is the tacitknowledge embodied in experiencedmanagers and engineers. This has to benurtured, rewarded and exploited.

CoPS suppliers typically have majordifficulties in systematically learningfrom project to project. This widespreadproblem presents an obstacle toachieving continuous improvements inproductivity and performance. To enableus to investigate this issue in depth, theEconomic and Physical SciencesResearch Council has provided fundingof £342,300 for a major new project,supplemented by industry contributionsin kind of £180,750 (mostlystaff/management time and access todata). This new three-year project,which falls within the CoPS Centre,aims to develop tools with CoPSsuppliers for learning from project toproject.

During the year we continued tostrengthen our links with other academicgroups at home and abroad. The OpenUniversity Business School is reprintinga CoPS paper for use in one of itscourses, helping to raise awareness ofour work in the wider MBA community.We have also continued to work closely


n in Industy and F

im


CoPS are the hiddenbackbone of the moderneconomy, andthey representan importantcompetitiveasset for theUK. CoPSunderpinindustries andservices asdiverse astransport,construction,telecommuni-cations, bankingand retail.

Nightingale PThe role of science intechnology. Scienceand Public Affairs,Spring 1998, 38–41.

with our Japanese partners at the TokyoInstitute of Technology, and one of ourteam has worked as a visiting fellow atErasmus University in The Netherlandson a major European Union (EU) projectdealing with CoPS.

A new ‘Innovation Club’ will serve as avehicle for communicating advancedCoPS research to industry andgovernment. In addition we arecontinuing to work closely with theIMI/RAEng Chair in InnovativeManufacturing, helping to support theChair, collaborating in specific researchprojects and producing several new jointresearch proposals (see page 8).

Future workOur work on innovation managementwithin CoPS suppliers will continue withthe signing up of at least four newpartner companies and with the analysisof small and medium sized firms. Wealso have plans to expand ourinternational collaborative work inJapan, the US and European Unioncountries. During the coming year, wehope to undertake more high profileCoPS cases, including the MillenniumDome, the 2002 New CommonwealthStadium in Manchester, and the hightechnology infrastructure for the BBC’sdigital TV roll out.

Professor David Gann

Dr James Barlow (part-time)

Dr PaulNightingale

Dr Puay Tang

Ammon Salter

Tim Venables

Chris Benjamin (part-time)

CharlotteHuggett Programme Assistant

The Built Environment Programmeis based within the IMI/RAEng Chairin Innovative Manufacturing,established at SPRU in September1996 and held by Professor DavidGann. The Chair is funded by theInnovative Manufacturing Initiativeof the Engineering and PhysicalSciences Research Council (EPSRC),the Economic and Social ResearchCouncil and the Royal Academy ofEngineering. Members of the teamcollaborate closely with the CoPSInnovation Centre and withresearchers at other universities,including the Logistic SystemsDynamics Group (LSDG), CardiffUniversity.

During 1998 the Built EnvironmentProgramme worked on a portfolio ofprojects in close collaboration with morethan 30 industrial partners, governmentagencies and public sector institutions.Many of these contributed to our workdirectly through their sponsorship andstudentships, and in kind throughprovision of materials and secondmentof staff. The EPSRC also providedSPRU with a grant of £52,000 to launch‘The Innovation Club’ in collaborationwith the Centre for Research inInnovation Management, University ofBrighton, and Imperial CollegeManagement School.

Research focuses on new manufacturingprocesses in project-based environmentswhere the delivery of services to supportadvanced, complex products is anintrinsic part of firms’ activities. Project-based, service-enhanced firms are crucialto economic vitality andcompetitiveness, particularly in areassuch as the production of buildings andinfrastructures. Many of the products andservices provided also contribute directlyto improvements in the quality of life.

Mapping, measuring and managingtechnology in project-based firms This project seeks to address howdesign, engineering, construction andrelated project-based supply firmsacquire, develop, sustain and managecapabilities for technological innovation.During the year we developed an initialmodel of business and project processesand began data collection withincollaborating firms. We are workingclosely with seven major companies,measuring the types of activities carriedout within formal R&D and technicalsupport groups and developing feedbackmodels to inform management aboutbetter processes for deploying technicalcapabilities, both within and betweenfirms engaged in projects. Ammon Salterhas led the research and DPhil studentEugenia Cacciatori, sponsored by W SAtkins Ltd, is working in this area.

Innovation in the Built Environment

Management of technical excellencein design organisationsThis one-year study of the methods bywhich consulting engineering and designfirms manage technical excellence wascarried out in collaboration with theConstruction Industry Research andInformation Association and 12 leadingUK firms. Our work involved assessingand comparing different managementpractices within these firms andcontrasting these with practices in othersectors. Results from this work havealready been used within the memberfirms and a follow-up study is planned toexplore better ways for measuring designperformance.

Interdisciplinary skills for builtenvironment professionalsThis work, commissioned by the OveArup Foundation, involved constructing alarge database of all graduate andpostgraduate courses related to the builtenvironment. The database was used toassess the extent to whichinterdisciplinary issues were being taughtwithin British universities. Our reportfound that concern about the supply ofhigh quality professional skills isjustified. Falling numbers of applicants tobuilt environment courses and thesector’s poor reputation have created newpressures on the education system andthe construction industry. The report

Select bibliographyBarlow J,Cohen M,Jashapara AOrganisationallearning and inter-firmpartnering in the UKconstruction industry.The LearningOrganization Journal, 5(2), 86–98.

Barlow JPlanning, housing andthe European Union.In: M Kleinman et al.(eds) EuropeanIntegration and HousingPolicy; London:Routledge, 1998,113–124,

Barlow J,Coupland ABack to the Centre.London: RoyalInstitution ofChartered Surveyors,33p.

Barlow JInstitutionaleconomics andpartnering in theconstruction industry.In: J Uff, and M Odamsda Zylva (eds) NewHorizons in ConstructionLaw. London:Construction LawPress, 1998, 179–194.

Gann D M,Wang Y,Hawkins RDo regulationsencourage innovation?The case of energyefficiency in housing.Building Research andInformation, 26 (4)1998, 280–296.


explores the current state ofinterdisciplinarity offered by educationproviders and identifies the need forsubstantial changes in education. It offersnew avenues to help redress the currentsituation through policy and research.

Meeting customers’ housing needsthrough standardisationBritain builds less new housing percapita than almost any industrialisedcountry. What is built is often of variablequality and expensive. Furthermore,existing building techniques providecustomers with little real choice inhousing design, finish, quality orfunctions. This three-year project aims tochange this. In collaboration with LSDGour challenge is to test and demonstratethe way standardised component systemscan facilitate a greater level of customerchoice in the housebuilding process in acost-effective and sustainable manner.

Component-based approaches potentiallyoffer a flexible method in whichstandardised parts are configured indifferent arrangements prior to theirdelivery and assembly on site. It isbelieved that this significantly reducestotal costs and defects, and saves time,resulting in more highly customised,quality housing. The project will supportthe development, production andevaluation of two demonstration projectsinvolving both social and private housing.The project will also explore theimplications for planning policy, buildingregulations and housing finance. Theresearch of DPhil student Barry Cleasby,sponsored by Willmott Dixon HousingLtd, is closely related to this project.

New technology in housingproduction and renewalHousing has specific market conditions,dynamics of change, and resourceinputs, which differ from those in manyother industries. Whilst thetechnologies used in housingproduction remain comparativelysimple, the UK industry is notdelivering the levels of value foroccupants, investors, developers orbuilders which these groups have cometo expect from other goods and servicesproduced in a modern economy.Radical change is needed to ensure thatnew types of housing are produced oradapted efficiently to meet society’schanging needs. Our main activitiesduring 1998 have been in thedevelopment of ideas for supportinginnovation in housing in the DeputyPrime Minister’s ConstructionTaskforce, and for 2000 Homes, theUK Government’s Best PracticeProgramme for Housing. Tim Venablesworked closely with 2000 Homes onthis project, as did DPhil student KarinStockerl, sponsored by SouthernHousing Group. They have analysedcase studies in a number of UKinnovative housing initiatives, togetherwith leading practices from othercountries.

Smart Homes projectThis two-year project resulted in theconstruction of two demonstrationhomes in York and Edinburgh. The aimwas to explore the possibility of usingnew information and communicationtechnologies to assist in everydayfunctions around the home. These have


n in Industy and F

im


The InnovationClub provides aforum for thoseactively involvedin managing theinnovationprocess to pooltheir expertiseand shareexperiences. Itacts as aninterfacebetween currentmanagementbest practiceand the latestbusiness andinnovationresearch.

Gann D M,Senker PConstruction skillstraining for the nextmillennium.ConstructionManagement andEconomics, 16 (5)1998, 569–580.

Gann D M,Hansen K L,Groák SInformationtechnology decisionsupport and businessprocess change in theUSA. EngineeringConstruction andArchitecturalManagement, 5 (2)1998, 115–126.

Gann D M,Palmer S,Adams C,McCosh A,MacFarlane BHouse from the risingsun: lessons from theJapanese housing deliveryexperience. Departmentof Trade and IndustryOverseas Science andTechnology ExpertMission Visit Report.High Wycombe: TradeTechnology, 1998.

been trialed in the demonstration sitesand a generic standard specification hasbeen produced, focusing on affordableand replicable functions. The Edinburghdemonstration project won twoinnovation awards in 1998. Both sitesreceived extensive television and mediacoverage and a video and CD-ROM oflessons drawn from the project arebeing produced, together with a majorreport. Results are now being used in anumber of new demonstration andprototype projects.

Feasibility study: technologies fortelecare in the homeThis one-year study is examining thepotential social, economic and regulatorydrivers for and against delivering care inthe home using new interactiveinformation and communicationtechnologies. The study considers howthe major players, Health, Housing andSocial Services, could adopt telecare toprovide some of their services. Theproject involves detailed data collectionand analysis of potential markets anduser communities. It also involvesassessing technological trajectories anddifferent scenarios for delivery.Healthcare consultant Dick Curry isworking with the project.

Future workOur work will continue under the threethemes of housing, complex buildingsand infrastructures, and innovation inproject-based firms. We intend todevelop a new databank containinginternational case study material tosupport this work during 1999.

Dr JacquelineSenker

Margaret Sharp

Sarah Crowther

Michael Hopkins

Dr Paul Martin

Professor Ben Martin

Dr ErikMillstone

Dr Patrick vanZwanenberg

Nicola Birtwistle(to September 1998)

Nick Simmonds(to July 1998)

Dr SandyThomas (on secondment)

Caron CrispProgramme Assistant

From left to right:Standing:Sarah Crowther,Michael Hopkins,Caron Crisp,Dr Paul Martin,Dr Patrick vanZwanenberg,Margaret Sharp.Sitting:Dr Paul Nightingale,Professor Ben Martin,Dr Jacqueline Senker,Dr Erik Millstone

Two decades have passed sincescientific breakthroughs heraldedthe rise of biotechnology as aradical and pervasive newtechnology. During that timecountries have invested in theirscience base to build up nationalcompetences and have promotedthe foundation of small high-techfirms to commercialise thetechnology. Biotechnologyinnovations promise importanteconomic, social and medicalbenefits, but so far the number ofproducts launched on the markethas been small. The developmentof the technology has beenhindered by uncertaintysurrounding the intellectualproperty and regulatory regimes,and by concern about the ethicalimplications of some applications.During the past 15 years SPRU’swork has reflected many of theseissues, with a particular emphasison understanding why thebiotechnology sector in the UnitedStates has been more successfulthan in Europe.

Our work in the past year has focused onthree main questions: How is theEuropean science base in biotechnologydeveloping? What is the relationshipbetween intellectual property andinnovation in biotechnology? IsEuropean biotechnology ‘catching up’with the US?

Key findingsAn exhaustive inventory of Europeanbiotechnology research and relatedactivities has been undertaken incollaboration with partners in TheNetherlands, France and Germany. Theinventory, which is funded by theEuropean Commission (EC) BIOTECHprogramme, covers all public programmesin the 17 countries which participated inthe EC Biotechnology Programmebetween 1994–98. The final report willcompare how biotechnology policy ismade and implemented in these countries,the results which have emerged, and thedistribution of various areas of researchamong the countries concerned, includingnational specialisations or neglectedareas. It will also identify the public-private networks which have developed as

Research and Innovation in Biotechnology

a result of these programmes and considerthe implications of the results forEuropean policy.

Intellectual property rights (IPR) play acentral role in the development andapplication of biotechnology. Concernsthat IPR might act as a barrier to inter-firm collaboration were shown to beunfounded in a study funded by theBIOTECH programme, although IPRplay a fundamental role in establishingthe terms for strategic alliances betweencompanies. Corporate partners arereluctant to collaborate with Europeanacademics because of a culture whichemphasises publishing over patents, andhas unrealistic expectations about thevalue of its technology.

A two-year project funded by theEconomic and Social Research Councilexamined the impact of public sectorresearch collaboration on the molecularanalysis of genomes in Europe. Theresults suggest that the new large-scalegene mapping and sequencing projectsare strengthening the small conventionalresearch group which will continue todominate research in molecular biology.

Select bibliographyHall J, Crowther SBiotechnology: theultimate cleanerproduction technologyfor agriculture? Journalof Cleaner Production, 6,1998, 313–322.

Hopkins MAn examination oftechnology strategiesfor the integration ofbioinformatics inpharmaceutical R & Dprocesses. MSc Thesis.Brighton: University ofSussex, 1998, 75p.

Martin PFrom eugenics totherapeutics: the impactof opposition on thedevelopment of genetherapy in the USA.In: P Wheale, R vonSchomberg and PGlasner (eds) The SocialManagement of GeneticEngineering. Aldershot:Ashgate Publishing,1998, 139–158.

Martin P A,Thomas S MThe commercialdevelopment of genetherapy in Europe andthe USA. Human GeneTherapy, 9 (1) 1998,87–114.

Thomas S M andBurke J FThe Ageing of Society:Progress in Medical andPharmaceutical Researchand Technology and itsSocio-EconomicConsequences. FinalStudy.WorkingDocument for theScientific andTechnological OptionsAssessment Panel,European Parliament.Luxembourg: STOA,1998, 126 pages.


The benefits of large scale DNAsequencing through networks andgenome centres were found tosignificantly outweigh the costs. Wherethe UK and Europe are deficient is in theexploitation of the data.

This finding was confirmed by anotherstudy for the BIOTECH programmewhich focused on the industrialexploitation of genomes. This researchemphasised the need for targeted,concerted investment by Europeangovernments and the EC to shift publicsector competence in genomics intoproduction through support for spin-offs,multidisciplinary research programmesinvolving industrial partnerships, andbetter intellectual property management.Both studies suggest that Europeanbiotechnology is being weakened long-term by the preference of European-based multinationals to invest in smallUS biotechnology firms.

The BIOTECH programme is alsofunding two new projects in SPRU. Thefirst takes forward previous SPRUdoctoral research on gene therapy whichfound that this important new technologywas being exploited in the US, but not inEurope. One exception was Germany,which has half of all Europe’s genetherapy firms, although they are youngerand smaller than their US counterparts.The project will assess the current

competitiveness of Europe’s genetherapy industry, examine how far thescience base is being industriallyexploited, and recommend how publicpolicy can help to overcome the mainbarriers to commercialising gene therapyresearch in Europe.

The second project will focus onmammalian cloning, which has beenseen as a landmark, demonstrating boththe power of science and the scale ofpublic fears surrounding geneticengineering. It has provoked majordebates in many countries, with anemphasis on the ethics of cloninghumans, and legislation has been draftedin several countries to prohibit thisoption. The study will provide anassessment of cloning technology, itspossible risks and benefits, and suggesthow public policy might help steer itsdevelopment in a manner which is bothsocially acceptable and economicallyuseful.

A study for the European Commission tobenchmark European competitiveness inbiotechnology against the US isexamining a number of factorsconsidered necessary for successfulinnovation, and their interactions. Theseinclude skills, capital, regulation,intellectual property rights, publicacceptance, the impact of informationtechnology and firm strategy. The study,

which will be completed in mid-1999,focuses on bio-pharmaceuticals and bio-agrofoods and will include fivetechnology case studies to illustrate theinteractions between factors involved ininnovation.

Significant contributions to the SPRUprogramme continue to be made bypostgraduate work, including adissertation on firm strategy and bio-informatics which was one of the jointwinners of the Roy Rothwell Prize forthe best master’s dissertation in 1998.

Future workA major new project funded by the EC’sTargeted Socio-Economic Researchprogramme will assess the extent towhich the development of biotechnologyin Europe takes place at the sectorallevel or, in contrast, is mainlydetermined by the institutional featuresof particular ‘national systems ofinnovation’. It will compare innovationin three different sectors ofbiotechnology, consider the extent towhich national or sectoral systems inbiotechnology are being integrated at aEuropean level and identify the maininstitutional barriers to this process.Future work will also focus on therelationship between regulation andinnovation in biotechnology.


n in Industy and F

im


Corporatepartners arereluctant tocollaborate withEuropeanacademicsbecause of aculture whichemphasisespublishing overpatents, and hasunrealisticexpectationsabout the valueof itstechnology.

Defence manufacturers andcustomers are changing the ways inwhich they develop, produce,purchase and operate militarysystems.The changes are aresponse to the tighter budgetaryenvironment since the end of theCold War, and the changingrelationship between defence andcivilian technologies.The pace andpatterns of reform vary, however,from country to country. On thesupply side, European defenceproducers have found it difficult toengage in a process of industrialconsolidation to parallel recentdevelopments in the United States.On the demand side, the results ofdefence procurement reform arebeing closely monitored in theUnited States, while severalEuropean countries are starting tolaunch wide-ranging initiatives.

In Europe, political leadership has takena high-profile stance in support of therestructuring of the European defenceindustries. In late 1997 a joint statementof the Heads of State of the largestWestern European countries directedtheir defence industries to come up witha plan for the restructuring andconsolidation of the European defenceand aerospace industries. The statementwas a reaction to the mergers in the USdefence industry that had resulted in theformation of giant corporations, posing acompetitive threat to a European industrywhich remains fragmented alongnational lines. Negotiations continue, butthe different structures of defenceproducers, and their differentrelationships with national governmentshave posed major difficulties in the roadtowards integration.

On the demand side, defence agenciesare changing their approach toprocurement. In Britain, the SmartProcurement Initiative introduced during

Technological Change in the Defence Industries

1998 aims to change the way Britainbuys weapons, establishing newrelationships between customer andsuppliers. The reforms promise increasedefficiency but face organisationalproblems, such as the role of governmentdefence research establishments, andissues of intellectual property ascustomers and a variety of suppliersworking together in cooperativearrangements share information,facilitated by advanced informationtechnologies. Defence procurementpolicy increasingly impinges upon thesuccess in developing and implementingnew approaches to the management ofcomplex defence projects.

During 1998 we conducted a large studyfor the European Commission on thedefence standardisation systems in theEuropean Union and the US. The studywill provide the Commission withinformation to improve the generationand management of defence standards inEurope. It involves a detailed analysis ofthe institutional set-up of defence andcivilian standardisation in Europe and ofthe results of defence standardisationreform in the United States. The study isled from SPRU and involves the leadingUS consultancy in the field of defenceprocurement (Litton-TASC) and anetwork of European experts(ESL&Network).

Dr Jordi Molas-Gallart

Dr Tom Sinclair(part-time)

Dr RichardHawkins

Dr Puay Tang

Select bibliographyMolas-Gallart JDefence procurementas an industrial policytool: the Spanishexperience. Defenceand Peace Economics, 9(1-2) 1998, 63-81.

Molas-Gallart JThe European missileindustry. CRIS Paper No 1, March 1999,41p. (Centre forResearch inInternational Security,Manchester Papers;No 1).

Molas-Gallart JDual use technologiesand the differenttransfer mechanisms.Paper given to theInternational Schoolon DisarmamentResearch on Conflicts(ISODARCO) 19thSummer School,Candriai, 26 August –2 September 1998.Brighton: SPRU, 1998,17p. (CoPSPublications; No 55).

Molas-Gallart JTelematics in ‘Life-Cycle Management’.In: C E Garcia and LSanz-Menéndez (eds)COST A3.Vol. 5.Management andTechnology.Luxembourg: Officefor OfficialPublications of theEuropeanCommunities, 1998,515–528.

Molas-Gallart J,Sinclair TFrom technologygeneration totechnology transfer:the concept and realityof the ‘Dual-UseTechnology Centres’.Paper given at the 2ndInternationalConference onTechnology Policy andInnovation, Lisbon, 3–5August 1998. Brighton:SPRU, 1998, 10p. (CoPsPublications; No 56).


Dr Jordi Molas-Gallart (left) and Dr Tom Sinclair

We completed a study on practice andpolicies for dual-use technology transfer,funded by the Economic and SocialResearch Council and the Ministry ofDefence. The project studied the ways inwhich dual-use technologies, particularlyin the materials field, are transferredacross defence and civil applications andbetween the research base and industry.We also updated a detailed study of theEuropean missile industry and analysedcurrent development in this area againstthe background of the current process ofdefence industrial consolidation.

Finally, as innovation in the managementof large complex weapons programmesbecomes an intrinsic element of defenceprocurement reform, the ComplexProduct Systems (CoPS) InnovationCentre’s research activities havesubstantially contributed to ourunderstanding of innovation in thedefence industries. The Centre hasestablished a number of industrialcollaborations with companies in thedefence field including Thomson-CSF,GKN-Westland, and Rolls Royce (seepage 6). Also in collaboration with anumber of defence manufacturers,research began in the field of intellectualproperty rights management in complexcollaborative defence projects.

Key findingsDespite a string of official statementsand some high-profile international jointventures and acquisitions, thefragmentation of the European defencemarket and industries along nationallines persists. Our study of the Europeanmissile industry stressed the progressiveand slow nature of change in thisdefence industry, and showed that manyinternational projects and joint venturesare being developed on the back ofnational programmes, exploiting andbuilding up national capabilities. Thestudy on defence standardisationrevealed a variety of approaches toprocurement and defence standardisationacross European countries, with differentstandards and procedures being applied.The study made several proposals toaddress information asymmetries, toincrease the transparency of defencestandardisation regimes, and to improvethe use and adaptation of civil standardsfor defence applications. These measureswould help the convergence of Europeandefence markets towards common andopen procedures.

Industry consolidation is not, in and byitself, the solution to the wide-rangingchallenges facing the defence industries.As the complexity of defence systemshas to coexist with stringent budgets, aneed emerges to exploit the results of

R&D efforts across a wide variety ofpotential applications, both military andcivilian. Our study of dual-usetechnology transfer mechanisms hasshown that organisational changes arerequired so that technologies generatedinitially for military (or civilian)applications can be exploited across theirfull range of potential applications. Thechanges should, for instance, bringdefence research agencies in closercontact with both defence and civilianmanufacturers.

Future workAs the roles and responsibilities of thedifferent actors in defence productionand procurement continue to change, ourresearch agenda will maintain its focuson how change in defence-relatedindustries and defence procurement isbeing implemented and managed. Thechanges in the organisation of defenceresearch and production and its interfacewith civilian activities will be analysedin relation to specific managementproblems that emerge as newprocurement approaches areimplemented. We will address key issuessuch as the management of intellectualproperty rights, complete the study ondefence standardisation systems, andanalyse the processes of defenceprocurement reforms in Europe.


n in Industy and F

im


Despite a string of officialstatements and some high-profile jointventures andacquisitions, thefragmentationof the Europeandefence marketand industriesalong nationallines persists.

Dr JacquelineSenker

Professor Ben Martin

Dr Sylvan Katz

Margaret Sharp

Professor Keith Pavitt


Dr PaulNightingale

Dr Tom Sinclair

Dr Puay Tang

Vicky Russell

Significant changes have affectedpublic sector research systemsaround the world in recent years.SPRU’s research programme hasaddressed three main questions:What are the effects ofgovernment policies on publicsector research? How can weassess the impacts of research onthe user community, and who arethose users? What is therelationship between the sciencebase and industry, and how is itpromoted?

Effects of government policiesA two-year project funded by theEuropean Commission’s Targeted Socio-Economic Research (TSER) programmeis investigating the changing structureand organisation of public sectorresearch in Europe. National reports ontwelve countries describe the historicaldevelopment of the public researchsystem and recent changes to:government arrangements for itsadministration and oversight; theorganisation of research funding; and thevarious establishments which make upthe public research system. Three trendsemerge from these national reports.

The first has been a blurring ofboundaries between the roles ofuniversity research and the long-term,

mission-oriented researchinstitutes/government laboratories whichconstituted centres of expertise andsources of policy advice for government.Universities appear to be gaining fromthe shift in funds being distributed topublic sector research (PSR). The secondtrend is an attempt to improvegovernment coordination of PSR. Thethird, and perhaps dominant trend, is thedemand for public sector research tosupport industry and contribute toinnovation. This trend gives rise toconcern that emphasis on PSR as aninstrument to increase the technologicalcapabilities of firms may have crowdedout the concept of its role to protect thepublic interest. The project is alsodeveloping methodologies to investigatethe response by research groups tonational policy. A pilot study of theEuropean human genetics researchcommunity is being used to assess theusefulness of bibliometrics, postalquestionnaires and in-depth case studiesto study the strategies adopted byresearch groups.

Another ongoing project concerns theeffects of policy reform on a specificresearch community. The project, fundedby the National Health Service (NHS)Executive (North Thames) is assessingthe impact of the implementation ofNHS R&D funding reforms (‘Culyer’

The Evolution of Research Systems

reforms) on its providers in the NorthThames Region. This represents SPRU’sfirst major effort in the field of UKhealth services research.

The Culyer reforms, which opened upresearch support to a wider range ofhealth providers, are still at an earlystage of implementation. Initial resultsindicate that the reforms are having agreater impact on providers’management processes than on theirR&D per se. For instance, providers aredeveloping methods to define andimplement a research strategy and toidentify research priorities. The studyproposes to track the evolving impact ofthese reforms, to improve understandingof the research process in NHS providersand to estimate the cost to providers ofimplementing the Culyer reforms.

Research impact assessmentsSeveral studies are developingmethodologies for assessing the widerimpacts of public sector research. Thefirst study, conducted with the SussexEuropean Institute, was a pilot audit ofresearch exploitation in the socialsciences at the University of Sussex. Itfound that awareness of disseminationwas increasing slowly but there are manybarriers to exploitation, such as theconflicting incentives posed by theHigher Education Funding Council’s

Select bibliographyKatz J S, Plevin PEnvironmental sciencein the UK: abibliometric study.Research Evaluation, 7(1) 1998, 39–52.

Martin B R,Johnston RTechnology foresightfor wiring up thenational innovationsystem: experiences inBritain,Australia andNew Zealand.TechnologicalForecastings and SocialChange, 60, 1999,37–54.

Morrow S EResearch strategy inUK academicmedicine: four casestudies in theUniversity of London.DPhil Thesis. Brighton:University of Sussex,1998, 398p.

Pavitt KDo patents reflect theuseful research outputof universities?Research Evaluation, 7(2) 1998, 105–112.

Senker JRationale forpartnerships: buildingnational innovationsystems. STI Review,Special issue onPublic/PrivatePartnerships inScience andTechnology, 23,1998, 23–27

14 Science,Technology and Development

Research Assessment Exercise (RAE)and the research councils. The RAErewards academic publications inspecialised and prestigious journalstargeted at a narrow and discipline-oriented academic audience. Theresearch councils encourageinterdisciplinarity and widedissemination. Lack of time andresources, the absence of careerincentives, problems associated with theownership of research results and themismatch between academic andbusiness timescales also impededissemination.

The second project aims to identifypractical approaches to assess the impactsof research funded by the Economic andSocial Research Council on non-academic audiences. The early stages ofthe project have focused on developingits conceptual framework. Three pilotstudies will test various approaches toimpact assessment, and one of theoutputs will be a ‘toolbox’ with practicalinformation and guidance, as well as anassessment of the advantages andshortcomings of each approach.

Assessments of research outputs continuebased on the Bibliometric Evaluation ofSectoral Scientific Trends (BESST)database and work is under way tointegrate patent data into this database.

The science base and industryWe continue to explore various facets ofthe relationship between industry anduniversity research. Financial andpolitical pressures in Britain have led toan emphasis on accountability and valuefor money from British science. Thesepolicies have made Britain a leader indeveloping performance assessmentmethods and increasing user involvementin policy-making, funding decisions,research collaboration and performanceassessment.

Continuing research on technologyforesight has compared approaches toforesight in the United Kingdom,Australia and New Zealand. Researchersanalysed the strengths and weaknesses ofeach approach and proposed a newrationale for technology foresight, whichcentres on its role in ‘wiring up’ andthereby strengthening the nationalinnovation system. Work for the BritishCouncil and the OECD has focused onexplaining British programmes forpromoting links between universityresearch and industry to wider audiences.

Innovation studies have shown thattechnologically dynamic firms dependheavily on the close proximity ofpublicly-funded academic research andrelated training. Recent SPRU work,however, suggests that imbalances

Science,Techno

logy and Develo

pment

SPRU • Annual Report 1998 15

‘The currentemphasis forpublic sectorresearch topromoteinnovationappears to havecrowded out itsrole ofprotecting thepublic interest,and aspects onpublic safetyand welfareappear to havedropped to alow position onthe agenda ofmanygovernments.’

Building Research andInformation 26 (6)

Senker JCommentary.Turmoilin public sectorbuilding research: partof a wider problem.Building Research andInformation, 26 (6)1998, 383–385.

Senker J, Faulkner W,Velho LScience and technologyknowledge flowsbetween industrial andacademic research:a comparative study.In: H Etzkowitz, AWebster and P Healey(eds) CapitalizingKnowledge: NewIntersections of Industryand Academia. NewYork: State Universityof New York Press,1998, 111–132.

between the science base and thedemands of the technology system,which previously affected large firms insmaller countries, are now spreading toGermany, Japan and the UnitedKingdom. These imbalances are leadingto more complicated links between thenational science base and foreign firmsand are likely to become more commonin all countries in future. We will learnmore about this phenomenon in a projectfunded by the TSER programme on thecurrent health of the European chemicalsindustry.

Future workForthcoming work in SPRU willcontinue to develop methodologies forassessing the impacts of researchprogrammes. It will also carry forwardwork aimed at understanding thedynamics of research groups and anyrelationships between these strategiesand success.

Professor ChrisFreeman


Professor KeithPavitt

Dr JacquelineSenker

Margaret Sharp

Dr Puay Tang

Professor Nickvon Tunzelmann

One of the main aims of SPRUresearch over many years has beento help policy-makers andinternational organisationsunderstand better the processes oftechnological change, and so tohelp improve both the content anddesign of policies aimed atpromoting and regulatingtechnology.With 1998 a key yearfor decisions on the EuropeanUnion’s Fifth FrameworkProgramme, a good deal of workfocused on EU funding policy andon continued discussion aboutexpanding EU membership toinclude countries of Central andEastern Europe (see page 18).

Key findingsA number of common themes emergedfrom SPRU’s work in this field: theimportance of basic research as atraining ground for skills andcompetencies, and of networking as ameans of technology transfer; the limitedvalue of big project/big firm initiativesbut the urgent need to improveknowledge and capabilities of smallfirms; and the importance of managerialand organisation, as well astechnological, competence. This adds upto an agenda for the EU which suggestsmore emphasis on support for basicscience, less emphasis on big projectareas such as ESPRIT, and more onlocally based initiatives to upgrademanagement and competencies in smalland medium sized enterprises.

Another lesson from SPRU’s work ontechnology policy is the influenceexerted by competition, trade andregulatory policies on technologicaldevelopment and capabilities. This ideais the focus of a major new researchproject, ‘Science, Technology and BroadIndustrial Policy’, funded by the EUTargeted Socio-Economic Research(TSER) programme and coordinated bySPRU. Its aim is to highlight the inter-relationships of policy at the national,regional and EU levels of government,and to advise the Commission on how

Issues in Technology Policy

best it can fulfil its policy coordinationfunction.

The first year of the project has seen thecompletion of the six country-basedreports detailing the evolution of policyover the last 20–25 years. Perhaps themost notable common feature has beenthe decrease in broad-based industrialsubsidies and their replacement by muchmore targeted science and technologypolicies. Most national governments,however, have paid little attention to theemergence of EU policies in this areaand have failed to benefit from thepotential benefits. The exception isIreland, whose fast growth rates in recentyears reflect, in part at least, a carefulstrategy to exploit its science andtechnology resources.

Technology and employment is anotherarea of research activity. One study hasbeen investigating the relationshipbetween technology, skills andemployment over time. It challenges thetraditional wisdom that the skilldifferentials that have emerged in the last25 years in advanced countries are theresult of a skill-bias in technologicalchange. The study finds that the increasein inequalities has more to do with tradefactors, in particular the opening up ofnew developing country markets, thantechnology.

Select bibliographyPavitt KThe inevitable limits ofEU R&D funding.Research Policy, 27 (6)1998, 559–568.

Senker J, Stroyan J,Arnold EComparative study onadministrative burdensand rules ofprocedure betweenthe EU researchprogrammes andthose of the individualmember states(IV/98/06). Finalreport. Brighton:Technopolis, 1998,53p.

Sharp MCompetitiveness andcohesion: are the twocompatible? ResearchPolicy, 27 (6) 1998,569–588.

Sharp M, Peterson JTechnology Policy in theEuropean Union.Basingstoke andLondon: Macmillan,1998, 260p.

Tang PHow electronicpublishers areprotecting againstpiracy: doubts abouttechnical systems ofprotection. TheInformation Society, 14(1) 1998, 19–31.


Another study focused specifically onthe impact of new technologies onemployment. The effects of theproduction of these technologies differfrom those of the use of the technologiesin their impact on skills and totalemployment. Yet another studyinvestigated macro-economic trends inemployment and output measuredagainst technology at the national level.It found that there are decreasing returnsto investment in technologies (R&D),and that any given increase in R&D hassmaller extra payoffs in terms ofemployment and output. Therecommended policy is not to diminishR&D but to accept that more will haveto be spent on it to maintain levels ofoutput growth.

SPRU has also been advising on theEU’s own administrative procedures.Research has found costs in line withsimilar governmental organisations inmember states, but identified insufficientdelegation of responsibilities andaccountability within the EuropeanCommission, leading to lengthy delaysin the announcement of decisions and inpayments for completed projects. SPRUalso continued its membership of ESTO(the European Science and TechnologyObservatory). This is a network set up bythe Institute for ProspectiveTechnological Studies (IPTS), a Joint

Research Centre for the EC, to provide‘technology watch’ services to theCommission. SPRU researchers haveparticipated in a number of studies,including those on environment andsustainability, risk assessment andelectronic commerce.

On the regulatory front, research into themanagement of intellectual propertyrights (IPR) in relation to electronicpublishing yielded surprising results.Despite the publicity given to piracy,UK-based electronic publishers maintainthat they do not regard it as a majorthreat to their business. Equallysignificantly, they do not yet regardtechnical systems such as encryption as avital means of protection. Rather theyrely on ‘niche markets’ as effectiveprotection against piracy. This is becausethe specialised nature of their electronicpublications, such as reference material,makes it less commercially viable forwould-be pirates to ‘attack thesemarkets’ than it would popular consumerproducts, such as games software.Furthermore, most suppliers of nichemarkets generally know who their clientsand competitors are, and it would not bedifficult for them to discover how theirproducts are being infringed. Manyelectronic publishers, however, realisethat their publications may, in the future,have to incorporate a technical system of

protection, and are anxious to see thatthere is an industry standard for it. TheUK is amongst the most creative sourcesof new software applications and is aleading supplier of them. The US,however, remains the dominantdeveloper of such applications.

Future workThe EU project on science, technologyand broad industrial policy will continuethrough 1999. A series of six countryreports should be completed by summer1999, followed by a further series ofcross-cutting thematic reports onsubjects such as foreign directinvestment, regional policy andtechnology transfer.

Science,Techno

logy and Develo

pment


Despite thepublicity givento piracy, UK-based electronicpublishersmaintain thatthey do notregard it as amajor threat totheir business.Equallysignificantly,they do not yetregard technicalsystems ofprotection, suchas encryption,as a vital meansof protection.

Tang P, Hulsink WThe winds of change:digital technologies,trading informationand managingintellectual propertyrights. InternationalJournal of TechnologyManagement, 15 (8)1998, 869–894.

von Tunzelmann G N, Anderson ETechnology, trade andwage inequalities inthe late nineteenthcentury. In: M Bergand K Brulan (eds)TechnologicalRevolutions in Europe.Cheltenham: EdwardElgar, 1998, 241–272

For six years SPRU has beenstudying the industrial andtechnological transformation of thecountries of Central and EasternEurope (CEECs), a transformationwhich will have an importantimpact on the stability andeconomic growth of the EuropeanUnion and neighbouring regions. In1998 research explored two issues:the role of science and technology(S&T) in the growth andrestructuring of the CEECs, using avariety of S&T indicators; and theprocess of integrating productionand technology within CEECenterprises through alliances andother forms of micro-integration.

Key findingsThe period of post-socialisttransformation of the CEECs continuesto be characterised by the lack of a directlink between their R&D potential andskilled labour force, and economicgrowth and recovery. This suggests thateconomic growth has been linked toknowledge acquisition in the production

process and forms of firm-based learning(learning by doing, learning byexporting, and interacting).

Changes made in the move towards amarket economy have generated anunbalanced structure of assets wherephysical assets, such as designcapabilities or engineering, are inabundance, while other assets, such asfinance, quality management orindustrial software, are in short supply.The unbalanced nature of CEEC assets isalso visible in the structure of theirtechnology (R&D) capital, which isconcentrated around mechanicalengineering, physics and chemistry.Assets which are in abundance cannot beexploited with increasing returns due tothe lack of complementary assets.

Although market integration is anecessity for integration of the CEECsinto the wider European economy, it is inno way a sufficient condition for adynamic enlarged EU economy.Convergence of the CEECs is muchmore likely if market integrationbetween the existing EU and the CEECs

Technology and Innovation in Central and Eastern Europe

is reinforced by production andtechnology integration. Otherwise, theCEECs could end up integrated into theEU, but isolated and marginalised interms of production and technologylinkages, and excessively dependent onbudgetary transfers. A properunderstanding of the conditions for deepintegration demands a betterunderstanding of supply-sidephenomena, in particular, of the extent,factors and nature of production andtechnology linkages between the existingEU and the CEECs.

Future workIn the coming year work will continue onalliances and other forms of micro-integration through the Economic andSocial Research Council-funded project‘The emerging industrial architecture ofthe wider Europe: the co-evolution ofindustrial and political structures’. Theyear will also see the publication of twobooks by Edward Elgar: ‘Restructuringof Innovation Systems in Central Europeand Russia’, edited by Knell,Hutschenreiter, and Radosevic; and‘Foreign Direct Investment andTechnology Transfer in Former SovietUnion’, edited by David Dyker. A thirdbook on ‘Quantitative Studies for Scienceand Technology Policy in Countries ofCentral and Eastern Europe’, edited byRadosevic, Dyker and Gokhberg will bepublished as part of the NATO ScienceSeries (Oxford: IOS Press).

Dr SlavoRadosevic

Dr David Dyker

Dr Nick vonTunzelmann

Janet FrenchProgramme Assistant

Select bibliographyRadosevic S,Kutlaca DTechnological‘catching-up’ potentialof Central and EasternEurope: an analysisbased on US foreignpatenting data.Technology Analysis andStrategic Management,11 (1) 1999, 669–685.

Radosevic S,Auriol LPatterns ofrestructuring inresearch, developmentand innovationactivities in Centraland Eastern Europeancountries: analysisbased on S&Tindicators. ResearchPolicy, 28(4), 1999,351–376.

Radosevic S,Auriol LMeasuring S&Tactivities in the formersocialist economies ofCentral and EasternEurope: conceptualand methodologicalissues in linking pastwith present.Scientometrics, 42 (3)1998, 273–297.

Radosevic S,Hotopp UThe product structureof Central and EasternEuropean trade: theemerging patterns ofchange and learning.Brighton: SPRU, 1998,29p. (SPRU ElectronicWorking Papers; No26), and forthcomingin MOST–MOCT,1999.


Dr Slavo Radosevic (left) and Dr David Dyker

Martin Bell

Sarah Crowther

Professor Michael Hobday

Dr Qing Wang

A striking feature of theinternational economy over thelast three decades has been theemergence in Latin America andAsia of a small number of new,technologically dynamic, nationaland corporate producers ofcompetitive industrial goods andservices. At the heart of thesedevelopments have been complexprocesses of technological learning.SPRU research continues tocontribute to understanding ofthese processes, in particularaddressing questions about thedevelopment and transformation of‘innovation systems’ at national,sectoral and corporate levels.

National systems in transitionA dominant feature of national innovationsystems in most industrialising countrieshas been a massive imbalance between therelatively rapid growth of industrial R&Din government organisations, and the slowdevelopment of innovative capabilities inindustrial enterprises themselves, withvery limited interaction between the two.In some countries this structure haschanged rapidly in recent years. In othersit has changed much less. Research hasexamined some of the factors constrainingthis transition. Research in Vietnam, forinstance, has highlighted the limitedimpact of the very gradual approach topolicy change, in contrast with the muchmore radical and effective policy changesin China since the mid-80s.

The evolution of sectoral systemsThere is now a large body ofunderstanding about the importance of

knowledge-centred networks involvingfirms and other organisations in particularindustrial sectors in the industrialisedcountries (see page 4). Little is known,however, about how such sectoral systemsemerge and evolve. These are key issuesfor industrialising economies. Forinstance, despite considerable research onthe important role of production systemsin ‘clusters’ of small firms in developingcountries, little attention has been given tothe emergence of their innovativeknowledge systems. Building on MichaelAlbu’s prize-winning MSc dissertation,SPRU research has highlighted keyfeatures of this process, emphasising theimportance of building creativetechnological capabilities in individualfirms and developing the overall opennessof industrial clusters to external sourcesof knowledge.

The transformation of corporate systemsSPRU’s joint research with the SussexEuropean Institute has contributedimportant understanding about theimplications of the Asian crisis for the UKand Europe, and also about the innovationstrategies of firms in Pacific Asia. Recentdoctoral research has concentrated onwhether and how industrial firms changethe internal structure and management oftheir technological capabilities as theyapproach the international technologicalfrontier and enter new markets. Hye RanHwang’s doctoral research indicated thatthe innovative capabilities of Korean firmswere compatible with success in highvolume industries such as semiconductors,but less compatible with the need fortechnological and market flexibility in the


The Technological Dynamics of Industrialisation

Select bibliographyAriffin N, Bell MPatterns of subsidiary-parent linkages andtechnological capabilitybuilding in electronicTNC subsidiaries inMalaysia. In: G Felkerand K Jomo (eds)Industrial TechnologyDevelopment inMalaysia. London:Routledge, 1999,150–190.

Dutrenit Bielous GFrom knowledgeaccumulation tostrategic capabilities:knowledgemanagement in aMexican glass firm.DPhil Thesis. Brighton:University of Sussex,1998, 333p.

Hobday MLatecomer catch-upstrategies inelectronics: Samsungof Korea and ACER ofTaiwan.Asia PacificBusiness Review, 4 (2/3)1997/1998, 48–83.

Oldham G,Bezanson K,Annerstedt J,Chung K,Hopper D, Sagasti FViet Nam at theCrossroads: The Role ofScience and Technology.Ottawa: IDRC, 1999,160p.

Wang Q(Contributor)Managing technologicalinnovations in China.Section 3, Chapter 3 in:R Mansell and U Wehn(eds) KnowledgeSocieties: InformationTechnology forSustainableDevelopment. Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress for theUNCSTD, 1998, 59–62.

Science,Techno

logy and Develo

pment

personal computer industry. GabrielaDutrenit’s doctoral research on knowledgemanagement in a large Mexican glasscompany also examined the deep-rootedrigidities faced by companies trying totransform their innovative capabilities.

The internationalisation of innovation systemsSince the early 1990s various forms ofcollaboration have strengthened theinteraction between hitherto ‘inward-looking’ innovation systems inindustrialising countries, and bothscientific research and technologicaldevelopment in the more industrialisedworld. This has been particularly strikingin China, where the Minister of Scienceand Technology has created a team,including Geoffrey Oldham, SPRUHonorary Professor, to review Chinesestrategy for international collaboration.Research on international collaborationhas also highlighted the importance oftransnational corporations (TNCs) instrengthening innovative capabilities inthe Malaysian electronics industry.

Future workResearch will focus on the growingforeign corporate investment in R&D inChina, and on the role of internationalcollaboration in the development ofclean coal technology in that country.Among extensive doctoral research,studies will examine the development ofsectoral innovation systems around theBrazilian offshore oil industry, andcontrasting approaches to themanagement of knowledge and learningin Brazilian steel firms.

The process of liberalisation –privatisation, re-structuring and theintroduction of competition – hashad profound effects on thetechnologies used in the energyindustries. New technologies,especially forms of information andcommunication technology, havebeen important in allowing manyof these changes to take place.SPRU research on technology andliberalisation seeks to monitorthese changes in investment andtechnology choice, as well as theR&D system underpinningtechnology.We seek to explain whythese changes are happening, andto examine the consequences fortraditional policy objectives, suchas security of supply, and newerobjectives, such as environmentalprotection.

A good example of the profoundchanges in technology choice followingprivatisation in the United Kingdom wasthe abandonment of nuclear power andcoal as new sources of electricity andtheir replacement by a ‘dash-for-gas’.This was clearly connected to privateownership and the introduction of morerisk into investment decisions because ofgreater competition. Why did gas-firedcombined cycle technology suddenlydominate investment decisions? Nuclearpower could not immediately compete inthe new market, but will increasingconcern about climate change herald arevival in its fortunes? Can technologieslike mixed oxide fuel fabrication proveeconomic? Does rapidly increasing gasuse pose a long-term security of supplyproblem? What kinds of corporatestrategy will be pursued by the newlyliberalised and privatised utilitycompanies, and what will be thetechnology and investment implications?

Technology and Liberalisation

Key findingsJohn Surrey continued work on nuclearpower in Ukraine, begun in 1996 as partof the the apparent commitment of theG7 group of countries to invest some $2billion, mostly in nuclear power, to helpin the closedown of Chernobyl. In 1998,in collaboration with SPRU colleagues,he submitted a report to the AustrianEnergy Agency which formed a majorpart of their contribution to the publicconsultation process of the investmentproposal. This work concluded thatcommitment to new investment innuclear power was at best premature,given continued economic decline inUkraine and the lack of need forinvestment in new plant. This workcontradicted the conclusions ofconsultants hired by the European Bankfor Reconstruction and Development,who had argued that the proposednuclear completions represented goodvalue for money. This work is a goodexample of high-profile, public policywork that builds on long-standingexpertise in nuclear technology andeconomics.

In 1998 the Environment Agencyinitiated a consultation process on theproposed opening of British NuclearFuel plc’s mixed oxide fuel (MOX)factory at Sellafield in order to establishwhether or not benefits flowing from the

Professor John Chesshire

GordonMacKerron

Professor John Surrey

Steve Thomas

Dr Jim Watson

Barbara Graham-CarterProgramme Assistant(part-time)

Eunice Surtees-HornbyProgramme Assistant(part-time)

Select bibliographyBerkhout, F,MacKerron G,Walker WResponse to theexplanatorymemorandum for afurther publicconsultation on theapplication by BritishNuclear Fuels plc forthe commissioning andoperation of the mixedoxide fuel plant at itsSellafield site, and toPA Consulting Group’s

assessment of theeconomic case for theSellafield MOX Plant. StAndrews, Fife/Brighton:University of StAndrews, Departmentof InternationalRelations/SPRU, 1998,11p.

MacKerron G,Surrey J,Thomas S,Bradford PThe case forcompleting the K2/R4nuclear plants inUkraine: a critique ofthe Stone andWebster report ofMay 1998. Report tothe Austrian EnergyAgency, October1998. Brighton: SPRU,1998, 96p.

Thomas SEast European nuclearperformance in 1997.Power in Europe, 270,1998, 9–12.

Thomas SWest Europeannuclear in 1997. Powerin Europe, 269, 1998,6–8.

20 Energy and Environmental Policies

Left to right: Dr Gordon MacKerron, ProfessorJohn Surrey, Steve Thomas, Professor John Chesshire,Barbara Graham-Carter, Eunice Surtees-Hornby, DrJim Watson, Dr Catherine Mitchell

plant will outweigh radiologicaldetriments. The SPRU submissioncritiqued the economic justification forMOX. It concluded that the assessmentand decision-making process had beenseriously flawed. In a liberalising world,the demand for MOX fuel will be bothuncertain and probably quite limited,given that fresh uranium fuel has clearlysuperior economics. The submissionrecommended that permission to openthe plant be withheld, pendingimplementation of a more satisfactorydecision-making process.

During the year SPRU contributed to aUK Government Review of PowerStation Fuels that culminated in a WhitePaper from the Department of Trade andIndustry. The SPRU analysis argued thatthere is merit in the Government’soriginal proposal (since endorsed in theWhite Paper) for a temporarymoratorium on approvals for theconstruction of new gas-fired plant, andthat system stability issues posed by thenew gas-fired plants need seriousattention.

Important new work was launchedduring the year on the corporatestrategies of the privatised companies inthe England and Wales electricitysupply industry. Early workconcentrated on the 12 Regional

Electricity Companies (RECs), thosegiven the greatest freedom in the early1990s to diversify and change direction.The main aim is to monitor and explainthe pattern of changes in corporatebehaviour. Parallel work is beingconducted for companies in other NorthEuropean countries by academics in theREFORM (Restructuring ElectricitySystems for Optimal ResourcesManagement) network, to which SPRUbelongs.

This work has noted the relative lack ofconcern by the UK Government overforeign takeovers, in contrast togovernment positions on this issue inother European countries. On the RECs,preliminary conclusions are that thepost-1995 climate has become tougher inregulatory terms but offers moreopportunities both at home (gas) andabroad (opening up of more markets).The options for RECs now seem toresolve into three possible models:building a business aroundowning/operating utility infrastructuresto include other services such as water,gas, telecoms; becoming a multi-utilityretailing a range of services to finalconsumers; or turning into an energytrading company covering several energysources, and using arbitrage possibilitiesbetween them.

The Energy Panel of the Office ofScience and Technology (OST)Technology Foresight Programme ischaired from SPRU. Its work provedinfluential in a number of directions overthe year, most notably in an endorsementby Government of the Panel’s prioritiesfor future work on cleaner coaltechnology development.

Future workThere are four main directions for futurework. First, there is research on East andCentral European nuclear power, andquestions about the efficacy and results ofWestern assistance designed to upgradethe safety, and sometimes complete theconstruction, of Russian-designedreactors. Second, case studies are plannedon technologies that might be expected toplay a significant role in the trend towardssmaller scale and more localised powersystems. This will include further work ongas turbines and clean coal, plusdecentralised technologies like combinedheat and power (CHP) and renewables.Third, work is planned on the role ofpublic and private finance in futuretechnology development. Finally, therewill be research on the structure andcorporate policies of the increasinglyconcentrated world heavy electricalequipment supply company, including theimpact of trade liberalisation measures.

Ene

gy and Envi

onm

ental Policies


Research hasnoted therelative lack ofconcern by theUK governmentover foreigntakeovers, incontrast togovernmentpositions on thisissue incountries suchas Austria,Portugal andSpain.

Watson JAdvanced fossil-fueltechnologies for theUK power industry. Asubmission to theGovernment’s Reviewof Energy Sources forPower Generation. In:House of CommonsTrade and IndustryCommittee, Energy Policy:Appendices to theMinutes of Evidence.Session 1997–98, Fifth

Report. London:Stationery Office, 1998,141–150.

Watson JCleaning up coal’s act:financing cleaner coal-fired power plants inthe UK. Brighton:SPRU, 1998, 24p.(SPRU Reports;No 20)

While privatisation andliberalisation have dominatedrecent policy-making throughoutthe world, markets are notuniversally free, nor has the statedisappeared.The state has been re-inventing the way in which itintervenes in energy markets, andthe balance between market andstate or regulatory activities is farfrom settled. SPRU research seeksto work at the boundaries betweenmarket mechanisms andregulatory systems, and tounderstand the strengths andweaknesses of alternativeapproaches, both in the UnitedKingdom and more widely.

What will be the equity impact ofliberalisation on consumers as cross-subsidies are removed? What are theconsequences, across countries, ofdifferent reform structures for economicefficiency and supply security? How farhas the transfer of the ‘British model’ ofelectricity reform been successful whenapplied to places as diverse as Colombiaand Ukraine? What energy problemsmay arise from the proposedenlargement of the EU to includecountries like Poland, Hungary and theCzech Republic? Given the frequentseparation between economic andenvironmental regulatory systems, how

problematic will the achievement of botheconomic and environmental goals be?

Key findingsFor several years SPRU has beenmonitoring the British introduction ofcompetition, both in domestic electricityand gas supply, and in the generation ofenergy. One product of this work hasbeen an examination of ‘dual fuel’ offers,where the same company offers to supplyboth gas and electricity. The mainconclusion is that there is an apparently‘tilted playing field’ established by theability of Regional Electricity Companiesto compete in the gas market before gascompanies can compete in electricitymarkets. This has enabled electricitycompanies to try and lock domesticconsumers into new deals to jointlysupply gas and electricity, presenting realproblems for competition policy.

In the generation and production areas,the market power of the main electricitygenerators is still very large, and thereare more new entrants in the gas marketthan in electricity. Recent research showsthat regulation of the monopolydistribution networks continues to becomplex and time-consuming, and theregulators are becoming more activerather than – as was hoped whencompetition was extended – less active.

Energy Markets and Regulation

An important issue in gas competitionhas been stranded contracts belonging toCentrica, the UK gas retailer. Theintroduction of competition into theBritish gas market led to a large volumeof long-term stranded contracts, whichcould not be honoured except at largelosses. The situation was exacerbated bythe rapidity of the introduction ofcompetition and by the absence (until1998) of an interconnector allowing theexport of surplus gas. Equity betweencompanies is hard to maintain in thesecircumstances, and intervention isdifficult to avoid, especially if theincumbent company is to carry out itslicensed functions. In the settlement ofstranded contracts, shareholder valuewas reduced by some £1.9 billion. Thismust count as a significant cost in anyassessment of the net benefit ofintroducing competition. Britishexperience suggests that a measuredpace of introduction of competition mayhelp minimise the stranding problem andmake it more manageable when it arises.

A second area of research on marketsand regulation has involved work withthe REFORM (Restructuring ElectricitySystems for Optimal ResourcesManagement) network, which bringstogether academic research groups inNorway, UK, Germany, France and theNetherlands. A comparative study of gas

Professor John Chesshire

GordonMacKerron

Professor John Surrey

Dr CatherineMitchell

Dr Andy Stirling

Steve Thomas

Select bibliographyChesshire JThe future for theenergy sector: changingentrenched views.Keynote addresspresented at theCOGEN Europe FifthAnnual EnergyConference on ‘TheConsequences of theLocalisation of EnergyProduction’ held at the

Sheraton Hotel,Brussels, 26–27November 1998.Brighton: SPRU, 1998,14p.

MacKerron GThe England and Waleselectricity experience:lessons for Ukraine.Paper presented toGerman-UkrainianSymposium ‘UkraineFinding it’s Way to aMarket Economy’, Bankof Ukraine, 20 June1998. Brighton:SPRU, 1998, 9p.

Surrey JRoyaume-Uni: unlaboratoire de ladéréglementation.Politique Internationale,79, 1998, 53–66.

Thomas S,Midttun ATheoretical ambiguityand the weight ofhistorical heritage: acomparative study ofthe British andNorwegian electricityliberalisation. EnergyPolicy, 26 (3) 1998,179–197.


depletion policies in the UK, Norwayand the Netherlands concludes that whileBritish Gas had monopsony powers andthe UK was isolated physically from theEuropean gas market, there was a quitestrong de facto depletion policy. Withgas liberalisation and the prospect of aninterconnector, production has beenmaximised, but this leaves long-termquestions about the rate of depletion. Asecond REFORM study of electricitytrade, looking at the dynamics of tradebetween countries at different points inthe liberalisation process, concludes(tentatively for the moment) thatdifferences between countries in thestage of liberalisation appears tostimulate higher volumes of trade.

In a third area, there is a strong demandfrom a variety of users for analysis andcomment on the applicability of theEnglish and Welsh model of privatisationto other countries. Direct transplantationof British experience is very unlikely to

work well and difficult balances need tobe struck in regulation, for instancebetween shareholders and consumers.More specifically, the morecomprehensive the initial ‘settlement’ inliberalisation, the greater the difficultyand time needed to resolve laterproblems. The involvement ofGovernment is not necessarily reducedbecause of privatisation. Regulation ofthe monopoly parts of the industryremains difficult and complex.Competition is much easier to organisefor large industrial and commercial usersthan for the domestic market. Lastly, ahighly commercial management culturehas given prominence to short-termprofits and reduced concern for longer-term issues like R&D.

SPRU expertise in market and regulatoryissues has also been used extensively inthe UK policy review processes. JohnChesshire has been a member of theEconomic Regulation Sub-Group of theUK Round Table on SustainableDevelopment and has advised severalTrade and Industry Select Committeeinquiries. Catherine Mitchell hasrecently been appointed to theGovernment’s Energy Advisory Panel.

Future workThe central theme will be the evolutionof liberalisation in the gas and electricityindustries, especially the balancebetween competition and regulation. Forthe UK, one focus will be thepreparation of a book updating earlierwork on the experience of electricityliberalisation in England and Wales. Thenew book will evaluate the introductionof domestic electricity and gascompetition, and the increasinglyimportant interactions between these twoindustries. More widely, there will be aUK and EU-wide study of the prospectsfor energy service companies andprovision in a liberalised market, andwork on electricity liberalisation inCentral and Eastern Europe. A secondimportant and continuing theme is thepotential conflict between economic andenvironmental goals.

Ene

gy and Envi

onm

ental Policies


Recent researchshows thatregulation ofthe monopolydistributionnetworkscontinues to becomplex andtime-consuming,and theregulators arebecoming moreactive ratherthan – as washoped whencompetition wasextended – lessactive.

Watson JA new energy policy?Science and PublicAffairs, Autumn 1998,11–15.

The rhetoric of sustainability hasbecome increasingly central topolicy-making at local, national andinternational levels.The core ideaof sustainability – meeting ourneeds while not compromising theability of future generations tomeet their needs – has potentiallyfar-reaching implications. Forexample, it implies not merely amajor reduction in the energyintensity of industrial economies,but ultimately the replacement offossil fuels by renewable sources ofenergy. However, sustainability is acontested concept and giving itpractical meaning in policydecisions is far fromstraightforward. Practical obstaclesand conflicts with competing policyagendas mean that the transitionto sustainability has hardly begun.

SPRU research seeks to subjectsustainability, and policies towardssustainability, to critical and constructiveanalysis. It seeks to explore theimplications of sustainability for theproduction and consumption of goodsand services. What are the political andsocial pressures shaping thesustainability agenda? What are theeconomic, social and institutional forceswhich drive or constrain moreenvironmentally-friendly technologies?What are the roles of markets andregulation in achieving sustainability? Issustainability compatible with liberalisedmarkets and global free trade? Theempirical focus of current work onsustainability is renewable energy,energy efficiency and emissions trading.

Key findingsIn the area of renewable energy, acollaborative European project onmechanisms for financing wascompleted in 1998. It concluded that acompetitive mechanism helps minimisethe public sector costs of supporting agiven level of renewable energyinvestment. However the British system,which requires electricity companies tobuy specified quantities of renewableenergy, but at market prices, needsmodification in order to avoid a largeamount of frustrated project preparation

Towards Energy Sustainability

work on the part of developers. SPRUhas also participated in the developmentof renewable energy policy in the UK.The Government target is for 10% ofelectricity to be derived from renewablesby 2010. A paper given to the FabianSociety argued that the electricitycompanies should be required to buyspecified new quantities of renewableelectricity every year. To avoid wastefuleffort by developers a new mechanismshould be developed to allow near-commercial technologies to receive astandard, pre-known payment.

In energy efficiency, a memorandum wassubmitted to the new House ofCommons Environment Audit SelectCommittee which focused on a range ofenergy demand policy issues. Theseincluded the problem of relying onmarket mechanisms to achieve energyefficiency when energy prices are falling,and the need for a more coherent andless piecemeal approach to energyefficiency policy in the light of new UKGovernment commitments to carbon andother greenhouse gas emissionreductions.

Work also began on a two-year project,‘Barriers to Energy Efficiency in Publicand Private Organisations’ (BARRIERS),funded under the JOULE programme ofthe European Commission. SPRU is

Dr CatherineMitchell

Professor Jim Skea

Dr Adrian Smith

Steve Sorrell

Dr Jim Watson

Select bibliographyMitchell CRenewable Energy inthe UK: Policies forthe Future. A reportto CPRE. London:CPRE, 1998, 36p.

Mitchell CRenewable energydeployment in the UK:key questions to beaddressed. Paper givenat a workshop on ‘TheFuture of Renewableand SustainableEnergy’, Fabian Society,24 March 1998, 15p.

Chesshire JMemorandumsubmitted byProfessor JohnChesshire. In: EnergyIssues. Minutes ofEvidence,Thursday 23July 1998. House ofCommonsEnvironmental AuditCommittee, Session1997–98. London:TheStationery Office,1998, 1–3.

Skea JFlexibility, emissionstrading and the KyotoProtocol. In: S Sorrelland J Skea (eds)Pollution for Sale:Emissions Trading andJoint Implementation.Cheltenham: EdwardElgar, 1998, 354–379.

Sorrell S, Skea JIntroduction.In: S Sorrell and J Skea(eds) Pollution for Sale:Emissions Trading andJoint Implementation.Cheltenham: EdwardElgar, 1998, 1–24.


coordinating this project with partners inGermany and Ireland. The projectexplores the claim that a series ofbarriers, such as lack of information orhidden costs, prevent organisations fromadopting apparently cost-effective energytechnologies. The project aims todetermine whether such barriers exist,what form they take and their relativeimportance in different contexts. Inaddition, the project will assess theeffectiveness of different policymeasures for delivering energy efficiencyimprovements and will evaluate theimpact of energy market liberalisation onboth the barriers themselves and theprospects for policy intervention. Theproject is based on in-depth studies ofthe process of energy decision-making inorganisations in the brewing, mechanicalengineering and higher educationsectors.

Significant work was completed onemissions trading, a topic which hasachieved increasing prominencefollowing the inclusion of so-called‘flexibility mechanisms’ in the KyotoProtocol to the Framework Conventionon Climate Change. A book on this topichas been edited by SPRU. The bookprovides an overview of the theory andpractice of emissions trading, includingthe lessons learnt, the problems facedand the prospects for its extended use. It

includes case studies of trading schemesin the USA and Europe, and prospectivestudies of international trading under theEuropean acid rain regime and the KyotoProtocol. The book concludes that recentUS schemes have been highly successfuland the experience gained can usefullyinform the design of subsequentschemes. The Kyoto Protocol provides aunique opportunity to capture thebenefits of emissions trading at a globallevel and to substantially reduce the costof tackling climate change. However,European experience demonstrates thatthere are major obstacles to beovercome, and that attention must bepaid to issues of political acceptability,institutional learning and compatibilitywith existing regulatory frameworks.

Future workEU funding will support continued workon renewable energy, with the aim ofestimating the ‘value’ of electricity fromgeneration sources embedded in localdistribution networks. A new projectwill explore the promotion of energyefficiency and renewable energy withinthe UK system under the commonframework of a sustainable energy levy.Linked to this, a project is planned onthe effectiveness of UK energyefficiency policy. This will explore thedifficulties posed by decentralisation of

Ene

gy and Envi

onm

ental Policies


The KyotoProtocolprovides auniqueopportunity tocapture thebenefits ofemissionstrading at aglobal level andto substantiallyreduce the costof tacklingclimate change.However,Europeanexperiencedemonstratesthat there aremajor obstaclesto be overcome,and thatattention mustbe paid toissues ofpoliticalacceptability,institutionallearning andcompatibilitywith existingregulatoryframeworks.

Sorrell SWhy sulphur tradingfailed in the UK.In: S Sorrell and J Skea(eds) Pollution for Sale:Emissions Trading andJoint Implementation.Cheltenham: EdwardElgar, 1998, 170–207.

power to government agencies whohave different values, perspectives andobjectives, and who are the focus ofdifferent constituencies. It is hoped toextend the BARRIERS project byexploring the lessons to be learnt from‘success stories’ in energy andenvironmental management in smalland medium sized enterprises. Finally,a project is planned on thesustainability aspects of nuclearliabilities (deferred costs of wastemanagement), especially in relation tothe alternative spent fuel strategies ofreprocessing and storage and direct fueldisposal.

The objectives, scope andinstruments of environmentalpolicy are being reshaped, inEurope and internationally.Environmental policy hastraditionally been concernedprimarily with regulating pollutionfrom industrial processes.This hastypically been achieved byregulators setting technology-based standards for emissionscontrol in consultation withproducers.The objective of this‘command and control’ regulationwas the mitigation of local andregional environmental impacts.The limitations of this approachhave been recognised for sometime, and in the 1990s a transitionhas begun towards moreintegrated approaches concernedwith reducing the environmentalburden associated with providingfinal services in the economy(shelter, warmth, mobility,nutrition, fun).

These approaches recognise that theinteraction between human activities andthe environment needs to be understoodas a whole, taking into account allresource inputs taken from theenvironment and all outputs of wasteresiduals emitted back into it. A new setof holistic, mass-balance and life cycleanalysis (LCA) tools has beendeveloped. The approach also recognisesthat the instruments and processesassociated with the ‘command andcontrol’ regime are inadequate to thechallenge of making production andconsumption more sustainable.Instruments should, where possible, beincentive-based, improve the quality andavailability of information, and enablemarkets for environmental services tofunction. Decision processes need to bemore wide-ranging and deliberative.

SPRU research seeks critically to assessthe implications of these developmentsfor firms and for government policy.How can you measure the environmentalperformance of an enterprise or aneconomy? What is the relationshipbetween technical change and the

Integrated Approaches to Environmental Policy

environmental impacts of a productmeasurement from ‘cradle-to-grave’?What are the implications forcompetitiveness of higher environmentalperformance? Is pollution control themost effective way of improving theenvironmental performance of finalgoods? What role should producers andconsumers play in managing theenvironmental impacts of their products?What does a transition from a process-orientation to a product-orientation inenvironmental policy imply?

Key findingsSPRU researchers were involved in fouractivities in 1998. First, work continuedon the European Union (EU)-funded‘Sustainability, Competitiveness andTechnical Change’ (SCOTCH) project,coordinated by SPRU and involving twopartner institutions. This project isexamining the relationship betweentechnical change and the life cycleenvironmental performance of the EUplastics (rigid polyvinylchloride, PVC)and pulp and paper (coated printedpapers) industries. The time frame forthe study is 1980 to 2010. The aim is toidentify policy measures which willencourage the adoption of technologiesand practices that are both sustainableand competitive. The work so farsuggests that technical change in matureprocess industries is the result of aninterplay between process and productinnovation. Environmental drivers(whether policy- or market-driven) havehad an important impact on processindustries, and there have been verysignificant improvements in life cycleenvironmental performance ofcommodity products. Ordinary business

Dr FransBerkhout

Dr MalcolmEames

Dr Adrian Smith

Dr Tom Whiston (to July 1998)

Kath KiddProgramme Assistant

Select bibliographyBerkhout F,Vellinga P, Gupta J(eds)Managing a MaterialWorld: Perspectives inIndustrial Ecology.Amsterdam: KluwerAcademic, 1998, 348p.

Berkhout F, Smith D,Howes R, Johnson EAdoption by Industry ofLife Cycle Approaches:Its Implications forIndustry Competitive-ness and Trade. London:Kogan Page, 1998,144p.

Berkhout F,Smith DIntegrated ProductPolicy. Final Report toThe EuropeanCommission, DGXI.March 1998.

Berkhout F,Eames M, Skea JEnvironmental FuturesScoping Study. FinalReport. Brighton:SPRU, 1998, 44p.


Left to right: Dr Patrick van Zwanenberg,Dr Adrian Smith, Dr Erik Millstone, Dr FransBerkhout, Kath Kidd, Steve Sorrell, Julia Hertin (from 1 January 1999)

innovation has been an important sourceof these improvements. However,absolute improvements in environmentalperformance will be slower in the future.

Second, a project on ‘MeasuringEnvironmental Performance in Industry’(MEPI) was launched. This EU-fundedproject is coordinated by SPRU andinvolves six partner institutions in fiveEU countries. The project aims to put ona mature footing the use ofenvironmental performance indicators(EPIs) for industrial firms. Three typesof indicators are being developed:physical indicators concerned with massand energy flows through manufacturingprocesses; economic indicators whichlink physical data to information onbusiness performance; and impactindicators which link environmentalimpacts to physical data on inputs,emissions and outputs. EPIs are beingdefined for up to 400 European firms infive sectors: electricity, pulp and paper,fertilizers, textile finishing and computermanufacture. During 1998 substantialprogress was made in defining indicatorsets and identifying sources of data.

A third study to develop contextualfutures scenarios for the UK wascompleted for the Natural Resources andEnvironment (NRE) Panel of the UKForesight Programme. The aim of the

project was to elaborate ‘visions’ of theUK to the years 2030-40 under differentassumptions about social, political andeconomic development. Four futuresscenarios for the UK were developed:World Markets, Global Sustainability,Provincial Enterprise and LocalStewardship. Consequences for a numberof major sectors (energy, transport, thebuilt environment, food and agriculture,and manufacturing industry) and for keyenvironmental state indicators (urban airquality, water quality, noise, biodiversity,climate management) were analysedunder each of these scenarios. Theresults of the project have been widelydisseminated within governmentdepartments, and have been adopted innew studies by a number of Foresightinitiatives, including the IntegratedTransport Chain Futures Task Force (ofwhich Dr Frans Berkhout is a member)and the Clean Air Task Force.

Fourth, SPRU continued to play a majorrole in the developing European debateon environmental policies related toproducts (Integrated Product Policy,IPP). The final report of a projectdeveloping an EU framework for IPPwas completed in March. It argued thatmany product-oriented policies alreadyexisted, but that they had beenineffective because their developmenthad been ad hoc. An integrated package

of direct and indirect measures (coveringresource management, green productinnovation, market creation, informationinstruments, and producer responsibility)was required to begin to have an impacton the environmental burdens ofproducts. During 1998 SPRU, togetherwith partners Ernst & Young, assisted theUK Department of Environment,Transport and the Regions (DETR) indeveloping a UK approach for productpolicy. The report has also beeninfluential in shaping the debate onproduct policy which is being carriedforward under the German Presidency ofthe EU in 1999.

Future workA new DETR-funded project developingsocio-economic futures scenarios for theUK Climate Impacts Programme willseek to link socio-economic scenarios toclimate change scenarios as a way ofgaining some insight into thevulnerability, resilience and adaptivecapacity of future societies to changes inclimate. A new project carrying forwardthe methods pioneered in SCOTCH isplanned, and a follow-on indicatorsproject is also envisaged. Finally, weexpect a range of new opportunities forwork on sustainable products andconsumption to open up during 1999.

Ene

gy and Envi

onm

ental Policies


‘Policy-makersare confrontedwith thechallenge ofdeterminingwhat action, ifany, isappropriate toseek to spreadthe benefits ofLCA, whilerecognising thatthe tool itself isimmature,patterns of useare uneven,methodologiesare notformalised, andthe marketitself is alreadydriving many ofthe importantdevelopments inthe field.’

Adoption by Industryof Life CycleApproaches:Its Implications forIndustryCompetitiveness.

Dr Erik Millstone

Dr Adrian Smith

Steve Sorrell

Dr Andy Stirling

Dr Patrick vanZwanenberg

Policy-makers concerned withenvironmental and consumerprotection have to grapple withconflicting interests and with thelimitations of the knowledgeavailable to them. Furthermore, theinstitutions that are responsible forthe interpretation, enforcementand implementation of rules andregulations also play a key role indetermining the impact of policy.SPRU researchers have a collectiveinterest in exploring how choicesare made, and how decisions areimplemented in the policy process.

Some researchers have an interest in theway in which evidence (scientific andotherwise) is generated, and how it is thenselected and interpreted within institutionsthat have responsibility for environmentaland consumer protection policies. Bycontrast, others are focusing upon theways in which both regulators andregulated agents marshall the scientific,statutory and other resources available tothem in order to achieve their interests.Conflicting pressures and uncertaintyconfront all actors in policy processes asthey seek to achieve an adequate standardof protection without unduly penalisingindustrial firms. The role of scientific andtechnological considerations in riskassessment and risk management isfundamental to this research.

Key findingsIn research conducted as part of a two-year fellowship under the Economic andSocial Research Council’s GlobalEnvironmental Change (GEC)Programme, Dr Andy Stirling hasfocused on the handling of divergentpublic and expert perspectives andintractable uncertainties in regulatoryappraisal. Analytical techniques such asrisk, cost-benefit and multi-criteriaassessment are often employed in such away as to obscure the importance ofsuch factors. This can all too easily havethe effect of undermining the validityand credibility of the scientific basis forpolicy-making and further compound thewell-documented decrease in publictrust. However, by providing an ‘audittrail’, they can also contribute to theessential quality of transparency inenvironmental appraisal for regulationand policy-making.

Building on this potential, a novel‘multi-criteria mapping’ method hasbeen developed as part of the GECproject. In a pilot study conducted inassociation with Unilever and theenvironmental organisation Genewatch,this technique has been applied to theappraisal of divergent viewpoints on thequestion of genetic modification inagriculture in the UK. The techniquepermits the unconstrained and systematic

Implementing Environmental and Consumer Protection

‘mapping’ of the perspectives adopted byindustry, regulatory and non-governmental bodies. This yields a richpicture of the current debate andprovides a basis for cautious conclusionsconcerning the form of future regulatorypolicy in this sector.

The results of the GEC research formpart of the basis for a project conductedfor the European Commission’s ForwardStudies Unit. This project, coordinated atSPRU, is focusing on the relationshipbetween ‘science based regulation’ andthe ‘precautionary principle’ in thegovernance of technological risk.Focusing on energy technologies andclimate change, and genetic modificationin agriculture, the project will exploresome of the practical difficulties inimplementing both ‘scientific’ and‘precautionary’ approaches to theregulation of risk. The project is alreadyproducing results which suggest that, farfrom being antagonistic in nature,‘science’ and ‘precaution’ can be entirelyconsistent and are in many waysmutually reinforcing. The project isworking on a number of ideas for themore effective implementation ofprecaution in general policy-making ontechnological risk.

SPRU is one of four partners in a newstudy on the scientific and policy

Select bibliographyMillstone E, MorganD (ed) Birley M,Boland A, Davies L,Edwards R T, GlanvilleH, Ison E, Osborn D,Scott-Samuel A,Treweek JHealth and Environ-mental ImpactAssessment: AnIntegrated Approach.London: Earthscan,1998, 243p.

Millstone E, SchmittA, Chambolle M,Brunner E, Lobstein TNutritionalsurveillance in Europe.European Science andTechnologyObservatory,Task C,Project No. 10,January 1998, 71p.

Millstone E, BumfordD, Greaves C (ed),Joly P B, Schmitt ATechnological solutionsto the challenges posedby the introduction ofgenetically modifiedorganisms (GMOs).London: CEST,February 1998, 29p.

Stirling ARisk at a turningpoint? Journal of RiskResearch, 1 (2) 1998,97–109.

Stirling AValuing theenvironmental impactsof electricityproduction: a criticalreview of some ‘first-generation’ studies.Energy Sources, 20(4–5) 1998, 267–300.


developments surrounding BovineSpongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). Theproject, ‘Building A Common Data Baseon Scientific Research and PublicDecisions on BSE in Europe’ (BASES),will aim to describe and analyse how theregulatory regimes and the researchsystems in different European UnionMember States, and in the Commission,responded to the emergence of evidenceand information on BSE and othertransmissible spongiformencephalopathies between 1979 and1998. At its simplest, the project aims tolearn the lessons of the BSE saga forfood and agricultural policy in the EUand, in particular, for the relationshipbetween science, expertise and publicpolicy. Even at this early stage it is clearthat while BSE policy has often beenpresented as driven primarily byscientific advice developed within apolicy-neutral framework, in practicepolicy-makers saw scientific advice as anactivity which had to be as muchmanaged as responded to. The BASESproject is expected to have considerablerelevance to other issues of publicscience policy.

Another EU study launched this year isthe Technology and EnvironmentalPolicy (TEP) project. The project willassess the technological impact ofselected EU directives and try to

understand how the institutionalframework and organisational networksin Member States interact during theimplementation of directives. It will seekto establish the link betweenimplementation processes and thetechnological impact of the directive,and to recommend good drafting andimplementation practices to improve theeffectiveness of future directives inpromoting clean technology. The projectis based on case studies of the AirFramework Directive (focusing on oilrefineries), the Packaging and PackagingWaste Directive, and the Urban WasteWater Directive in seven EU countries.

Work also started in 1998 on the‘Implementation of EU EnvironmentalPolicies’ (IMPOL) project. The studyaims to understand the implementationof EU environmental policy at theMember State level and to developmeasures of the economic andenvironmental effectiveness of policyimplementation. It can then identify bestpractice in implementation and broaderlessons for EU policy-making. Theproject is looking at three EUenvironmental policies and theirimplementation in four member states.Already it is clear that the impact of EUenvironmental policy is mediated bymany factors, including industrialchange, the existence of tougher national

Ene

gy and Envi

onm

ental Policies


It is clear thatwhile BSEpolicy has oftenbeen presentedas drivenprimarily byscientific advicedevelopedwithin a policy-neutralframework, inpractice policy-makers sawscientific adviceas an activitywhich had to beas muchmanaged asresponded to.

Stirling AClosure throughdisclosure: mappingalternatives intechnology choice. In:J Esser, G Fleischmannand T Heimer (eds),Soziale Schliessung imProzess der Techno-logieentwickling: Leitbild,Paradigma, Standard.Frankfurt: CampusVerlag, 1998, 79–12.

van Zwanenberg PPublic engagement andUK agriculturalbiotechnology policy.In:A Jamison (ed)Technology Policy Meetsthe Public.Aalborg:Aalborg University,1998, 189–206.

standards and of overlapping EUpolicies. Measuring impact is, therefore,extremely difficult. The traditional modelof EU member states being ‘takers’ ofpolicies from Brussels may needrevision.

Future workWe intend to develop new work on theapplication of alternative appraisaltechniques in technology choice andpolicy formation. A new pan-EU projecton how public perceptions of BSE areinfluenced by media representations andpolicy responses, coordinated by theWorld Health Organisation, will belaunched in 1999. New projects are alsoplanned on public participation anddeliberation in environmental policy, andon the broader issue of the effectivenessof fragmented policy regimes. Finally,we intend to broaden our work on policyimplementation.

January 1998 marked the launch ofSPRU’s Information, Networks &Knowledge (INK) research centreand a new research programme toexamine how social and technicalnetworks foster economic growthand social development.The terms‘knowledge management’ and‘knowledge-based development’are widely used, but too littleempirical research has investigatedwhat these ideas mean. Researchby INK is analysing the social,economic and culturaltransformations accompanying theuneven spread of innovativenetwork technologies and services.It is providing evidence on theeconomic and political factorsshaping collaboration within andbetween organisations, theemergence of new ‘virtualcommunities’, and the exclusion ofsome groups from new ways ofgenerating and distributingknowledge.

Empirical research is focusing onscientific collaboration, informationdistribution, the ‘globalisation’ ofresearch and production activities, ‘tele-activities’, and regulatory andgovernance environments.

Knowledge networks and collaborationResearch collaboration raises questionsabout how to benefit from sharedknowledge without losing control overthe credit or value of one’s owncontribution. INK is building theoriesabout how knowledge is shared incollaborative research and testing thesetheories against the experience ofspecific research networks. A study ofcollaborative innovation in software forthe financial services industry showedthat software producers are engaging‘first user’ financial service companies to‘co-develop’ new systems by offeringdiscounts and preserving theconfidentiality of key proprietaryfeatures of such systems.

INK is also collaborating in a Europeanproject to examine how information and

Knowledge Networks for Social Development and Economic Growth

communication technologies (ICTs)shape and enhance the storage andreproduction of knowledge, or‘knowledge codification’. The first yearof this project was devoted to extendingand critiquing existing theories in thisfield.

Knowledge management,virtual communities and electronic commerceDPhil student Jennifer Gristock andresearch staff examined the contentionthat libraries are heading towards a‘virtual’ future. ‘Distributed LibraryFutures’ (SPRU Report No 19) evaluatedshortcomings in current intellectualproperty rights (IPR) legislation and ‘fairuse’ regulations, the implications ofusers paying for information, and thespecial difficulties of libraries that aretransforming existing services (ratherthan setting up new distributed libraries).It identified new policies for library staffand patrons that will be needed iftechnical change is to improve access toinformation and knowledge resources inboth developed and developingcountries.

Several research studies investigated thebusiness use of innovative ICTs in theUK. One study examined innovativeapproaches for promoting userengagement with social scienceresearchers using intranets, theapplication of internet technology inprivate computer networks. It found thatrapid expansion of intranet use is beingdriven by technical factors, institutionalrequirements and economic cost-benefitconsiderations. Intranets in combination

Professor Robin Mansell

Professor EdwardSteinmueller

Dr Andreas Credé(to December 1998)

Dr Aldo Geuna

Dr RichardHawkins

Dr Jane Millar

Cynthia LittleProgramme Assistant

Select bibliographyCredé A, Mansell RICTs in DevelopingCountries. Booklets I-IV:The Importance forSustainableDevelopment;The Gapsin Provision;The Basisfor a National PolicyFramework; Examples ofICTs in Practice. TheHague: IICD, 1998.

Credé A, Mansell RKnowledge Societies…in a Nutshell:Information Technologyfor SustainableDevelopment. Ottawa:IDRC, 1998; translatedas Las Sociedades deConocimiento...enSíntesis, and as LesSociétés du Savoir… en Bref.

Gristock J J,Mansell RDistributed libraryfutures: IT applicationsfor 2000 and beyond.A report prepared forthe Institute ofDevelopment Studies,November 1997.Brighton: SPRU, 1998,47p. (SPRU Reports;No 19)

Hawkins RCreating a positiveenvironment forelectronic commercein Europe. Brighton:SPRU, 1998, 38p. (FAIRWorking Papers;No 36).

Hawkins R,Mansell R,Steinmueller W ETowards ‘DigitalIntermediation’ in theEuropean informationsociety. Brighton/Maastricht: SPRU/MERIT, 1998, 25p.(FAIR Working Papers;No 50).

30 Knowledge Networks and Technology Governance

From left to right: Dr Jane Millar, ProfessorEdward Steinmueller, Dr Andreas Credé, ProfessorRobin Mansell, Cynthia Little

with extranets (a technical andorganisational linking of two or moreintranets) could be used to significantlyimprove user engagement withresearchers.

The diffusion of the internet and newinteractive services is accelerating andengaging increasing numbers ofEuropean citizens and businesses.Research shows that a key issue forpolicy-makers and the corporate world is‘re-intermediation’, not ‘dis-intermediation’ as widely pronounced inthe popular press. Businesses andorganisations which exist to connectpeople who have information with thosewho want such information will beneeded in on-line environments, just asthey are in traditional environments, butthis kind of intermediation is emergingin a number of new and interesting ways.

Research also drew attention tomisconceptions about the links betweenthe material world and the dematerial orvirtual aspects of electronic commerce.One major finding was that emergingmarket structures are governed more bychanges in transaction structures that arespecific to products and trading sectorsthan by transaction cost factors as such.The results confirmed that differenttechnical systems architectures forelectronic commerce are not neutral intheir effects on the market. Research alsofocused on regulatory and IPR issuesthat influence how users access internetservices, and the conflicting incentivesfor information producers and networksuppliers to develop open, widelyaccessible networks.

Electronic commerce has taken off inbusiness-to-business networks despitequestions about information security andconfidentiality, but business-to-consumerand citizen networks have been slow to

follow. DPhil student Ingrid Schenk,working with research staff, conductedextensive interviews to analyse howorganisations are attempting to build‘trusting’ relationships in virtualcommunities.

The results challenged the view that theintroduction of new technologies forelectronic commerce will eliminate therole of trust in electronic interactions. Itidentified possible risks in theapplication of new technologies, andchallenged claims that networktechnologies will shift the balance ofeconomic power towards consumers.Companies in the UK, Canada and theUnited States were found to be using avariety of policies, practices andprocedures in a bid to build trust in theirservices rather than waiting forgovernments to develop secure publicinfrastructures for electronic commerce.

R&D, innovation and ICTsINK became the project coordinator foran assessment of the EuropeanCommission’s Telematics ApplicationsProgramme. The results of a large scaleself-assessment survey of projects in theProgramme suggested that funding intelematics applications is supportingsubstantial gains in knowledgegeneration and exchange, as well ascontributing to Europeancompetitiveness and a range of socialand cultural benefits. A follow-up surveywill focus on the potential for earliercommercialisation of R&D results andthe measures needed to support users intheir acquisition of relevant information.

The development of public telematicsapplications has major implications forcitizens’ lives and expectations. DPhilstudent Bridgette Wessels completed anin-depth study of how the MetropolitanPolice and other public administrations

Know

ledge Netw

oks and Techno

logy Gove

nanceSPRU • Annual Report 1998 3

Mansell RCapability building, ICTstrategies, and thescience and technologyperspective. AfricanDevelopment Review, 10(1) 1998, 52–72.

Mansell R,Steinmueller W EIntellectual propertyrights: competinginterests on theInternet.Communications &Strategies, 30, 1998,173–197.

Mansell R,Neice D C,Steinmueller W EUniversal accesspolicies for knowledge-intensive societies.Telecommunications andSpace Journal, 5, 1998,121–138.

Steinmueller W EVirtual communitiesdevelopments globallyand in the ACTS andtelematics applicationprogrammes.Maastricht: MERIT,1998, 19p. (FAIRWorking Papers;No 46).

in London and Europe are creating newforms of technically mediated access toinformation and services in environmentscritical to life, property and publicsafety. The research demonstrated thatchanging social expectations and culturaltrends are critically important inintegrating new applications withinexisting practices.

Knowledge societies for developmentA major source book commissioned bythe United Nations Commission onScience and Technology forDevelopment, Knowledge Societies:Information Technology for SustainableDevelopment (OUP, 1998) receivedwidespread dissemination during theyear. The Chinese Ministry for Scienceand Technology undertook translation ofthe book, and Canada’s InternationalDevelopment Research Centre publishedKnowledge Societies… in a Nutshell inEnglish, French and Spanish. The DutchInternational Institute forCommunication and Development, withKPN Research, published a series ofbooklets aimed at decision-makers indeveloping countries.

Future workThe current portfolio of research isestablishing a strong empiricalfoundation for research on the effectiveuse of information networks and networktechnologies for building innovativeknowledge societies. Several scholarlybook-length contributions to the theoryand practice of innovative knowledgenetworks will be completed in thecoming year. INK will continue tostrengthen links with researchers, policy-makers and those in the corporatecommunity.

Even ifintelligentsoftware agentsare able to offercustomisedgoods andservices,customers must‘trust’ theseagentssufficiently tocooperate withthem…Companies inthe UK, Canadaand the UnitedStates [are]using a varietyof policies,practices andprocedures in abid to buildtrust in theirservices ratherthan waiting forgovernmentproposals todevelop securepublicinfrastructuresfor electroniccommerce.’

Many technologies can be appliedto both military and civil purposes.While this duality can be exploitedto achieve economies in defencespending, promotion of dualtechnologies and their consequentdiffusion in furtherance of trade oraid may also spread new militarycapabilities. Under the lessconstrained international politicsthat have succeeded the Cold War,this could destabilise interstaterelations.The danger arisesparticularly in regard to ‘weaponsof mass destruction’ – nuclear,biological and chemical – and long-range missiles capable of deliveringthem.To promote their civilapplication while controlling theirmilitary application, internationalregimes are being developed,supplementing or building uponexisting international arms controltreaties.

The work of SPRU treats the anti-proliferation regime-building not as anenterprise of arms control ordisarmament, but as an enterprise ofinternational technology governance.The focus of this approach is less theweapons per se and more the socialstructure of the technologies from whichthey draw. The growth ofbiotechnologies in particular is spreadingresearch and production capabilities forchemical and biological weapons. This isstimulating demand for controls which,if instituted heedlessly, could impedegrowth without necessarily enhancinginternational security.

During the year under review, SPRUcontinued earlier work on technologiesapplicable in chemical and biologicalwarfare (CBW). This proceeded withinthe framework of the Harvard SussexProgram (HSP), a collaboration with the

Belfer Center for Science andTechnology in the J F Kennedy Schoolof Government at Harvard University.HSP combines policy research for theCBW technology-control regimes withpublication and training programmes. Itaims to build a cadre of peopleworldwide knowledgeable in theproblems confronting policy for CBW,especially policy for the safeguarding ofthe biotechnology and chemical industryagainst CBW abuse. To this end also,HSP maintains, chiefly at SPRU, aunique archive of research materials andassociated electronic databases on CBW.

SPRU research within HSP isinterdisciplinary and looks for innovativesolutions, well rooted in historicalexperience. It continues to concentrateon two main questions. First, whatpractical lessons can be learned from theChemical Weapons Convention (CWC)for biotechnology control regimescapable of precluding biologicalarmament without impeding biomedicalprogress? Second, how can concepts ofindividual responsibility be brought intosuch control regimes? Here, HSP hasdrafted text for an international treatythat would criminalise CBW. This hasbeen reviewed by panels of internationallegal experts, and is now underconsideration within severalgovernments. Presentations of this work

Technology Control in Non-proliferation Regimes

have also been given at severalworkshops, including meetings of aninternational study group onimplementation of the CBW conventionswhich HSP convenes under the auspicesof the Pugwash Conferences on Scienceand World Affairs.

HSP publishes from SPRU a quarterlyjournal, The CBW Conventions Bulletin,the internationally recognised journal ofrecord in the field. The HSP LondonCBW Seminar promotescommunications between governmentaland nongovernmental specialists inCBW affairs. The eleventh session at theForeign and Commonwealth Office wasdevoted to the evolution of British policyon biological weapons since 1945.

Future workSPRU will continue to study and tocontribute to the formation andimplementation of the CBW-relatedtechnology control regimes. A newproject is examining these within abroader context of SPRU technologystudies. Part of this work is being takenforward in a DPhil thesis by CaitrionaMcLeish investigating attitudes withinbiotechnology-based industry towardsthe intergovernmental negotiation for astrengthened Biological WeaponsConvention.

Julian PerryRobinson

Caitriona McLeish(until October 1998)

Carolyn SansburyProgramme Assistant

Select bibliographyPerry Robinson J PProtectingbiotechnology frombiological weapons.IPTS Report, 26, 1998,6–11.

Perry Robinson J PThe ChemicalWeapons Convention(CWC) verificationregime: implicationsfor biotechnology.In: Proceedings of theConference on‘A Strengthened BTWC:Potential Implications forBiotechnology’,Vienna,28–29 May 1998.European Federationof Biotechnology,1998, 15–28.

Perry Robinson J PPugwash and theinternational treatieson chemical andbiological warfare.Background paper forthe Pugwash MeetingNo. 242, Geneva,28–29 November1998, 28p.

Perry Robinson J P:Co-editor of the CBWConventions Bulletin.Quarterly Journal ofThe Harvard SussexProgram on CBWArmament and ArmsLimitation.

32 Knowledge Networks and Technology Governance

‘Any development, production, acquisition or use of biological or chemicalweapons is the result of decisions and actions of individual persons,whether they are government officials, commercial suppliers, weaponsexperts or terrorists… What is needed is a new treaty, one that definesspecific acts involving biological or chemical weapons as internationalcrimes… obliging states either to prosecute or extradite offenders whoare present in their territory.’

The CBW Conventions Bulletin, December 1998

SPRU Library holds a specialistcollection of policy research onscience, technology and innovation.The collection containsapproximately 35,000 documents,65 per cent of which is ‘grey’literature, and subscribes to some400 journals and newspapers.Thecollection reflects the broad rangeof science, technology andinnovation policy issues studied bySPRU researchers over the pastthree decades.

The primary function of the collection isto support the research and teachingactivities of SPRU. Externally, theservice aims to be a valued provider ofinformation to policy-makers and to theacademic community. UK-basedindividuals and organisations canbecome external members, and visitorscan arrange to use the Library on areference basis. A scale of charges forthese services is available on application([email protected]). Listings ofnew material and of SPRU-authoredwork are available by email from theInformation Officer([email protected]).

Public access to the Library catalogueThe computerised catalogue to the SPRULibrary collection provides a uniquebibliographic database on science,technology and innovation policy.Journal article references are included, inaddition to books, government studies,‘grey’ report literature and conferenceproceedings. The catalogue can beaccessed over the Internet athttp://sprulib.central.sussex.ac.uk/, or viathe SPRU web site athttp://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/

Science,Technology andInnovation CD-ROMThis definitive bibliographic database inthe field of science policy and innovationmanagement is a collaborative effort toprovide greater accessibility to the UK’sfinest collections in STI to users inacademia, government and industry. Theacademic strengths of the SPRU Librarycatalogue are complemented by referencesfrom the British Library’s Science,Technology and Innovation journal, whichis geared towards the needs of businessand industry, and from the Royal Society,with its emphasis on science advice. TheCD-ROM is produced twice a year.

The SPRU imprintSPRU publishes its own Working Paperand Report series. Information on titlesand ordering is available from thePublications Office or from our web siteat http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/imprint/An increasing number of titles, inaddition to the SPRU Electronic WorkingPaper Series, are available fordownloading off the SPRU web site.

SP

RU

Lib

ay and Info

matio

n Se

vicesSPRU • Annual Report 1998 33

SPRU Library and Information Services

Left to right: Amira Driscoll, Barbara Merchant,Maureen Winder, Liz Crago

Barbara Merchant

Maureen Winder

Liz Crago

Amira Driscoll

Jo Simmons(to May 1998)

A complete list of current SPRU projects and principal investigators can be obtained free of charge from the SPRU Communications Officer ([email protected]), as can a complete list of SPRU-authored publications for 1998.The latter will also be available on the SPRU web site.

SPRU Postgraduate Study and Research

Collaboration with business and governmentThe redesigned MSc in Technology andInnovation Management moved into thesecond year in which teams of studentsundertook consultancy projects for localbusinesses and organisations. Thiscomponent of the programme clearly hasvalue for both parties in thecollaboration. On the one hand,responses from the collaboratingmanagers this year clearly indicated thatthe projects met needs and interests inthe client organisations:

“The content of the reportexceeded my expectations… It isboth timely and highly relevant toour work at the moment.”

“I was very impressed by theprofessionalism with which thestudents addressed the audit… Theindependent perspective that thereport provides is of great value tothe company.”

On the other hand, it is also clear thatthis hands-on technology managementproject provides immense value for thestudents. In particular, it appears to makean important contribution to theiremployment prospects. Anjuu Trevedi, a

TIM graduate, secured a job with theSussex Innovation Centre andsubsequently noted:

“I know I obtained this position as adirect result of the TIM consultancyproject which enabled me todemonstrate my skills, personalityand enthusiasm… and my approachto problem-solving.”

This year we experimented with thesame approach in the MSc in Scienceand Technology Policy. Three studentsundertook their dissertations incollaboration with the UK Departmentof Trade and Industry, focusing onvarious aspects of the LINKprogramme for stimulatingcollaborative R&D by UK companiesand universities.

The student communityNearly two-thirds of SPRU studentscome from countries other than the UK –about one-third from other Europeancountries and North America, and theother third from South America, Africa,and Asia. Some 40% of students arewomen, and approximately one-third ofthe student community is over 30 yearsof age, returning to study afterexperience acquired in government,industry and academia.

SPRU welcomes applications fromthose with degrees in the social,management, natural and engineeringsciences. All enquiries should beaddressed to the SPRU GraduateStudies Office.

Research students:international activitiesWith funding support from SPRU,research students participated in a widerange of international conferences andworkshops. Along with 24 doctoralstudents from US universities, VirginiaAcha and Richard Torbett were invited toparticipate in the Doctoral StudentColloquium of the US Consortium onCooperation and Competition held at theHarvard Business School. Several otherstudents participated in workshops andsummer schools across Europe – inMaastricht, Trieste, Strasbourg andCargès, Corsica – and contributed papersto conferences in Lisbon, Stockholm,and Brussels.

Thesis research also took SPRU studentsto all corners of the world. For instance,Chin Young Hwang spent several monthsstudying the aircraft industry in Korea;Paulo Figueiredo visited steel companiesscattered across Brazil; Amal-Lee Amincontributed to a consultancy study onrenewable energy in Gujarat, India; andLouise Sargent returned from herresearch on environmental regulation inthe North American Free TradeAgreement, covering Canada, the USAand Mexico.

SPRU launched its postgraduate programme in science and technologypolicy studies in 1982. It now includes nearly 100 research degreestudents on the MPhil or DPhil, and 40 master’s students following eitherthe MSc in Science and Technology Policy (STP) or the MSc in Technologyand Innovation Management (TIM). SPRU also provides opportunities topursue non-degree training and guided study for periods of between threemonths and a year under its Training and Guided Study Programme(TAGS).Two features of the Graduate Studies Programme over the pastyear are highlighted below: the international activities of researchstudents and the active collaboration of MSc students with business andgovernment organisations.

TeachingStaff:

Martin BellDirector of Graduate Studies

Director of Studies,DPhil/MPhil Research

Professor EdwardSteinmuellerChair of ResearchAdmissions Committee

Dr Erik MillstoneDirector of Studies,MSc STP

Dr Qing WangDirector of Studies,MSc TIM

Dr Alison KellyGraduate StudiesExecutive Assistant

Gail Ross-WhamResearch DegreeProgrammeCoordinator

Masters Degree andTAGS ProgrammeCoordinator(post vacant during

most of 1998)

Students awarded DPhil degrees during the academic year 1997–98:

Student Country Thesis Title

Giovanni Italy Technology, competitiveness and patterns of specialisationAmendola

José Assis Portugal External linkages, innovation and the small and medium sized enterprise:the role and effectiveness of public technology policy in Portugal

Anga Baskaran India Technology development in India’s space programme 1965–1995:the impact of the missile technology control regime

Tim Brady UK Software make or buy decisions in the first forty years of business computing

Abeeku Ghana Technological accumulation and electric power generation in sub-Saharan Africa:Brew-Hammond the case of Volta River Authority, Ghana.

Jae-Yong Choung Korea Co-evolution of national systems of innovation and sectoral systems of innovation:the case study of Korea and Taiwan

Scott Cunningham USA The content evaluation of British scientific research

Sonia Dalcomuni Brazil Dynamic capabilities for cleaner production innovation:the case of the market pulp export industry in Brazil

Julie Dallison UK RDAs and DRVs: natural constraints or social constructs? The case of vitamin C

Jonathan Fraenkel UK Growth and slowdown: profitability, capital and output in Britain 1873–1973

Norman Gabriel UK ‘Converging partial indicators’ – an assessment of their contribution to evaluative bibliometrics in Britain

Hye Ran Hwang Korea Organisational capabilities and organisational rigidities of Korean chaebol – case studies of semiconductor (DRAM) and personal computer (PC) products

Valéria Judice Brazil Plant biotechnology learning processes: export and food crops in Brazil

Susan Morrow UK Research strategy in UK academic medicine: four case studies in the University of London

Paul Nightingale UK Knowledge and technical change: computer simulations and the changinginnovation process

Vivaldo Portugal Knowledge and increasing returns in recent economic growthPereira-Mendes

Jorge Robledo Colombia The role of higher education institutions and the government in the industrialinnovation process: the case of the Colombian capital goods industry

Roberto Italy Creative destruction among large firms: an analysis of the changes Simonetti in the Fortune list 1963–1987

Postg

aduate Study and R

eseach


James Barlow, Senior Fellow+

Geographer

Martin Bell, Senior FellowHistorian/economist

Frans Berkhout, Senior FellowGeographer

John Bessant, Professor+

Chemical engineer

Nicola Birtwistle, Research Officer*Human science

John Chesshire, Professorial FellowEconomist

Andreas Credé, Fellow*Sociologist

Sarah Crowther, FellowBiomedical scientist

Andy Davies, FellowEconomic geographer/politicaleconomist

Malcolm Eames, FellowEnvironmental scientist

Christopher Freeman, EmeritusProfessor/Professorial Fellow+

Economist

David Gann, Professorial FellowManagement scientist/political economist

Aldo Geuna, LecturerEconomist

Jeremy Hall, FellowPsychologist

Richard Hawkins, FellowCommunication policy analyst

Tim Heighes, Research Officer+

Economist

Michael Hobday, Professorial FellowEconomist

Michael Hopkins, Research Officer+

Biologist

Marie Jahoda CBE, Emeritus ProfessorSocial psychologist

Sylvan Katz, Senior FellowBiophysicist/computer scientist

Gordon MacKerron, Senior FellowEconomist

Robin Mansell, ProfessorCommunication policy analyst

Orietta Marsili, Research Officer + *Statistician

Ben Martin, ProfessorPhysicist/social scientist

Paul Martin, FellowZoologist/sociologist

Caitriona McLeish, Research Officer*Historian

Jane Millar, FellowPsychologist

Erik Millstone, Senior LecturerPhysicist/philosopher

Catherine Mitchell, FellowSocial scientist

Jordi Molas-Gallart, FellowEconomist

Paul Nightingale, FellowChemist/innovation management

Parimal Patel, Senior FellowEconomist

Keith Pavitt, R M Phillips Professor ofScience PolicyEngineer/economist

Julian Perry Robinson, Senior FellowChemist/lawyer

Andrea Prencipe, Fellow+

Economist

Slavo Radosevic, FellowEconomist

Vicky Russell, Research OfficerSocial psychologist

Ammon Salter, FellowPolitical scientist/geographer

Jacqueline Senker, Senior FellowUrban and regional planner

Margaret Sharp (Baroness Sharp of Guildford),Senior FellowEconomist

Research and Teaching Staff * *

Nick Simmonds, Research Officer*Biologist/management scientist

Tom Sinclair, Fellow+

Chemist

Jim Skea, Professorial Fellow*Environmental/energy policy analyst

Adrian Smith, FellowMechanical engineer/environmentalpolicy analyst

Steven Sorrell, FellowElectronics engineer

Edward Steinmueller, ProfessorialFellowEconomist

Andrew Stirling, FellowNatural scientist

John Surrey, Professorial Fellow*Economist

Puay Tang, FellowPolitical scientist

Sandra Thomas, Senior FellowBiologist (on secondment to serve asDirector of the Nuffield Council onBioethics)

Stephen Thomas, Senior FellowChemist

Patrick van Zwanenberg, FellowEnvironmental scientist

Modesto Vega, Research Officer*Philosopher/social scientist

Tim Venables, Research OfficerConstruction/technology management

Nick von Tunzelmann, ProfessorEconomist

Qing Wang, LecturerElectrical engineer/management scientist

Jim Watson, FellowElectrical/electronic engineer

Bridgette Wessels, FellowSociologist

Thomas Whiston, Senior Fellow*Chemist/psychologist

36 SPRU Staff

* left in 1998

** 1 Oct 1997–31 Dec 1998

+ part-time

Pat BeestonProgramme Assistant: CoPS

Danny Birchall*Publications Officer

Steve BrewerIT Support Officer

Elizabeth CragoSenior Library Assistant

Caron Crisp+

Programme Assistant: Biotechnology

Jo CurtisAssistant Communications Officer

Amira DriscollLibrary Assistant

Janet France*Graduate Studies Executive Secretary

Janet FrenchProgramme Assistant: Innovation

Jackie FullerAssistant Director (Administration)

Christine Gaterell+

Secretarial Assistant

Barbara Graham-Carter+

Programme Assistant: Energy

Stephanie HazlehurstAdministrative Officer

Charlotte HuggettSecretarial Staff Manager/IT SupportOfficer

Alison KellyExecutive Assistant:Graduate Studies Office

Kath KiddProgramme Assistant: Environment

Susan Lees+

PA to Professors Pavitt, Freeman andJahoda

Cynthia LittleProgramme Assistant: INK

Barbara MerchantHead of SPRU Library and InformationServices

Heidi MillerGeneral Assistant: Switchboard andReception

Carole MorseCentral Services Supervisor/PA to theAssistant Director (Administration)

Joan Morton+

General Assistant: Central Services

Jennifer Newton+

Secretarial Assistant

Rosie O’HaraGeneral Assistant: Switchboard andReception

Hilary OughamProgramme Assistant: ESRC GlobalEnvironmental Change Programme

Joan Pulling+

Clerical Assistant: Central Services

SP

RU

Staff


Administrative, Library and Support Staff

Angela Ransom+

Clerical Assistant: Central Services

Denise RosePA to the Director

Vicki Ross*Programme Secretary

Gail Ross-WhamResearch Degree ProgrammeCoordinator

Carolyn SansburyProgramme Assistant: Harvard-SussexProgramme

Alister ScottAssistant Director, ESRC GlobalEnvironmental Change Programme

Jo Simmons*Library Assistant

Betty Skolnick+

Communications Officer

Pam Strange*Secretary to Graduate Studies Office

Eunice Surtees-Hornby+

Programme Assistant: Energy

Maureen WinderInformation Officer

Associate Fellows

The title Associate Fellow is conferred onmembers of the University of Sussexfaculty who, over a continuing period, havedemonstrated their willingness tocontribute to SPRU’s research andteaching programmes. Associate Fellowsfor the academic year 1997–98 are listedbelow.

Professor Alan CawsonPolitical scientist in the School ofEuropean Studies and the SussexEuropean Institute

Professor Norman Dombey*Theoretical physicist in the School ofChemistry, Physics and EnvironmentalScience

David DykerReader in Economics in the School ofEuropean Studies

Peter HolmesReader in Economics in the School ofEuropean Studies and the SussexEuropean Institute

Professor Mary KaldorPolitical economist and Jean MonnetReader in Contemporary EuropeanStudies in the Sussex European Institute

Francis McGowanLecturer in Political Science in theSchool of European Studies and theSussex European Institute

Professor Roger Silverstone*Former Professor of Media Studies andDirector of the Graduate Centre forCulture and Communication. NowProfessor of Media andCommunications, London School ofEconomics

Professor Helen WallaceEconomist and Director of SussexEuropean Institute

Honorary Fellows/Professors

The following Honorary Fellows/Professorsassist SPRU in an advisory capacity.

Andrew BarnettEconomist. Former Director forTechnology Policy, IntermediateTechnology Development Group

Professor Norman ClarkDirector of the Graduate School ofEnvironmental Studies, University ofStrathclyde

Lesley CookFormer Reader in Industrial Economicsat University of Sussex

Professor Charles CooperEconomist. Director of United NationsUniversity Institute for New Technologies(UNU-INTECH) in Maastricht

Professor Ashok DesaiEconomist. Consulting Editor, BusinessStandard, New Delhi

Professor Giovanni DosiProfessor of Applied Economics, Facultyof Statistics, University of Rome ‘LaSapienza’

Professor Michael GibbonsTheoretical physicist. Secretary General,Association of CommonwealthUniversities

Dr Yao-Su HuEconomist. Vice-President (Academic),Hong Kong Shue Yan College

Rt Hon Aubrey JonesEconomist. Former member ofparliament, government minister andindustrialist

David le B Jones CBHistorian and former civil servant

Professor Kumiko MiyazakiPhysicist. Associate Professor in theDepartment of Industrial Engineering andManagement, Tokyo Institute ofTechnology, and Member, AdvisoryCouncil to the Japanese Prime Minister onissues of science and technology policy

Associate Staff

Professor Geoffrey Oldham CBEGeophysicist. Former Director of SPRU

Michael ParkerHistorian/economist. Former Director ofEconomics, British Coal Corporation

Carlota PerezSocial scientist. Former Director ofTechnological Development at VenezuelanMinistry of Industry, UNIDO consultanton industrial and technology policy, andadviser to Fundación Instituto deIngeniería (Caracas)

Professor Howard RushSocial psychologist. Professor ofInnovation Management, CENTRIM,University of Brighton, and Co-directorof CoPS Innovation Centre

Professor Christopher SaundersEconomist. Director of National Instituteof Economic and Social Research, ofEconomic Research at UN EconomicCommission for Europe, andProfessorial Fellow in Sussex EuropeanResearch Centre

Peter SenkerEconomist. Former Senior Fellow ofSPRU. Visiting Professor, Department ofInnovation Studies, University of EastLondon

Professor Luc SoeteEconomist. Director of MERIT,University of Limburg (Netherlands)

Professor John SurreyEconomist. Former Professorial Fellowat SPRU

Professor Masami TanakaChemical engineer. Director-General ofJapan Chemical Industry Association

Roy TurnerFormer Reader in Theoretical Physics atUniversity of Sussex and Senior Fellowof SPRU

Professor William WalkerProfessor of International Relations,University of St Andrews

Professor Thomas WhistonProfessor of Environmental Regulationat Roskilde University, Denmark

* left in 1998

+ part-time

38 SPRU Staff

Visiting Fellows and Professors

Visiting Fellows are advanced scholars andthose employed in business andgovernment who are attached to SPRU inorder to pursue their own research forperiods of between three and twelvemonths.Visiting Fellows are sponsored by amember of SPRU and have access to theSPRU library facilities and seminarprogrammes, as well as to the facilities ofthe University as a whole.The followingwere Visiting Fellows in the academic year1997–98 (excluding attachments of threemonths or less).

Richard Barras+(Great Britain)

Founding partner, Property MarketAnalysis, LondonLong-term market trends and thechanging nature of the built environment

Chris Benjamin(Great Britain)

Former civil servant, including work atMinistries of Transport and CivilAviation, Defence, Technology andDepartment of Trade and Industry

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen+(Great Britain)

Reader in School of Geography andEarth Resources, University of Hull International relations, environmentalpolitics and policy-making

Philip Connelly+(Great Britain)

Director, North American ResearchAssociationTelecommunications, environmentalregulation and public-private researchlinkages

Robert Crossett+(Great Britain)

Secretary General, National Society forClean Air and Environmental ProtectionAir quality management

Rowan Douglas*(Great Britain)

Managing Director of World-WideIntellectual Resources Exchange (WIRELtd)Intellectual brokering between centres ofexpertise and commercial organisations

Steven Groák (1944-1998)+(Great Britain)

Director, Ove Arup R&D GroupProcess representation in the buildingindustry

Dr Shigeata Iwashita+(Japan)

President of Atias Corporation andlecturer at Musasi Institute ofTechnology and at Chiba University,Japan Standardisation and pre-assembly ofhousing components, and evaluation ofsmart homes technologies

James Meikle+(Great Britain)

Partner, Davis Langdon ConsultancyConstruction economics

Professor Roger Miller+(Canada)

Professor of Technology Management atUniversity of Quebec, Montreal.Research Director, InternationalProgramme on Management ofInnovation in Engineering Construction

Joyce Wood+(Great Britain)

Lawyer and Independent ConsultantEducation superhighways: technologyand education

SP

RU

Staff


40

Sponsors of SPRU Research

Approximately one-third of SPRU’s annual income of £3.1 million comesfrom the University through its grant from the Higher EducationFunding Council for England and through fees. The remaining two-thirdsof our income derives from research grants and contracts. The variety ofour sources of funding, which includes research councils, foundations, andcontracts from governments, business and international bodies, helps toensure both our independence and the dissemination of our research.The following organisations have supported research in SPRU betweenOctober 1997 and December 1998. The list excludes sponsors of projectsof less than £1000.

2000 Homes

Alstom Energy Technology Centre

Austrian Energy Agency

Australian National University

British Aerospace (Operations) Ltd

BG plc

British Council

British Medical Association

Building Research Establishment

Business Decisions Ltd

CEFIC – EuropaBio

Centre National de la RechercheScientifique

Construction Industry Research andInformation Association

Databank Consulting

Defence Evaluation and Research Agency(DERA)

Department for InternationalDevelopment (UK)

Department of Trade and Industry (UK)

Department of Transport, Environmentand the Regions (UK)

Dutch Ministry of Finance

Economic and Social Research Council

Electricité de France/Gaz de France

Engineering and Physical SciencesResearch Council

Erasmus Business Support Centre,Rotterdam

Esso Petroleum Ltd

European Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment

European Commission

European Parliament

Fraunhofer Gesellschaft fürSystemtechnik und Innovations-forschung (ISI)

Housing Corporation

Institute of Development Studies,University of Sussex

Institute for Prospective TechnologicalStudies, Spain

International Institute forCommunication and Development,TheHague

International Programme on theManagement of EngineeringConstruction

International Development ResearchCentre, Canada

John D and Catherine T McArthurFoundation

Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust

Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Metropolitan Police

Mitsui Babcock Energy Ltd

National Audit Office

National Engineering Laboratory

National Grid Company plc

National Power plc

NCR Financial Systems Ltd

Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs

NHS Executive (North Thames)

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

Observatoire des Sciences et desTechniques, Paris

Office of Science and Technology (UK)

Organisation for Economic Co-operationand Development

Ove Arup Foundation

Partex-Consultaria em Engenharia(Portugal)

Pira International

Royal Academy of Engineering

Samuel Lewis Housing Trust Ltd

Scottish Homes

Shell Gas International Ltd

Shell UK Ltd

Smith System Engineering Ltd

SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals

Southern Housing Group

Technopolis Ltd

TNO Centre for Technology and PolicyStudies,The Netherlands

United Nations Conference on Tradeand Development

United Nations Commission for Scienceand Technology for Development

University of Salford

University of Wollongong(Badan Pengkajian Dan PenerapanTeknologi, Indonesia)

W S Atkins plc

Willmott Dixon Housing plc

about SPRU research:Maureen Winder, Information OfficerTel: +44 (0)1273 678178Email: [email protected]

about SPRU library:Barbara Merchant, Head of Library and Information ServicesTel: +44 (0)1273 678066Email: [email protected]

about SPRU postgraduate programmes:Dr Alison Kelly, Graduate Studies Executive AssistantTel: +44 (0)1273 678168Email: [email protected]

about non-degree training:Training and Guided Study Programme CoordinatorTel: +44 (0)1273 678168Email: [email protected]

about the SPRU visiting fellows programme:Denise Rose, Personal Assistant to the DirectorTel: +44 (0)1273 678174Email: [email protected]

about SPRU imprint publications:Publications OfficeTel: +44 (0)1273 678176Email: [email protected]

A complete list of current SPRU projects and principalinvestigators can be obtained free of charge from theSPRU Communications Officer([email protected]), as can a complete list ofSPRU-authored publications for 1998.

Your contact for further information

SPRUScience and Technology

Policy Research

Mantell BuildingUniversity of Sussex

Brighton BN1 9RF UK

Tel: +44 (0)1273 686758Fax: +44 (0)1273 685865

Web site: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/

ann rep 40pp - sussex.ac.uk groák, director of ove arup ... key findings the organisational methods...

Documents