IST capabilities in EuropeFindings of the FISTERA project
Matthias Weber, Bernhard Dachs & Georg Zahradnik
ARC systems research A-2444 SeibersdorfAustria
Joint ITSTAR and FISTERA WorkshopPrague, 22 October 2004
Overview
• Trajectories of research centres in Europe• European specialisation in IST in terms of patenting
Background
Public research organisations (PROs):• Longer-term perspective on research topics• Ahead of industrial applications• Seek close ties to industry (researcher mobility, co-operation,
addressing industry needs)• A main instruments of national RTD policy
Key questions:• To what extent are the expected future technology trajectories
already reflected in current research agendas? • Where are the “blind spots” as compared to the emerging
technology trajectories of TILab?
Selection of sample
• Criteria for selection:– Most active PROs in FWP5 (4 out of the 10 most active)– Geographical coverage: small countries represented – VTT,
FORTH, NMRC– Existence of an explicit and transparent research strategy
• Coverage:– Sample represents about 4% of total ICT research expenditures or
corresponds to about 20% of public IST research expenditure in Europe (~ 9000 permanent staff and est. budget of almost 1 Bn €/a)
• Data:– Publicly available information is rather patchy and differs in quality
among PROs– Personnel and expenditures as main indicators of specialisation– Sources: annual reports and web-data– Are being further complemented by targeted inquiries
List of PROs selected
Permanent Staff (2002)
Budget (Mio €, 2002)
Market income in % of total budget
INRIA 900 120 25% (?)
IMEC 891 145 76,6%
CEA LETI 820 136 65%
TNO (IST activities) 345 48 80%
NMRC 260 14 72,2%
FhG IuK 3,000 190…250 65%
FhG Microelectronics 1,550 168 75%
FORTH ICS 186 (2000) 11,2 ?
VTT IT 450 37 68%
VTT Electronics 255 21 67,1%
Selected centres: LETI (F)
• Mission: ”mastering critical micro and nanotechnologies several years ahead of market requirements”
• Permanent Staff: 820, 130 industrial partners• Six fields of research activities:
– Microsystems– Optical components and multimedia– Data transmission systems and telecommunications– Systems for biology and healthcare– Systems design
• Priorities are Microsystems, Microelectonics and Telecommunications
• Highlighted project: Nanotech 300 (45nm and 32 nm CMOS technology)
Selected centres: NMRC (IL)
• Mission „focused on strategic applied research, which a strong emphasis on supporting industry“
• Staff: 260 (permanent + Post-Docs)• four fields of research activities
– Microelectronics– Photonics– Nanotechnology– ICT / Bio research
• Priorities (according to size of research groups): systems integration and photonics
Selected centres: IMEC (B)
• Mission: ”scientific research that runs 3 to 10 years ahead of industrial needs”
• Permanent Staff: 890, 380 guest researchers• Five fields of research activities
– CMOS/Nanotechnolgies– Communications– Body-worn sensors networks– Efficient Power– Photovoltaics
• Priorities are CMOS/Nanoelectronics, Communications• Highlighted projects: deep-submicron CMOS and
applications that make up the intelligent environment
Research strategy development: the example of IMEC
• IMEC derived its priorities from a number of identified strategic drivers of future developments in IST:– roadmaps of CMOS/nanotech => CMOS research– scenarios of intelligent environment => ubiquitous comp.– scenarios of strongly miniaturized, interactive and
autonomous sensors => body-worn networks– derived future energy demands = > efficient power and
solar cells
• A similarly transparent and explicit scenario- and roadmap-based approach for defining priorities has not been found in any other PRO
Research trajectories
Comparing TILAB`s technology classification with the priorities of the PROs, we find:– R&D Priorities are defined at the level of technologies, not
at the ambients or services level (exception: IMEC)– There is a clear focus on microelectronics, systems
integration and telecommunication– Device technologies (PDAs, PCs) hardly covered = > too
near to market?– Software only in specialized PRO, no PRO that develops
both hard- and software (although important in systems integration)
– Quite a lot data processing technologies (!) – a success of RTD policy of the 90ies?
Conclusions I
• Focus on longer-term research themes (4-10 years ahead) ...
• …but only little work being done on „visionary“ technologies as identified by TILab, esp. where IST meets biotech
• Convergence is only an issue in the context of specific application areas (medical devices and diagnostics). Molecular computing, bio-printers or wetware seem to be too far ahead.
• Little evidence of explicit strategic orientation of research (priorities seem rather historically bound and mirror today’s specialisation)
• We observe a different degree of concentration: small PROs like NMRC and IMEC have to focus on a limited range of topics, while Fraunhofer covers nearly all fields.
Background
• Triadic patents of the OECD by applications• Allows well-balanced international comparison by world
regions• Possibility to look at specific technologies as defined IPC• Analysis in terms of time series of shares and revealed
technological advantage (RTA)• Differentiation by applications and inventors
Annual patent applications in Information Society Technologies, 1984-1998
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
An
nua
l num
be
r IS
T p
ate
nt
ap
plic
atio
ns EU US Japan other countries
Source: OECD, Triadic Patent Families Database, own calculations
Europe’s specialisation in IST patents; RTA 1996-98
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Printers
applications of processing
Generic processing
Storage
Sensors
Batteries
solar cells/optical sensors
Visualisation
Encryption
opitcal comm.
data comm.
Microprocessors
wireless comm.
Positioning
teleponic comm.
wired comm.
generic communciation
Revealed Technological Advantage
Development of RTA, 1984-1998
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Rev
eale
d T
echn
olo
gy
Ad
van
tage
Microprocessors Visualisation Storage
Communication Sensors
Europe’s patent portfolio: share of different technologies on all Europ. patents, 1996-98
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
shar
e of
all
Eur
opea
n IS
T p
aten
t app
licat
ions
generic comm technologies wireless communication optical communication data communication Microprocessors
applications of processing Visualisation Sensors Storage
Difference between applications and inventions of patents in IST, 1984-1998
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
-
100
200
300
400
500
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Ap
plic
atio
ns
min
us
inve
ntio
ns
EU USA Japan
Location of inventors of patents applied for by Europe’s leading IST enterprises
Home country
Home country
Home country
Home country
Home country
Home country
Home country
Home country
US
US
US
US
US
US
US
US
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Nokia
Infineon
Ericsson
Bull
Philips
Siemens
STMicroelectronics
Thomson
share of inventions
Home country Germany United Kingdom France US others
Conclusions II
• Europe‘s technological position in IST is to a large extent determined by– Long-standing historical specialisation patterns– The overall growth of IST
• Catching-up process can be observed in aggregate terms as well as in some technological areas
• The research base (i.e. inventors) is still performing significantly better than commercialisation (i.e. applications)
• IST companies are diversifying their research locations, thus opening up opportunities for NMS
• „Visionary“ developments and opportunities are not the focus of leading research institutions and represent a long-term opportunity for „newcomers“…
• … but requires a systematic approach to research strategy development
Next steps
• Further refinement of patent analysis at the level of individual technologies
• Targeted inquiries in selected countries and research organisations on human resources, research actors and technological strengths– Strategy development in PROs– Questionnaire on the current developments in the NMS