eu roadmapping workshop -...

Tender No.: 18/PP/ENT/CIP/10/E/N02C011

Future Innovation Policy Development Actions

LOT 1: Options for future structure and implementation of EU innovation funding

EU ROADMAPPING WORKSHOP

Examining the efficiency and effectiveness of European Innovation Instruments relating to the future needs of industry

Consortium:

Innova+ SA – Innovation Management

Atlantis Consulting SA

Inno AG

RTC North Ltd

Report Prepared by RTC North Ltd

Date of preparation: March 2011

EU Roadmapping Workshop Tuesday,February 22nd 2011 Brussels

__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Prepared by RTC North Ltd. 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS.......................................................... 3

1. Facilitators............................................................................... 3

2. Attendees................................................................................ 3

2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................ 4

3. CONCEPT OF THE WORKSHOP..................................................... 5

4. WORKSHOP METHODOLOGY...................................................... 6

1. Agenda.................................................................................... 6

2. Roadmap................................................................................. 7

3. Workshop in Pictures.............................................................. 8

5. PRELIMINARY RESULTS – THE BROAD LANDSCAPE.................... 10

1. Task 1: Future Needs of Industry............................................ 10

2. Task 2: Innovation Support..................................................... 14

3. Task 3: Evaluation................................................................... 18

4. Task 4: Conclusions................................................................. 22

5. “Fish Tank”............................................................................... 22

6. PRELIMINARY RESULTS – THE DOMINANT PRIORITIES.............. 24

7. FINAL REMARKS........................................................................... 29


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


1. WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS

Workshop Facilitators Surname Forename Organisation

OLLIVERE Gordon RTC North Ltd

WALKER Anthony RTC North Ltd

Workshop Attendees

Surname Forename Organisation

AZEVEDO Catarina Inovamais

BRAVO Candela Inovamais

CAMMARATA Lionel Luxinnovation

DE COCK Olivier IBBT

DELEARDE Philippe Inno TSD

DELEENER Alain IWT

DI ANSELMO Andrea Meta Group

EFTHIMIADOU Irini i4G S.A

FRENCIA Chiara Innova Europe

HIEMSTRA Gosse van der Meer & van Tilburg

IKING Bernhard Zenit

JORA Silvui Razvan European Commission

KAMP Bart Innova Europe

KOIVUMAKI Eeva-Liisa Jykes

LOUZADA Emile Syntens

MANCINI Maria Augusta Meta Group

MARCOS Gustavo Uninova

MORGNO Anna ENEA

NEVES Eurico Inovamais

POTTAKI Iphigenia European Commission

REPPEL Katja European Commission

ROBINSON Christine TII

SAUBLENS Christian Eurada

SHIELDS Jim Scottish Enterprise

SOKOL Bartosz PRDF

STABULNIEKS Janis Latvian Tech Centre

SWEENEY Eugene Iambic Innovation

TRENTA Augusto Meta Group

TROBEC Marjeta Jozef Stefan Institute

VAN DE VELDE Marie-Claire IBBT

VLADUT Gabriel IPA AROTT


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to extend our thanks to Christine Robinson, Secretary General, TII – Technology Innovation international for her assistance in promoting the event and encouraging participation in the workshop.

We would also like to thank Andrea di Anselmo, Meta Group for his assistance in integrating the workshop into the ‘Take it Meeting’ taking place in Brussels.

Finally, we would like to thank all who participated in the workshop. Without your inputs and cooperation we would not have been able to have delivered such an interactive workshop.


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


3. CONCEPT OF THE WORKSHOP

The workshop made use of a T-PLAN roadmapping technique to validate the information gathered through the electronic survey and structured interviews. The results were analysed by the consortium prior to the workshop providing valuable input for impact assessment of different options for European innovation support which were validated by key stakeholder representatives during the event. The future priorities for business were defined by participants, and how innovation support can help to achieve these priorities was evaluated. In parallel with this, the 10 key objectives of the Innovation Union were discussed and any gaps in innovation programmes identified to establish the efficiency of current programmes and make recommendations for future implementation.

The strategy employed by the consortium was to merge the workshop with another European event so as to add value to the workshop and encourage attendance. This also raised the profile of the project (and the project we are collaborating with). With no budget to cover travel and accommodation for attendees, it was decided that this was the optimum strategy to ensure the success of the workshop, and secure the attendance of the key stakeholder representatives.

The workshop took place on 22nd February 2011 in Brussels, and was integrated with the ‘4th TAKE IT UP Expert Validation Platform Meeting’. There was great value in having the workshop in conjunction with this meeting, as key stakeholder representatives are already attending the TAKE IT UP meeting, and participated in the roadmapping workshop. There were also be opportunities to further promote the project activities throughout the TAKE IT UP event.

There were 31 stakeholder representatives at the workshop, which was facilitated by Gordon Ollivere and Anthony Walker of RTC North Ltd. The workshop was mainly aimed at end users of European Innovation Programmes.


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


4. WORKSHOP METHODOLOGY

The agenda for the workshop was as follows:

10.30 Introduction and Context

∗ The Innovation Union – 10 priorities for the future

∗ Presentation of Survey and Interview results

∗ Outline of Road-mapping methodology

11.00 Strategic road-mapping session (1) - The Broad Landscape

Group activity in which the participants will populate a wall chart customised to examine the efficiency of innovation programmes, any gaps within the programmes and suggestions for improvement. This will essentially be a time versus activity matrix breaking down the current and future issues into broad layers.

12:30 Lunch Break

13:00 Strategic road-mapping session (2) - The Dominant Priorities

A facilitated session to review the wall chart and achieve consensus and identify key issues resulting from the earlier road-mapping exercise. The most important topics can then be isolated and analysed by using “Single Issue” maps.

14:00 Feedback and Next Steps

Wrap up session summarising workshop results and framing recommendations to the EU about how Innovation programmes can be made more efficient and effective in the future.

14:15 Close

The roadmap was developed by RTC North to focus the discussion around 3 specific layers:


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


• Future Needs of Industry - Looking at business priorities (by sector) for the future. Participants will populate the chart with the main priorities they envisage. What direction are the sectors moving in?

• Innovation Support - Looking at the main Instruments (EU and National) that provide support and assistance to organisations (with the concept of achieving the business priorities). Looking at 4 main instruments (e.g. R&D, Innovation, Skills etc…).

• Evaluation - Looking at gaps in the Instruments, what works well, what doesn’t work well. What else is needed to help businesses achieve their goals? What recommendations could be made to the EC for future programming? What actions are required?

The blank roadmap was as follows:

Workshop participants were encouraged to populate the roadmap layer by layer (starting with the top layer and independent of the following layers), with thoughts and issues relating to the categories on the roadmap.

Any issues that were considered ‘too radical’ or did not have a particular place on the roadmap were placed on a ‘Fish Tank’ page. This ensured that no ideas that were generated through the workshop were lost.


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


Opening Remarks...

Populating the First Layer...


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


Workshop Dynamics...

Almost Fully Populated...


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


5. PRELIMINARY RESULTS – THE BROAD LANDSCAPE

Task 1: Future Needs of Industry

ENGINEERING

Short Term

• Identifying scalable technology to improve future process

• Loss of engineering capacity to China and low wage economies

• Single charger for mobile phones (different models)

• Reduce resource consumption

• Optimise joint design and standardisation

• Commercialisation of research, academic or otherwise

• Quality of the electric energy – analyse online

• Machinery based on new materials

Medium Term

• Material of energy inflation

• Address: efficiency of recycling

• Lack of skilled/trained worker

• Increase embedded technologies in machines

• Embedding maintenance into technology and qualify/train skilled people to introduce innovation


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


• High efficiency low energy consuming devices

• Enabling technologies and executing ones will become more important

• Increase productivity of man/woman and machines

• Requirement for legislation to enable “safe” nano-research

• Hydrogen motor for automotive or aeronautics

Long Term

• Development of ways of communication (rail/roads/airports)

• Limited access to rare earth material will need to find alternative ones

• Self standing apparatus (do not need any grid connection) physical

• There are mainly prototype – factories in Europe

CHEMICALS AND PROCESS

Short term

• Rare earth elements are becoming until now for nano plus other groups their supply will be optional (at most all are in China) seek alternative?

• Industrial efforts for innovation and competitiveness demand reliable jaridica/framework to exploit intellectual property rights

• Embedded services to product to create high added values!

• Promote networking among enterprise with similar issues pair to pair learning process

• Chemical process short better use of bio sources

Medium term

• A patent is an exclusive right for a limited period of time, SMES’s must be enforced that they can fight protection otherwise no incentive to innovate

• Zero emission production of good (new processes)

BIO MEDICAL

Short term

• Bio medical – ICT, ICT systems should be standardised across EU

• Aging population in EU – target a specific sector of the population developing new technologies

• Tele-medicine use 6F mobile application for diagnostic purpose

• New drugs back on biotechnology

• Enhance the concept of co-developments of products (risk and knowledge sharing)

Medium Term


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


• “robotics” to o Replace human work – in care – in homes – elderly people o Assessed human workers

• Further development of stem cell therapy and nanomedicine

• To increase the quality and the quantity of food by improving land use and productivity and distribution

• Development of e-health technologies for elderly people and their implementations/use

• Prediction (DNA) of diseases will radically change quality of life

• Need for more advanced technologies to support everyday life of elderly people

• Simulation should support the whole individual and be interpreted from cell/modular to macro level

Long term

• Development of scientific advancements on the understanding of the brain, to finally develop applications directly commanded by the thought

• Identification of genes responsible for neurodepe - reactive diseases they will save as targets for novel therapies

• New business models to ensure healthcare to all

• Combination of bio-nano-ICT

• Biomedical adapted to each one

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Short term

• Low life batteries

• Access to services everywhere

• Development ICT user friendly services application for data management to meet EU policy requirements

• New analysis begins (VS search enable) to first exploit information overload

• “Modulisation” of devices

• Make technology more easy to operate – i.e. for elderly and less trained people

• Focus on delivering “customised” services using already free available contents

• Provision of information to citizens using mobile technology

• To provide devices/systems to maintain aging people at home

• Wifi and broadband internet access in every European region and city

• Tele-medicine (diagnosis too) to be developed for productivity and less cost, an answer to fewer doctors in rural areas

• Ambient assisted living will be key at the crossroads between IT and biomedical

Medium term


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


• Transnational IPR management will need to be added

• Finding better solutions answers for assure individuals privacy

• Secure digital identity for persons and legal entities

• E-health with radically change quality of life for elderly people

• Combining device innovation with technology innovation will provide competitive advantages

• Cyber security – ICT is today like electricity – if it fails – big problems. Today’s threats are at the software level. Chip level security will need to be addressed in the future

• Future internet (web 3) requires applications to be composed from resources (apps & data) which are widely distributed (geographically and by supplies) there needs to be an open common service layer (across the physical internet layer) to merge this

• Profiling (IT) will alter marketing completely

• Social media is the main promotional channel for companies

Long term

• Paperless office – protection of IT systems and security

• Critical issue – surveillance methods (ie to prevent terrorism) versus privacy of citizens

• Mobile solutions are part of everyday life (traffic, shopping etc)

• Computer in the CLOUD

• Open source development for free use by SMEs

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT

Short Term

• Production of electricity using renewable energies

• Make higher profit by “greeting” products and operation

• Spread eco-innovative solutions – targeting at the demand side of eco-innovation support introducing new forms of public/private partnerships

• Intelligent sensors for environment protection

• Internet of things

Medium Term

• Qualify consultants for energy and environmental issues

• Increase in renewable energy production. Use of wind, sun and water to produce energy

• Taking care of products life cycle assessment (including carbon footprint) energy consumption

Long Term

• Clean tech rules everywhere

• Effective technologies for recycling and waste proofment


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


• Renew old buildings to improve the energy efficiency

• Alternative energies not based on limited natural resources, but on the contrary on unlimited resources (sun, wind)

• Energy real clean energy

WILD CARDS

Short term

• Support for open standards (rarer than proprietary standards)

• An earthquake in St Andreas (LA) wipes LA away. 2,000 billion are needed in three weeks time – stock markets collapse – industrial downturn.

• Shortage of (skilled) workforce becomes worse.

Medium term

• Socially motivated revolution in China drops China for several years from the Industrial labour division landscape.

Long Term

• Nano technology self diagnosis of illness meaning doctors become redundant.

• What is the cost of ‘not having Europe’! Will countries be worse off.

Task 2: Innovation Support

RESEARCH – FP7

Short Term

• Equal innovative technologies to find solutions and better support every-day problems (to make end-users and solutions more near).

• Not specifically addressed to small companies (even if innovative).

• Need for a more straight forward way to find “right” instrument for client need.

• Embedding consumer civilisation in research projects through specialists-non researchers.

• New instruments to force industry to evolve SME in purpose.

• Specific instruments for funding SME’s.

• IPR awareness among creators of IP (i.e. researchers) to avoid “leakage” of value (and device innovation).

• SME’s must become the main focus.

• To apply “CIVITAS” experience for other areas of activity, integrate projects, research-innovation in benefit of the market and core funded by local administration.

• More open access (not necessarily free) for scientific researchers.

• Support for small projects.


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


• New business models brought in already in early phases of R25.

• Ensure this possibility to set the global dimension (access to global knowledge to be more effective).

• Are FP7 outcomes satisfactory comparing them to the inputs.

• Funding for pilot actions.

Medium Term

• Supporting social innovation/instrument services for education, health, culture.

• Better involvement of small and medium enterprises in R&D projects (easier procedures).

• TT should be a part of FP7 moving to a research and innovation Framework programme.

• Size of consortium should be limited to a maximum of eight partners. Anything else is in-efficient.

• More SME related projects (like in FP5 and FP6) like craft projects.

Long Term

• Needs to be industry lead.

• FP7-8 should have bigger focus on innovation instead of research (only).

• The programme should not be only for champions.

INNOVATION (CIP)

Short Term

• Leverage on entrepreneurial division and market update.

• Not close enough to market in EU making exploitation of results hard to achieve.

• Mandatory valorisation strategy of outcomes.

• More support for commercialisation costs to bridge the gap between research results and market fuel.

• Evaluate projects in terms of potential impact since the beginning.

• Funding programmes for inventors.

• The service sector will become irregularly despondent. Support for non technical innovation will be important.

• Large and long term research projects not suitable for urgent innovation needs (need for a fast to the market approach).

• Promote proof of concept funds to facilitate a better translation of R&D results in the market.

• INNOVA and EEN conference.

• “From stupid money” (grants) to “smart money” (VC)

• Big investments in non technological innovations needed.

• Do parts of CIP add value or compete with national support programmes.


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


Medium Term

• Future financing of Enterprise Europe Networks after 2013.

• Ease IPR agreements and procedures within the projects and within consortium.

• IT tools for better services in benefit of SME’s.

• Merger of FP8 and CIP’s.

• How to support service innovation and innovation in the service industry.

Long Term

• Give priority to proof of concept support.

• More accent on technology transfer.

LIFE LONG LEARNING

Short term

• Balance technology, education with entrepreneurship

• Creative mechanisms for other parties to have also from lifelong learning project

• More awareness of open source licence resources – it is not always the best way

• Transfer of existing lifelong learning models and further development

• Support to commercialising of educational programmes

• Coherent e-learning systems

• Stimulate more youth entrepreneurship/talent recognition/creative thinking. Training future specialists

• Creation of a “second hand” market for skills, eg via entrepreneurship

Medium Term

• Co-ordinated innovation support over the whole innovation chain

• How to retain and attract talent

• Not all the “good ideas” can fit into the programmes

Long Term

• If more than one issue is addressed no programme will “fit”

CONVERGENCE

Short term

• Re-enforcement of IPR rights is needed

• Single legislative region (EU) for IP (not just patents and TM) also copyright and legal rights

• New IP right for software (which currently is not effectively covered by patents or copyright)


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


• To help land use approach on a transitional way

• The geographical limitation of the spending doesn’t allow global alliance

• Allow support to non-technical innovation

• Personal data is held by multiple sources in multiple locations it often goes out of date. Solution is to merge (self) personal data will be needed

• ESF is not aligned with RDTI regional strategies on certification part of ESF should be regionalised

• Support the abolition of excellence and new knowledge in all regions

• Allow new financial tools to invest with business angels

Medium Term

• Finance proof of concept funds at regional level

• Work out real multidiscipline projects

• Is key issue without it, Europe will disappear from innovation scene

• Finance CEDOSS border operations

• Invest in creativity PWD design

• Convergence should be reached? Fragmentation in different programmes will not allow us to reach the goal!

Long Term

• Need to develop infrastructures to support innovation and encourage participation (remove the barriers)

NATIONAL PROGRAMMES

Short Term

• National programmes meet national characteristics? EU hands off!

• Not harmonised among ministries

• Supporting duration of SMEs – connecting research with industry/SMEs. Needs at national level

• National ensure better environment to attract talents back

• National projects as one gateway to European and international co-operation

• Subsidiary principal is ignored! EU should just address those things that ? or regions cannot!

• Not all SMEs need can access EU funding = better targeting the potential users

• Co financing of EEN after 2013 from national programmes

Medium Term

• Only remaining national programme are to co finance EU strategy

• Innovation vouchers for technology transfers


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


• Supporting commercial exploitation of research results at regional level by involving entrepreneurs, either new or existing entrepreneurs undertaking the commercialisation activity of research IP

• Focussing on “non-EU” thematic areas

• National programmes only may focus on framework connotations (fiscality, mobility of people and knowledge) and creating critical mass within and between regions

• National NAT/REP. Programmes – making cross border funding and open ship of programmes possible

• National programmes should be VERY VERY carefully selected to exclude duplication with EU programmes

Long Term

• Increased communications for remote and less highly education regions

INNOVATION UNION

Short Term

• Harmonisation of framework confliction is needed! No political motivated sector specific intervention.

• Force commission to use pre commercial procurement and take risk!

• Too many JIMA (just in my administration) bureaucracy

• Crowd sourcing for support innovation

• How to support creativity in a world dominated by regulations, auditors, lawyers and bureaucracy

• Availability of facts in early commerce - ? please – by evolving funds – no subsidy

• Synergy of coherence – research – innovation – structural funds in benefit of regions, SMEs

• To support catching training of entrepreneurs, human behaviour is very important and less supported in EU policy

• Administrative burdens (bureaucracy) complicated reporting system

Medium Term

• EU is not democratically legitimated, lack of population backing

• EU must get an EU of citizens first before it should think about further enlargement, integration before enlargement

Long term

• Go from excellence to leadership


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


Task 3: Evaluation

WEAKNESSES

Short term

• Not normal delays in payments

• Real SMEs are hardly involved in EU programmes

• Administrative burden of EU programmes

• In all FP7 there is not a single line to support SMEs (as craft is really for RTD organisations)

• PCO much “IP leakage” through lack of awareness researchers are rewarded through publications not IP generated (not joint portraits)

• Results of evaluations are not taken into consideration

• Current programmes for R201 support limit a lot the topics of projects (strictly unlead to list of topics from work programmes)

• IP ownership not pretty clear

• Indicators on the market for innovation and funds dedicates to innovation to evaluate the impact on the market

• Too much orientation to SMEs (existing companies)

• EU is difficult to approach

• Too much orientation to science based innovation

• Drip feeding budgets are too low in comparison with non EU-competition (US – Asia)

• Too much bureaucratic procedures

Medium Term

• Short distance cooperation (within Zepion/country) offers difficult within larger consortium

• Confused – multiple brands

• Seven years need flexibility to tackle new challenges

• A lack of opportunity ties to further development or promote “good results”

• In some sectors market windows are small in time

Long Term

• Collaboration – difficult for SMEs to do this

• Most SMEs are not open to real innovation

• No integrated approach from research to market

• ISP focus too much on awareness raising activities, and less on technology transfer facilitation

• Many staff members of ISP do not have necessary skills to do their job

• Lack of programmes to promote standards and/or good practice in all the countries


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


THREATS

Short term

• Cross fertilization

• Bureaucracy hard of project reengagement

• Delay of payments

• Different programmes with different rules, complexity

• To much trust in self help instruments for SMEs

• Too much trust in tools

• Used too many buzz words (voucher schemes, centres of excellence), favouring out and PDSD approach

• Crisis in Euro zone

• Focussing on excellence rather than on leadership can create lock in situation (missing all “open innovation” business model)

• Discontinually in innovation support instruments on national level, due to political changes

Medium Term

• China market with the easy copy of innovation and IP

• EU create a permanent assisted mentality with its giant system

• Less and less SMEs with take part in EU programmes

• These is a gap between the time from the proposal to the exploitation of RESVHS, unrealistic from the industry market point of view

• New type of business models require new public support tools

STRENGTHS

Short term

• Cross border initiatives help to tear down borders

• Create a global entrepreneur culture

• FP is longest funding programme, stringing together public and private across industry and research

• High level human resources in research institutes, universities and big companies – leading EU research (technology push)

• Networking and synergy

Medium term

• EIT is opportunity to align forces, but everyone should be aligned


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


• Encourages collaboration

Long Term

• Takes a long term view

• New generation with good innovation orientation (and education)

OPPORTUNITIES

Short term

• Make an overview of all evaluations and combine results

• EU funds to be efficiently invested in research and innovation

• Much more co-ordination and collaboration of EU and national regional programmes

• Co-working, co-risk

• Database of users starts to easily promote FP7 programmes and help FP7 promoters to convince SMEs to participate

• Wide selection of experts from all countries

• Promote exploitation, culture, not only disseminated of project results but finance market access!

• Exploitation of projects results should be redefined to fit better with the market characteristics

Medium term

• European database of RTOs and their expertise (research projects)(post and on-going) idea is that this information be harmonised and hopefully verified

• Social entrepreneurship is where Europe can make the difference with others

• A special programme for non-technological innovations

Task 4: Conclusions

MAIN ISSUES

Short term

• More cross border and trust building measures are needed

• Risk aptitude

• Develop clear financial guidelines to be applied to all member states (with mandatory hiring and less reporting)

• Oblige the consortium to set up on IP agreement since the beginning

• Make sure that tool become embedded in humans


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


• Using CIP funds to support commercial exploitation of successful FP7 research resembles with the implement of SME and capital markets

• Too less output orientated (structural) stringer KPIs and monitoring

• Facilitated start up credential promotions seed capital and business angels investing

Medium Term

• Continuation of procedures is needed! EU tends to rename and change programmes and procedure frequently

• Use more revolving funding instruments

• Use the midterm review to launch new ideas

• More emphasis on exploitation and results – driven projects to compliment blue sky innovation

• Response to social challenges need new types of part memberships including public – public ones

Long term

• Link researchers grant with technological transfer project “good results” i.e. in different countries and/or in different application fields

• Create bridging mechanism between the different policies

• Solution – provide skills development training for ISP staff, along lines of TII summer school

• Solution – provide systematic training such as through TII summer school

• Lack of opportunities and/or instruments to “transfer the know-how” through people “trained in research project and ready” for innovative enterprise

• Harmonisation interpreted as “adapting good practice rather than waiting for the slowest”

BRIGHT IDEAS

Short term

• Evaluate project in terms of potential rather than on “financial” statements of applicants

• EU funding for SMEs prior to the project activities

Medium term

• Introduce gamification in our education system, to make learning fun so people will learn all their life long

• Market place for products developed in EU projects


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


• Lower barriers/more easy access to innovation support for the first time the SME tries to participate in a programme

NEXT STEPS

Short term

• Knowledge sharing

• Keep it simple – simplified procedures for SME’s in EU projects

• Assign one contact point to each sent in proposal

“FISH TANK” – Off the wall ideas...

• Money is the worst reason to get involved in EU programmes

• Governance responsibility - the EU is not elected!

• Whole generation unable to read/write because of text language

• Reality TV becomes more addictive. Where does it stop? General public become judge and jury. People want more of a kick!

• ICT users need to be empowered

• Decrease bureaucracy to establish new business

• Make life easy!

• Improve supply chain interaction to decrease time to market

• “Gamification” as a driver for lifelong learning

• Changes in family structure – more single person households

• Abolish IP oriented research – Promote Open Innovation

• Increased leisure time and use of social networks

• System of EU education vouchers to be used in all member states

• Forgot INTERREG as a programme for transnational innovation

• Business simplification model to encourage participation

• Take the risk to invest in young kids

• Don’t give grants – reduce taxes on companies

• Re: CIP (medium term) – allow market driven approach. Forget about financing things just to support organisations

• Invest in talents – take the risk to fund their ideas without asking too much

• Only ‘licensed researchers’ to produce proposals – Stop certain organisations “winning” bids to encourage other organisations to participate

• Do NOT consider Market and Profit as EVIL


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


6. PRELIMINARY RESULTS – THE DOMINANT PRIORITIES

8 key issues were identified from the Roadmap. Due to time constraints, participants were asked to vote (2 each) to rank in priority order for discussion.

1. Greater Engagement of SMEs - 15 votes 2. New Business Models Needed - 14 votes 3. Creating a Sustainable Society - 09 votes 4. Balancing basic versus applied research - 08 votes 5. Cherry picking – focus on high growth SMEs - 07 votes 6. Technology for health and well being - 06 votes 7. Energy conservation and research - 01 votes 8. Programme efficiencies – gaps and overlap - 00 votes

Note – these were all very important. The votes were for what participants prioritised for discussion. Perhaps they felt they could do nothing about bureaucracy!


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


“ENGAGEMENT OF SMALL COMPANIES”

More practical/quicker return market focus...

• Engagement of small companies

• SMEs have to wait for the funding too long due to project cycles

• Low involvement of SMEs in research and innovation

• Focus on SMEs since they have a lower threshold than EU FP programmes

• How to encourage collaboration to stimulate growth? What further incentives can be offered to bridge industry – academia gap

• Not easy accessible by small and medium enterprises

• Promote pilot project with few SMEs which could be used by many other SMEs

• More “gay finding” schemes to support transfer of new ideas and industry (re: innovation)

• Encourage closer collaboration with SMEs through smaller (consultancy) projects to address a strategically important issue (maybe through consultancy vouchers)

• Step by step payment, according to milestones agreed between managing company and SMEs

• More use of on line consultation methods – shared workspace for solving policy problems

• SMEs to engage at very beginning and then at very end – focused research needs

• Dedicated role for SMEs (e.g .exploitation)

• Specific instruments for SMEs (e.g. eurostars)

• Create new programme?

• Why focus on SMEs (and not just a growth/excellence)

• Additional support for exploitation phase

• Look at civitas project? – for model

• “greater engagement of SMEs”

“ENERGY PROBLEM”

Renewables versus fossils versus nuclear...

• 2-5 years changes in the climate will require new approaches and new technologies to deal with unpredicted situations

• Multiplication of windfarms – possible negative effects

• To better combine sources of energy (smart grid)

• Construction of energy efficient buildings (smart buildings)

• Storage technologies to be improved in – capacity – size

• + 5 years reducing cost of renewable – cross-border energy systems

• Production of fuel (ie for cars) using renewable energies

• “green” chemicals of process – long term


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


• Energy will be produced locally in self sufficiently through solar, wind and water

• “self” or “home” production of energy will represent the highest of market

• Efficient energy policy “optimal”

“TECHNOLOGY AND HEALTHCARE”

• Realise the internal market feasibility, formulating more ambitious goals

• Information technology 5-10 years – advanced robotics concept for use in health care ad care for the aging population

• + 5 years efficient use and recycling of scarce materials

• ICT hardware installed inside the body

• Robots to take care of elderly people

• Technology to improve and cheaper healthcare

• Problem with vouchers, voucher: main problem is where to spend it?

“FUTURE ECONOMY AND TRADE”

• Future business models

• How does research needs solve market problems?

• Shift change in business models

• Innovation not just technology but culture

• Business models have to change to compete with far east

• Problem about education and training: new graduates not being too outdated with techniques have to be re-taught how to be innovative (cyclical)

• New business models in 21st century

• Realise the internal market first? (Maastrict 1992) before looking for more formulating and more ambitious goals

• CIP more focus on new business models and B2B support

• New business models for life long learning organisations i.e. to link their revenues to results obtained by the customers (eg SMEs)

• Engineering production units are in China

• + 10 years – development of robotics to compete with low labour costs

• A globalised world and fair trade agreements are only realistic if the underlying playing rules are accepted and enforced by all WTO members

“CHERRY PICKING”

Should support be for successful “high growth” companies versus all...

• Europe is losing momentum: 2020 is too late for real strategic partnerships


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


• National programmes create the exclusivity clubs

• Segment support by innovator, not by innovation areas, as until now

• Project advisor financed by EU programmes for SMEs in each member country

• More efficient use of EU funds for research and innovation by involving SMEs in identifying their research and innovation needs (market pull and not technology push)

• Let others cope with market forces

“PROGRAMME EFFICIENCY”

Bureaucracy versus rigor...

• Too much paperwork! For applications and claiming grants

• Forget about state aid when it goes to investing in start-ups and bringing ideas to the market

• Need for added value products in the west in order to compete with cheaper labour of the east

• Duplication of effort, the same things are done in two different areas of FP7 without connection

• Lack of skills and knowledge: need to develop in order to be competitive with US and far east

• Assist SMEs with administration of subsidy projects including countries – caution with subsidiser

• Easier areas to L faster, R&D funding from national programmes versus European programmes

• Don’t give grants – give loans to be paid back from revenue

• Invest more in building ecosystems for innovation (sectoral – thematic) by soft loans

• Provision of (free?) central (EU) support services for legal and IP/TM, patent, etc. – ie registration of IP/patents licensing agreements etc.

• To foster development of living labs at European scale to test with future users new systems/devices

• Invest more in the evaluation process: forget university professors involve people from marketing and business

• Change recognition and reward system to indicate more research result/IP generation rather than just peer reviewed publications

• Do more small calls

• Long life learning programme should be combined with SME development programme

• To better support marketable innovation there should be more support available for ideas that do not appear in the pre-deprived list of R&D topics (E.P. vouchers scheme)

• Reduce administrative burden: two and three stage proposals (if can be managed efficiently)


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


• Opportunity – have a single “brand” across Europe

• Improve support on commercialisation of project results

• Reduce inefficient overlap

• Focus on innovation

“BASIC VERSUS APPLIED RESEARCH”

The need for exploitation market versus laboratory...

• Applied research (exploitation)

• Exploitation o Best practice – KTPs in UK? o Key is gap to commercialisation (eg: no resource for exploitation) o Even if great exploitation plan o Cultural change of what outputs/reasons for involvement eg: money or exploitation o Clash of interests in collaboration o Eg: balance of funds between FP7 and CIP unbalanced o Applied research must be much higher on agenda not just basic

• Not enough of commercial support for research results

• Support in commercial exploitation of IP resulted from successful FP7 projects (connecting FP7 with CIP)

• Only work on projects with market potential (also social profit)

• Minimise the concept of research for the sake of research..... encourage exploitation

• Increase market – uptake of research results

• Instruments must meet industrial reality: research projects should be started by applying SMEs on own risk when the application has entered EU and costs are refundable

• Focus more on need/problems rather than “technology”

“SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY”

Research into agriculture/location small versus large solution...

• Private sector solutions for social sustainable focus (social enterprises)

• Solve our own problems via entrepreneurs before worrying about too much other

• Create social enterprises

• Needs to be linked to ROI if going to work in reality

• To address “sustainable” technologies

• FP7 less thematic, more focus on societal challenges need a multi-disciplinary cross-thematic approach

• Use of social networks in developing new products/services/involvement of citizens in innovation


__________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________


• Search for strains of crops which require less water and fertilizers – pesticides

• New solutions for fertility problems

• Increasing use of alternative energies at the level of households and small communities

• More “learn how to learn” culture, embedded in all forms/levels of education/training

• CH must become main programme fostering business ecosystem for social innovation of Europe

• Involve “retired” workforce.

7. FINAL REMARKS

The workshop was very successful, in that a full roadmap was populated with interesting and relevant issues relating to the future needs of industry and how innovation support can help achieve these goals. There were clear dominant priorities that were formulated during the event and these were discussed in greater detail.

The roadmapping format allowed participants to all ‘have a voice’ during the sessions, and it was noted that this format was both interesting and useful for participants.

eu roadmapping workshop -...

Documents