the development of a conceptual model … workshop background paper on...background paper page 3...

Cape Higher Education Consortium

THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONCEPTUAL

MODEL FOR DRIVING INNOVATION

IN THE WESTERN CAPE

Background Paper for the CHEC workshop on 23 November 2010

25 October 2010

Prepared by ODA and Allan Taylor Consulting

Allan Taylor Consulting

© CHEC, 2010

Contact details:

ODA (Pty) Ltd

Contact Martin Nicol

Practice Leader: Economic Policy and Research, ODA

Postal address PO Box 16526, Vlaeberg, 8018

Physical address Unit F3, 155 Loop Street, Cape Town.

Telephone 021 4222 970

Facsimile 021 4222 934

Cell phone 082 554 9880

E-mail [email protected]

Web www.oda.co.za

Allan Taylor Consulting

Contact Allan Taylor

Telephone 021.685.4304

Facsimile 086.671.7437

Cell phone 072.200.5900

E-mail [email protected]

Background Paper

Background Paper for the CHEC Workshop on 23 November 2010

on a conceptual model for driving innovation in the Western Cape 1

This is an action-oriented workshop to develop an approach to what the four universities in

the Western Cape should do to drive innovation in the Western Cape.

Its entry point into this question is the document approved by the CHEC Board on 24

February 2009, entitled ―Cape Higher Education Consortium - Planning to make the best use

of Universities in promoting economic and social development‖. This concise summary

presents the case for what has come to be called ―the Bellville Science Park‖.

In terms of location, this is centred on the ―340 hectare Transnet freight yard‖ that lies

between the Health Sciences campus of the University of Stellenbosch at the Tygerberg

Hospital and the Medical Research Council in the north and the campuses of the Cape

Peninsula University of Technology and the University of the Western Cape in the south-

east. As the CHEC document itself makes clear, however, the proposal is not simply for a

special building, an industrial area or a business park. It presents a vision for

―an integrated environment in which excellent technical facilities in workable

proximity to universities go along with safe and comfortable living conditions and

good cultural and recreational facilities to attract and retain concentrations of talent.‖

The Bellville precinct is described as ―a site with critical potential for the economic and social

progress of the City of Cape Town and of the Western Cape Province‖. The proposal is not

about a real estate development, but an initiative to transform space and economy in the

centre of the Cape Town region in a completely new way, to promote innovation. The

document was formally sent by ―the universities in the Cape Higher Education Consortium

(CHEC) [to] ask the City of Cape Town to make decisions at a macro planning level which

would secure the site from fragmented industrial development and establish the vision of a

revitalising, innovation-friendly central area for Bellville as a planning imperative.‖2

1 The planned title of this background paper was: ―Building the Case for a Science Park (or similar physical facility) in the Western Cape‖. While this issue is canvassed in the paper, this would not be an appropriate title as the focus of the workshop is to be broader. 2 This four page document is attached as an appendix. It was approved by the CHEC Board at its meeting held on 24 February 2009 and submitted to Dr Martin van der Merwe, Director: IDP and Business Planning, City of Cape Town on 25 March 2009. The City has not made any formal response.

Background Paper

The City made no formal response to this request, apparently because it does not feel able to

take a particular position on this planning issue. The Transnet land has a present use and has

also been mentioned as a possible site for low-cost housing. The Province has expressed

similar concerns. It is aware of the proposal for a Bellville Science Park, but this is Transnet-

owned land, the use of which figures in current discussions and studies on how critical

freight logistics problems in the region will be resolved.

CHEC‘s own intention was to support a general debate on the proposal, which had been

drafted by one of its members, UWC.

UWC subsequently secured funding from the DST to take the proposal forward. CHEC

decided to commission this study which encompasses the ―Bellville Science Park‖ but does

so in the context of a question on the conceptual model that is appropriate for the four

universities in driving innovation in the Western Cape.

Information sources

The present study, undertaken by ODA and Allan Taylor Consultants, began in July 2010. Its

main sources of information have been the 2009 Cofisa Report ―Mapping triple helix

innovation networks in the Western Cape‖, prepared by Kaiser Associates Economic

Development Practice3 and a series of interviews, mainly with people in the universities and

the public sector. This has been supplemented with desk-top research, covering government

policy on innovation and science parks, international models related to driving innovation

and with interviews related to The Innovation Hub, South Africa‘s single accredited science

park.

Results of the Research

The innovation ecosystem in the Western Cape is marked by confusion, distrust and many

agendas – which duplicate efforts, conflict, or by-pass one another completely. There was no

consensus on what universities in the Western Cape should do to drive innovation, beyond

what each is doing already.

On the positive side, the investigation showed many areas of dynamism and capability,

particularly in research, as is comprehensively (if not fully) documented by the Cofisa report.

The Western Cape has proportionately more NRF-rated researchers and Research Chairs

than any other part of South Africa and it produces over a third of all South African PhDs.

3 This important report is available from CHEC or the Cofisa website (hosted via the DST, since the Cofisa project ended in 2010).

Background Paper

There are many worthy and interesting initiatives: InnovUS using a partnership with Isis

Enterprise of Oxford University to promote the capabilities of Stellenbosch University in a

trip to Japan; CPUT‘s involvement with the East City Design Initiative; UCT‘s piloting of a

‗store front‘ to make university expertise more accessible both to business and community

organisations; UWC‘s championing of the Bellville science park as a joint initiative of all four

universities; the Province‘s efforts to draw universities into the research and training needs

of different sectors of the local economy through the Special Purpose Vehicles; the City‘s

research on how to make Cape Town more globally competitive and its efforts to emulate the

support available for innovation in Barcelona. There is a great deal going on, if at different

paces and with poor co-ordination.

On the negative side, the lack of effective collaboration results in a lot of wasted effort.

Researchers and innovators chase after the same meagre resources to fund their work, in an

environment where people fear that information sharing may lead to increased competition

for grants. Relationships between universities and business, as useful as they are for

innovation, are weak and poorly developed (there being faults on both sides). Noble efforts

like the Cape Initiative in Materials and Manufacturing (CIMM) have fallen by the wayside.

(Here materials scientists in three of the universities tried for several years to set up a

bridging institution between universities and industry). The effort to establish a Regional

Innovation Forum (Interim Steering Committee, 2010), while still under way, has entered

areas of confusion and controversy which have yet to be resolved (CHEC, 2010). The plans

of the DST and the TIA to establish a Cape Health Technology Park in Pinelands have been

subject to as much criticism as praise from the ‗academic innovation community‘ – but the

champions of the project (which is supported by the Province and the City) admit that they

have yet to talk to the universities about their role. The TIA, the intended national

instrument for driving innovation, has been seriously delayed in its implementation. In

September 2010, the Province announced a major change in the institutional environment

for business promotion. This will involve the creation of a new, single development agency

for the Province. The proposed institutional mergers, while one hopes they will lead to

improvements in the effectiveness of publicly funded bodies that impact on innovation, are

likely to be associated with disruption and delays before good results are evident.

This is all part of the ‗innovation landscape‘ of the Western Cape. This is the reality that

CHEC and the four universities have to work with, when they consider the actions they

should take to drive innovation.

Background Paper

There is a further contextual element that has come up prominently in the research and

which needs to be put forward as a proposition for debate.

HEI’s are critical for innovation – but innovation is not a priority for HEIs

Higher education institutions (HEIs) play a critical role in government‘s innovation agenda.

Research and learning (with more science, engineering and technology and PhD graduates in

particular) are seen as key enablers of innovation4 - the creation, application and

implementation of new ideas. South Africa‘s research base has some localised strengths but

it is not yet well attuned to the challenges of a developing country or to participation in the

global economy. South Africa has been less effective in translating research outputs into

business innovation, competitive advantage and social benefits. The need to increase the

impact of SA‘s Higher Eucation knowledge base on business and society is mainly identified

with an increase the number of graduates and the quality of basic research. Other countries,

particularly in the developed world, have a much wider range of policies that support these

‗third stream‘ activities to enhance engagement between HEIs and business, the public sector

and the wider community.5

SA government laws and policies – and the activity agendas of many government

departments (both national and provincial) - increasingly recognise the importance of

strong industry-university relations and the potential for social innovation, driven by HEI

research and engagement, to have a positive impact on living conditions in SA.6 It is,

however, a very small percentage of university staff that ever get involved in the commercial

innovation space. The traditional orientation is towards teaching, research and publications,

not towards patents or relationships with business. Many interviewees spoke of the need to

change attitudes and mindsets in the academic community towards business and society. But

the incentives to encourage changed behaviours are weak. The behaviour that is rewarded is

the behaviour that is repeated. The situation, let us face it clearly, is not going to be changed

by education programmes and workshops on the value of innovation unless this is supported

by powerful incentives. These will have to address the concerns of academics with their

income, job security, research funding, status and recognition. Equally, the incentives and

pressures to which the universities themselves respond, as institutions, need to be fully

4 Department of Science and Technology (2008) ―Ten-Year Innovation Plan‖, p.8 5 Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) ―Global innovation environments - A report to HEFCE by Paula Knee, Quotec Ltd and Dr Martin Meyer, SPRU, University of Sussex‖, February 2007, cf. p.8. 6 See for example: Opening Address by Minister of Higher Education and Training Dr Blade Nzimande at the 3rd Annual South African Technology Network Conference Vaal University of Technology; 30 September 2010

Background Paper

recognised. Innovation features in government policy documents and in the speeches of

Ministers. But, and quite correctly, the priority set for universities is to produce more quality

graduates at first degree level7, to increase the numbers of post-graduate students and to

build their academic staff capacity. Research comes second and innovation a distant third.

Matters are not clear cut, however. The priority task cannot be completed unless items that

are ‗less important‘ are also successfully managed. But they are not all priorities. Innovation

is not a priority for HEIs8.

We would argue that this explains many of the characteristics of the innovation landscape of

the Western Cape that was surveyed in the 2009 Cofisa report and which are reflected in the

interviews undertaken for this project. Because innovation is not a priority for universities

(and cannot command the resources or attention that true priorities do), we have to find

smart ways to support and encourage it.

This involves recognising that

resources for promoting innovation will always be limited, so interventions

must include many small (manageable) options, particularly interventions

that are not expensive and which trade on goodwill and volunteerism;

people will be prone to being diverted by other priorities, so there is a special

need for arrangements that will keep the innovation drive ‗on track‘ even as

individuals and institutions have to go onto ‗main lines‘ for a period to tackle

demands on their energies which are more urgent;

the ‗unifying vision‘ for driving innovation must be very broad, so that all

initiatives that support innovation as secondary aims can be included – for

example

o Exchanges between companies and university departments should be

motivated by their positive impact on teaching and research, with the

improved networks into industry being presented as a possible spin off

benefit.

o Initiatives like the Health Technology Park and the East City Design

initiative should be welcomed.

o Information should be spread and shared much more effectively on all

the things that have a positive impact for the innovation ecosystem.

7 The problems faced by universities in meeting this goal alone are immense. See Prof Brian O‘Connell, Rector of UWC, quoted in Business Day, 2010/09/20, ―Matrics ‗not ready for tertiary study‘‖. The poor level of preparedness of university entrants means that there is a high drop-out rate. This is exacerbated by the number of students who have to interrupt their learning for economic reasons. 8 All of the universities would consider themselves to be already devoting appropriate support for innovation, through their teaching and research, through their Technology Transfer activities and through their engagements with business, government, and public benefit organisations that address the needs of the wider economy and community

Background Paper

o Don‘t focus ON the innovation ecosystem, but on activities that meet

the priority needs of stakeholders but which can be ‗tweaked‘ to have

spill-over benefits for innovation.

[Other issues and examples can be added – the point is that this analysis has critical

implications for how the conceptual model below can be made to ‗work‘ in the

Western Cape. ]

What is innovation?9

There are many definitions of ‗innovation‘, but the National Advisory Council on Innovation

(NACI) definition of 2006 is particularly useful:

―Innovation is the process of transforming an idea, generally generated through R&D,

into a new or improved service, product, process or approach that relates to the real

needs of society and involves scientific, technological, organisational or commercial

activities. The key to this definition is the fact that the innovation process is only

complete once a defined product, process or system with some tangible benefit has

been implemented.‖ (NACI, 2006, p.72)

This definition, in its reference to ―the real needs of society‖ and the requirement that

innovation results in ―some tangible benefit‖ can encompass both ‗social innovation‘ and

innovation that has a narrow commercial purpose.10 The advancement of society can be

assisted by cultural, environmental and social innovation which is not applied only in a

market context.

The OECD (2009) identifies different types of innovation. Four categories are commonly

covered

• Product innovation (new goods and services)

• Process innovation (new technologies and techniques to adjust production or

delivery)

• Organizational innovation (new ways to organise work practices, external relations

and business models).

• Marketing innovation (the implementation of a new marketing method involving

significant changes in product design or packaging, product placement, product

promotion or pricing).

9 This is summarized from the First Report. 10 Social innovation – on which there is a whole literature – can be defined simply as ―a new idea that has been put into practice for the public good‖. (Centre for Social Innovation, Toronto - http://socialinnovation.ca/about)

Background Paper

The first two are seen as being more dependent on technology. The last two highlight the fact

that innovation is not only about technology. And marketing should be understood in the

wider sense of advertising, rather than the limited sense of commercial exchange. The

innovative marketing of a public sector health programme, for example, can improve its level

of take-up and effectiveness (and that as much as a technological breakthrough that allows

disease testing in a shorter time. Social innovation can also be dependent on technology.)

Within each type of innovation there are further levels. Ashby and Mahdon (2009) identify

three:

• Incremental – small continuous improvements which cause relatively little

disruption

• Radical – new to the market or firm, often disruptive to the industry, discontinuous

• Transformational – new to the world, rare but big innovations that cut across all

industries.

A 2010 special report in the Economist (April 15th 2010) identifies a characteristic of

innovation in emerging markets which it calls:

• Frugal innovation – ―taking the needs of poor consumers as a starting point and

working backwards. Instead of adding ever more bells and whistles, they strip the

products down to their bare essentials‖ and sell products that are ―cheap, tough and

easy to use‖ to a mass market11.

University involvement with innovation

The general question posed by CHEC for this study is how university resources can be

mobilised to contribute actively to driving innovation in the Western Cape? Two problem

issues came out of the interviews. Firstly, ideas are generated (often through the expenditure

of public money and effort) but they are not used in practice. Secondly, publicly funded HEIs

and science councils have resources of knowledge and expertise, but these are not easily

available (or known) to firms, community organisations and public sector agencies who need

help to develop ideas that have come to them through their work.

All over the world, societies are faced with difficulties in deciding which research to prioritise

and, once research progress has been made, how to ensure that it is translated into saleable

or socially valuable products and successful, sustainable enterprises. The new Technology

Innovation Agency is the main government instrument available for commercial innovation,

11 Other analysts are cited who refer to frugal innovation as ―reverse‖ or ―constraint-based‖ innovation.

Background Paper

to bridge the ‗innovation chasm‘ – between basic research and manufacturing. This involves

financial support (previously under schemes such as the Innovation Fund) and non-financial

support, including Centres of Competence which are established as partnerships between

universities, science councils and industry. Relationships between business and universities

take many forms. From a business perspective, the provision of skilled graduates is the main

contribution expected from universities, and this may be supplemented by research

contracts with individual academics, with departments or institutes. These relationships can

have a positive impact upon teaching at universities. The exchange of students and the

involvement of staff in the ‗real world‘ – can have an effect on both what the university

teaches in its curriculum and directly on learning. It can also influence academic research

agendas and potentially lead to innovation, via new intellectual property and licensing

agreements or spin-out companies.

Conceptual model

There are seven parts to the proposed conceptual model for university support for innovation

in the Western Cape. These are derived from the Situation Analysis.

1. Strong Technology Transfer Office’s attached to each institution

a. There are well-established TTOs at both UCT and SU. CPUT has recently set

up its own TTO, but there is scope for the creation of a joint office with UWC,

which could draw upon the experience of the other two institutions.

b. TTOs each need to work within their university structures to make it easy and

attractive for academics to commercialise their research or to apply it to

addressing social issues. This includes assistance with IP issues, access to TIA

programmes and grants, assistance with licensing agreements and possibly

with access to incubators (both physical and virtual). The recommendation is

that TTOs should have the responsibility here, with appropriate support being

available (from their institutions and from DST, TIA, industry and possibly

CHEC as well).

c. TTOs need to communicate and co-operate with one another and build the

capacity of professional organisations such as the South African Research &

Innovation Management Association (SARIMA). The role of TTOs is both

enhanced and made more challenging by the promulgation in August 2010 of

the Intellectual Property Rights from Publicly Financed Research and

Development Act.

Background Paper

d. The conceptual model places a strong emphasis on the TTOs. The interviews

generated two views which, in their extreme forms, see the TTOs either as

enablers or as retarders of innovation.

i. Debate: TTOs and universities can hinder innovation (bureaucracy,

uncertainty) as much as they can enable it, if the incentive structure is

badly framed.

2. Regional fund to provide “pre-seed” grants

a. Interviews and the desk-top research suggested that the area that would most

benefit from a flow of flexible funding is ‗proof of concept‘ or ‗pre-seed‘ grants

that would place academics in a better position to licence their inventions (to

other users) or to attract seed funding if they seek to commercialise it

themselves.

b. This could be an area in which the four universities work together on

establishing a joint regional fund for this purpose.

3. Brokering relationships between HEIs and society

a. Universities have difficult relationships with business, civic organisations and

government. Better relationships on all three fronts are needed to maximise

the impact of HEIs on regional innovation. These can be facilitated by

brokering institutions (of which CHEC is one example), by internal university

policies (dealing with outside research, recognition for community

engagement, access to libraries etc) and by practice. It is critical that in each

instance there is an opportunity for these relationships to influence and

strengthen the universities‘ primary responsibilities of teaching and research.

Two examples:

i. UCT initiated a pilot project in August 2010 on a ―Shop front‖

approach to broker relationships between HEIs and Public Benefit

Organisations, businesses or government departments.

ii. CHEC was involved in 2009/2010 in an effort to re-establish the Cape

Initiative in Materials in Manufacturing (CIMM), a well-documented

example of a bridging institution between industry and academics in

three of the universities. (This effort was not successful.)

4. Involvement in the Regional Innovation Forum

a. The RIF is a DST initiative, now the responsibility of the Provincial

Government. Most interviewees did not think that it had yet been

Background Paper

satisfactorily launched and discounted the ―Final Strategy‖ document, dated

March 2010.

5. Involvement in the work, mentoring and governance of the Provincial

and City Special Purpose Vehicles

a. The SPVs operate in particular sectors of the regional economy that have most

potential for increasing employment or for safeguarding jobs. (For example,

ICT, business process outsourcing, oil and gas, boat-building, clothing ...) In

many cases, the primary reason that university involvement is sought relates

to skills development and expert advice. These are, however, the sectors in

which innovation is most necessary and where there is scope for HEI

involvement to be pro-active.

6. Appropriate involvement with innovation-related development

initiatives

a. Universities need to ensure that their own interests are recognised, but they

should support regional initiatives to drive innovation both individually and

collectively, where this is useful.

b. Two (at least) new initiatives are presently under way:

i. East City Design Initiative (driven by the Province and the City (via the

Cape Town Partnership) with the involvement of CPUT.)

ii. Cape Health Technology Park in Pinelands/Oude Molen (driven by the

DST (via the TIA) and the province, with City support – HEI

involvement is yet to be defined.)

c. The Stellenbosch Technopark, while it is not a ‗proper‘ science park, hosts at

least two spin-off companies in which InnovUS has an investment and may, in

the future, provide opportunities for wider university involvement.

d. Development of the Bellville precinct, a long term goal, which merits

discussion and preparatory action. (See below)

The role of CHEC

In framing the appropriate role for CHEC, there is a need to evaluate whether CHEC

involvement will, in each case, have an impact that justifies its cost (particularly in effort,

given the other pressing concerns of the universities in the Province). Even if CHEC is

successful in getting academics on to the boards of SPVs for example, this may not work. A

generous ‗pre-seed‘ fund will tie up resources that could better be used elsewhere if our weak

education system and poor innovation networks mean that the deal flow is too feeble.

Background Paper

In summary:

Area CHEC ROLE

1. Strong Technology Transfer Office’s attached to each institution

Minor Assistance when requested by the collective of regional TTOs

2. Regional fund to provide “pre-seed” grants

Major CHEC could choose to play the key role in promoting such a regional fund to which all four universities will have access, through the TTOs

3. Brokering relationships between HEIs and society

Variable CHEC already plays a role in providing a forum for universities to hold discussions with the Province and the City. It attempted to assist in re-establishing CIMM and offered to house the CIMM secretariat'. CHEC could promote information sharing between the universities in this area

4. Involvement in the Regional Innovation Forum

Major CHEC has expressed reservations with developments to date, but is able to represent a collective view from the HEIs which will be valuable to the RIF.

5. Involvement in the work, mentoring and governance of the Provincial and City Special Purpose Vehicles

Major CHEC has nominated board members for CITI and can assist to ensure the there is feedback to all the HEIs about each of the SPVs.

6. Appropriate involvement with innovation-related development initiatives

Variable CHEC is involved with the ECDI and has beeen briefed on aspects of the CHTP. CHEC has taken forward the UWC proposal for the 'Bellville Science Park' for wider debate. It can play a useful information-sharing role in all cases.

International experiences

There is a vast international literature on innovation, the role of HEIs in innovation, on

science parks and on business/university and triple helix relationships. Case studies

abound. Innovation strategies (national, regional and sectoral) exist in iterations and

contradictions. Web sites make the most extravagant and enticing claims for university

partnerships with regional development agencies, local businesses, multinational companies

and communities. CHEC has gained on-the-ground perspectives of university involvement

with incubators, science parks and shop-fronts in study tours that have included

representatives from the Province and the City.

The importance of universities to the innovation process generally is well documented in the

international literature (OECD, 2007). But the importance of innovation to universities in

South Africa – while it is increasingly acknowledged – is less clear in practice. Both in SA

and in other countries ―the precise nature of the university‘s role in the knowledge-based

Background Paper

economy – and its ability to perform the roles ascribed to it – is still being explored.‖ (TRRA,

2007)

Which model is right for the Western Cape?

The specific question relates to a model for driving innovation in the Western Cape and the

role of universities and their association, the Cape Higher Education Consortium, CHEC.

The more general question is how the resources of the universities can be mobilised to

contribute actively to the regional development process?

Much can be learned by seeking an answer to this question from the experiences of other

cities and regions, other universities and knowledge systems. But it is no better a question

than asking ‗which sort of bread is best for the Western Cape?‘ and embarking on a survey of

recipe books and experimentation with bread formulae.

The ideal loaf of bread, like the ideal innovation system, does not exist. There are many

successful loaves of bread – though which is best is a matter of personal taste and habit and

which you will get depends on both availability and on your budget. There is a choice also

whether to buy or to bake yourself. Most critical of all is that you can never rely simply on

the written recipe. You have to experiment and practice. The recipe may be right, but your

way of mixing and proving the dough may be wrong. Ingredients are local. They may not be

consistent over time. The hardness of the flour available to you may differ from that used by

the recipe tester. The water, the yeast, the ambient temperature, the humidity and the oven

you use each introduce variables that can determine the success of your efforts.

International best practice in the industrial production of bread may be available, but

international best practice in driving innovation is not. (Although it will be put on offer if

demanded!)

As highlighted in this analogy there is no ‗right‘ or single approach to defining the role of

universities in driving innovation. This is not a profound finding. The success of an

innovation system is acutely dependent upon location, history, environment. What works in

one place at one time may not work as well in another context. So any research which advises

CHEC to adopt ―the Barcelona model‖, for example, would be highly suspect. But learning

from what universities do in Barcelona, how they work together, promote themselves

together and secure substantial financial and marketing support from city and regional

government can, indeed, be instructive.

Background Paper

There are useful lessons available for each of the seven areas listed above. For example, one

possibility that was raised by interviewees at two universities was that CHEC should leverage

a fund that will increase the availability of proof of concept (―pre-seed‖) funding. The issue is

considered in the UKs Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration. This

recommends that UK Universities increase the availability of proof of concept funding and

reduce the availability of seed funding, ―and use public seed funds to draw in private finance

wherever possible‖. (Recommendation 4.6)

―Proof of concept funding is used to establish whether a new technology is

commercially viable or not. It is the first stage in transferring IP to the market, and is

needed for both licensing and spinning out… Whichever commercialisation route a

university takes, it will need to prove the concept of the technology before its gets any

outside company or investor interested. With limited public resources, making more

small investments in proof of concept activity offers better value than concentrating

funding on larger early stage investments in spinouts. Focusing resources on proof of

concept activity would help universities concentrate on increasing the throughput of

their technology transfer, and provide incentives for them to use the fastest, least

resource-intensive route to market.‖ (HMSO, 2003, p.61.)

The level of investment envisaged is up to R1-m per invention. (The total amount available to

the TTO at UCT, is R0.5-m per year, for pre-seed support for all projects across the whole

university.)

We do not read the Lambert report, pick some of its recommendations to follow, and call this

‗learning from international best practice‘. We first decide on a course of action, based on the

interpretation of our reality in the Western Cape, and then learn whether this is supported

by the experience of other countries and, if it is, how it was tackled.

The same issue is raised in a manual issued by the University of Georgia in the US to assist

staff members ―forming a new company based on your research discovery‖. This says that

―Many universities and states now offer grants from ―gap‖ funds to help nurture new

businesses. They manifest themselves in a variety of different forms but generally are

focused on laboratory activities designed to help bridge the gap between an academic

research discovery and something that is less risky and more amenable to attracting

investment funding. As such, gap funding is used for reduction-to- practice and

proof-of-concept experimentation, construction of functional prototypes, and similar

purposes. It may also include monies to execute market-research studies and write

business plans. …Gap awards are usually in the form of a grant, so no transfer of

equity occurs.

―The State of Georgia has developed a unique grant program that specifically targets

university-based start-up companies for business development/risk mitigation

Background Paper

activities in order to increase the likelihood of such companies becoming ―fundable‖

to investors. Managed under the auspices of the Georgia Research Alliance (GRA), it

consists of several types of gap funds with specific areas of emphasis (biotechnology,

biofuels, and vaccines for example). A description of those funds can be found at the

GRA website (www.gra.org), under the link to the ―GRA Innovation Fund.‖ At UGA

(University of Georgia), the GRA programs are administered through the Georgia

BioBusiness Center.‖ (DesRosier, 2008, Startups for Smarties, Pages 21-22)

The UK also has a wide range of funds able to offer pre-commercial funding to academics. In

2007, for example, eight London-based Universities came together to launch a Proof of

Concept fund called ―Emerald II‖ which is ―designed to assist staff and students in the

partner institutions to explore the potential of their ideas, inventions or designs to the point

where realistic judgement as to the commercial opportunities can be made. Emerald

provides proof of concept awards of up to £40,000 for any one project.‖12 This venture has

attracted funding of just under £1-million from the London Development Agency, which is

apparently one of the models relied upon by the DEDT in its plans for a single development

agency in Cape Town13. ―The fund will consider various forms of IP to cover both the ‗harder‘,

more technology-oriented IP assets, as well as ‗softer‘ IP, which would play a central role in

setting up new, expertise-based commercial entities, e.g. the creative industries.‖14

The TTOs at UCT and Stellenbosch both said that this sort of support would be a most

welcome support for their efforts to drive innovation. They could tell researchers with ideas

that came through their filtering process: ―there is a good chance that your project will be

funded, because we have a dedicated fund for this purpose in the Western Cape‖15.

We can demonstrate that almost any sensible strategy is based on ―international best

practice‖. This still does not mean this is the right solution for the Western Cape – but the

information can be used to build a case for interventions that are purposefully led and which

will allow us to find the actions which do fit our situation the best.

12 See London Proof of Concept Funds website: http://www.londonproofofconcept.net/ 13 ―Province aims to help existing businesses as key to strategy of boosting jobs‖ Cape Times 9/9/2010 14 See Emerald website: http://emeraldfund.org/ 15 Interview with InnovUS, 26/8/2010

Background Paper

Science Park issues

The idea of a science park16 was the starting point for this study.

Science Parks are mentioned specifically only once in the Department of Science and

Technology ―Ten-Year Innovation Plan‖ of 2008. But science park approaches are very

strongly favoured in the DST‘s 2009 Draft Regional Innovation Systems Strategy document

and by the Cofisa research (See the Cofisa book, Enhancing Innovation in South Africa: The

COFISA Experience, 2010), which inspired the National Science Park Draft Strategy (DST,

2009). Science Parks are under serious consideration at present in the North West and in the

Eastern Cape, where two are planned, one for the East London Industrial Development Zone

and one adjacent to the NMMU, in Port Elizabeth.

But the case for a science park in the Western Cape as an immediate strategy is not clear. It is

weakened by the experiences of two unsuccessful science park efforts in the Western Cape –

those of the Stellenbosch Technopark and Capricorn – and by the 2009 Cofisa report on

innovation networks in the Western Cape. This found that while ―science parks may be a

good idea in the long term‖ they are probably not a useful focus in the short term.

The report said that ―there are fundamental issues that need to be addressed in the short to

medium term before a science park can succeed e.g. promoting a culture where learning and

innovation are prioritised by the majority of triple helix players, building trust across the

triple helix, and generating a sufficient volume of innovation activity to sustain a science

park‖ (p. 57)

The ten-year experience of the Innovation Hub, South Africa‘s only accredited science park,

also contains lessons for the Western Cape. These are explored in a chapter specifically

researched for CHEC for the present study. The conclusion echoes the cautionary messages

of the Western Cape Cofisa report.

Link and Scott (2007) undertake a useful survey of international literature on university

research parks, how the best parks operate and their impact. They use the following

definition:

―A university research park is a cluster of technology-based organizations that locate

on or near a university campus in order to benefit from the university‘s knowledge

16 According to Link (2009): ―The term research park is more prevalent in the United States, the term science park is more prevalent in Europe, and the term technology park is more prevalent in Asia.‖

Background Paper

base and ongoing research. The university not only transfers knowledge but expects

to develop knowledge more effectively given the association with the tenants in the

research park.‖ (citing Link and Scott 2006)

They conclude that there is sound evidence that ―parks enhance the two-way flow of

knowledge between firms and universities. Thus, parks enhance innovation and,

subsequently, competitiveness.‖ But the authors also find that while science parks may have

a galvanizing effect on the knowledge flow between universities and industry; they do not

necessarily create this flow. It follows, in their view, that university research parks (URPs)

―should not a priori be considered a primary element of a nation‘s innovation system. A

national innovation system ―includes competitive firms and a competitive environment, an

effective educational system, strong university research, a legal system with property rights,

and a capital market that includes venture capital‖. ―Successful two-way knowledge flow

between universities and industry is a key ingredient for a national innovation system, and

we do have evidence that URPs play a role in that knowledge flow. However, URPs are not a

sine qua non of the knowledge flow‖.

The international literature shows that science parks can play a part in assisting regions to

develop. They provide agglomeration benefits for companies and sectors, independent of the

knowledge flows they encourage between universities and businesses. This brings us to the

relationship between innovation and space.

Miles and Daniels (2007) in their commentary on The State of the Innovation Economy in

the UK give instances of the way that regional advantage (for example in an area such as

ELAt—Eindhoven, Leuven, Aachen Growth Triangle in the Netherlands) ―is purposefully

‗constructed‘ by enabling collaboration focused on key industrial-innovation platforms using

pervasive technologies.... The ‗full constructed advantage‘ approach involves building

creative regions and cities that are attractive cultural environments in which innovation is

increasingly fostered and promoted; talent, that drives the innovation economy, requires an

excellent quality of life.‖

They comment that ―Building an innovation-industrial platform is perhaps best done at a

sub-regional level, as it is often easier to marshal resources, networks and a ‗communality of

sentiments‘ at a more confined geographical scale than a nation state.‖

Simmie (2005) states that ―innovation is an economic and social phenomenon that at first

sight has no necessary relationship to space‖. But he presents a survey of empirical studies

that ―have increasingly shown that there is a distinctive geography of innovation ... This is

Background Paper

significant both from a theoretical perspective and because of the possible insights that it

gives for public policies that seek to generate or accelerate innovation in particular

localities‖.

The way that innovation advantages can flow from science park initiatives is the uniting

theme of the Cofisa book (2010) – which presents Finnish experiences in the context of a

project to promote innovation in South Africa.

This study on how to drive innovation in the Western Cape has found many persuasive

arguments against making the construction of a science park a prominent element in the

solution to the innovation problems that have been identified in the region. One of the early

working hypotheses for the research was that the vision of a science park – ―or similar

physical facility‖ – could be a catalyst to get all the parties working together on one project

and to use common activities towards a common goal as a way of strengthening networks,

developing collaboration and challenging the silo-minded cultures of separation which

characterise our regional innovation ecosystem.

This idea still lingers – but we are convinced that a science park is not the appropriate

catalytic project to provide a shared agenda for all stakeholders. Nevertheless, we do think

that a case should be made for the Bellville precinct to be transformed in ways that will

enhance its contribution to innovation, triple-helix networks and City development.

We do not think that CHEC is the right vehicle to lead a proposal on the Bellville precinct,

but CHEC can play a useful role in outlining the issues and stimulating a debate.

Bellville

The Bellville proposal is centred on access to a particular piece of land. The proposal is able

to accommodate the findings of the Cofisa report ―against‖ a science park, because it would

agree that this is a long-term proposal and that it depends upon the improvements in

collaboration and co-operation that are suggested as the short and medium-term steps for

strengthening innovation networks in the Western Cape.

The proposal endorsed by CHEC in 2009 calls for the City to put in place planning and land

use frameworks that would make the development of the site as a science park a possible

goal over a long period of time, in the context of urban regeneration and the creation of

innovation communities.

Background Paper

The 340 hectare size of the whole site is large for a science park – the International

Association of Science Parks (IASP) describes science parks that are over 1 million square

meters as ―the giants of our industry‖17. The Turku science park in Finland, named as a

possible model for Bellville, is 500 hectares. The Innovation Hub site in Pretoria extends to

60 hectares. Many members of the IASP are much smaller. Some are just single buildings,

others are large expanses that include residential areas, universities, parks and streets.

Total surface (area) of your Park or Incubator (including built areas, green areas, roads, etc)

Science Park ha Sq km No of companies

Research Triangle Park, NC 2,833 28.3 170

Turku, Finland 500 5.0 352

Belcon site 340 3.4

22@Barcelona district 200 2.0 ?

The Innovation Hub, Pretoria 60 0.6 52

Daresbury Science and Innovation Campus, UK 25 0.3 100

University of Warwick Science Park, UK 17 0.2 150

Cambridge Science Park 15 0.1 85

Barcelona Science Park 10 0.1 75

Girona Science Park, Spain 8 0.1 66

Manchester Science Parks 6 0.1 80

Source: IASP, Daresbury, PCB and UdG websites

Part of the reason for including the table above, which is selective, is to illustrate how flexible

the concept of a science park can be when it comes to its manifestation in space. The IASP

has a particular definition of a science park, which emphasises the way that it fosters a

climate hospitable to innovation as opposed to developments that may call themselves

technology parks but which are simply business parks that offer space to tenants.18

Definition: A Science Park is an organisation managed by specialised professionals,

whose main aim is to increase the wealth of its community by promoting the culture

of innovation and the competitiveness of its associated businesses and knowledge-

based institutions.

To enable these goals to be met, a Science Park stimulates and manages the flow of

knowledge and technology amongst universities, R&D institutions, companies and

markets; it facilitates the creation and growth of innovation-based companies

17 Only 19% of IASP members in 2006/7 were larger than 100 hectares. 18 This definition is used in presentations on the Bellville Science Park (Ridge, 2010), in Cofisa (2009b), in DST (2009) and also in Wessner (2009) who comments: ―Alternatively referred to as research parks, science parks, technology parks, technopoles, science centers, business innovation centers, and centers for advanced technology, there appears to be no singular characterization of a research park.‖

Background Paper

through incubation and spin-off processes; and provides other value-added services

together with high quality space and facilities.

—International Association of Science Parks, April 2002

Many people who have responded to the proposal for the Bellville science park have

interpreted it in the context of this definition, and they have therefore been blind to the

spatial implications of the proposal which are integral to it.

―The envisaged developments will also make a major contribution to the development of

new, post-apartheid spaces in the Western Cape, triggering a highly desirable pattern of

urban transformation.‖ – ―Preliminary information on Science Parks‖, Addendum A to DST

(2009)

The spatial aspects of the proposal for the Bellville precinct (Ridge, 2010) are extremely

ambitious. Some would say they are fanciful, even when seen in the long term.

They embody a vision of a nodal ―smart city‖ centre within Cape Town with the following

features:

a. Excellent high-density housing in mixed-use, Transit Oriented

Development19 near a revamped station: trigger for other renewal of

Bellville CBD

b. State-supported Science Park in middle (managed facilities, broadband,

secure electricity, specialist services, incubation)

c. Excellent recreational and social facilities (parks, sport, gymnasium,

galleries, theatres, restaurants, coffee shops)

d. Interface developments near the institutions (medical and legal clinics,

model schools, retirement village etc.)

e. Excellent public transport: Rapid Transit System, Bellville Station

upgrade.

The proposal is motivated by the opportunity that is presented to leverage innovation off the

existing capacity and achievement of the academic institutions, hospitals, research facilities,

colleges and major companies that surround the Transnet-owned freight yard. It then leaps

19 ―Transit Oriented Development is the exciting new fast growing trend in creating vibrant, liveable communities. Also known as Transit Oriented Design, or TOD, it is the creation of compact, walk able communities centered around high quality train systems. This makes it possible to live a higher quality life without complete dependence on a car for mobility and survival‖. TOD is a major solution to the serious and growing problems of peak oil and global warming because it reduces burning of fossil fuels. (http://www.transitorienteddevelopment.org/)

Background Paper

into a plan to develop the freight yard with new buildings, roads and parks. It shifts the focus

from innovation to land use in the crudest possible way.

We have approached the question differently. We recognise the opportunity presented by the

knowledge institutions that surround the site. We know that spatial arrangements can

improve their inter-action and can possibly assist in constructing an innovation-industrial

platform or in forming the critical mass of capable researchers, well-governed institutions

and targeted public support that is needed for improved innovation performance.

One option would, indeed, be to build something new and good on the 340ha site. But that

might not be the first goal to set, even if the site were easily available. If the Belcon site was a

lake, or quicksand, what steps could be taken to work with the space around it?

The research reports we have compiled outline complex, practical difficulties that surround

the use of the site. For this reason alone, it is sensible to look for alternatives. But we would

argue that the alternatives make better sense. They allow immediate actions to be taken to

improve the innovation ecosystem. They do not exclude the eventual use of the Transnet site

for developments that will enhance the environment for innovation, but they do not depend

upon it.

We have structured this alternative under an arbitrary name, the ―Bellville Innovation Zone‖

[this proposal arises out of this study and will be better defined for the workshop after the

completion of Report 3]

It is important to emphasise that the ―Bellville Innovation Zone‖ is fully aligned with the

recommendations of the Cofisa Western Cape Report (a document that is deserving of wider

attention and more careful reading than it has got to date).

The Bellville Innovation Zone will

1. Have a specific location and defined (but alterable) borders,

2. Be a space that can accommodate all agendas related to innovation - a

knowledge economy, information sharing, collaborative projects, social

engagement towards a fairer city...

3. Concentrate energy that is presently dissipated or never assembled (especially

from township areas in Bellville, Khayalitsha, Mitchells Plain and the south)

Background Paper

4. Attract participation from other parts of the City. (Something new, something

extra, something special – but embodying the spirit of constructive

competition)

5. Be regulated by City measures that provide for Special Rating Areas20 and by a

Charter that ‗inhabitants‘ can develop and then subscribe to.

6. Allow the universities, colleges, research facilities and hospitals in the

identified area to begin to live now in an ―innovation zone‖ that includes them

all and the character of which they can begin to define. This could include:

i. a green building, sustainability theme.

ii. a common branding and signage for buildings.

iii. a public transport system

The Bellville Innovation Zone will be a defined place to illustrate new ways of living and

doing and which draws on the universities and other institutions to provide leadership and

content. The universities (individually and collectively) have a choice on how they will

participate and the amount of effort they dedicate. They will have the opportunity to shape a

new relationship between learning and research, business and community.

20 SRAs are used by communities to provide top-up services when those provided by councils are seen as inferior to their needs. More than half of a community's members have to agree to the imposition of the extra rates involved. The expenditure is in terms of an approved business plan and is ring-fenced within the community's area. The total of all SRA income in Cape Town at present is R81 million. The SRA for the Cape Town CBD, the Cape Town Partnership, has the largest budget. For the other 21 SRA's in existence, the average budget is just short of R200 000 a month. UCT, with its concern for the safety and security of its staff and students, recently led the way in forming the Groote Schuur CID. Athlone, Claremont, Rondebosch and Observatory already. (Includes information from ―Special Rating Area the wrong vehicle for upliftment‖ Cape Times September 30, 2010)

Background Paper

References for the Background Paper

Cape Higher Education Consortium (2009) ―Planning to make the best use of Universities in promoting economic and social development‖, pp.4 – approved by the CHEC Board at its meeting held on 24 February 2009; submitted to Dr Martin van der Merwe, Director: IDP and Business Planning, City of Cape Town on 25 March 2009 [Attached below as an Appendix].

CHEC (2009b) ―Report to CHEC Board - Study tour to North-West and North-East England and Barcelona, 12 —22 October 2009‖ ,by Nasima Badsha, CEO and Erica Gillard, Consultant, Cape Higher Education Consortium, 19 November 2009

CHEC (2010) ―Feedback from CHEC institutional representatives on the Western Cape Regional Innovation System Final Strategy‖ – prepared after a meeting of representatives from the four CHEC higher education institutions at UWC on 7 June 2010

COFISA (2009b) ―Mapping triple helix innovation networks in the Western Cape - October 2009 : Final report‖, Prepared by Kaiser Associates Economic Development Practice, pp.89

Comins, N., Gwintsa, T., Kuukasjervi, L., Rammbuda, R., Ridge, S., and Van der Walt, R. (2010) ―Science Parks‖, Chapter 7 in (2010) Enhancing Innovation in South Africa: The COFISA Experience, February 2010, pp.86-103

Cooperation Framework on Innovation Systems between Finland and South Africa (2010) Enhancing Innovation in South Africa: The COFISA Experience, February 2010, pp.75

Department of Science and Technology (2008) ―Ten-Year Innovation Plan‖, pp.42 [formally published copy provided by Prof. Bharuthram]

Department of Science and Technology (2009) ―Draft Regional Innovation Systems Strategy: A Framework for Engagement in Regional Innovation Systems Development‖, pp.23 [copy provided by CHEC, Mr Strauss says this document is ―being refined‖ into a final version at present.]

Department of Science and Technology (n.d. c.2009) ―National Science Park Development Plan (Draft version) - Promoting awareness and use of Science Parks In the development of the National System of Innovation, Submitted by: The Innovation Hub Management Company (Pty) Ltd, pp.40 <copy marked Restricted for Internal Use Only, file date is 13 March 2009> [most recent copy provided by Mr Strauss, DST, 14 July 2010]

DesRosier, J. (2008) ―Start-Ups for Smarties: A Primer for the UGA Investigator on Forming a New Company Based on Your Research Discovery‖, pp.32, University of Georgia: Georgia BioBusiness Center

DST (2009) ―Project Plan: Development of a conceptual model for driving innovation in the Western Cape, 18 September 2009, prepared by: University of the Western Cape‖

DST (2009b) ―The Technology Innovation Agency (TIA): Background, Status and Rollout‖, presentation to the AMTS Project Symposium, 15 September 2009, presented by: Steven Ratsatsi, Chief Director: Innovation Instruments, DST

Economist (2009) ―A special report on innovation in emerging markets‖, Apr 15th 2010

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) ―Global innovation environments (Study A) - A report to HEFCE by Paula Knee, Quotec Ltd and Dr Martin Meyer, SPRU, University of Sussex‖, February 2007, pp.86

Background Paper

HMSO [UK Government] (2003) ―Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration: Final Report‖, 4 December 2003 (London: HM Treasury) http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/

Interim Steering Committee for the Western Cape Regional Innovation Forum (2010) ―Western Cape Regional Innovation System Final Strategy, 24 March 2010 (To be distributed for consultation and inputs to relevant stakeholders)‖, pp.28

Knutsen, R.D. and Steyn, C. (2009) ―Building links between manufacturers and research resources to promote innovation‖, draft article submitted to Gateways on CIMM

Link, A. N. (2009) ―Research, Science, and Technology Parks: An Overview of the Academic Literature‖, in Wessner (2009) pp.127 to 139

Link, A. N., and Scott. J. T. (2006) ‗US University Research Parks‘, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 25(1), 43–55.

Link, A. N., and Scott. J. T. (2007) ―The Economics of University Research Parks.‖ Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23(4):661-674.

Miles, N. and Daniels, R. (2007) ―The State of the Innovation Economy in the UK -2007 Problems, Opportunities and Solutions. A Brief Overview.‖ (Oxford to Cambridge (O2C) Arc ; / Norwich Research Park), pp74.

National Advisory Council on Innovation (NACI) (2006) ―The South African National System of Innovation: Structures, Policies and Performance, Background Report to the OECD Country Review‖, edited by D. Walwyn, (Pretoria: NACI) 21 July 2006, pp.128

OECD (2007) Higher Education and Regions, OECD Policy Brief September 2007, pp.8

OECD (2007), OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: South Africa, OECD, Paris. pp.254

OECD (2009) ―OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2009‖,03 Dec 2009, available online DOI : 10.1787/20725345

Ridge, S (2010) ―Belleville and the Knowledge Economy‖, 40 PowerPoint slides

Simmie, J. (2005) ―Innovation and space: a critical review of the literature.‖, Regional Studies, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 789-804

Toronto Regional Research Alliance (TRRA) (2006) ―At the Crossroads – Strengthening the Toronto Region‘s Research and Innovation Economy. Lessons from leading high-tech centres around the world‖.

Toronto Regional Research Alliance (TRRA), (2007) ―The Role of Universities in Economic Development, June 2007, A discussion document prepared for TRRA's Research Working Group‖, pp.63, viewed on 7-Jun-2009, http://www.trra.ca/en/reports/TRRAReports.asp

Wessner, C.W. (ed) (2009) ―Understanding Research, Science and Technology Parks: Global Best Practice: Report of a Symposium‖, pp.214 (NAP: Committee on Comparative Innovation Policy: Best Practice for the 21st Century; National Research Council) downloaded from: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12546.html

World Conference on Higher Education (1998) ―The Role of Universities in Regional Development‖ Thematic debate: Contributing to National and Regional Development (Unesco: Paris, 5-9 October); includes working paper authored by Prof John Goddard, Newcastle upon Tyne

Background Paper

Appendix:

CAPE HIGHER EDUCATION CONSORTIUM

PLANNING TO MAKE THE BEST USE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PROMOTING

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

The City of Cape Town (the City) and the universities in the city, working together in the Cape Higher

Education Consortium (CHEC), signed a Collaboration Protocol in 2008. In the spirit of that

agreement, the universities wish to put before the City the kinds of planning considerations which

would be conducive to their making a sustained and strong contribution to economic and social

development in and around Cape Town. CHEC has attempted to bring together best international

practice on innovation with the dynamic planning initiatives already undertaken by the City,

especially the City Development Strategy, the Integrated Development Plan, and the District Spatial

Development Frameworks. A particular point of engagement is the notion of “directed growth or

development”. CHEC has also attempted to take into account major directional documents like the

OECD report on Innovation in South Africa, and current initiatives which promise considerable

synergies with City planning, such as the National Innovation Strategy, National Research Chairs,

National Centres of Competence, the promotion of a five-fold increase in doctoral graduations, and

the work of COFISA, the Finnish-South African cooperation on Innovation.

The key to global competitiveness is the so-called “knowledge economy”. Countries which have

neglected it to improve employment through the provision of cheap labour have soon recognised

that false oppositions are traps: meeting immediate needs for employment and developing capacity

for higher level work are mutual imperatives in a country like South Africa. CHEC’s concern is

primarily with the knowledge economy, but it has attempted to bear the full picture in mind.

The successful city is increasingly measured by its capacity to attract and retain talent. To a very

significant extent this depends on there being an integration of four factors in particular local

environments:

attractive living conditions (safe, convenient, within easy reach of major amenities, with

adequate recreational space nearby, and well-served for e-activities)

the proximity of knowledge institutions (universities, research councils, R&D laboratories)

the productive engagement of business and industry in setting up laboratories and related

businesses in the area, and

the active role of city and regional authorities in promoting and supporting incubation and

relevant economic development activities.

The expertise of COFISA (the Cooperation Framework on Innovation Systems between Finland and

South Africa) and the range of knowledge brought to South Africa through the world conference of

the International Association of Science Parks in Sandton in 2008 and through visitors sponsored by

the National Business Initiative, Accelerate Cape Town and the Cape Town Partnership confirms that

planning for innovation and participation in the global knowledge economy cannot be separated

from planning of attractive and convenient integrated environments. The modern science park is

thus not an industrial area or a business park: it is an integrated environment in which excellent

Background Paper

technical facilities in workable proximity to universities go along with safe and comfortable living

conditions and good cultural and recreational facilities to attract and retain concentrations of talent.

The City and the Western Cape region are generally very attractive, and the universities in the area

are among the best in the country. However, we are not able to make the best use of these assets

because of low levels of spatial integration and inadequately synergised investment. Work is

currently under way nationally in exploring the potential for enhanced innovation activities of four

areas in and near the city:

1. The Stellenbosch Technopark site

2. The Bellville precinct

3. The Cape Biotech site in Observatory

4. The area close to CPUT’s Cape Town campus for a design centre

It is clear that progress in all four sites will require new levels of cooperation and partnership

between universities, business and various levels of government, with the City playing a prominent

role in three of the sites.

As the process of investigation and development proceeds, CHEC may make recommendations

about all the Cape Town sites as a respectful partner with City, business and other tiers of

government. At this point we wish to raise our concern about the medium to long-term future of the

Bellville precinct and request that the City gives attention to it in the light of current developments

and of its potential significance.

The Bellville precinct is in the centre of metropolitan Cape Town, as has been noted as significant by

City planners since the late 90s. For our part, we can point out that such sites have proved

outstandingly suitable for urban regeneration and the development of innovation communities and

science parks in Aarhus (Denmark), Barcelona (Spain), Newcastle (UK) and Turku (Finland), to name a

few places. In our opinion, the Bellville precinct is a site with critical potential for the economic and

social progress of the City of Cape Town and of the Western Cape Province. In Bellville, the city has a

concentration of leading academic, research and health services institutions which we think would

be extraordinary in almost any country.21 However, most of them have a marginal location around a

340 hectare Transnet freight yard which was superimposed on planned urban development. This

radically undermines their potential. For the City of Cape Town and the Western Cape Province to

make best use of these major assets a way has to be found of securing a vision for the medium term

that would see the freight yard transformed into a modern urban centre hospitable to innovation. At

present there is a tendency to increased low-level industrialisation on the site. Settling the vision for

the area would counter that tendency and enable modest steps towards the new identity to be

taken with confidence on any land which Transnet could free. Such developments would not be

random initiatives, then, but steps towards the achievement of the comprehensive vision.

21 These include the Health Sciences campus and Business School of the University of Stellenbosch, the Science and Engineering campus of the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, the Oral Health campus and the main campus of the University of the Western Cape, and several campuses of Northlink College, along with the Medical Research Council, Tygerberg Hospital (the largest teaching hospital on the continent) and six other hospitals. Other university campuses are within a 25km radius east and west and 20kms to the south. As some indices of the competitive standing of the institutions in the area, there are three WHO Collaborating Centres, the most developed capacity in Bioinformatics with a National Research Chair in Bioinformatics and Human Health, a Unesco Chair in Hydrogeology heading a team which advises the African Council of Ministers on water affairs, a cluster of distinguished medical research groups, and national centres in the hydrogen economy and fuel cells, nanotechnology, biosensing, biolabelling, and indigenous herbal medicine.

Background Paper

Underlying our request are the following considerations:

1. The potential for the economic development of the city and the province in a global

knowledge economy which requires a physical and regulatory environment conducive to

innovation and to cooperation on an unprecedented scale. No other site in South Africa is

more conducive to development of this kind or better equipped to benefit from national

innovation strategies. It is relatively undeveloped, the planned urban linkages which had the

railways imposed on them are still viable, the institutions are in exemplary proximity, and

there is keen business interest. There is also high-end capacity in ICT, Health-related

disciplines including Drug Discovery, Biotechnology, Nanotechnology, and Alternative

Energy.

2. The impact on the social and economic development of disadvantaged communities and on

efforts to counter the structured inefficiencies of apartheid socio-physical planning in

socially and economically sustainable ways. The development would break through the

apartheid-imposed industrial cordon sanitaire separating the amenities of the city from the

people in the townships, signalling a new beginning. More constructively, it would create a

post-apartheid space with high potential for modelling socially healthy patterns of

interaction. The development would also create new SMMEs with the opportunity for

upskilling people from the areas to the south.

3. The exceptional opportunities for high-impact synergies between a concentration of

eminent knowledge and service institutions in the area. To a remarkable degree, the site

meets the characteristics of the models presented by the OECD in its report on innovation in

South Africa. A critical factor for our development is scale: we have excellent researchers

and innovators but we still tend to go for relatively small research groups with disastrous

effects on sustainability and scale. This site offers a unique opportunity to enable institutions

in its vicinity to work together on “neutral” ground and thereby build extended innovation

capacity. This neutral ground strategy has been highly successful in other countries, with

Finland a major example. In Turku the ICT departments of the three universities there are

now housed in one building with Nokia and two other companies, and overall productivity

levels have soared.

4. The opportunities for economical and environmentally responsible urban development,

including:

Transit-oriented development in a key metropolitan focus area, demonstrating the

principles of the “new mobility”. The area immediately south of the station offers

major opportunities for such development. It requires really good high-rise

accommodation (probably with businesses on the ground floor), safe paths to

transport points, good recreational areas, and other amenities like theatres and

cinemas which people from elsewhere can reach using public transport. Such high-

density, low-traffic, city-centre living areas with easy access to recreational and

cultural facilities, serve both as a means of attracting and retaining talent for the

innovation economy, and as a model alternative to costly urban sprawl. An

important consideration is that they should have widespread broadband access

factored into the development, as the kind of people the development is intended

to attract require such access as a condition of their being able to work properly.

The example of Recife in Brazil illustrates this well.

Background Paper

The establishment of innovation industries and a business incubator. These would

probably require dedicated space to start with. Different models of ownership apply

in different parts of the world. At Aarhus, the university foundation owns the land

and buildings. At Turku, the facilities are owned by the city and regional

governments. But the need for these areas to be planned in coherence with the

other urban aspects is common to the examples. The overall plan must be of the

kind which enables the region to attract and retain talent more effectively.

The best use of major transport infrastructure: the site is accessible to a large station

and a major bus station, close to the airport , and is positioned between the major

transport axes. Attention would have to be paid to the station and bus station,

particularly as the development would be “new mobility” inspired.

Providing for the qualitative development of the environment of the universities and

other major institutions in ways conducive to achieving the City’s goals as a major

centre in the knowledge economy. It should be noted that national planning would

have enrolment on the Bellville campuses of the universities grow from 30 000 to

50 000 over a 12 year period and would see a major growth in science and business

enrolment. The synergies achieved if this growth is accompanied by the influx of

significant numbers of knowledge workers in innovation enterprises form the

foundation for the kind of success CHEC and the City envision.

Against this background, the universities in the Cape Higher Education Consortium (CHEC) ask the

City of Cape Town to make decisions at a macro planning level which would secure the site from

fragmented industrial development and establish the vision of a revitalising, innovation-friendly

central area for Bellville as a planning imperative. The tonic effects on the existing CBD which hosts

the national headquarters of SANLAM and Vodacom, the regional offices of Eskom and several state

departments would soon be evident. And with the assurance that the macro-level decisions had

been taken, it would be possible to proceed with the envisioned development of the area in smaller

parts against a horizon of 10 – 15 years.

In conclusion, we undertake that our discussions with Transnet, with the City, with Province, and

with the national departments of Public Enterprises, Education, and Science and Technology will

continue, and that we will vigorously pursue outcomes of benefit to Cape Town and our province

and country.

the development of a conceptual model … workshop background paper on...background paper page 3...

Documents