wp poster innov impact prag 23 02 09
TRANSCRIPT
Scientific Directors
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
TechRisk
CialRisk
Complexity
Short /long
Core/periph
NoE&IP
other FP
self-funded coop
specific FP
average R&D project?
Cost
New or improved products
New or improved production processes
New or improved standards
Implementation of field trials
New or improved services
FP6
FP5
0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 %
(% of participants reporting as outcome)Commercialisable outputs per FP
Wolfgang PoltJOANNEUM RESEARCH
Nicholas VonortasGeorge Washington [email protected]
Robbert Fisher Coordinator
oef pos 09 008-1
www.intrasoft-intl.com www.joanneum.at www.tudelft.nl www.msl.aueb.gr www.europe-innova.org www.formit.org cournot2.u-strasbg.fr/users/beta
Innovation Impact A Study of the Impacts of the European Framework Programmes on Innovation
www.innovationimpact.org
How much innovation can you get from the Framework Programmes ?
Analysis of the Community Innovation Surveys■■
Extensive survey among participants of FP5 and FP6 ■■ (over 8000 responses)
Some seventy-five case studies■■
The Approach
Main Question
Some Main Findings
Commercializable outputs■■ are not the prime motivation to participate. Dominant objectives
are access to complementary knowledge
and skills, keeping up with state-of-the-art
technological development and explore different
technological opportunities.
In contrast, self-funded cooperative R & D ■■
projects which are primarily used by the
respondents for technology exploitation
(closer to the market).
Compared to self-funded cooperative R & D ■■
projects, FP projects were characterized by :
longer-term■➜ R & D horizons
greater orientation towards peripheral ■➜
(read new area) technologiesgreater ■➜ complexityOn the other hand, FPs had ■➜ no positive effects on technological or commercial risk-taking.
A ■■ great majority of FP participants report at least one form of commercializable output from their FP project.
A ■■ large number even records more than one
of such outputs.
This obervation is even more pronounced in FP6 ■■
than in FP5.
Substantial input additionality was found ■■
only among smaller firms. Participation in FPs
was associated with a significant increase in
R & D intensity between 2000 and 2004 among
firms of up to 100 employees.
Higher ■■ risk (scientific, technological,
commercial), novelty of technology area, and
new combination of partners (esp. participation
of newcomers) in projects increase the chance of output additionality.
Output additionality is ■■ not different between FPs and not markedly different between
instruments.
Differences exist between thematic areas in ■■
terms of output additionality. There are higher in new areas (e. g. in the NANO programme).
Types of Innovation :Why participate in the FPs ?
Innovation Outputs : What do you get out in terms of innovation?
Additionality : Did the FPs make a difference ?
Scientific DirectorsWolfgang Polt
JOANNEUM [email protected]
Nicholas VonortasGeorge Washington [email protected]
Robbert Fisher Coordinator
oef pos 09 008-2
www.intrasoft-intl.com www.joanneum.at www.tudelft.nl www.msl.aueb.gr www.europe-innova.org www.formit.org cournot2.u-strasbg.fr/users/beta
Innovation Impact A Study of the Impacts of the European Framework Programmes on Innovation
www.innovationimpact.org
Directly commercialisable output has ■■
not been a core objective of Framework
Programmes. Yet we find significant impact
on innovation. While this is in line with
increased emphasis on exploitation of results
of the FPs, caution should be exercised not
to violate the target to promote strategic,
high-quality, pre-competitive research.
Keep funding instruments simple and ■■
maintain instrument continuity. Frequent
changes increase the cost of Programme
administration without demonstrably
significant benefits.
Pay closer attention to the needs of the ■■
thematic areas at different levels and their
associated markets, as well as to the needs
of participating organizations.
The role of the traditional IP protection ■■
mechanisms (patents) as a general
instrument to promote innovation per se
is generally low and highly depending on
the thematic area and the specific market.
Industry effects should be taken into
account.
The individual FP-R & D-project really is a ■■
single research instance among many for
a participating organization. Do not expect
huge impacts from individual projects either
on innovation or on the ‘behaviour’ of the
participating organizations.
Some Lessons for Policy and Programme Management
Small and medium-sized enterprises indicate ■■
more positive results in terms of innovation in
FP-projects and seem more susceptible to the
Framework Programmes as a policy instrument
than their larger counterparts. They may
deserve more attention on that basis.
For successful innovation, collaborative ■■
research consortia should include one or more
of the following types of partners:
one or more partners with strong research ■➜
and innovation experience;
highly motivated partners who may either ■➜
be smaller companies that depend on the
specific project very much and/or new
participants;
experienced, motivated coordinators who ■➜
manage to align the diverse interests of
the various partners with the needs of the
collaborative research project.
Encourage commercialisation thinking at ■■
the proposal stage. Possibly provide the
opportunity to innovators for a follow-up
stage – or a follow-up project – where the
commercialization of the research results is the
core priority.
Especially promote projects that are risky, ■■
technically complex, and in new areas to
increase impact on innovation and additionality.