Knowledge Transfer Joint Forces for Efficient Innovation Policies – KTFORCE Project
KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER JOINT FORCES FOR EFFICIENT INNOVATION POLICIES – KTFORCE PROJECT Iulian Ilie1, Octavia Caruntu1, Andreea Popescu1, Ligia Petrescu1 National Institute of Research & Development in Mechatronics and Measurement Technique, Post address: 6-8 Pantelimon Str., Bucharest, Romania E-mail
[email protected]
1
Abstract - The KTForce INTERREG IVC project involves, at its core, the benchmarking and investigation of best practices in knowledge transfer policies and practices at regional level. Its ultimate goal is to improve the Europe’s innovation environment. The project focuses on three components within Knowledge Transfer (KT) and seeks to assess and benchmark these within an innovation and regional development context. KTForce looks at how university-industry relations can be enhanced, how technology licensing can be improved and to the identification of the optimum conditions for creating spin-outs and increasing entrepreneurial activity. keywords: Knowledge Transfer, Innovation, Best practices, Innovation policies.
capable of making European regions more dynamic and competitive.
1. Introduction “Knowledge Transfer joint forces for efficient innovation policies – KTForce” is a project supported by the INTERREG IVC Capitalisation Programme, under the 4th call for proposals, and co-financed by the ERDF (European Regional Development Fund). The aim of the INTERREG IVC programme is to improve the effectiveness of regional development policies in the area of innovation and the knowledge economy. This is achieved through exchange, sharing and transfer of policy experience, knowledge and good practices between European regional and local authorities. The idea to submit a project to INTERREG IVC programme emerged in 2008 when several European entities decided to make a joint effort to contribute to a more collaborative and aligned environment, capable of harmonising knowledge transfer mechanisms and boosting innovation at a European level. In fact, the European Union (EU) recognises Knowledge Transfer as a key tool for fostering innovation and competitiveness in Europe. In line with the EU strategy, KTForce aims to benchmark both innovation policies and knowledge transfer practices in the partner regions, putting forward a set of strategic recommendations for the future design of innovation policies and the implementation of Knowledge Transfer practices 48
The project involves 11 partners from 6 regions, covering “modest and moderate innovator” countries (Lithuania, Portugal and Romania) and “innovation follower and leader” countries (France, Germany and Ireland), according to the Innovation Scoreboard 2010. The rationale behind the partnership is that less advanced regions are able to benefit from the experience and learn from more advanced ones, and in turn improve the overall policy context in knowledge transfer and innovation. Moreover, political entities and operational partners (Knowledge Transfer Offices) from across all partner regions work together discussing top-down and bottom-up approaches on how to increase the efficiency of Knowledge Transfer policies and practices and how this could benefit future policy design.
2. Applied methodology in KTForce project The KTForce methodology was built around the analysis of the performance of each region involved in the project. Initially, knowledge transfer good practices and innovation policies or instruments were mapped. Based on a SWOT analysis and the use of official innovation scoreboard indicators, a “scenario 0” (current state of the region’s performance in terms of
The Romanian Review Precision Mechanics, Optics & Mechatronics, 2013, No. 46
Knowledge Transfer Joint Forces for Efficient Innovation Policies – KTFORCE Project Knowledge Transfer related indicators) was defined for each region. Based on the scenario 0, “future scenarios” were set up for each region and aimed at understanding where each region would be in the future so that it is possible to identify what policies and practices are needed to reach a better regional performance. Then, the good practices identified initially were assessed (5M analysis), selected, transferred and adopted by partners according to their ‘future scenario’ trends. Concurrently, innovation policies were categorised (technology licensing, spinoff creation and entrepreneurship, and universityindustry relations) and quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed. The result is a set of policy recommendations aimed at improving regional innovation performance, taking into account the policies undertaken on the ground by the other partners. Such recommendations, integrated in the regional implementation plan of each partner region and delivered to the policy makers, aim at presenting a set of conclusions on some aspects to be considered for future policy design. 3. Key indicators, Scenario 0 and Future Scenario In line with the project methodology, a Scenario 0 was defined based on the analysis of the Bucharest – Ilfov region’s performance, in comparison to the other partner regions, using a pool of 18 indicators likely to be influenced by technology licensing, spin-offs creation and entrepreneurship, and university-industry related practices. These indicators are presented below: Technology Licensing: 1. Number of patents applied for at EPO, by year, into the Regional GDP in Purchasing Power Parity Euros; 2. Number of patents applied for at EPO, by year, per million of inhabitants; 3. R&D expenditures in the business sector (BERD), by year, into Regional GDP, in national currency and current prices; 4. Business enterprise R&D expenditure (BERD) by economic activity – percentage of GDP; 5. R&D expenditures in the government sector and the higher education sector in Regional GDP 6. R&D expenditures in the government sector and the higher education sector in GDP – percentage of GDP; Spin-off creation and Entrepreneurship 7. Number of employed persons in the knowledgeintensive services sectors and Number of employed persons in the medium-high and high-tech manufacturing sectors into total workforce; 8. High and medium high-technology manufacturing – Percentage of total employment; 9. Knowledge-intensive services – Percentage of total employment; 10. Sum of total turnover of new or significantly improved products either new to the market or new to the firm for Small Manufacturing Enterprises (SMEs) by total turnover for SMEs;
University-Industry relations 12. Population with tertiary education per 100 population aged 25-64; 13. Total SMEs innovation expenditure, excluding intramural and extramural R&D expenditures, into the total turnover for SMEs; 14. SMEs introducing any new or significantly improved products or production processes (in-house innovations); 15. SMEs with innovation co-operation activities in total number of SMEs); 16. Number of public-private co-authored research publications by total population; 17. Number of SMEs introducing new products or processes to market by total number of SMEs; 18. Number of SMEs introducing new marketing and/or organizational innovations to market by total number of SMEs; The data, collected mainly for 2007-2009 and 20092011 were considered for each region or country. Composite indicators for each of the Knowledge Transfer related area as well as a global composite indicator were defined in order to assess and compare the state of the countries/regions in terms of growth rate and level. Based on the analysis carried out, a Scenario 0 for the Bucharest – Ilfov region was defined. When it comes to Technology Licensing, the analysis for the Bucharest - Ilfov presents: o a good growth rate on new product innovation, with firms with good capacity to develop new products (Analysis Indicator 1); o an average position on the number of patents applied for at European Patent Office (Analysis Indicator 2, Romania); o a position below average growth rate on the R&D expenditures in the business sector, i.e. on the formal creation of new knowledge within firms (Analysis Indicator 3); o a position below average position on business enterprise R&D expenditure(BERD)(Analysis Indicator 4, Romania); o a strong growth rate on R&D expenditures in the government and higher education sectors, highest among the partners regions (Analysis Indicator 5); o a strong position on R&D expenditures in the government sector and the higher education sector in GDP, highest among the partners regions(Analysis Indicator 6, Romania). According to the region-specific composite indicator results, the performance of the Bucharest - Ilfov in the Technology Licensing area reveals the second growth rate, after North Region from Portugal, compared with the other partner regions. The growth rate performance of Bucharest – Ilfov at this level reveals that is in a catching-up process with the more developed regions.
The Romanian Review Precision Mechanics, Optics & Mechatronics, 2013, No. 46
49
Knowledge Transfer Joint Forces for Efficient Innovation Policies – KTFORCE Project 18%
Germany
16%
Sachsen
14%
Ireland
12%
Southern and Eastern
10%
France Centre-Est (FR)
8%
Portugal
6%
Norte
4%
Romania
2%
Bucaresti - Ilfov 0% 0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
0,60
0,70
Total Average
-2%
Figure 1: Technology Licensing analysis For Spin-offs creation and Entrepreneurship, the Bucharest - Ilfov presents: o a medium rate on employment in knowledgeintensive service sectors and in the mediumhigh and high-tech manufacturing sectors (Analysis Indicator 7); o an average position on employment in high and medium high-technology manufacturing (Analysis Indicator 8, Romania); o an average position on employment in knowledge-intensive services (Analysis Indicator 9, Romania); o an position below average on the sum of total turnover of new or significantly improved products either new to the market or new to the firm for small manufacturing enterprises (Analysis Indicator 10); o a position below the EU average on the hightech products trade (Analysis Indicator 11); According to the region-specific composite indicator results, the performance of the Bucharest - Ilfov in the Spin-off Creation and Entrepreneurship area reveals that is below average growth rates compared to the other regions. Thus, at this level, Bucharest - Ilfov needs to implement adequate practices and policies to improve the present situation. 30%
As far as University-Industry is concerned, the Bucharest - Ilfov presents: o a position above the average in Romania, the growth rate is strong on population with tertiary education per 100 population aged 25-64 (Analysis Indicator 12); o a below, but close to average growth rate on non-R&D innovation expenditures (just for SMEs, excluding intramural and extramural R&D expenditures) in % of total turnover for Romania, but above for Bucharest – Ilfov region (Analysis Indicator 13); o a position below the average in level on SMEs innovating in-house, introducing any new or significantly improved products or production processes (Analysis Indicator 14); o a below average growth rate on SMEs with innovation co-operation activities, establishing any co-operation agreements on innovation activities with other enterprises or institutions (Analysis Indicator 15); o a position above the average, even Romania is below average, for public-private co-authored research publications (Analysis Indicator 16); o a position below the average on technological innovators (SMEs) introducing new products or processes (Analysis Indicator 17); o a position below the average on SMEs nontechnological innovation (marketing and/or organizational innovation) (Analysis Indicator 18). According to the region-specific composite indicator results, the performance of the Bucharest - Ilfov in the University-Industry Relations area reveals that is below in both average growth rate and level when compared to the other regions. Consequently, also at this level, Bucharest - Ilfov needs to implement adequate practices and policies to improve the present situation. 30%
Germany Sachsen
25%
Ireland 20%
Southern and Eastern
15%
France
25%
10%
Centre-Est (FR)
20%
5%
Portugal Norte Romania
0%
15%
0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
0,60
-5%
10%
Bucaresti Ilfov Total Average
-10%
5%
Figure 3: University-Industry relation analysis 0% 0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
0,60
0,70
-5%
-10%
Figure 2: Spin-offs creation and Entrepreneurship analysis
50
Considering the global composite indicator, it is clear that Bucharest -Ilfov, a moderate medium innovator, is much more innovative than other Romanian region. However, it is below average growth rate, meaning that need to rush the process. Global composite indicator for all the partner regions/countries
The Romanian Review Precision Mechanics, Optics & Mechatronics, 2013, No. 46
Knowledge Transfer Joint Forces for Efficient Innovation Policies – KTFORCE Project 0,25 0,20
Sachsen Ireland
0,15
Southern and Eastern
0,10
France
0,05
Portugal
Centre-Est (FR) Norte
0,00 -0,05
Future scenarios and TFP correlation
Germany
0,00
0,20
0,40
0,60
0,80
Romania Bucaresti - Ilfov Total Average
-0,10
Figure 4: Global composite indicator The current scenario and the insights deriving from the indicators analysis were taken into account in the design of the countries’ future scenarios, presented in the next section.
Technology Licensing 1. PCT patents applications per billion GDP; 2. PCT patent applications in societal challenges per billion GDP (in PPS€) (climate change mitigation; health); 3. Public R&D expenditures as % of GDP; 4. New doctorate graduates (ISCED 6) per 1000 population aged 25-34 5. International scientific copublications per million population 6. Scientific publications among the top 10% most cited publications worldwide as % of total scientific publications of the country
To define future scenarios, the analysis focused on the influence of some indicators related with the 3 Knowledge Transfer areas on the evolution of the Total Factor Productivity (TFP), both by looking at all the partner's countries as a whole and country by country. Firstly, indicators were selected according to their relevance regarding the 3 Knowledge Transfer areas focused by the project: technology licensing, spin-off creation and entrepreneurship, university-industry relation. These indicators were selected from a wide series of indicators available for the 6 partner countries, at national level, from European databases. These indicators were selected to match as much as possible the indicators selected for the design of the scenario 0.
Table 1. Indicators selected for analysis Spin-offs creation and University-Industry relations Entrepreneurship 1. Sales of new to market and new to firm innovations as % of turnover 2. Knowledge-intensive services exports as % total service exports; 3. Medium and high-tech product exports as % total product exports; 4. Medium and high-tech product exports as % total product exports 5. Employment in knowledgeintensive activities (manufacturing and services) as % of total employment
1. Non-R&D innovation expenditures as % of turnover 2. Venture capital (early stage, expansion and replacement) as % of GDP; 3. SMEs introducing product or process innovations as % of SMEs; 4. Non-R&D innovation expenditures as % of turnover; 5. SMEs introducing marketing or organizational innovations as % of SMEs; 6. SMEs innovating in-house as % of SMEs; 7. Innovative SMEs collaborating with others as % of SMEs;
Full information about the indicators selected can be found in the KTForce website under “documents” (www.ktforce.eu/documents-view)
Then, the TFP was regressed using econometric techniques on each of the chosen indicators, enabling to analyze the relation between the indicator and the TFP. The TFP evolution according to each indicator was translated into a chart, in order to visually understand the positive or negative influence of each indicator on the TFP. Only the indicators that showed to have a positive influence on the TFP were retained. Again, by using econometric techniques, a ranking of the indicators that most influenced TFP was established, thereby highlighting which Knowledge Transfer area each region should invest more in. A detailed explanation of the methodology applied for the definition of the future scenario is described in “The KTForce methodology booklet”.
In the case of Romania, the indicators that most influence the evolution of the TFP are: -
PCT patents applications per billion GDP (in PPS€); - PCT patent applications in societal challenges per billion GDP (in PPS€)(climate change mitigation; health); - Innovative SMEs collaborating with others as % of SMEs; - Public R&D expenditures as % of GDP. The graphs of the 4 indicators that positively influence TFP for Bucharest – Ilfov region from Romania are presented next by order:
The Romanian Review Precision Mechanics, Optics & Mechatronics, 2013, No. 46
51
Knowledge Transfer Joint Forces for Efficient Innovation Policies – KTFORCE Project
Figure 5: Indicators that most influence the evolution of the TFP
Knowledge Transfer area Technology licensing Technology licensing University-Industry Relations Technology licensing
Table 2. Indicators according to rate of influence R2 * Rate of influence Indicator considering the other indicators PCT patents applications per 0,996 36% billion GDP PCT patent applications in 0,88 31% societal challenges per billion GDP Innovative SMEs 0,47 17% collaborating with others as % of SMEs Public R&D expenditures as 0,45 16% % of GDP
* R2 is the coefficient of determination, which ranges from 0 to 1, and obtained through econometric techniques. It indicates how well data points fit a statistical model, and thus, how much TFP is related to the indicator. The higher the R2 is, the higher the influence of the indicator on TFP is.
3. Actions and Recommendations In KTForce project, an important step has been the categorization of the policies identified and collected by political partners within the 3 Knowledge Transfer areas that the project focuses on. If some policies cover 2 or 3 areas, the policy is included in both areas. In the Romania case, according to table 2 the Technology licensing indicators have a relative importance of 83 % and the U-I Relations Indicator a relative importance of 17% regarding the evolution of TFP. 52
Romania should therefore concentrate their efforts on the development of practices and policies that could influence these two KT areas, and these indicators. In the case of the INCDMTM Bucharest, 7 practices were identified and shared with the partners, as well as uploaded in the KTForce interactive webtool. 1 practice was identified as belonging to the Technology licensing area, 3 belonging to the Spin-off creation and Entrepreneurship and 3 belonging to the University-Industry relations.
The Romanian Review Precision Mechanics, Optics & Mechatronics, 2013, No. 46
Knowledge Transfer Joint Forces for Efficient Innovation Policies – KTFORCE Project Knowledge Transfer Area: Technology licensing PRACTICE 1: Scholarships for a better future. Knowledge Transfer Area: Spin-off creation and Entrepreneurship PRACTICE 2: MECHATREC Regional Cluster PRACTICE 3: Competitiveness Strategic Pole for Mechatronics PRACTICE 4: Technology Platform for Mechatronics, Integronics and Adaptronics Knowledge Transfer Area: University-Industry relation PRACTICE 5: MECAHITECH International Conference PRACTICE 6: Technology transfer and services for industry PRACTICE 7: Grid Benchmarking Network *A detailed information on each practice is available in the interactive webtool available on the project’s website
Bearing in mind the scenario 0 and the result of the 5M analysis, the INCDMTM Bucharest selected the WIT IP Policy practice, shared by Waterford Institute of Technology (WIT), Waterford, Ireland. The implementation of the practice was made in 5 steps: Planning, Transfer methodology, Implementation, Measurement, Updating the plan. The policy recommendations take into consideration the analysis carried out (scenario 0 and future scenario), as well as the weaknesses and threats shown in the regional SWOT analysis, representing the performance of the Bucharest – Ilfov region in the three KTForce fields: Technology Licensing, Spin-off Creation and Entrepreneurship, University-Industry relations Despite the fact that Bucharest - Ilfov is the region with most IPs obtained between 2008 and 2013, the future scenario analysis shows that the regional performance would benefit from policies promoting the Technology licensing area. In order to respond to a lack of proper dialogue between those who offer and those who demand technologies or the use of technologies without a licensing agreement, the implementation of policies that promote the collaboration between Universities and the industry as well as the acquisition of new technologies could benefit the region. Therefore, the policy “technological platforms” from France, which support the new technology based companies and the knowledge intensive services companies, can be a good example in this sense Other policies such as German Policy 14 “ForMat” could also be good inspirations as it focus on bringing the results of research to industry. The area of relations between Universities and industry is also an area where to focus policies so that the regional innovation performance can be improved. For instance, it is important to promote policies focused on R&D tax for Companies (French policy) and Tax incentives for Company Investments in R&D
(Portuguese policy), to increase the interest of companies for research and their capacity to do research and innovation. Moreover, although the future scenario analysis doesn’t mention the spin-off creation and entrepreneurship area, the lack of seed funding for recently-created companies as well as the difficult dialog with banks for obtaining financing and the high costs for innovation, need dedicated policy. Irish Policy: Entrepreneur Business Development Programme (SEEP), aiming to support a viable business with growth and employment potential, and Enterprise Ireland ‘Innovation Partnership Programme, aiming to create technology based firms/new knowledge intensive service firms, are good policy examples and could be implemented in Romania, too. Other policies such as French policy: Support the competitiveness clusters (pôles de compétitivité), could also be good inspirations as they focused on clustering of SMEs with high-growth potential, improving the life cycle of newly established SME’s. The introducing of new products or processes and of a non-technological innovation (marketing and/or organizational innovation) need that support policies to increase the efficiency of R&D public and private sectors and accessibility of SMEs to R&D. Incentive System for creating R&D nuclei in the company sector can have the same good impact as in Portugal: investment in the R&D capabilities of private companies would allow companies to be more flexible with the projects that they choose to undertake, to develop their products and to innovate. Furthermore it gives to companies the possibility to attract young researchers. To improve the weakness and threats revealed in the analyses carried out in the KT Force project, several policies were recommended aiming to foster innovative company’s start-ups and to improve the cooperation university - industry. This also may lead to other forms of cooperation between SMEs and R&D sector, empowering the industrial sector and local economic development. 4. Conclusions The KTForce project brought together 11 partners from all over Europe with the ambitious objective of benchmarking good practices and policies in knowledge transfer in the areas of technology licensing, university-industry relations, spin-off creation and entrepreneurship. This booklet has been designed to provide an overview of the regional situation, the methodology applied in the project and the outcomes and conclusions resulting from it. It is overwhelmingly apparent that the project did indeed achieve its original objectives in terms of analysing practices and policies facilitating knowledge
The Romanian Review Precision Mechanics, Optics & Mechatronics, 2013, No. 46
53
Knowledge Transfer Joint Forces for Efficient Innovation Policies – KTFORCE Project transfer. The 11 partners have not only been able to assess their own activities in the area but they also gained a better understanding of how knowledge transfer is carried out and supported in other, very different European regions, ranging from regions recognised as “innovation leaders” to regions recognised as “modest innovators”. Each partner was able to use the experience of others in order to better identify their own strengths, weaknesses and opportunities. Furthermore, the KTForce project has had some important long-term consequences. First and foremost, the project has been able to put in place the beginnings of a Europe-wide network for knowledge transfer which can undoubtedly be built upon in the future. Finally, the partners of the KTForce project have all
54
been able to learn from other regions but from individual partner members which has paved the way for future collaborations in the same subject area. 5. References [1] Regional Implementation Plan elaborated for Bucharest – Ilfov region [2] KTForce presentations elaborated by P1 – University of Porto in final conference [3] KTForce Newsletters elaborated by P1 – University of Porto with contribution of all partners in the consortium [4] www.ktforce.eu
The Romanian Review Precision Mechanics, Optics & Mechatronics, 2013, No. 46
