Filetype PDF | Posted on 13 Sep 2022 | 4 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
293x Filetype PDF File size 0.04 MB Source: ec.europa.eu
4.1.7.3 Innovation and technology transfer
The primary goal of these investments is to exploit public research activities in
order to support firms with their innovation process. The budget allocation for
ITT (Innovation and Technology Transfer) activities are quite substantial
(estimated 367 MECU=14%). This does not include investments in CSF-
funded TTI-infrastructure (Technology Transfer Centres, Technology Parks) to
host and support new technology based firms (NTBF).
Creation of co-operation and partnerships between the public and private
sector through joint public-private research is a main mechanism for
stimulation of innovation and technology transfer. A second type of ITT-
measures is the provision of competent (public and private) support services
to industry in the field of innovation and product and process development.
Some good examples can be seen in the Netherlands and the New German
Länder.
In some of the countries support for innovation and technology transfer is well
organised and seems to contribute to regional economic development. This
regards specifically Finland, Ireland, UK and Sweden. In other countries the
support is still developing (Spain), has gaps (Austria), is fragmented (Italy) or
receives insufficient attention (Greece).
In Austria, a technology centre (TCE) was funded, housing a number of small
new technology based firms and providing support to them (incubator centre).
In Belgium, several (5) measures are directed at innovation and technology
transfer. The most successful measure to support innovation is a grant
scheme (Rdplus). Two measures were directed at creating intermediate
organisations to create joint public /private R&D projects. These projects
seem to be successful, they resulted in more than 600 projects. Furthermore,
a scientific adventure park is being established that might in the long run have
an indirect effect on innovation.
In Finland, innovation and technology transfer is an element of many of the
measures. Specific initiatives in this area are the development of the design
park project, directly aimed at co-operation between public research and
industry, and the joint projects, carried out by the 6 polytechnical schools in
the region. These measures are considered to be successful.
In France, innovation and technology transfer are generally supported through
support of existing organisations such as CRITT (research centres network).
Technology transfer and innovation are supported through co-operation of
these institutes with industry.
In Greece, most regions don’t have significant innovation and technology
transfer activities. This specifically pertains to Southern Aegean, Northern
Aegean, Ionian Islands, Eastern Macedonia and Western Greece. In some of
these regions however, technology transfer activities are taking place due to
participation in the EPET programme. In Epirus and Crete, activities in the
area of innovation and technology transfer are slowly emerging, with varying
success. Particularly in Crete, activities seem to be rather ineffective. Attica,
96
due to the proximity of Athens, is well served by the support structures for
innovation and technology transfer of Athens
In Ireland, there are comprehensive schemes supporting innovation initiatives
and they compare well with international best practice in respect of RTDI
support. The Funds were particularly used to reinforce the technology centres
and PAT’s. Furthermore, a pilot scheme was launched to encourage
networking between SME’s. Support for product and process development
and for provision of industry support services are strong. Collaborative
research and company training schemes are in operation.
In Italy, support for innovation and technology transfer under the multiregional
programme is particularly given by the measure that funds RTDI projects of
the technology parks. However, most of the technology parks are not yet
operational and the measure is not yet bearing fruit. Some regional
programmes also dedicate measures to innovation and technology transfer
but their impact is not high, sometimes because the measures have not yet
been implemented, sometimes because they particularly relate to large
companies and not to SME’s, sometimes because the measure itself is not
successful. In Abruzzo, laboratories for support of industries are built and an
unsuccessful demonstration programme to demonstrate innovative projects
was launched. In Calabria little support for innovation and technology transfer
is given yet, however the regional administration understands the importance.
In Campania, the regional programme supports joint public-private RTDI-
projects. In Puglia specific measures are directed at innovation (7.4.1) and
technology transfer (7.4.2, 7.4.3). However, these measures have not started.
In Sardegna, technology transfer is increasingly strong between university and
a small group of high tech companies. The support to SME’s in the area of
innovation and technology transfer is still at a low level. In 1997 a meeting
was organised where SME’s and organisations of the supply side could meet.
In Sicily, technology transfer is particularly developed between universities
and a limited number of large companies. Under the regional programme,
several measures are directed at innovation and technology transfer,
however, the measures have not been implemented sofar.
In Portugal, innovation and technology are stimulated under the PEDIP and
the PRAXIS programme. No support is given on a regional level.
Approximately 74% of the funds of the RTD-oriented measures of PEDIP
programme are destined for innovation and technology transfer. The relevant
PEDIP measures fund demonstration projects (successful), joint public-private
research projects, mobilising projects (consortium research projects between
public research and industries) and a measure to support the creation of a
market for public research institutes. The latter measure was a failure.
In Spain, in general support for innovation and technology transfer is not very
well developed. In most of the regions the OTRI’s (agencies for technology
transfer, located near universities) are being strengthened and a programme
of CICYT for promotion of RTDI enjoys a good participation and is a major
driver of technology transfer. Nevertheless, generally university research is
performed without a clear view of industry’s needs. In Andalusia, two
technology parks with European innovation centres projects, stimulate
technology transfer. Asturias Asturias, Canary Islands, Cantabria and Castilla
97
la Mancha regional activities on innovation support and technology transfer
are very limited. In Extremadura, support for innovation and technology
transfer is recognised as important and technology centres are investing in
such services. In Galicia a technology transfer organisation at the University
of Santiago de Compostella was created, and two centres of innovation and
services (CIS) were established (one for wood, one for design and
technology). These offer a range of services to industry. In Murcia, support for
innovation and technology transfer is strengthened through the Institute for
Regional Promotion (IFR) through an innovation relay centre and a series of
technology centres. In Valencia, support for innovation and technology
transfer is limited. OTRI’s in Valencia don’t seem to work very well. Recently a
spin off programme was launched, universities have programmes to stimulate
graduates to start their own business,
In Sweden, innovation and technology transfer receive ample attention. Each
of the RTDI-related projects needs a plan on how to transfer the results.
Innovation and technology transfer are predominantly stimulated through
public-private partnerships, mostly in the area of woodprocessing. There is
only one innovation centre, with limited activities. There are no programmes
for spin offs or start ups.
In the UK, support services for innovation and technology transfer are well
developed. In Northern Ireland, a wide range of instruments exists, supporting
innovation and technology transfer. Particularly TCS (Teaching Companies
Scheme, graduate placement in industry) is acknowledged to be a successful
scheme, participation is not very high (less than 100). The programme
‘Manufacturing Technology Partnership’ is aimed at micro-enterprises but is a
small programme. SME’s in Northern Ireland have stated that they find access
to the support structures difficult. In Merseyside, most of the measures have
an innovation support function or a technology transfer component. Specific
initiatives: the university of Liverpool provides various services to industry
such as Internet training and PIDC (Product Information and Design Centre,
that offers integrated programmes of technology transfer and training in
product design and development). Furthermore, a laser engineering project
offers advice and facilities to help local SME’s to set up and / or develop laser
processes.
4.1.7.4 Management and implementation processes
For the relevant regions (with RTDI in their regional programme) management
processes were assessed on five aspects:
• is management in general considered satisfactory?
• is the legal framework satisfactory? Is the legal mandate for the institutions
and the programmes involved properly specified in laws and regulations?
• Is the institutional framework satisfactory? Specific attention is given to
whether there is an appropriate organisation, with sufficient expertise and
adequately staffed, that is able to implement the measures in a competent
way.
98
• Is the efficiency satisfactory? Main questions are: are there competitive
selection processes, is there openness and transparency, are there
appropriate evaluation procedures, are response times acceptable?
• Is there a separation between policy and policy delivery? Attention is given
to whether policy delivery organisations are able to implement the
measures in a continuous and stable way.
The management and implementation processes in Austria’s Burgenland are
satisfactory. The management is in the hands of a dedicated organisation
(WIBAG), an effective organisation, owned by regional government and run
on a professional basis.
In Belgium, management and implementation processes are satisfactory.
There is a separate unit within the regional administration of Wallonie dealing
with the Objective 1 programme. A shortcoming is that management doesn’t
take place at the regional level (Hainaut) but is done by Wallonie (comprising
more regions than just Hainaut).
In Finland, management of the measures is spread between various
organisations. On the level of individual measures, the implementation of the
programme seems to work quite well. The programme as a whole however
seems to lack coherence, a need is felt for a more concerted approach of
RTDI with strong co-ordination.
In Germany’s Mecklenburg the institutional framework did not change after the
reunification, with serious effects on quality of policy delivery system. The
range of programmes offered is antiquated, compared to other East German
states. In Thuringia, management is provided by the Thuringian Aufbaubank,
in Saxony of Saxonian aufbaubank, both professional organisations. In
Thuringia, regional administration has improved administrative processes after
some initial problems.
In Greece, RTDI programmes under the Funds are to be found in 5 regions
and in the national programme. The other regions do not have specific RTDI-
related programmes. Except for Attica, in all regions management processes
could be improved.
• A proper legal framework only exists at national level and in Epirus. In
other regions, the inadequate legal framework leads to disputes between
competencies of national and regional levels.
• The institutional framework particularly encounters problems in Crete and
Thessaly. The implementation unit of Crete is understaffed and lacks skills.
• Efficiency of implementation is especially low in Thessaly. Too many
organisations are involved, with partly antagonistic visions.
• the desirable separation between policy and implementation is only
present in Attica and in Central Macedonia
In Ireland, a new structure was set up. Compared to 1989/93 period, the
project approval process was streamlined. A change from cueing to tendering
has been implemented. This provided greater transparency. In the new
99
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
