Higher Education Institutions and Innovation (9)

1. Distribution of the education level reached by the population in the 25-64 age bracket, in OECD countries

2. Higher Education Institutions and Innovation (9) • Lifelong Learning should be a task for all types of HEI and thus, should not be considered as a discriminating factor • The 5 factors which can be used for establishing a distinction between the types of HEI, classified in University (U) and Non University (NU), are : • Specialisation (NU) vs Interdisciplinarity (NU) • International character (U essentially) • Regional impact (Both U and NU) • R&D Intensity ( U and not necessarily all U) • Support to Innovation ( advanced for U, incremental for NU)

3. Higher Education Institutions and Innovation (10) • The two next slides illustrate the preceding considerations: • The first slide illustrates in a humorous way, the true difficulty for communicating between the University and the traditional SMEs. The latter are more at ease for their innovation requirements, mostly incremental, with non-university structures • The second slide gives, in the form of a polar diagram, the possible distribution of tasks between the University structures and the Non-University ones • As case study, the following slides will be devoted to University Spin-Offs

4. Example of relation betweenUniversity and traditional SMEs ! (FT, 13 Oct 1995)

5. Comparative Situation between the two types of HEI, University and Non University

6. The Success of University Spin-offs (1) • University spin-offs are emerging recently as one of the most succesful forms of knowledge transfer giving to Universities a reinforced status among efficient innovation mechanisms • Definition of Spin-Off: must leave the mother organisation, created with or without consent of the latter. Hence the distinction between Push Spin-Offs due to the deliberate will of the University and Pull Spin-Offs created without its assistance or consent (including students’ spin-offs)

7. The Success of University Spin-offs (2) • A detailed analysis performed by the Université de Liège, Centre de Recherche PME et d’Entrepreneuriat, in November 1999 A long march before eventual success between research results and value creation: • Generate, evaluate ideas for a new venture • Develop a project • Start the entreprise • Consolidate the entreprise

8. The Success of University Spin-offs (3) Importance of the role of several actors in the successful development of spin-offs • The Universities themselves: model KUL • The Incubators: model Weizmann Institute or Twente • The Entrepreneurships Centres: model University of Lindköping • The Poles of Excellence: model North Carolina Research Triangle Park

9. The Success of University Spin-offs (4) • The Financial Partners: model Scottish Technology Fund • The Public Authorities The synergy between these various partners is essential for success. Too often, one or another component is missing in the chain

10. The Success of University Spin-offs (5) • Not all successful spin-offs are of the Silicon Valley (IT) type, at least in the Belgian case • In terms of creation, the priorities are as follows: NTIC 32%, Life Sciences 21%, Consulting 20%, Production,Machinery,Equipment 11%, Environment 6%, others 10% • But in terms of Positive Return on Equity, the success ratio gives a different picture: Environment 35%, Production, etc. 30%, Life Sciences 25%, Consulting 24%, NTIC 19%

11. The Success of University Spin-offs (6) • The attraction for University Spin-offs could sometimes clash with the academic culture and with some other forms of innovation in Universities, as exemplified by the example of the Media Laboratory

12. Problems at Media Lab (1) • Media Laboratory at MIT has been a model of cooperative research. Nicholas Negroponte is laboratory co-founder. It is the academic home for about 400 students, professors and research scientists • There are very few contracts for directed research. It is characterized by open-ended, »pie-in-the-sky » research, with open policies on fund raising and intellectual property. 90% of the 35 Million$ budget are contributed by about 160 sponsors having access to any innovation coming out of the lab

13. Problems at Media Lab (2) • Sponsors can obtain royalty-free licenses for any technology patented during their membership. • The pool of patents prohibits any sponsor from having an edge over any other • This very fine, successful system for 15 years is put in jeopardy by the greed of professors and students starting or joining technology companies and claiming ownership on their work

14. Problems at Media Lab (3) • The example of Prof. Jacobson, the discoverer of electronic ink at Media Lab sitting on the Board of E Ink, a company developing this discovery • The example of a student asking his professor to sign a nondisclosure form before he could grade his work • The trend appears also in other US universities; the prospect of quick profits for individuals leads talented students and professors to claim intellectual property rights on the same footing as sponsors, creating conflicts of interest. Will it be possible in the future to reconciliate profit making and academic ideals?

15. e-Science and e-Technology (1) • The tremendous development of Information and Communication Technologies has brought profound change in the way to conduct business. e-Commerce is very on to-day’s agenda • Will Science and Technology experience the same transformation ? Are we on the path towards e-Science and e-Technology ?

16. e-Science and e-Technology (2) • The ICT revolution will bring profound changes in the way S&T are conducted, notably in the following areas: • It will facilitate the creation of virtual research networks named « digital collaboratories ». This new approach to S&T co-operation relaxes the need for mastering all necessary disciplines at the same place but reinforces the need for achieving scientific excellence

17. e-Science and e-Technology (3) • It will ease the remote access to research facilities such as astronomical observatories, accelerators, wind tunnels, as well as to global metadata bases (digital libraries and archives). This evolution places research in Universities on a more equal footing with research in dedicated Research Centres

18. e-Science and e-Technology (4) • New supercomputers, also remotely accessible, will open new horizons for research. Enhanced modelling and simulation,virtual reality will accelerate the process of knowlege creation. « In silico » experiments will complete more classical forms of testing

19. e-Science and e-Technology (5) • Technological developments lead to the production of large amounts of experimental data e.g. • In astronomy, a single modern telescope produces 1 Terabyte/year of data • Satellites in polar orbit will produce yearly 20 Terabytes of Earth Observation data, the equivalent in information contents to a million books • The new accelerator at CERN (LHC) will produce, from 2005 onwards, 1 Petabyte/year of filtered data, the equivalent in storage to 1 million CD-Roms

20. e-Science and e-Technology (6) • Hence, new techniques of « data mining », data analysis, using artificial intelligence, will be required • To master such evolution, the scientific community will require: • New ICT infrastructures for access to information networks, high speed data links and improved LANs • Specialists to exploit these new opportunities • A new organisation of scientific work , in order to reap fully the benefits of this technological leap forward

21. e-Science and e-Technology (7) • Organizational Innovation will be, in the future, as crucial as Technological Innovation for the conduct of e-Science and e-Technology • The Nomura Institute has recommended that Society, after going through the agricultural age and the industry age to the information age of to-day, should make the transition to the creativity age. Science should be at the forefront of such transition

22. S&T and regional development (1) • S&T are clearly a factor of regional development. Reciprocally, regions are playing a role in S&T, which are no longer an exclusive competence of nations. At least three levels of competence emerge:European, National and Regional • The division of responsibilities between these levels should be guided by the principle of subsidiarity, as explained later in the presentation, but before doing so, the position of European regions in terms of S&T potential should be examined

29. A new distribution of roles between actors in regional development • Industry as performer or acquirer of R&D will continue to pursue its own strategy. Industry will be attentive to competitive advantages of regions for implanting its activities. Once established, it can have a bearing on S&T development at regional level • Regional development in S&T will be driven essentially by public authorities.The redistribution of roles among public actors at various levels will probably be the most important factor of success

30. The traditional role of public authorities in S&T (1) • 1. Providing an adequate base in education and training • 2. Carrying the main burden of promoting basic science • 3. Providing the necessary infrastructures for S&T development • 4. Sharing with the private sector the burden of specific high risk, long term advanced technological developments

31. The traditional role of public authorities in S&T (2) • 5.Creating a favourable organisational, legal, financial and regulatory framework for innovation • 6.Acting as lead customer for innovative products or services How to distribute these functions between the various levels of public government? In Europe, the application of the principle of Subsidiarity has constituted a useful guideline, favouring the development of the role of regional and local governments

32. The Principle of Subsidiarity (1) • The explicit reference to this principle is found in Article 3B of the Maastricht Treaty (1992) but its application dates from the inception of the EC • In essence, it recommends to act as closely as possible from the citizen. A higher level of government should intervene « only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the lower level, and can therefore by reason of scale and effects of the proposed action be better achieved by the higher level »

33. The Principle of Subsidiarity (2) • In general, the application of the principle has been useful in determining the role of the various public actors in S&T • However, a too strict application could lead to the systematic exclusion of having actions in the same field performed at more than one level. Such restriction could be detrimental to the overall efficacy of the system. “Plurality without inefficiencies” rather than strict exclusivity should be the model How do these considerations apply specifically to Regions?

34. The application of the Subsidiarity principle

35. Key factors for a successful regional role (1) Subsidiarity opens new doors for Regions; to exploit fully the new opportunities, some key factors have to be taken into account: • Ensure the presence of a strong base in higher education and vocational training, including lifelong learning • Promote local scientific excellence, in order to secure a place on the global scene, to attract industrial activities

36. Key factors for a successful regional role (2) • The role of high quality higher education institutions is essential, more important than the presence of large S&T facilities • Invest heavily in ITC infrastructures, a necessary condition for participating in the development of e- Science (virtual universities, digital collaboratories), for being part of the global e-Economy. The e-Society gives a chance to less favoured regions to soften their competitive disadvantage

37. Key factors for a successful regional role (3) • Play a significant role in innovation combining knowledge centres, industrial clusters, and local users; promote regional collective learning • Act as a lead customer for innovative products, notably from local SME’s • Lead an aggressive environmental policy favouring innovative technologies, create the conditions for win-win situations for industries and citizens

38. Key factors for a successful regional role (4) • More generally, promote culture as a factor of sustainable development , making the cultural element of the local quality of life, a factor of attraction for S&T actors

39. The Case of LFR’s • Regions benefiting from EU structural funds tend to gain more autonomy in S&T, but does this (relative) autonomy lead to a better management of S&T and of innovation? • The case study of the so-called “Less Favoured Regions” (LFR’s) in the EU gives useful hints about the innovation mechanism in general

40. Characteristics of LFR’s in terms of Innovation • The Gross Expenditure in R&D is lower than 0.5% of the regional GDP • The fraction of Business Expenditure in R&D is less than 40% of the Gross Expenditure in R&D • The number of patents is very limited • There are very few radical innovations

41. Characteristics of LFR’s in terms of industry/culture • Limited manufacturing activities leading to little agglomeration and spill-overs • Concentration on traditional sectors • Productive companies are small • Short term perspective • Limited resources for strategic management • Strong intervention of national governments • Sudden exposure to globalisation and Single Market

42. Innovation in less favoured regions (1) • In LFR’s, the Technology Gap is greater than the Economy Gap, as shown by the following figures for EU Objective 1 regions : • 26% of population • 15% of GDP as opposed to: • 4% of RDTpersonnel • 2% of patenting activities • As presented previously, large differences do exist not only between regions inside the European Union but also inside Member States

43. Innovation in less favoured regions (2) • There has been a significant help of EU to the Regions: Structural Funds as percentage of GDP:Ireland 2.4 %, Greece 3.7%, Spain 1.6%, Portugal 3.8 % • In Objective 1 regions , 5 % of the total EU support is affected to R&D • The contribution of Structural Funds represents a large fraction of the Gross Expenditure in R&D for Portugal

44. Innovation in less favoured regions (3) • Did the injection of funds bear fruits in terms of technology and innovation? • The evaluation of the impact of Structural Funds 1994-1999 has given some elements of the answer to such question. In general, investing in technology has not been necessarily the right way to tackle the “technology gap” Why? Probably, key factors for success have been overlooked

45. Innovation in less favoured regions (4) Key factors for success for Innovation: • Accurate vision of objectives to be pursued • Capability to manage complex phenomena • Flexibility of mind • Will to open to external world • Creativity potential • Capability to acquire new knowledge • Good perception of technological evolution • Capability to adapt quickly to changes in design and operation

46. Innovation in less favoured regions (5) • Regions have in general overestimated the role of technology and underestimated the difficulties of implementation and the importance of the social processes surrounding technology transfer • They have over-invested or mis-invested in activities with low social value • They did not realise that there was no linear causality relation between economic growth and R&D investment

47. Innovation in less favoured regions (6) • How should regions, in particular less favoured regions (LFR’S), work for an efficient development of technology and innovation? • Do not consider technology enhancement as a target per se, but develop it as part of an overall innovation strategy • Develop the necessary skills for policy formulation and implementation at local level • Build a consensus among all actors • Ensure an adequate coordination with the national level

48. Innovation in less favoured regions (7) • Ensure an effective utilisation of the acquired capacity; a reinforced infrastructure is just one among many ways to promote innovation: knowledge and skills should also be considered • Favour Trans-regional collaboration • Improve the technology absorption capacity of the business sector: programmes should include a strong “demand driven” component and should link technology to production • Increase the fraction of business expenditure in R&D in the total regional R&D expenditure