January 25th, 2003Iskra - Ljubljana / Slovenia1. January 25th, 2003Iskra - Ljubljana / Slovenia2.
International Collaboration of CRCs Interim Report- COMPERA Ljubljana
-
Upload
salvatore-phelan -
Category
Documents
-
view
28 -
download
1
description
Transcript of International Collaboration of CRCs Interim Report- COMPERA Ljubljana
International Collaboration of CRCsInterim Report- COMPERA Ljubljana
Patries BoekholtErik ArnoldJon van Til
16 september 2009
2
This presentation
• Overview of what we have done so far
• Main results from literature review, survey and interviews
• Summary of conclusions
• Our proposal for six case studies at CRC level
3
Overview of our approach and planning
Preparation & Kick-offPreparation & Kick-off
Generic study Desktop study and telephone interviews
Generic study Desktop study and telephone interviews
Questionnaire to CRCsQuestionnaire to CRCs
Interim Report & Meeting 2Interim Report & Meeting 2
Case StudiesCase Studies
Synthesis, Final Report & Meeting 3
Synthesis, Final Report & Meeting 3
May
June-August
September
September/
October
November/December
4
Method
• Survey
• 191 Invitations to CRC managers in the COMPERA
programmes.
• Response: n=42; response rate: 22%.
• Response rate low in Slovenia (0%), Germany (8%), and
Northern-Ireland (10%)
• For the other countries, generally a good response rate
• Interviews
• Interviews with programme managers
• We were not able to contact all managers.
5
Attention to different levels of actors
National & RegionalFunding Agencies
Private sector participants
Public sector participants
Competence Research Centres
Private sector participants
Public sector participants
Competence Research Centres
National & RegionalFunding Agencies
CRC programmes CRC programmes
Country A Country X, Y, Z
6
Trends in internationalisation of S&T policy• Spurred by discussions of the Lisbon agenda and
particularly ERA• EU Commission is pleading for better coordination in
S&T policy:• Debate on Joint Programming• Debate on ‘Opening-Up’ of national programmes• Via ERA-type measures such as ERA-NETs, but also Joint
Technology Initiatives• Political support more clear for basic research and
‘societal challenges’ than for industrially oriented research and public-private CRC type centres
• It is not a European development alone• Non-European CRC programmes starting to include foreign
partners• BRICS are active in setting up more S&T collaborations
7
External drivers for increased policy attention• The emergence of the BRIC countries and particularly China as a country with a
large research and technological development capacity that is becoming recognised for meeting high international quality standards
• The increased political debate and urgency of global challenges such as climate change, health issues and sustainable energy resources
• The globalisation of R&D, which is not a new phenomenon, but it is becoming more visible particularly in industrial research and also in the world wide mobility of researchers
• Particularly in Europe, general demographic developments and the decreasing share of graduates in science and engineering have made the shortage of research talent very urgent; STI collaboration can be used to attract talent from partner countries
• The ERA type debates in Europe
9
Internationalisation in COMPERA countries
• In all but one case (Germany) no explicit and codified S&T internationalisation strategy
• Austria, Estonia and Sweden allow foreign participants (including funding), Flanders through subcontracting only, Germany allows membership without funding, for others it is not allowed
• Still political resistance against funding flows going abroad
• Internationalisation a secondary role, partly because many programmes are very young
10
Barriers at programme level
• Absence of policy (and political) incentives to co-operate internationally
• Lack of funding
• Fear of losing competitiveness advantage
• Different national framework conditions (incl. IPR)
• Practical issues
11
However, CRC-managers feel supported….
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Totally agree Agree Neutral Disagree Totally disagree
Our national (or regional) CRC funding organisation is very supportive of international co-operation of our CRC
13
Modes of collaboration
69%
59%
41% 41%38%
31% 31%28%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Cross-borderresearch
programmeswith multi-
national interests
Mobility offoreign actors(researchers)between CRCs
Opening up of aspecific researchprogramme toparticipants ofother countries,
i.e. allowingforeign
participants in anational
programme
Bilateral co-operation withforeign CRCs
Allowing fullparticipation offoreign actors in
the CRC
Networks ofCRCs: co-operation
between themanagement ofCRCs in various
countries
Joint activities inthird countries
(Non-EUcountries)
The brokerageand partnering of
individualmembers from
CRCs in differentcountries
14
Drivers for international collaboration
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
New sources of knowledge on how to manage a competencecentre
Access to / training of qualified human capital
New and additional sources of thematic knowledge
Increase critical mass
New funding sources
Become involved in international development projects
Opportunities to raise quality of the work undertaken
Become more attractive as a location for research centres andmultinationals
New market opportunities
Very important Important Unimportant Very unimportant
15
Desired collaboration partners
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
With foreign CRCs
With foreign companies
With foreign researchinstitutes
Very important Important Unimportant Very unimportant n/a
16
For who is collaboration important?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
NGOs
Public research institutes
Private research institutes
Large companies
SMEs
Academic research groups
Very important Important Unimportant Very unimportant N/A
17
Planned cooperation modes in next 5 years
82%
69%64%
46% 46% 44%36%
31%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Cross-borderresearch
programmeswith multi-
nationalinterests
Mobility offoreign actors(researchers)between CRCs
Bilateral co-operation withforeign CRCs
Fullparticipation offoreign actors
in the CRC
Joint activitiesin third
countries (non-EU countries)
Networks ofCRCs: co-operation
between themanagementof CRCs in
variouscountries
Opening up ofa specificresearch
programme toparticipants ofother countries
Internationalbrokerageservices
18
Selection criteria for partners
5.81
4.78 4.69 4.694.25
2.76
1.45
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sector /technological
themes
Key universities /research institutes
in the CRC
Key companies inthe CRC
Excellence ofscience in the
targeted countries
Potential marketopportunities in thetargeted countries
Geographicalproximity
Other determinants
19
Geographical direction of collaboration
85%
77%
49%
33%
15% 13% 10%5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
EU-wide Neighbouringcountries
Non-EU: US Non-EU: Asia Non-EU: South-America
Non-EU:countries informer USSR
Non-EU:Mediterraneancountries (incl.North Africa,Middle East)
Non-EU: Africa
20
Barriers to international cooperation for CRC-managers
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Language barriers
Academia are not willing to co-operate
Private sector members are notwilling to co-operate
Distance /time zone barriers
National programme regulations donot allow international co-operation
IPR Regulations
Difficulties finding required partners
Constraints in budget and/or time
Large barrier Barrier Small barrier Not at all a barrier
21
Main conclusions
• International collaboration not yet common across CRC (programmes)
• At programme level: lack of political support main barrier
• At CRC level: funding/time, finding partners, IPR
• Mostly using international research programmes as mode to overcome the funding barrier
• Foreign research institutions most popular as partner
• CRC-CRC cooperation not very high on the agenda
22
We used a set of criteria for the selection of case studies:
• The number of international co-operations;
• The visibility of the co-operations to the programme managers;
• Good geographical spread;
• Mix of virtual and physical CRCs;
• Mix of regional and national CRCs;
• Mix of different instruments
• Mix of EU co-operations and co-operations with third countries (i.e. extra-EU co-operation)
• The extent to which CRCs are internationalised.
23
Suggested case studies
• K2 Mobility Centre in Austria (Automotive)• VIB in Flanders (Life Sciences)• ELIKO in Estonia (ICT)• AIDICO in Valencia (Construction)• Sweden GigaHerz Centre• BalticNet Plasmatec in Germanny (Plasma
Technology)