THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR DRIVING … Second Report Revised20101122... · 2016. 9....

Cape Higher Education Consortium

THE

DEVELOPMENT OF A CONCEPTUAL

MODEL

FOR DRIVING INNOVATION

IN THE WESTERN CAPE

Research Report 2:

International lessons and examples

26 October 2010 (revised 22 November 2010)

Prepared by ODA and Allan Taylor Consulting

Allan Taylor Consulting

© CHEC, 2010

Contact details:

ODA (Pty) Ltd

Contact Martin Nicol

Practice Leader: Economic Policy and Research, ODA

Postal address PO Box 16526, Vlaeberg, 8018

Physical address Unit F3, 155 Loop Street, Cape Town.

Telephone 021 4222 970

Facsimile 021 4222 934

Cell phone 082 554 9880

E-mail [email protected]

Web www.oda.co.za

Allan Taylor Consulting

Contact Allan Taylor

Telephone 021.685.4304

Facsimile 086.671.7437

Cell phone 072.200.5900

E-mail [email protected]

Second Report: International Lessons and Examples Revised

Contents

Background –where the report fits in ................................................................ 6

The Innovation Hub – case study ....................................................................... 9

HISTORY AND LESSONS LEARNT FROM THE INNOVATION HUB EXPERIENCE ............. 9

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 9

2. Chronology of development of the Innovation Hub ......................................................... 9

3. Successes and Failures of the Innovation Hub ................................................................17

4. Replicating the Science Park concept elsewhere in South Africa .................................. 22

5. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 25

6. Commentary ...................................................................................................................... 26

Literature review conclusions .......................................................................... 31

1. The importance of context ................................................................................................ 31

2. International perspectives on driving innovation .......................................................... 45

3. CHEC conclusions from Barcelona and England ........................................................... 56

4. Science Park issues in the literature ................................................................................ 61

Bibliography .................................................................................................... 68

Appendix ......................................................................................................... 72

CHEC, “Planning to make the best use of Universities in promoting economic and social

development” (2009) ............................................................................................................... 72

Acknowledgements We are most grateful to all the people we interviewed and consulted with in preparing this

report.


List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

AMTL Advanced Manufacturing Technology Laboratory (at CPUT)

AMTS Advanced Manufacturing Technology Strategy

BRIC Biotechnology Regional Innovation Centre

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CHEC Cape Higher Education Consortium

CIMM Cape Initiative in Materials and Manufacturing

CoE Centre of Excellence

COFISA Cooperation Framework on Innovation Systems between Finland and SA

CPUT Cape Peninsula University of Technology

CRC Cooperative Research Centres

CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research

DEDT Department of Economic Development & Tourism, Western Cape Provincial

Government

DST Department of Science and Technology

DTI Department of Trade and Industry

ECDI East City Design Initiative

ELIDZ East London Industrial Development Zone

ERC Engineering Research Centers (USA)

GEDA Gauteng Economic Development Agency

GEP Gauteng Enterprise Propeller

GIE Global Innovation Environments

HEFCE Higher Education Funding Council for England (UK)

HEI Higher Education Institution

IASP International Association of Science Parks

ICT information and communications technology

IDP Integrated Development Plan

IH Innovation Hub

IP Intellectual Property

ISPP Industry-student project programme

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

MRC Medical Research Council of South Africa

NACI National Advisory Council on Innovation

NCE Networks of Centres of Excellence (Canada)

NESTA National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (UK)

NIS National Innovation System

NMMU Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

NRF National Research Foundation

NSI National System of Innovation

NWDA North West Development Agency (UK)

PAMTS Provincial Advanced Manufacturing Technology Strategy (W Cape)

PCB Parc Científic de Barcelona (Barcelona Science Park)

PFMA Public Finance Management Act

PGWC Provincial Government of the Western Cape

PPP Public Private Partnership

PSC Project Steering Committee

R&D Research and Development


R&D Research and Development

RALIS Rapid Appraisal of the Local Innovation System

RDA Regional Development Associations

RIS regional innovation system

SAIAMC South African Institute of Advanced Materials Chemistry (UWC)

SARChI South African Research Chairs Initiative

SERA Southern Education and Research Alliance (CSIR and UP venture to

participate in TIH)

SET science, engineering and technology

SLA Service Level Agreement

SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMME, includes ‘Micro’ enterprises).

The intention is to refer to individual- or family-owned business with fewer

than 200 employees.

SMME Small Medium and Micro Enterprise

SOE State-Owned Enterprises

SP science park

SPV Special Purpose Vehicle

STI Science, Technology and Industry

SRA Special Rating Area

STP Science/Technology Park

SU Stellenbosch University

the dti Department of Trade and Industry

THRIP Technology and Human Resources for Industry Programme

TIA Technology Innovation Agency

TIH The Innovation Hub

TRRA Toronto Regional Research Alliance

TTO Technology Transfer Office

UCT University of Cape Town

UdG Universitat de Girona (University of Girona)

UP University of Pretoria

URP university research park

UWC University of the Western Cape

VC venture capital

WSU Walter Sisulu University


Background –where the report fits in

ODA and Allan Taylor Consulting were appointed by the University of the Western Cape

(UWC) (on behalf of CHEC) in July 2010 to undertake a six month research assignment on

Developing a Conceptual Model for Driving Innovation in the Western Cape.

The study is to support CHEC discussions and decision making on science parks and other

interventions to maximise the role of universities in innovation in the Western Cape.

The original proposal for the project which was approved by the DST focused specifically on

a science park in Bellville and the intention is that the research process will allow a decision

about this matter to be taken. The current proposal takes a broader view and considers the

demand for physical infrastructure to promote innovation in the context of a strategy for or

an analysis of “innovation culture”. The study will consider the best set of regional initiatives

(which may or may not include a science park) for the Western Cape, prioritising the role

that can be played by HEIs.

A service level agreement was entered into between UWC and ODA Pty (Ltd) in July 2010

which includes the terms of reference for the project.

The project programme specifies the following activity schedule:

Jul-

10

Aug-

10

Sep-

10

Oct-

10

Nov-

10

Dec-

10

Project Initiation

Situation Analysis in the Western

Cape

Careful review of COFISA report

Review of other documentation

Targeted interviews – W Cape

Targeted interviews – Gauteng

Research Report 1

International lessons and examples

Review of literature

Research Report 2


Jul-

10

Aug-

10

Sep-

10

Oct-

10

Nov-

10

Dec-

10

Land and building issues

Issues related to the Bellville site

Other possible site issues

Research Report 3 (including insights from

R1&R2)

Consultations with PSC

Workshop with Provincial

Stakeholders

Final reports

This second report summarises desk-top research on international lessons related to the role

of universities in innovation. This includes triple helix relationships and relationships

between universities and business and society, in the context of innovation (defined in the

first report). It reflects on the role of science parks in innovation and their link to the HEI

sector.

The main example drawn upon for lessons on the implementation of a science park is that of

The Innovation Hub in Pretoria. With a ten year history behind it, TIH is the only example of

a formal science park in South Africa, being accredited as a member of the International

Association of Science Parks (IASP). The analysis of TIH rests on a series of interviews with

the present management of TIH, and its founders.

Interviews were held with the following people:

Innovation Hub, Pretoria

Mr Thibi Matshele:

Chief Operating Officer , The Innovation Hub, Pretoria 13.08.2010

08.00 – 09.30 Mr Nkhulu Maboya:

Assistant Marketing and Value added Services, The Innovation

Hub, Pretoria

Dr Neville Comins:

Interim Technical Advisor for Pre-Inception Phase : SA Innovation

Survey (SAIS) Programme (founder CEO of TIH)

23.08.2010

10.30- 12.00

Prof Robin Crewe, Vice-Principal: Research & Postgraduate

studies, University of Pretoria

27.08.2010

08.30- 09.00


Other contacts:

Mr Davis Cook, the lead developer of the Gauteng Innovation Strategy; head of Economic Strategy for BlueIQ1 Investment Holdings, an agency of the Gauteng Department of Economic Development.

email contact

1 Blue IQ “is a multi-billion rand initiative of the Gauteng provincial government to invest in economic infrastructure development in identified mega-projects in the areas of tourism, technology, transport and high value-added manufacturing”. (www.southafrica.info/business/investing/help/blueiq.htm)


The Innovation Hub – case study

HISTORY AND LESSONS LEARNT FROM THE INNOVATION HUB EXPERIENCE

1. Introduction

The Innovation Hub (IH) is the only internationally recognized Science Park in South

Africa2. The Hub is located on a large 60 hectare site on the N1/N4 crossing, in Pretoria,

opposite the CSIR campus. 31 ha of the property is earmarked for development, which will

eventually provide 121 000 sqm in commercial space. Currently, 24 600 sqm of office space

has been built and it is fully occupied. An expansion of 31 000 sqm is anticipated in 2011.

The Hub grew out of a double-helix partnership between the University of Pretoria, the CSIR

and the Gauteng Provincial Government’s Blue IQ initiative in 2000. Today it houses several

facilities, including coaching and incubation, to assist in driving innovation in the Province.

However, being the first of its kind the Innovation Hub has also experienced teething

problems over the 10 years of its existence. This chapter outlines the historical development

of the science park and elaborates on its success factors and the challenges it has faced in

establishing itself as an innovation driver in the region. Interviews conducted with IH staff,

the former IH CEO and the University of Pretoria have revealed lessons for other science

park initiatives in the country.

2. Chronology of development of the Innovation Hub

2.1 Birth and development of a Science Park

The Gauteng Provincial Government developed a Trade and Industry Strategy in 1994 that

aimed to influence the future growth path for the region. This was based on the fact that the

province boasted high education levels, a strong resource of intellectual capital and hosted

many national and international businesses. The Strategy specifically focused on stimulating

knowledge intensive services as an area for sector growth.

In order to identify possible projects to deliver in this growth sector, the CSIR undertook a

study in 1997, which resulted in the proposal to develop a science park (SP). Initially, some

members of the Gauteng provincial administration promoted the concept of an ICT park and

2 Recognition by the International Association of Science Parks.


training facility in Samrand Park between Pretoria and Johannesburg. However this site did

not meet the requirement of being located close to knowledge generating institutions, one of

the success factors indicated by the Cabral Paradigm3, which was relied upon at the time. As

a result, the CSIR and University of Pretoria (UP) developed a partnership which was driven

by Prof. Johan van Zyl (then vice-chancellor and principal of the University of Pretoria) and

the CSIR CEO and President, Dr Geoff Garrett. The UP experimental farm was identified as

the ideal site for a SP as it was located adjacent to the CSIR and UP on the ‘knowledge axis’

between the two institutions. The selection of the site for The Innovation Hub was a strategic

decision and was envisaged to facilitate the flow of knowledge between the institutions and

assist in growing high-tech companies.

The concept of developing a SP on that specific site was presented to the then Gauteng MEC

who requested a formal proposal within a week. The proposal was approved and the

partnership between the research institutions and government was formalised in an Interim

Governance Committee in April 2000 consisting of two parties: Blue IQ (then in formation)

and the Southern Education and Research Alliance (SERA). SERA was a formal partnership

between UP and CSIR which became the responsible interface with government. In 2001, the

Gauteng Provincial Government launched its Blue IQ initiative “to oversee the

implementation of eleven mega projects in tourism, smart industries and value-added

manufacturing to stimulate sustainable economic growth in the region”.

Both Blue IQ and SERA were newly established and the process from conceptualization of

the SP to approval and implementation went very quickly. Within months the project was

launched and R 258 million was made available for the project by the Gauteng government.

The relationship between SERA and Blue IQ was formalized with the appointment of a Board

of Directors to guide the strategic direction of the project. The first Board meeting took place

in November 20005. Initially, shareholding between Blue IQ and SERA was split 50% each.

SERA had contributed the 60 ha tract of land and Blue IQ had put forward the funding for

the implementation of the bulk infrastructure (roads, water and sanitation, storm water,

highway bridges, fencing and several buildings etc). The Innovation Hub Management

Company would be run according to the 50/50 shareholding between SERA and Blue IQ.

3 Cabral, R. (2004) “The Cabral–Dahab Science Park Management Paradigm applied to the case of Kista, Sweden”. International Journal of Technology Management - Vol. 28, No.3/4/5/6 pp.419-43. 5 The Innovation Hub (2002) Annual Report 2002.


However, shortly after establishment of the IH concept, the leadership of the participating

institutions changed and the successors to the initial champions at the CSIR and UP (ie.

SERA) reconsidered their role of being directly involved in the management of the initiative.

Similarly, Blue IQ management also changed and the province indicated that they wanted

ownership of the land. Subsequent to the purchase of the land for R 60 million from UP, the

shareholding with SERA was dissolved and the CSIR withdrew from the project. Blue IQ

became the sole management and implementation agent. This came into effect as from

March 2003.

Blue IQ implemented the bulk and accessibility infrastructure and built the Innovation

Building and the Enterprise Building. At the time, Provincial town planning regulations,

based on the Development Facilitation Act, was used for the site. However, this approach

was unpopular with cities as it was perceived to override their decision making powers. As a

result the City of Tshwane became an objector to the project which led to delays in getting

approvals on the rezoning and land transfer. The site was occupied in 2005.

The project had been well underway by the time that the buildings were occupied as the

Innovation Hub started off as a pilot project in 2001. The pilot, called Hub2B, was located at

temporary premises in Pretoria, and consisted of three elements:

• An Incubator (later named Maxum) which focused on providing incubation support

to SMEs in an economy where Small and Medium start-up firms attained very little

assistance,

• The Innov8 Community was established providing a marketing and communication

platform for sharing ideas between emergent firms, academia and the industry.

Characterized by constant communication, providing a knowledge centre, and

providing incubating companies with the opportunity to present their developments,

it grew its initial membership from 20 to 5,000 registered participants. In addition,

through the Innov8 Community, more than 100 business and information visits were

hosted at the pilot site6.

• The Innovation Hub Management Company (Pty) Ltd, the formal management

structure, was established to manage the physical implementation of The Innovation

Hub7.

The initial mandate of the Innovation Hub Management Company, as stipulated in the

Memorandum of Understanding and the Shareholders’ Agreement, was:

“To establish a high technology hub in Gauteng. The purpose of this hub is to

develop infrastructure to implement and stimulate high technology business [by

housing] high-tech firms and institutions as well as other essential components

6 The Innovation Hub (2002) Annual Report 2002. 7 The Innovation Hub (2002) Annual Report 2002.


such as incubators, venture capital funders, etc that will form the basis for a

world class innovation corridor in the province. The hub will be located in the

Pretoria geographic area running from the University of Pretoria in the West to

the CSIR in the East.”8

Within its mandate the management company was responsible for the creation of a “world-

class facility with customised, state-of-the art infrastructure and value adding services and

networks that will provide tenants with a competitive advantage in their local and global

market places. The sustainability of the project will depend on an optimum tenant uptake

that will accelerate new knowledge creation and commercialisation through clustering,

networking and providing relevant business support services”9

From these initiatives it is clear that the IH provided Added Value services from the outset.

The Innov8 Community was so successful that it provided to be the main marketing platform

for the Hub. It assisted in filling the Enterprise and Innovation Building with incubating

companies in year one. The buildings were all fully occupied in the first year and almost one

hundred companies who also wanted to locate to the SP put their names on a waiting list.

When the site was occupied in 2005, the aim was that the IH would provide support to Start-

up Companies and SMEs through its Enterprise and Innovation Buildings. The intention was

that this would be underpinned by attracting multinational companies to the park who

would be allowed to purchase a land parcel on the site for the development of their facilities

pending strict entry criteria. As a result, Sappi (a SA-based global paper and pulp group) and

Bigen Africa (one of South Africa’s leading engineering consultancies) built their offices on

the site with the aim of them becoming anchor tenants in the park. The remainder of

resident companies are housed The Enterprise Building and the Innovation Centre.

However, Blue IQ changed the land sale policy in 2005, limiting the sale of land only to

government projects and special / strategic projects. The current model is based on the PPP

route of ‘build, operate, transfer’. The interested company is allowed to design, fund, build

and operate a building for a 40 year lease after which it is transferred to state ownership.

Under this model, the IH aims at allocating the land to 51% to government and 49% to

commercial ventures. Entry criteria are strict and are based on an international survey

conducted at the outset of the project (they utilize an entry criteria framework similar to that

followed in Hong Kong). However, this shift in land policy resulted in companies

8 The Innovation Hub (2002) Annual Report 2002. 9 The Innovation Hub (2002) Annual Report 2002.


withdrawing interest in locating to the Innovation Hub and has resulted in no new

companies investing in their own buildings on the Hub.

There is some optimism that the market is increasingly developing interest in PPP models of

this kind. However, reservations persist about the brief lease period of 40 years, which is too

short for commerce to develop appetite for investment. Even a proposed increase to 50 to 60

years did not encourage developers who by this stage were disenchanted.

In future, as mentioned above, the IH will only sell land to government projects and special /

strategic projects. Two such initiatives are the Institute of Aviation Medicine (by the Defence

Department) and the University of Pretoria Institute of Molecular Science; the latter of

which was at the time of writing (August 2010) awaiting acceptance of the offer to purchase.

These two developments will more than double the current available space of the park by

31 000 sqm. The IH is also looking at expanding by adding two additional Enterprise

buildings. This will be government funded and assist in expanding current SME support and

incubation facilities.

The Innovation Hub is zoned as “The Innovation Hub” and has special zoning rights in order

to prevent retail or industrial development on the site. The descriptors for the zoning are the

entry criteria, which reinforces the purpose of the SP.10

The Hub has an Urban Masterplan that integrates infrastructure development with the core

of the SP’s business concept/ strategy through key urban design principles. The Masterplan

sets out the criteria for the development of the buildings on the site (not Tuscan Style, for

example!) and encourages the development of high quality infrastructure that will encourage

social exchange. For example the space is not dominated by huge car-parks. Most parking in

the complex is basement parking; people are encouraged to walk between buildings through

a pedestrian friendly design.

2.2 Activities and Initiatives

The IH’s focus is on 5 knowledge areas:

• ICT;

• Biotech;

• Aerospace;

• Energy and sustainable environment; and most recently

• Green Economy.

10 Internationally, however, there has been a movement towards third generation SPs that endorse mixed land use containing residential and retail facilities


The Enterprise Building and the Innovation Centre house the majority of the resident

companies, while Sappi and Bigen Africa have (as mentioned above) built their own

premises.

Currently the Innovation Hub houses the following initiatives, each of which are described in

more detail below.

2.2.1 Open Innovation Platform: This is a new initiative that aims at opening up the innovation process by encouraging

partnerships with larger companies, agreeing on Intellectual Property rights and licensing of

an idea/ concept. This follows established international trends where companies no longer

rely only on their own, internal research and development departments, but buy in or

exchange with others the results they need. Open innovation means “collaborating with

external partners, whether suppliers, customers or universities, to keep ahead of the game

and get new products or services to market before () competitors.” (OECD 2008)11

2.2.2 Value-added services: The INNOV8 community is the IH’s high-tech business network with 5 000 members spread

out across Gauteng. As mentioned above, it started off as a central element within the Pilot

Hub2B in 2001. The community has grown substantially over the years and serves as a

networking and communication platform for “knowledge economy role players, including

academics, researchers, investors, financiers, business professionals and entrepreneurs.” By

11 OECD (2008) “Open Innovation in Global Networks”, OECD Policy Brief, November 2008 downloaded from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/35/41721342.pdf Note that “The term “open innovation” does not refer to free knowledge or technology. While “open source” refers to royalty-free technologies, “open innovation” refers to the collaborative methods applied, and may still imply the (significant) payment of license fees between companies for intellectual property”.

Business

assistance

• Maxum

Incubator

• Coachlab

Venue

Conference Venue, meeting

rooms and office facilities

Added Value Services:

INNOV8 community:

• Pub@Hub

• Power Breakfasts

Open Innovation

Platform

Initiatives:

• Tshwane Smart City

• Activator

The Innovation Hub

PRECINCT: creating a physical environment supporting high social exchange.


drawing on the expertise and experience of various individuals and organisations, it is able to

provide the foundation for cross-fertilisation of concepts and ideas.12 Part of this networking

initiative, are the Pub@Hub networking sessions, which is a monthly Networking Event

and brings together “role players who control public investment funds and private

investment capital with those involved in generating new ideas and patents”13. In addition,

P•O•W•E•R breakfasts, provide networking opportunities at a smaller scale where a

select group of decision makers meet to “exchange information and identify promising

emerging ideas and technologies” with the aim to “strengthen links between business and

funding agencies”.

2.2.3 Initiatives Tshwane Smart City:

The Innovation Hub has been tasked with assisting the City to implement its Smart City

initiative. The Project aims to achieve the following:

• “Alignment and integration of the various research, educational institutions,

industry, government and the city to achieve economic benefits for the city and its

residents;

• Exploit the knowledge base in these institutions to create key economic clusters (i.e.

ICT, Biotechnology, and aerospace);

• Enhancement of city’s operations through use of smart technologies to provide

efficient service to the residents;

• Increase in knowledge and capacity through its relationship with the City of Oulu in

Finland;

• The regional innovation system will be a key stakeholder engagement forum for the

city;

• Strengthen the collaboration between BEE companies in Tshwane & their Finnish

counterpart;

• Job creation and alleviation of poverty through SMME development initiatives. “14

Activator:

Activator has been developed and implemented by the Innovation Hub and COFISA

(Cooperation Framework on Innovation Systems between Finland and South Africa) “to

promote multi-helix collaboration with the objective of involving and developing Small and

Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in large scale projects together with research partners, large

corporates and government.”

This includes:

12 The Innovation Hub Website. http://www.theinnovationhub.com/vas.cfm. 13 The Innovation Hub Website. http://www.theinnovationhub.com/vas.cfm. 14 The Innovation Hub Website. http://www.theinnovationhub.com/newsbits/vol7no07/news03.cfm


• “Developing new collaborative projects involving SMEs (structuring calls for

proposals; advertising and securing stakeholder interest; evaluating, selecting and

structuring projects; and initiating project implementation);

• Securing external stakeholder involvement (investors, public support entities, large

industry, research and academia) and leveraging market opportunities to maximise

project sustainability;

• Nurturing collaborative projects towards sustainability;

• Developing sustainable collaborative projects which in turn provide opportunities for

SME involvement,

• SME spin-offs and job creation; and

• Bringing on board role-players who are able to provide business development

services that enable participating role-players, especially SMEs, to grow and

prosper.”15

Since the four year Cofisa project ended in February 2010, the Innovation Hub is now

running and funding Activator itself. Alternative funding sources are being sought.

2.2.4 Venue: The IH has a Conference Venue, 'hot offices' with plug-and-play connectivity, venues for

business breakfasts and banquets and meeting rooms with flexible functionality. These

provide emergent businesses with the full infrastructure menu required for successful

operation.

2.2.5 Business assistance Maxum Incubator:

As one of the core functionalities of the Innovation Hub, the Maxum Incubator assists start-

up companies “from the knowledge-intensive sectors including information and

communications technology (ICT), biosciences, electronics, and advanced manufacturing

and materials” with fast-tracking company growth in the early life-cylce stages in order to

improve survival rate, financial viability and business stability within the first years of a

company’s existence. Pre-incubation and incubation programmes for entrepreneurs and

high-tech start-ups companies are provided. Maxum is a member of the National Business

Incubation Association in the UK, which ensures that “incubation processes and outputs are

benchmarked on a continual basis against international good practice.”16

Coachlab

Coachlab is a Leadership Programme with specialist mentoring for postgraduates in ICT to

develop skills for the high-tech business sector. The programme is a partnership between the

Innovation Hub, local industry and universities” and is aimed at graduates in “Computer

15 Cofisa, 2010, page 68. 16 The Innovation Hub Website. http://www.theinnovationhub.com/maxum.cfm


Science, Informatics, Information Science, Information Technology, Electrical Engineering,

Electronic Engineering and other technology related disciplines”. Students are skilled to

operate in business through a leadership development programme that aims bridging the

gap between the commercial and the academic world. It aims at creating rounded

personalities with life and business skills. Graduates are brought in contact with big

companies which also provides a marketing platform for the SP.17

3. Successes and Failures of the Innovation Hub

This section deals with some of the successes and failures of the Hub. These interpretations

should be seen as an opportunity for reflection and learning and not as a condemnation.

That The Innovation Hub was conceptualized, implemented and is operating today is an

impressive achievement.

3.1 Retaining Committment

It is ironic that the rapid and early acceptance of the concept to form The Innovation Hub

harboured a serious disadvantage. The parties had a clear general idea of what they

intended, but they did not express their specific aims in detail. They “agreed to agree” and

postponed decisions, a risky procedure for a project that required common efforts for

success. Due to the fact that the management institutions were newly established (both

SERA and Blue IQ) and the fact that the project was conceptualized, funded and launched in

a very short time, too little attention was give from the outset as to what each of the parties

wanted to gain from the SP concept. There was no clear documentation of the SP concept or

of the shared goals and objectives. As a result, the foundation for the project was weak and

fundamental issues that needed resolution at the outset were neglected. While the MOU

between the two parties identified many issues, they were never fleshed out in practice.

The initial concept of the IH has also lost momentum due to disruptive management changes

and the neglect of succession planning. Key champions stepped down from the process at

various stages and newly appointed staff were not being properly briefed on the roles and

functions of a science park. The dilution of the initial intent and the lack of knowledge

transfer has resulted in a general lack of understanding of the value-add that a SP should

provide and the role it plays within the larger innovation arena. There is a definite need for

providing intense orientation and initiation training to new staff members to ensure

consistency in the application of science park vision, mission and values.

17 The Innovation Hub Website. http://www.theinnovationhub.com/maxum_coachlab.cfm


One consequence is, for example, that the IH is marketed in isolation and not as a

conglomeration of various companies and brands. There is also a need to clarify the original

intent and objectives internally as well as externally. Everyone must understand that the SP

has a dual mandate. On the one hand, this involves providing incubation facilities for SMEs

at a discounted rate in order to fulfill the IH’s commitment to providing a value added

service to its emergent firms and, on the other hand, to operate commercially viable shared

services.

In addition, the fact that the Park is run by provincial government proves to be a challenge.

The Provincial Government is the main stakeholder and indeed shareholder. As political

priorities change, even more effort is required to align The Innovation Hub with the

Provincial Government. Electoral cycles and the corresponding change in mandate and

management prevents essential consistency. Another consequence of ownership by the

Provincial Government is the requirement to comply with legislation such as the Public

Finance Management Act (PFMA). This is highly restrictive for the day to day operations of a

park that needs to foster a creative and innovative environment. For example, if the park

wants to procure the services of a trainer or mentor for the Incubator, it has to go out on

public tender, whereas such people are normally hand-picked for their expertise.

As a result of this environment, the high rate of staff turn-over and a loss of vision of

mandate and mission, the value-added services have deteriorated.

3.2 Locality issues

Initially the location was based on the presence of a “Knowledge Axis”, as explained above,

which provided the ideal solution for locating a SP. It was intended that a cross-fertilisation

of knowledge and ideas between the IH, CSIR and UP would take place. However, due to

reasons mentioned above, relationships were not sustained. As a result, the CSIR has

withdrawn its collaboration completely. The initial relationship between UP and the IH has

weakened substantially. However, the University is still committed to the Hub. The

University owns large parcels of undeveloped land around the Innovation Hub and it is in

negotiations with the IH to buy back a parcel of land in the SP in order to launch their

Biotech Institute. This deals with the commercialization of biotech in human, animal and

plant health. This was always the intention and it shows that the benefits of a strong

relationship have prevailed. For the first four years, until 2009, the University provided an

Information Centre at the Hub that gave tenants access to UP library facilities. Users had to


pay a fee for the service but the University cross-subsidised it to a large extent. The service

has been discontinued at the request of the Hub’s former CEO.

The University, represented by Prof. Robin Crewe, Vice Principal- Research & Postgraduate

Studies as the relationship manager with the Innovation Hub, is further committed to

providing support and advice to the SP and has monthly formal meetings with the IH CEO.

One of the challenges of the IH location is that it does not have direct access from the

Highway due to slipways between Lynnwood road and the N4 being too close together. The

Hub can be accessed off the N4 and, more recently, off the newly built Lynwood road off-

ramp from the N1 which has improved accessibility substantially for the Hub.

3.3 Extent of incubation impact

From a macro perspective the IH added value to the regional innovation system when it was

established because neither an innovation networking community nor incubators existed in

SA. The IH started these initiatives and also attained international recognition through IASP.

From a micro perspective, there are companies that started out at the Innovation Hub that

are now multi-million turn-over generators. If the Hub had not been in place this would not

have happened.

However, interviewees and commentators are of the opinion that the Hub has not achieved

as much as it could have in generating innovation and knowledge networks in the region. For

example, by 2009, 41 companies had graduated from the incubation programme since 2001,

averaging a graduation rate of 5 companies a year. It was questioned if this is sufficient “to

make a significant impact”18.

It would be unfair to label The Innovation Hub a failure for this reason alone. Who is to say

that 41 companies is not a very impressive initial achievement? But it would certainly be true

that such a ‘low’ number does not meet the expectations of government, which is facing

mounting problems of unemployment and disappointingly slow growth.

In recent months, government has moved to consolidate assistance for emerging companies.

The drive is to reconfigure the various agencies at provincial level in order to prevent

18 Ford, H. (2009) Technology incubators: how successful are they really? http://www.brainstormmag.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3478%3Atechnology-incubators-how-

successful-are-they-really&Itemid=86. September 2009.


duplication of efforts. For example, the Gauteng Enterprise Propeller (GEP) focuses on start-

up companies and is funded by Province. One of the Gauteng Economic Development

Agency’s (GEDA) responsibilities is ensuring investment in SMEs. The IH (as a subsidiary of

Blue IQ) is focusing on incubating and coaching companies and individuals. However, none

of the agencies are working together and as a result, are duplicating efforts. For example,

GEDA should be recruiting investors for companies that emerge from GEP and the IH.

Similarly, the IH is looking to provide incubation assistance to companies in Biotech, while

GEP is already providing funding to companies in the Biotech sector. Those companies

should be able to benefit from the incubation support provided by the IH. Consolidating the

agencies into a larger Growth and Development Agency is underway but still in initial

phases. A decision will be reached in March 2011 on the consolidation process that will

include GEDA, GEP and Blue IQ. The distinct role of The Innovation Hub, as a science park

and as specialist institution in a particular area of the economy is not appreciated in this sort

of discussion.

3.4 Land policy

As mentioned above, the fact that the IH no longer considers selling land parcels in the Hub

(even to approved business ventures) and has embraced the PPP route with a 40 year lease,

proves to be problematic in the current business environment. Not only is the lease period

considered too short to whet the appetite of business but the PPP idea in general has not

taken-off in South Africa. All the companies who were interested in investing in buildings on

the Innovation Hub withdrew when the Hub’s land policy changed. Following the location of

Sappi and Bigen Africa within the Hub (where they were still allowed to purchase the land

their offices are located on) no new buildings have been built. Companies that have found

space on the IH site have established themselves in the existing buildings.

This has had knock-on consequences for the viability of the Hub. The break-even point for

the whole site requires the occupation of some 45 000 sqm (26 000 sqm is current extent of

buildings). This level of development is needed if the ‘Property Owners Association’ which is

responsible for the security and land upkeep is to be self-sufficient. The business model

adopted and enshrined in the development conditions of the site place a heavy financial

burden on the Management Company. The implications of the change to the business model

relating to land in 2005 were not closely evaluated at the time. This has lead to unintended

consequences. The pressure on the Management Company has required cost savings on

value-added services which are the essence of a science park.


3.5 Project Funding

Sustainability and consistency in project funding are paramount to the success of a SP. The

Innovation Hub has various funding sources for its operations:

• Smart City: funded by City of Tshwane. The IH is the implementing agent for the

Smart City concept

• Activator: was funded by Cofisa but the programme has come to an end. In the

interim, the IH has to fund it and has to find alternative funding.

• Coachlab: Companies sponsor the initiative as it gives companies an opportunity to

“interview a candidate for 9 months”.

• Blue IQ funds the incubator, infrastructure and Property Owners Association (levies

and facilities management etc)

3.6 Local economic development

As the IH is a government institution, it has to fulfill its mandate in terms of government

expectations, which relate to local economic development through the promotion of SME’s

and emerging businesses. The IH has succeeded in that it attracts university students with

brilliant ideas and can provide them with the supporting structures and incubation

possibilities for their concepts. The general reception area in the Innovation Centre, for

example, that houses Maxum, provides reception facilities for the companies in the

incubator and for IH staff alike.

However, while the IH provides general business support to emergent companies through its

incubation programme, it lacks the experts to provide sector specific advice. For example,

The IH is not able to gauge if incubating companies are able to deliver on their ideas and

their mandates to take their companies forward as they don’t have specialists with whom to

test their ideas and who should assist in guiding the companies in their sector specific areas

of operation.

From a macro perspective, the IH started an innovation networking community and

incubators, neither of which existed in SA. It also attained international recognition through

its accreditation by IASP. From a micro perspective: there are companies that started out at

The Innovation Hub that are now multi-million turn-over generators. If the Hub had not

been in place this may not have happened. Relative to other ‘science park’ initiatives in SA,.

The IH has been a success—but has not reached its true potential due to the stagnation

induced by a lack of development funds.


4. Replicating the Science Park concept elsewhere in South Africa

Learning from the Innovation Hub example the following characteristics can be distilled as

success factors in the development of a SP. While an effort has been made to set these out

sequentially, many of these steps need to be in place simultaneously.

4.1 Strong champion(s)

All SP’s start as an idea. Its conceptualization, support and seeing through require a strong

champion(s). In the case of the IH, strong support and backing of the initiative came both

from the academic and research arena as well as the government arena. One of the most

important sustainability factors in the creation of a SP is that champions are committed to

the process over the long run. The reason why the IH worked initially was because the initial

partners had a vision that they translated into commitment by the parties. Funding, land and

infrastructure was put forward and the idea was piloted before it was translated into reality.

Repeated emphasis was placed in the interviews with IH people on the fact that one should

not underestimate the energy needed to make the relationships work.

The clusters that the SP should focus on (eg ICT, biotech, aerospace clusters) should be

determined at the outset. These will determine the extent of buy-in and define the support

networks that need to be secured in the establishment of the triple-helix configuration.

4.2 Ensure buy-in

• Buy-in from the Local government authority needs to be secured up-front. The

project must be part of the IDP (the Innovation Hub was not part of the Tshwane

IDP) and the City must make an investment in the project (in cash or in kind).

• Provincial government buy-in needs to be secured (this is optional if the local

government is strong enough to support the project itself).

• Academia needs to buy into the initiative. In the case of the IH, “SERA was a brilliant

idea- it linked applied research and commercialization”19.

• Attain buy-in of commerce through business forums and partnerships and make it

attractive for business to invest in the SP. One should keep in mind that the SP has to

deliver a unique product/ service to the private sector in order to make it appetizing

for business to locate to the SP. Value added services (incubation, cross-fertilisation

of concepts and ideas) as well as site specific factors relating to the physical location

are important (location, land policy -sale vs lease-, design principles etc).

Some of the risks here include the fickleness of political commitment: a SP needs to be

established in such a way that long term political commitment is secured and is not

contingent upon allowing politicians to dictate short-term changes in management and

policies.

19 Interview conducted with Mr Thibi Matshele, 13.08.2010.


It should also be ensured that government understands the sort of return it can expect from

investment in a SP. It has the potential to generate economic growth opportunities, it carries

the possibility of job creation, but the extent and timing of these benefits may not fit into the

next political cycle. Many of the benefits will be intangible – providing a stronger regional

innovation ecosystem and contributing to the critical mass of expertise, ideas and innovation

assets that is needed.

4.3 Formalise Partnerships

Relationships between parties have to be strong and formalized, ideally through the creation

of a governance structure such as a Project Steering Committee (PSC) that includes triple

helix players. The PSC should be representative of all interested parties and all parties’

interests. While the physical site is important, institutional commitment is paramount.

4.4 Clarification of governing structures as well as powers, functions and objectives of

the SP

4.4.1 Secure long-term commitment and funding Requirement of long-term secured commitment and funding:

• Need financial backing and commitment

• Need political champion who sees the project through beyond electoral cycles

4.4.2 Governance structure In establishing the governance structures it is of critical importance to flesh out with the

potential players a set of objectives in addressing the stakeholder’s requirements. Neglecting

any of these may lead to their ultimate withdrawal from the process.

• what is their understanding of what a SP should achieve?

• what do they see the outcomes being of the SP?

• what goals does the SP have to fulfill (eg job creation, triple helix collaboration)?

The role that a SP is supposed to play is illustrated in the image below


The governance structure should:

• Be led by champions, assisted by the appointment of committed core team with strong personalities

• Include the right mix of skills

• Not be politically influenced – and politicians and government officials should not be able to change policies arbitrarily beyond the Board’s control

•

• Determine SP sustainability: business model should investigate the sustainability of the SP and determine break-even point.

It is critical that the fundamentals / foundation of the agreement is correctly established.

4.5 Identification of the Site

The site has to serve the objectives identified for the tenants. It should be adjacent to or on

an axis of knowledge generating institutions.

4.6 Develop the Business Plans/ Master Plans:

The governance structure needs to agree on Business/ Master Plans for the following in

order to create a sound foundation for the SP:

• Business strategy

• Marketing strategy

• Environmental Management

• Operational Plan

• Sustainability factors (social, economic and environmental)

• Land policy (sale/ lease)

• Urban design framework (need to integrate infrastructure with core business

concept/ strategy through key urban design principles. For example, in the case of

the IH the premise was to develop high quality infrastructure to encourage social

exchange)

• Entry criteria to ensure the right mix of tenants (these need to be clarified from the

outset in order to prevent compromises later in the process and run the risk of the SP

Basic research Applied research

Technology

development

(testing and

pioliting )

Technology

commercialisatio

n and transfer

This is where the important interface has to be established between the triple helix players.

The Science Park


becoming a general purpose real estate development. Entry criteria need to be

informed by the question of “what is the park for?’)

• Financial model: estimate average uptake in SP in order to break-even.

4.7 Define Value Add and commence with Pilot

Start small and grow incrementally. The SP’s mandate has to be positioned in such a way

that it creates the platforms to increase the throughput rate of knowledge transfer. Defined

added-value services – and the creation of an innovation community - can be piloted from

the outset of the SP’s development. They do not so much require funding as strong

commitment. The Pilot serves as motivation for future funding and tests the water for

appetite for such a initiative. It serves as the raison d’etre for the SP and generates

motivation and options for expansion. Finally, the pilot identifies players who truly want to

commit.

At the Innovation Hub the pilot commenced with incubation facilities and the Innov8

Community which provided the Networking platform and assisted in building a community.

4.8 Establish international linkages

International linkages are very important- joining IASP provides international recognition

and accreditation.

5. Conclusion

The Innovation Hub has been alive for 10 years and while it has encountered real challenges

it remains the only functioning and acknowledged Science Park in South Africa. Despite its

teething problems, it has been the trail blazer for a model and concept that has been hugely

successful in other parts of the world. The Innovation Hub had no benchmarks to rely upon.

It has had to find its own way. Relationships between business and the research and

academic communities are difficult to broker in all environments. Relationships with

government are also particularly challenging when an initiative is generously sponsored with

public funds and becomes subject to expectations that are both unrealistic and poorly-

informed. Relative to several other initiatives in SA, the Hub has a record of achievement

that cannot be matched. It faces challenging times in the months ahead. It could do worse

than to re-visit the initial vision that led to its establishment and to read critically the

precepts for science park operation that emerged from the Cofisa research.

Many lessons can be learnt from its experience and those highlighted above give indications

of how to go about establishing a sound foundation for a SP in South Africa. However, one of

the most important lessons is that a SP model cannot be based on a “cut and paste” approach


where one model is crudely copied for replication elsewhere. It has to be customized to the

regional dynamics of an area.

6. Commentary

Our report on The Innovation Hub raises points of criticism that are not present (or are not

explicit) in the writings we have seen and which were not voiced by all of our interviewees.

One is more receptive to lessons from good examples than from bad. It is more encouraging

to follow the lessons of success than to avoid those of failure. People are more drawn to

advisers who tell you what to do than those who tell you what not to do. The COFISA project

was premised on the importance of science parks in a national innovation system and it was

programmed to report on the positive lessons from the first and only science park in South

Africa to be accredited by the International Association of Science Parks.

This is why all the articles we have seen on The Innovation Hub tend to emphasise the

positive and to highlight ways of avoiding problems rather than focusing on the practical

difficulties that The Innovation Hub has encountered. Many of these arise from bad luck and

misunderstandings, not from actual intentions. Teething problems are a feature of all

projects and are often interpreted as being temporary and hence not worthy of particular

note.

We have tried to bring balance into our account of The Innovation Hub. We recognize its

achievement in leading the way by introducing to South Africa a model of a science park that

locates it within the regional innovation system and does not simply offer working space to

start-up technology companies but provides a platform of value-added services and networks

to improve the prospects for success. But we must draw the attention of the reader to other

accounts of The Innovation Hub and science parks in SA which may not be overtly critical of

the Hub and its business model. For example:

• The websites and the annual reports of The Innovation Hub, BlueIQ and the CSIR

• Department of Science and Technology (2009) “National Science Park

Development Plan (Draft version) - Promoting awareness and use of Science Parks

In the development of the National System of Innovation, Submitted by: The

Innovation Hub Management Company (Pty) Ltd, pp.40

• Cooperation Framework on Innovation Systems between Finland and South Africa

(2010) Enhancing Innovation in South Africa: The COFISA Experience, February

2010, pp.75


• Comins, N., Gwintsa, T., Kuukasjervi, L., Rammbuda, R., Ridge, S., and Van der

Walt, R. (2010) “Science Parks”, Chapter 7 in Enhancing Innovation in South

Africa: The COFISA Experience, February 2010, pp.86-103

The Innovation Hub needs to be the reference point for all of the plans to develop new

science parks in SA because of the ways in which it has tested – and been tested by – the

innovation ecosystem in Gauteng and in SA generally.

Our account of the example provided by The Innovation Hub does not conclude that science

parks are not suited to South Africa. It does say that establishing a successful science park is

extremely difficult.

Dr Neville Comins, the founder and first CEO of The Innovation Hub, provided a number of

pointers on science parks in his presentation to the Cofisa closing conference in 2010.20

1. It is very strongly stated that a science park is not just about buildings. Comins warns

of the lesson from other science parks that have had “Too much focus on the ‘real

estate’ and almost no attention to the ‘animation’ or ‘value-added services.”

2. A science park takes much more time, effort and money than one imagines and it

must adapt itself to ‘local dynamics’. There is no single model for a science park –

learn from others, but don’t copy. And put it in the right place.

These are Comins’ final words:

The Focus Going Forward

• A Science Park model can add great value in the African context

- It must, however, adapt to the local dynamics

- No two parks are the same. Learn but don’t copy.

• The Innovation System needs such neutral facilitators to support innovation and

collaboration

• An STP (Science/Technology Park) can play a vital regional role if it can engage

correctly

• In the end, it depends so much on the people involved.

“An STP is not a silver bullet on its own, but depends on generating or growing a local

innovation ecosystem, which can take many years. Too often, once the initial studies are

20 COFISA (2010) “Science parks – a reality or myth for South Africa?” by Neville Comins. PowerPoint 9 pages (This is a distillation of points that are present in the Cofisa book).


done, there is a tendency to make positive assumptions about the next steps—in reality, the

devil is definitely in the detail.” (Comins et al, page 92)

Key problems with The Innovation Hub – an interpretive summary:

� The Innovation Hub is a government entity and so operates under the Public

Finance Management Act

o In our experience, the PFMA has had the effect of undermining dynamism

and effectiveness. While government entities are allowed to pay very high

salaries, and thus attract well-qualified people, they have become, over the

last decade, increasingly infected by the bureaucratic tendency of government.

They are unable to transact flexibly, like a business. They are subject to rules

that are designed to ensure the prudent use of public money, but which in

effect trap people in compliance-oriented processes. Procurement rules are

extremely cumbersome and make swift action of any sort risky or impossible.

The structures of government repel creative and innovative people and

entrench inflexible behaviours – even in the good-willed . These trends get

worse over time.

� The Innovation Hub, being part of BlueIQ and beholden to a government

department, is subject to political agendas

o It is a fact of political and economic life in SA today that political tensions

within political parties, provinces and regions are reflected in government

entities. Decisions are ‘referred upwards’ and delayed or not taken. And there

is a tradition of political interference in government entities which increases

uncertainty and may penalize initiative.

� The Innovation Hub, has been unable to expand and grow and increase its

impact, despite demand for space from prospective tenants. This is because of

government policies and rules related to the use of its large 60 hectare area and to

the consequent lack of development funds.

� The Innovation Hub has lost its initial links with the CSIR and its links with the

University of Pretoria are tenuous.

o International literature suggests that “the ability to develop linkages between

higher education institutions (HEIs) and firms is the key criterion by which to

judge the success of the science-park phenomenon. (Link and Scott, 2007,

citing Westhead and Batstone, 1998).

� As a result of this changing environment, the high rate of staff turn-over and a loss of vision of mandate and mission, the value-added services of The Innovation Hub, so essential to a ‘real’ science park, have deteriorated.

� The Innovation Hub, despite lingering value-added elements, is increasingly a

renter-out of existing space, rather than a dynamic science park.


Interview Schedule:

Name of interviewee Designation Date of interview

Mr Thibi Matshele and

Mr Nkhulu Maboya

Chief Operating Officer at the

Innovation Hub

Assistant: Value Added services,

Business Development and

Marketing

13.08.2010

08.00 – 09.30

Dr Neville Comins Founder and first CEO of the

Innovation Hub

23.08.2010

10.30- 12.00

Prof Robin Crewe Vice Principal- Research &

Postgraduate Studies and

relationship manager with the

Innovation Hub

27.08.2010

08.30- 09.00

Interviewed by Anja Benseler

References for the Chapter on The Innovation Hub

“Appointments at The Innovation Hub” CSIR Media Release 12 March 2001

“THE INNOVATION HUB: Company Announcement: Exciting new initiative to stimulate local innovation & economic growth Engineering News 15th January 2008

Cabral, R. (2004) “The Cabral–Dahab Science Park Management Paradigm applied to the case of Kista, Sweden”. International Journal of Technology Management 2004 - Vol. 28, No.3/4/5/6 pp. 419 - 443

Comins, N., Gwintsa, T., Kuukasjervi, L., Rammbuda, R., Ridge, S., and Van der Walt, R. (2010) “Science Parks”, Chapter 7 in Enhancing Innovation in South Africa: The COFISA Experience, February 2010, pp.86-103

Cooperation Framework on Innovation Systems between Finland and South Africa (2010) Enhancing Innovation in South Africa: The COFISA Experience, February 2010, pp.75

CSIR Annual Report 2000, pp.58 y/e 31/3/2000

CSIR Annual Report 2003, pp.75 y/e 31/3/2003

CSIR Annual Report 2005/6, pp.144 (March 2006)

Department of Science and Technology (2009) “National Science Park Development Plan (Draft version) - Promoting awareness and use of Science Parks In the development of the National System of Innovation, Submitted by: The Innovation Hub Management Company (Pty) Ltd, pp.40 <copy marked Restricted for Internal Use Only, file date is 13 March 2009> [most recent copy provided by Mr J. Strauss, DST, 14 July 2010]

Ford, H. (2009) Technology incubators: how successful are they really? http://www.brainstormmag.co.za/ September 2009.

Gauteng Provincial Government, Department of Economic Development (2010) Gauteng Innovation Strategy, Discussion Draft v2.1 23/02/2010, pp.48


International Association of Science parks: About Science and Technology Parks – Statistics http://www.iasp.ws/publico/index.jsp?enl=3

Link, A. N., and J. T. Scott. (2007) “The Economics of University Research Parks.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23(4):661-674.

OECD (2008) “Open Innovation in Global Networks”, OECD Policy Brief, November 2008 downloaded from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/35/41721342.pdf

SA Innovation Summit Website: www.innovationsummit.co.za

The Innovation Hub in CSIR Annual reports

Websites of The Innovation Hub, BlueIQ and the CSIR

Westhead, P. and Batstone, S. (1998), ‘Independent Technology-based Firms: The Perceived Benefits of a Science Park Location’, Urban Studies, 35(12), 2197–219.


Literature review conclusions

1. The importance of context

This is an action-oriented study to develop an approach to what the four universities in

the Western Cape should do to drive innovation in the Western Cape.

We want to be sure that whatever is recommended can pass the test of being reflective of

international best practice. So one route into the question would be to start off by looking

at how universities and regions in parts of the world that are renowned for economic

success have tackled issues around innovation.

To be honest, this is exactly where we started. From Technopolis to Technium, from

Biopolis to Designium we looked for examples of how universities have related to

business, to R&D and to innovation. Because of the science park aspect to our terms of

reference we were strongly drawn to institutional forms and to how innovation relates to

space. Because of the current realization of the importance of ‘green’ issues, we looked for

references to sustainability. Because of the concern raised by the Project Steering

Committee about social innovation, we jettisoned an initial focus on the science–based

innovation economy (Miles and Daniels, 2007) and adopted an approach that included

the social responsiveness and community outreach perspectives which had been strongly

voiced by the people with whom we engaged at the universities.

It was relatively late in the day, in fact right at the end of September, with the first report

all but complete, that we encountered a document, authored on behalf of CHEC in 2009,

that became our real entry point into the complex debates around innovation in the

Western Cape and what the four CHEC member institutions should do about it.

This “entry point document” was approved by the CHEC Board on 24 February 2009,

entitled “Cape Higher Education Consortium - Planning to make the best use of

Universities in promoting economic and social development”. We were familiar with the

contents of the document, but had never become aware of the extent to which they had

been canvassed. The document is a masterpiece of concise presentation. In four pages, it

lays out the case for what has come to be called “the Bellville Science Park”.

In terms of location, this is centred on the “340 hectare Transnet freight yard” that lies

between the Health Sciences campus of the University of Stellenbosch at the Tygerberg


Hospital and the Medical Research Council in the north and the campuses of the Cape

Peninsula University of Technology and the University of the Western Cape in the south-

east. As the CHEC document itself makes clear, however, the proposal is not simply for a

special building, an industrial area or a business park. It presents a vision for

“an integrated environment in which excellent technical facilities in workable

proximity to universities go along with safe and comfortable living conditions and

good cultural and recreational facilities to attract and retain concentrations of

talent.”

The Bellville precinct is described as “a site with critical potential for the economic and

social progress of the City of Cape Town and of the Western Cape Province”. The proposal

is not about a real estate development, but an initiative to transform space and economy

in the centre of the Cape Town region in a completely new way, to promote innovation.

The document was formally sent by “the universities in the Cape Higher Education

Consortium (CHEC) [to] ask the City of Cape Town to make decisions at a macro planning

level which would secure the site from fragmented industrial development and establish

the vision of a revitalising, innovation-friendly central area for Bellville as a planning

imperative.”21

The City made no formal response to this request, apparently because it does not feel able

to take a particular position on this planning issue. The Transnet land has a present use

and has also been mentioned as a possible site for low-cost housing. The Province has

expressed similar concerns. It is aware of the proposal for a Bellville Science Park, but this

is Transnet-owned land, the use of which figures in current discussions and studies on

how critical freight logistics problems in the region will be resolved.

CHEC’s own intention was to support a general debate on the proposal, which had been

drafted by one of its members, UWC.

UWC subsequently secured funding from the DST to take the proposal forward (DST,

2009). CHEC decided to commission this study which encompasses the “Bellville Science

Park” but does so in the context of a question on the conceptual model that is appropriate

for the four universities in driving innovation in the Western Cape.

21 This four page document is attached as an appendix to this report. It was approved by the CHEC Board at its meeting held on 24 February 2009 and submitted to Dr Martin van der Merwe, Director: IDP and Business Planning, City of Cape Town on 25 March 2009.


Information sources

The present study, began in July 2010. Its main sources of information have been the

2009 Cofisa Report “Mapping triple helix innovation networks in the Western Cape”,

prepared by Kaiser Associates Economic Development Practice22 and a series of

interviews, mainly with people in the universities and the public sector. This has been

supplemented with desk-top research, covering government policy on innovation and

science parks, international models related to driving innovation and with interviews

related to The Innovation Hub, South Africa’s single accredited science park.

Results of the Research

The innovation ecosystem in the Western Cape is marked by confusion, distrust and many

agendas – which duplicate efforts, conflict, or by-pass one another completely. There was

no consensus on what universities in the Western Cape should do to drive innovation,

beyond what each is doing already.

On the positive side, the investigation showed many areas of dynamism and capability,

particularly in research, as is comprehensively (if not fully) documented by the Cofisa

report. The Western Cape has proportionately more NRF-rated researchers and Research

Chairs than any other part of South Africa and it produces over a third of all South African

PhDs. There are many worthy and interesting initiatives: InnovUS using a partnership

with Isis Enterprise of Oxford University to promote the capabilities of Stellenbosch

University in a trip to Japan; CPUT’s involvement with the East City Design Initiative;

UCT’s piloting of a ‘store front’ to make university expertise more accessible both to

business and community organisations; UWC’s championing of the Bellville science park

as a joint initiative of all four universities; the Province’s efforts to draw universities into

the research and training needs of different sectors of the local economy through the

Special Purpose Vehicles; the City’s research on how to make Cape Town more globally

competitive and its efforts to emulate the support available for innovation in Barcelona.

There is a great deal going on, if at different paces and with poor co-ordination.

On the negative side, the lack of effective collaboration results in a lot of wasted effort.

Researchers and innovators chase after the same meagre resources to fund their work, in

an environment where people fear that information sharing may lead to increased

competition for grants. Relationships between universities and business, as useful as they

are for innovation, are weak and poorly developed (there being faults on both sides).

22 This important report is available from CHEC or the Cofisa website (hosted via the DST, since the Cofisa project ended in 2010).


Noble efforts like the Cape Initiative in Materials and Manufacturing (CIMM) have fallen

by the wayside (Knutsen and Steyn, 2009). (Here materials scientists in three of the

universities tried for several years to set up a bridging institution between universities

and industry). The effort to establish a Regional Innovation Forum (Interim Steering

Committee, 2010), while still under way, has entered areas of confusion and controversy

which have yet to be resolved (CHEC, 2010). The plans of the DST and the TIA to

establish a Cape Health Technology Park in Pinelands have been subject to as much

criticism as praise from the ‘academic innovation community’ – but the champions of the

project (which is supported by the Province and the City) admit that they have yet to talk

to the universities about their role23. The TIA, the intended national instrument for

driving innovation, has been seriously delayed in its implementation. In September 2010,

the Province announced a major change in the institutional environment for business

promotion. This will involve the creation of a new, single development agency for the

Province24. The proposed institutional mergers, while one hopes they will lead to

improvements in the effectiveness of publicly funded bodies that impact on innovation,

are likely to be associated with disruption and delays before good results are evident.

This is all part of the ‘innovation landscape’ of the Western Cape. This is the reality that

CHEC and the four universities have to work with, when they consider the actions they

should take to drive innovation.

There is a further contextual element that has come up prominently in the research and

which needs to be put forward as a proposition for debate.

HEI’s are critical for innovation – but innovation is not a priority for HEIs

Higher education institutions (HEIs) play a critical role in government’s innovation

agenda. Research and learning (with more science, engineering and technology and PhD

graduates in particular) are seen as key enablers of innovation25 - the creation, application

and implementation of new ideas. South Africa’s research base has some localised

strengths but it is not yet well attuned to the challenges of a developing country or to

participation in the global economy. South Africa has been less effective in translating

research outputs into business innovation, competitive advantage and social benefits. The

need to increase the impact of SA’s Higher Education knowledge base on business and

23 DEDT tender briefing by Craig Landsberg, 11 August 2010; DEDT (2010) “Cape Catalyst 2010 Project Portfolio”, September 2010, pp.37 plus annexures. The TIA has, however, informed CHEC of their general intentions. 24 “Single Agency For Cape”, Cape Business News 15 Sep 2010 25 Department of Science and Technology (2008) “Ten-Year Innovation Plan”, p.8; this is also a clear assumption of ASSAf (2010) “The PhD Study”


society is mainly identified with an increase the number of graduates and the quality of

basic research. Other countries, particularly in the developed world, have a much wider

range of policies that support these ‘third stream’ activities to enhance engagement

between HEIs and business, the public sector and the wider community.26

SA government laws and policies – and the activity agendas of many government

departments (both national and provincial) - increasingly recognise the importance of

strong industry-university relations and the potential for social innovation, driven by HEI

research and engagement, to have a positive impact on living conditions in SA.27 It is,

however, a very small percentage of university staff that ever get involved in the

commercial innovation space. The traditional orientation is towards teaching, research

and publications, not towards patents or relationships with business. Many interviewees

spoke of the need to change attitudes and mindsets in the academic community towards

business and society. But the incentives to encourage changed behaviours are weak. The

behaviour that is rewarded is the behaviour that is repeated. The situation, let us face it

clearly, is not going to be changed by education programmes and workshops on the value

of innovation unless this is supported by powerful incentives. These will have to address

the concerns of academics with their income, job security, research funding, status and

recognition. Equally, the incentives and pressures to which the universities themselves

respond, as institutions, need to be fully recognised. Innovation features in government

policy documents and in the speeches of Ministers. But, and quite correctly, the priority

set for universities is to produce more quality graduates at first degree level28, to increase

the numbers of post-graduate students and to build their academic staff capacity.

Research comes second and innovation a distant third. Matters are not clear cut, however.

The priority task cannot be completed unless items that are ‘less important’ are also

successfully managed. But they are not all priorities. Innovation is not a priority for

HEIs29.

26 Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) “Global innovation environments - A report to HEFCE by Paula Knee, Quotec Ltd and Dr Martin Meyer, SPRU, University of Sussex”, February 2007, cf. p.8. 27 See for example: Opening Address by Minister of Higher Education and Training Dr Blade Nzimande at the 3rd Annual South African Technology Network Conference Vaal University of Technology; 30 September 2010 28 The problems faced by universities in meeting this goal alone are immense. See Prof Brian O’Connell, Rector of UWC, quoted in Business Day, 2010/09/20, “Matrics ‘not ready for tertiary study’”. The poor level of preparedness of university entrants means that there is a high drop-out rate. This is exacerbated by the number of students who have to interrupt their learning for economic reasons. 29 All of the universities would consider themselves to be already devoting appropriate support for innovation, through their teaching and research, through their Technology Transfer activities and through their engagements with business, government, and public benefit organisations that address the needs of the wider economy and community


We would argue that this explains many of the characteristics of the innovation landscape

of the Western Cape that was surveyed in the 2009 Cofisa report and which are reflected

in the interviews undertaken for this project. Because innovation is not a priority for

universities (and cannot command the resources or attention that true priorities do), we

have to find smart ways to support and encourage it.

This involves recognising that

• resources for promoting innovation will always be limited, so interventions

must include many small (manageable) options, particularly interventions

that are not expensive and which trade on goodwill and volunteerism;

• people will be prone to being diverted by other priorities, so there is a

special need for arrangements that will keep the innovation drive ‘on track’

even as individuals and institutions have to go onto ‘main lines’ for a

period to tackle demands on their energies which are more urgent;

• the ‘unifying vision’ for driving innovation must be very broad, so that all

initiatives that support innovation as secondary aims can be included – for

example

o Exchanges between companies and university departments should

be motivated by their positive impact on teaching and research,

with the improved networks into industry being presented as a

possible spin off benefit.

o Initiatives like the Health Technology Park and the East City

Design initiative should be welcomed.

o Information should be spread and shared much more effectively on

all the things that have a positive impact for the innovation

ecosystem.

o Don’t focus ON the innovation ecosystem, but on activities that

meet the priority needs of stakeholders but which can be ‘tweaked’

to have spill-over benefits for innovation.

[Other issues and examples can be added – the point is that this analysis has

critical implications for how the conceptual model below can be made to ‘work’ in

the Western Cape. ]

The definition of ‘innovation’ used in this study is discussed in the First Report:

“Innovation is the process of transforming an idea, generally generated through

R&D, into a new or improved service, product, process or approach that relates to

the real needs of society and involves scientific, technological, organisational or

commercial activities. The key to this definition is the fact that the innovation

process is only complete once a defined product, process or system with some

tangible benefit has been implemented.” (NACI, 2006, p.72)


This definition, in its reference to “the real needs of society” and the requirement that

innovation results in “some tangible benefit” can encompass both ‘social innovation’ and

innovation that has a narrow commercial purpose.30 The advancement of society can be

assisted by cultural, environmental and social innovation which is not applied only in a

market context.

The general question posed by CHEC for this study is how university resources can be

mobilised to contribute actively to driving innovation in the Western Cape? Two

problem issues came out of the interviews. Firstly, ideas are generated (often through the

expenditure of public money and effort) but they are not used in practice. Secondly,

publicly funded HEIs and science councils have resources of knowledge and expertise, but

these are not easily available (or known) to firms, community organisations and public

sector agencies who need help to develop ideas that have come to them through their

work.

All over the world, societies are faced with difficulties in deciding which research to

prioritise and, once research progress has been made, how to ensure that it is translated

into saleable or socially valuable products and successful, sustainable enterprises. The

new Technology Innovation Agency is the main government instrument available for

commercial innovation, to bridge the ‘innovation chasm’ – between basic research and

manufacturing. This involves financial support (previously under schemes such as the

Innovation Fund) and non-financial support, including Centres of Competence which are

established as partnerships between universities, science councils and industry.

Relationships between business and universities take many forms. From a business

perspective, the provision of skilled graduates is the main contribution expected from

universities, and this may be supplemented by research contracts with individual

academics, with departments or institutes. These relationships can have a positive impact

upon teaching at universities. The exchange of students and the involvement of staff in

the ‘real world’ – can have an effect on both what the university teaches in its curriculum

and directly on learning. It can also influence academic research agendas and potentially

lead to innovation, via new intellectual property and licensing agreements or spin-out

companies.

30 Social innovation – on which there is a whole literature – can be defined simply as “a new idea that has been put into practice for the public good”. (Centre for Social Innovation, Toronto - http://socialinnovation.ca/about)


Conceptual model

There are six parts to the proposed conceptual model for university support for

innovation in the Western Cape. These are derived from the Situation Analysis.

1. Strong Technology Transfer Office’s attached to each institution

a. There are well-established TTOs at both UCT and SU. CPUT has recently

set up its own TTO, but there is scope for the creation of a joint office with

UWC, which could draw upon the experience of the other two institutions.

b. TTOs each need to work within their university structures to make it easy

and attractive for academics to commercialise their research or to apply it

to addressing social issues. This includes assistance with IP issues, access

to TIA programmes and grants, assistance with licensing agreements and

possibly with access to incubators (both physical and virtual). The

recommendation is that TTOs should have the responsibility here, with

appropriate support being available (from their institutions and from DST,

TIA, industry and possibly CHEC as well).

c. TTOs need to communicate and co-operate with one another and build the

capacity of professional organisations such as the South African Research

& Innovation Management Association (SARIMA). The role of TTOs is

both enhanced and made more challenging by the promulgation in August

2010 of the Intellectual Property Rights from Publicly Financed Research

and Development Act.

d. The conceptual model places a strong emphasis on the TTOs. The

interviews generated two views which, in their extreme forms, see the

TTOs either as enablers or as retarders of innovation.

i. Debate: TTOs and universities can hinder innovation (bureaucracy,

uncertainty) as much as they can enable it, if the incentive structure

is badly framed.

2. Regional fund to provide “pre-seed” grants

a. Interviews and the desk-top research suggested that the area that would

most benefit from a flow of flexible funding is ‘proof of concept’ or ‘pre-

seed’ grants that would place academics in a better position to licence

their inventions (to other users) or to attract seed funding if they seek to

commercialise it themselves.


b. This could be an area in which the four universities work together on

establishing a joint regional fund for this purpose.

3. Brokering relationships between HEIs and society

a. Universities have difficult relationships with business, civic organisations

and government. Better relationships on all three fronts are needed to

maximise the impact of HEIs on regional innovation. These can be

facilitated by brokering institutions (of which CHEC is one example), by

internal university policies (dealing with outside research, recognition for

community engagement, access to libraries etc) and by practice. It is

critical that in each instance there is an opportunity for these relationships

to influence and strengthen the universities’ primary responsibilities of

teaching and research. Two examples:

i. UCT initiated a pilot project in August 2010 on a “Shop front”

approach to broker relationships between HEIs and Public Benefit

Organisations, businesses or government departments.

ii. CHEC was involved in 2009/2010 in an effort to re-establish the

Cape Initiative in Materials in Manufacturing (CIMM), a well-

documented example of a bridging institution between industry

and academics in three of the universities. (This effort was not

successful.)

4. Involvement in the Regional Innovation Forum

a. The RIF is a DST initiative, now the responsibility of the Provincial

Government. Most interviewees did not think that it had yet been

satisfactorily launched and discounted the “Final Strategy” document,

dated March 2010.

5. Involvement in the work, mentoring and governance of the Provincial

and City Special Purpose Vehicles

a. The SPVs operate in particular sectors of the regional economy that have

most potential for increasing employment or for safeguarding jobs. (For

example, ICT, business process outsourcing, oil and gas, boat-building,

clothing ...) In many cases, the primary reason that university involvement

is sought relates to skills development and expert advice. These are,

however, the sectors in which innovation is most necessary and where

there is scope for HEI involvement to be pro-active.


6. Appropriate involvement with innovation-related development

initiatives

a. Universities need to ensure that their own interests are recognised, but

they should support regional initiatives to drive innovation both

individually and collectively, where this is useful.

b. Two (at least) new initiatives are presently under way:

i. East City Design Initiative (driven by the Province and the City (via

the Cape Town Partnership) with the involvement of CPUT.)

ii. Cape Health Technology Park in Pinelands/Oude Molen (driven by

the DST (via the TIA) and the province, with City support – HEI

involvement is yet to be defined.)

c. The Stellenbosch Technopark, while it is not a ‘proper’ science park, hosts

at least two spin-off companies in which InnovUS has an investment and

may, in the future, provide opportunities for wider university involvement.

d. Development of the Bellville precinct, a long term goal, which merits

discussion and preparatory action. (See below)

The role of CHEC

In framing the appropriate role for CHEC, there is a need to evaluate whether CHEC

involvement will, in each case, have an impact that justifies its cost (particularly in effort,

given the other pressing concerns of the universities in the Province). Even if CHEC is

successful in getting academics on to the boards of SPVs for example, this may not work.

A generous ‘pre-seed’ fund will tie up resources that could better be used elsewhere if our

weak education system and poor innovation networks mean that the deal flow is too

feeble.

In summary:

Area CHEC ROLE

1. Strong Technology Transfer Office’s

attached to each institution

Minor Assistance when requested by the collective of

regional TTOs

2. Regional fund to provide “pre-

seed” grants

Major CHEC could choose to play the key role in

promoting such a regional fund to which all four

universities will have access, through the TTOs


Area CHEC ROLE

3. Brokering relationships between

HEIs and society

Variable CHEC already plays a role in providing a forum for

universities to hold discussions with the Province

and the City. It attempted to assist in re-

establishing CIMM and offered to house the CIMM

secretariat'. CHEC could promote information

sharing between the universities in this area

4. Involvement in the Regional

Innovation Forum

Major CHEC has expressed reservations with

developments to date, but is able to represent a

collective view from the HEIs which will be valuable

to the RIF.

5. Involvement in the work,

mentoring and governance of the

Provincial and City Special Purpose

Vehicles

Major CHEC has nominated board members for CITI and

can assist to ensure the there is feedback to all the

HEIs about each of the SPVs.

6. Appropriate involvement with

innovation-related development

initiatives

Variable CHEC is involved with the ECDI and has beeen

briefed on aspects of the CHTP. CHEC has taken

forward the UWC proposal for the 'Bellville Science

Park' for wider debate. It can play a useful

information-sharing role in all cases.

International experiences

There is a vast international literature on innovation, the role of HEIs in innovation, on

science parks and on business/university and triple helix relationships. Case studies

abound. Innovation strategies (national, regional and sectoral) exist in iterations and

contradictions. Web sites make the most extravagant and enticing claims for university

partnerships with regional development agencies, local businesses, multinational

companies and communities. CHEC has gained on-the-ground perspectives of university

involvement with incubators, science parks and shop-fronts in study tours that have

included representatives from the Province and the City.

The importance of universities to the innovation process generally is well documented in

the international literature (OECD, 2007). But the importance of innovation to

universities in South Africa – while it is increasingly acknowledged – is less clear in

practice. Both in SA and in other countries “the precise nature of the university’s role in

the knowledge-based economy – and its ability to perform the roles ascribed to it – is still

being explored.” (TRRA, 2007)

Which model is right for the Western Cape?


The specific question relates to a model for driving innovation in the Western Cape and

the role of universities and their association, the Cape Higher Education Consortium,

CHEC. The more general question is how the resources of the universities can be

mobilised to contribute actively to the regional development process?

Much can be learned by seeking an answer to this question from the experiences of other

cities and regions, other universities and knowledge systems. But it is no better a question

than asking ‘which sort of bread is best for the Western Cape?’ and embarking on a survey

of recipe books and experimentation with bread formulae.

The ideal loaf of bread, like the ideal innovation system, does not exist. There are many

successful loaves of bread – though which is best is a matter of personal taste and habit

and which you will get depends on both availability and on your budget. There is a choice

also whether to buy or to bake yourself. Most critical of all is that you can never rely

simply on the written recipe. You have to experiment and practice. The recipe may be

right, but your way of mixing and proving the dough may be wrong. Ingredients are local.

They may not be consistent over time. The hardness of the flour available to you may

differ from that used by the recipe tester. The water, the yeast, the ambient temperature,

the humidity and the oven you use each introduce variables that can determine the

success of your efforts.

International best practice in the industrial production of bread may be available, but

international best practice in driving innovation is not. (Although it will be put on offer if

demanded!)

As highlighted in this analogy there is no ‘right’ or single approach to defining the role of

universities in driving innovation. This is not a profound finding. The success of an

innovation system is acutely dependent upon location, history, environment. What works

in one place at one time may not work as well in another context. So any research which

advises CHEC to adopt “the Barcelona model”, for example, would be highly suspect. But

learning from what universities do in Barcelona, how they work together, promote

themselves together and secure substantial financial and marketing support from city

and regional government can, indeed, be instructive.

There are useful lessons available for each of the six areas listed above. For example, one

possibility that was raised by interviewees at two universities was that CHEC should

leverage a fund that will increase the availability of proof of concept (“pre-seed”) funding.


The issue is considered in the UKs Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration.

This recommends that UK Universities increase the availability of proof of concept

funding and reduce the availability of seed funding, “and use public seed funds to draw in

private finance wherever possible”. (Recommendation 4.6)

“Proof of concept funding is used to establish whether a new technology is

commercially viable or not. It is the first stage in transferring IP to the market,

and is needed for both licensing and spinning out… Whichever commercialisation

route a university takes, it will need to prove the concept of the technology before

its gets any outside company or investor interested. With limited public resources,

making more small investments in proof of concept activity offers better value

than concentrating funding on larger early stage investments in spinouts.

Focusing resources on proof of concept activity would help universities

concentrate on increasing the throughput of their technology transfer, and provide

incentives for them to use the fastest, least resource-intensive route to market.”

(HMSO, 2003, p.61.)

The level of investment envisaged is up to R1-m per invention. (The total amount

available to the TTO at UCT, is R0.5-m per year, for pre-seed support for all projects

across the whole university.)

We do not read the Lambert report, pick some of its recommendations to follow, and call

this ‘learning from international best practice’. We first decide on a course of action,

based on the interpretation of our reality in the Western Cape, and then learn whether

this is supported by the experience of other countries and, if it is, how it was tackled.

The same issue is raised in a manual issued by the University of Georgia in the US to

assist staff members “forming a new company based on your research discovery”. This

says that

“Many universities and states now offer grants from “gap” funds to help nurture

new businesses. They manifest themselves in a variety of different forms but

generally are focused on laboratory activities designed to help bridge the gap

between an academic research discovery and something that is less risky and more

amenable to attracting investment funding. As such, gap funding is used for

reduction-to- practice and proof-of-concept experimentation, construction of

functional prototypes, and similar purposes. It may also include monies to execute

market-research studies and write business plans. …Gap awards are usually in the

form of a grant, so no transfer of equity occurs.

“The State of Georgia has developed a unique grant program that specifically

targets university-based start-up companies for business development/risk

mitigation activities in order to increase the likelihood of such companies

becoming “fundable” to investors. Managed under the auspices of the Georgia

Research Alliance (GRA), it consists of several types of gap funds with specific

areas of emphasis (biotechnology, biofuels, and vaccines for example). A


description of those funds can be found at the GRA website (www.gra.org), under

the link to the “GRA Innovation Fund.” At UGA (University of Georgia), the GRA

programs are administered through the Georgia BioBusiness Center.” (DesRosier,

2008, Startups for Smarties, Pages 21-22)

The UK also has a wide range of funds able to offer pre-commercial funding to academics.

In 2007, for example, eight London-based Universities came together to launch a Proof of

Concept fund called “Emerald II” which is “designed to assist staff and students in the

partner institutions to explore the potential of their ideas, inventions or designs to the

point where realistic judgement as to the commercial opportunities can be made. Emerald

provides proof of concept awards of up to £40,000 for any one project.”31 This venture

has attracted funding of just under £1-million from the London Development Agency,

which is apparently one of the models relied upon by the DEDT in its plans for a single

development agency in Cape Town32. “The fund will consider various forms of IP to cover

both the ‘harder’, more technology-oriented IP assets, as well as ‘softer’ IP, which would

play a central role in setting up new, expertise-based commercial entities, e.g. the creative

industries.”33

More recently, in June 2010, Oxford University launched The Oxford Invention Fund.

This is managed by the University’s technology transfer company Isis Innovation and

”aims to raise up to £5m to create a self-sustaining fund to help develop Oxford

inventions to the point when they can attract commercial investment… It is widely

recognised that there is an ‘innovation gap’ between the early stages of an invention or

idea and the point when it is mature enough to be commercialised through a license or

spin-out company.”34

The TTOs at UCT and Stellenbosch both said that this sort of support would be a most

welcome support for their efforts to drive innovation. They could tell researchers with

ideas that came through their filtering process: “there is a good chance that your project

will be funded, because we have a dedicated fund for this purpose in the Western Cape”35.

We can demonstrate that almost any sensible strategy is based on “international best

practice”. This still does not mean this is the right solution for the Western Cape – but the

31 See London Proof of Concept Funds website: http://www.londonproofofconcept.net/ 32 “Province aims to help existing businesses as key to strategy of boosting jobs” Cape Times 9/9/2010 33 See Emerald website: http://emeraldfund.org/ 34 “New Oxford Fund to Bridge 'Innovation Gap'”, Isis Innovation website, June 2010; brochure “OIF: Oxford Invention Fund”, pp.20, downloaded from http://isis-innovation.com 35 Interview with InnovUS, 26/8/2010


information can be used to build a case for interventions that are purposefully led and

which will allow us to find the actions which do fit our situation the best.

2. International perspectives on driving innovation

The 2009 Cofisa report on the Western Cape includes a chapter on international

experience with triple helix collaboration that surveys different approaches to building

networks and facilitating collaboration for innovation that are found in Finland,

Australia, India and China. (page 33 et seq)

Universities are critical elements in the Centre of Expertise Programme in Finland and

the Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) Programme in Australia – as they are with the

Centres of Competence model being developed in South Africa. It is not possible to

generalise about the situation in India and China which are such huge and varied

economies in comparison with Finland, Australia or SA. In China, the report notes that

“leading universities have been very active in developing linkages with industry in order

to improve the quality and relevance of their teaching programmes” but that only “about

one-quarter of the 750 R&D centres established in China by foreign firms are estimated to

be joint units with universities or research institutes.”

The COFISA programme was an effort to apply the most successful elements of the

Finnish Innovation Model to South Africa. The book on the project: Enhancing

Innovation in South Africa: The COFISA Experience (2010) states that “South Africa was

the first country in which such collaboration was attempted…. This was not without its

challenges in learning”— a comment that seems full of understatement. The book notes

the differences in population, geography, and that Finland is a knowledge-based

economy, while South Africa a resource-based economy. It also contrasts the South

African approach of having several sectoral policies for Science, Technology and

Innovation (STI) with that of Finland, which “has adopted a systemic approach based on

STI policy to build a knowledge-based society”.

“The main challenges are in how to share a Finnish model in a country with a very

different political and economic culture, and to do it in such a way that supports national

and regional development.” Finland’s model has worked in the Finnish environment. It

“may provide some advice and experience of interventions and support mechanisms”

from which SA can learn, “but ultimately the main task remains in South African

stakeholders’ hands.”


The impact of the COFISA programme is not clear yet. It involved many reports,

consultative engagements and meetings and allowed South African government officials

and innovation experts to gain a privileged exposure to the workings of a functioning

innovation system. The COFISA programme was used to develop existing policy for SA on

science parks and on regional innovation systems/forums which has had an influence on

both the research for this project on how universities can drive innovation in the Western

Cape and on the environment in which these discussions are taking place. The COFISA

book includes a frank and revealing chapter on “Lessons learned” from the management

of the project. This records the very there was “almost complete lack of buy-in to the

programme amongst potential provincial stakeholders, particularly by relevant provincial

government staff. This was a major hurdle since the provincial-level component

represented the major portion of the COFISA programme.” Who can doubt that the

difficulties which are being experienced now around the Western Cape Regional

Innovation Forum flow from this?

South African government officials are subject to huge pressures for service delivery,

“quick wins” and measurable results. They find it hard to perform their day jobs, let alone

learn from the examples of others. So many ‘study visits’ and expert exchanges fail to have

the impact they deserve because the daily march of events pulls people back into their

defined jobs and scheduled roles. This is an ongoing tragedy of our transition. We have

had extraordinary opportunities to learn from other governments, regions and

institutions all over the world since 1994. Because of the lack of time for reflection and the

unwillingness to accept that deep change takes decades – whether you plan it or not – the

tendency is to look for silver bullets and magical megaprojects rather than to learn from

practical experimentation and implementation on the ground.

The following conclusion (one of several) comes from a 2008 NESTA36 research study on

innovation in British city-regions (Simmie et al, 2008). The research is introduced as

follows:

“Innovation is a hot topic in economic development circles around the world.

Buoyed by the success of Silicon Valley, Hsinchu region, or Helsinki, innovation is

seen by leading regions as the key to staying ahead; in those that lag, as an

opportunity to catch up. The result has been a plethora of ambitious innovation

strategies. Unfortunately, the common thread has often been under-delivery.

36 NESTA is the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. “Our aim is to transform the UK’s capacity for innovation. We invest in early-stage companies, inform innovation policy and encourage a culture that helps innovation to flourish.” Formerly a UK government entity, NESTA is now an independent charity. It is funded by the National Lottery, and it operates at no cost to the taxpayer. See http://www.nesta.org.uk/


“This failure to deliver has been blamed on many things: lack of institutions, lack

of ambition, and lack of skilled policymakers. However, what has been less

straightforward to understand is the extent to which such change was ever

possible.

“In this research project, we have worked with leading researchers from Oxford

Brookes and Cambridge Universities to use advanced economic techniques to

uncover the extent to which ‘history matters’. The results contain important

lessons for national and regional economic policymakers.”

“Developing new ‘pathways’ for economic development depends considerably on a

region’s innovation system. However, individual policy interventions are likely to

have little impact on economic development if they do not take into account

previous economic structures and their legacy. Perhaps most importantly,

policymakers must be patient and allow major interventions time to bear fruit.

“This work feeds into a wider body of work that deals with the spatial aspects of

innovation policy. Its insights underpin many of the practical programmes we

have underway at NESTA and it forms the backdrop to our work with the nations,

cities and regions that make up the UK.”

The main conclusions, naturally, reflect particularly on UK conditions. One exception is

the paramount importance for innovation of connectivity to international knowledge

networks. The other relates to the importance of time and history:

“In all the most innovative cities in our sample the historical development of their

current successes took between 30 and 40 years. Public policies that played a role

in their early years had not foreseen what emerged several decades later. Many of

the complex outcomes of the interplay between early policy decisions and market

forces arose not so much as a result of some guiding intelligence but more as an

unpredictable emergence of the interplay of the activities of different interest

groups. In this sense it appears that it would not have been possible some 40 years

ago to have devised a suite of public policies that would have ensured today’s

outcomes. Public policies for innovation should therefore be broadly enabling,

tolerant of system redundancy and sufficiently large scale and long-term to adapt

to change. They should enable continual radical and systemic innovations to

evolve and emerge in ways that cannot be foreseen today.”

The 2007 HEFCE study on Global Innovation Environments

The spatial aspects of innovation policy are the theme of the CHEC 2009 document on

“Planning to make the best use of universities in promoting economic and social

development”. The document correctly notes that “the successful city is increasingly

measured by its capacity to attract and retain talent”. And it is also correct that “planning

for innovation and participation in the global knowledge economy cannot be separated

from planning of attractive and convenient integrated environments”. But the document

then leaps directly to the advocacy of a science park (and even to the location for the

science park, on the Belcon site).


Other countries have developed many different ways of constructing environments which

promote innovation, and which involve universities, beyond the idea of the science park.

In the pages below, we draw on a UK report on four different categories of university-

linked “global innovation environments”, of which the science park is just one. We could

simply refer readers to the original report (HEFCE, 2007), but we have chosen to

summarise the key points for convenience below.

In 2007, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) published a useful

study on Global Innovation Environments, “where academics and businesses can interact,

share knowledge and develop partnerships (and) are supported by policy actions in many

countries. Such environments not only support and retain the innovation activities of

domestic firms but also serve to attract the innovation activities of multi-national

corporations.” Four categories for this sort of university-linked innovation environment

were identified :

1. Science Parks

Science Parks are purpose-built buildings and infrastructure. They are distinct

from the largely commercial real estate based science/research/technology parks

where all (or most) residents are from the private sector. The Parks are supported

by public funds which typically finance some or all of the capital investment as

well as funding public and academic sector R&D activities There will be structures

in place to facilitate collaborative working and knowledge transfer between

residents with the aim of accelerating the application and commercialisation of

publicly funded R&D. Science Park R&D activity is focused on knowledge

intensive high-growth sectors where interdisciplinary skills are needed and where

academic and business R&D activities are closely aligned. A Science Park is

distinct from the other three categories in the typology by the fact that academic,

public and private sector R&D activities and commercialisation activities are co-

located in a physical environment. This is intended to stimulate collaborations

between academic/public sector researchers and business.

2. HEI-Based Competence Centres

HEI-Based Competence Centres support collaborative academic-industry research

activities in physical R&D centres located within existing HEIs. Centres are

focused on technical themes with strong industrial relevance. The research is

usually inter-disciplinary and addresses fundamental issues that industry is

unlikely to carry out itself but which is expected to have significant impact on

industry in the longer term. Each Centre has a well-defined research programme

designed with industrial and academic input along with processes to facilitate

knowledge transfer. Public funds are allocated for medium- to long-term

timescales (of the order of 10 to 15 years) and may support development of the


capital and administrative infrastructure of the Centre as well as research

programme and knowledge transfer activities. The inter-disciplinary and

collaborative nature of Competence Centres requires the establishment of

organisational structures to bridge traditional academic boundaries within an HEI

and facilitate industrial participation. Private sector companies typically

participate through engaging in collaborative research projects, part-funding

research activities, supporting postgraduate students and sitting on governing

boards and committees. Competence Centres are distinct from Science Parks in

that there is a defined programme guiding all the research within the Centre, and

that the majority of the research is conducted within an HEI. Furthermore,

academic-industry collaboration is essential and participants are usually identified

prior to funding allocation decisions.

3. Virtual HEI-based Competence Centres

Virtual HEI-based Competence Centres are similar in their role, research

programme design, technical themes and activities to their physical counterparts,

but several HEIs are involved. This important difference is designed to create

Centres that link sources of expertise from a range of academic disciplines and

geographical locations – often aiming to create a critical mass of expertise and

skills at a national level where it did not previously exist. Public funding supports

the research programme and the development of formal structures to manage

networking and collaborative working among the academic partners as well as

with industrial partners.

4. Innovation Networks

Innovation Networks receive public funds to support networking between

industry, the public sector and academia in specific technical themes or sectors.

Funding supports the management and operations of the Network and may

support academic and public sector participation in networking activities. The

Networks have no dedicated public sector research funds but aim to stimulate the

transfer of existing knowledge and create new R&D collaborations and research

projects that will go on to seek funding from a range of public and private sources.

This is useful reference point for the discussion on how Western Cape universities should

relate to firms and assist in promoting innovation through activities and involvements

that go beyond their accepted teaching and research roles.

The HEFCE report identified “Six Global Innovation Environment exemplars”:

A) Engineering Research Centers, USA

B) Competence Centres in Nanotechnology, Germany

C) Designium, Finland

D) Networks of Centres of Excellence, Canada

E) Competence Centres, Sweden

F) Biopolis, Singapore.


All were all created to address the issue of increasing the innovation capacity and

capabilities of their respective national economies and, in particular, their domestic

private sector businesses. The objective of supporting and developing domestic

businesses rather than specifically attracting inward investment is a common aspect of all

the exemplars, except Biopolis in Singapore (and to a lesser extent Designium in Finland).

All but one of the exemplars (Designium) provide training and education of postgraduate

researchers. In addition to access to the knowledge of academic researchers, access to

industrially orientated researchers and potential employees is highly valued by the

industrial participants. A final commonality between exemplars is industrial influence on

exemplar activities, particularly on R&D programmes, through advisory boards and

steering committees.

The exemplars divide themselves into two groups; those established in the late 1980s

through to the late 1990s and those established after 2000. The earlier group was

predominantly focused on improving the competitiveness of domestic businesses in the

context of increasing competition from the Far East. Given the time of their establishment

this is not surprising. The later group is more global in nature and strongly focused on

both the development and support of domestic businesses and attracting inward

investment from international companies. The US Engineering Research Centers, the

Swedish Competence Centres, the Canadian Networks of Centres of Excellence and the

German Competence Centres in Nanotechnology fall into the earlier group, while the later

group includes Designium in Finland and Biopolis in Singapore.

The early group was created at a time when much research, particularly that in higher

education institutions (HEIs), was organised along fairly rigid traditional disciplinary

boundaries; and concepts such as interdisciplinary working, virtual organisation and

close collaboration with industry were novel and not always readily accepted. The success

of these exemplars has been the implementation of processes and activities to bring

industry and academia together to design and conduct research programmes and

commercialise the outputs. The shift towards collaboration across academic, sector and

institutional boundaries has not been simple or easy but the concept is now more

established and increasingly commonplace.

The later group takes the concepts of collaboration and interdisciplinary activities as a

starting point and aims to build on the learning and change already in place. These

organisations are attempting to create environments that fully facilitate and support


collaborative partnerships across a wide range of innovation ‘actors’ – HEIs, public sector

research institutes, multi-national corporations, small and medium-sized enterprises

(SMEs) and government. Furthermore, the later exemplars are focused on distinct

geographic locations, seeking to create regional clusters of expertise and fully extend their

influence to the global economy.

Each exemplar is described briefly below.

The HEFCE report is précised (and plagiarised) here to substantiate the point, that the

Western Cape is not limited to ‘science park’ solutions when it considers either the role of

universities in driving innovation or the spatial aspects of promoting innovation. The

exemplars are matched to the typology as follows:

Exemplar A: Engineering Research Centers, USA

Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) were created in the USA by the National

Science Foundation in 1985 in the face of increasing industrial competition from

the Far East. Their aim was to provide an environment in which academia and

industry could collaborate to "pursue strategic advances in complex engineered

systems and systems-level technologies that have the potential to spawn whole

new industries or to radically transform the product lines, processing

technologies, or service delivery methodologies of current industries". The Centers

provide industry with access to expertise and facilities, and enable collaboration

with academics and students. They aim to address generic longer-term and

interdisciplinary problems in engineering and ultimately, the commercialisation

of research outputs. The ERCs are based at universities, with most involving

Table 2.3: GIE study exemplars against the typology

ThemeBio/medical

scienceEngineering IT & Comms Nanotech Design

Various

themes

Typology

T1: "Science Parks" Singapore:

Biopolis

T2: Physical HEI-based

"Competence Centres"

USA

Engineering

Research

Centers

USA

Engineering

Research

Centers

Germany:

Competence

Centres in

Nanotech

Finland:

Designium

Sweden:

Competence

Centres

T3: Virtual HEI-based

"Competence Centres"

Germany:

Competence

Centres in

Nanotech

Finland:

Designium

Canada:

Networks of

Centres of

Excellence

T4: Innovation Networks


collaborations between a number of universities and academic disciplines. Each

Center is required to have a strategic plan to integrate research and educational

activities across the ERC participants and a research programme designed with

the participation of industrial members. The ERCs are only part funded by the

National Science Foundation with additional funds provided by the universities

and industry. Annual funding for each Center ranges from $2.5 million to $8

million with the National Science Foundation’s contribution ranging from $1.8

million to $3.3 million. The funding supports networking activities, the purchase

of capital equipment and the research portfolio.

Exemplar B: Competence Centres in Nanotechnology, Germany

The Competence Centres in Nanotechnology, created in 1998, were the first

centres of their kind in Germany. Their policy objective was to support

interdisciplinary and inter-sector activities in the nanotechnology field and

promote knowledge exchange and industrial application. Unlike the ERCs, their

focus was on bundling groups of existing disparate collaborative research projects

into coherent and identifiable research portfolios and facilitating networking

activities between the participating researchers. The funding, at relatively modest

levels of around €350,000 per year, supported networking, technology transfer,

R&D bid support and educational activities, but did not directly fund research

projects. However, collaborative bids from the Centres were given preferential

treatment by various publicly funded research programmes. In effect, the

Competence Centres acted as networks rather than research centres but at the

time of their creation the term ‘network’ was not acceptable in the German policy

environment. Since that time networks have become acceptable and the Federal

Competence Networks Programme created. Most of the Competence Centres in

Nanotechnology have now transferred to this programme, which is much wider in

technological scope, and currently 11 of the 130 networks have a nanotechnology

focus.

Exemplar C: Designium, Finland

After achieving considerable technology based growth in the mid to late 1990s,

Finland’s innovation policy makers came to the view that technology alone might

not be a sufficient driver of continuing growth. Methods to support the

technology-service interface were explored in addition to maintaining

considerable support for R&D. This area included developments in the design of

technology based products as well as technology derived and delivered ‘content’

(i.e. design of both hardware and software based products and services). It was felt

that there was a need to integrate design into the national innovation system;

activities and intermediaries were needed to facilitate the transfer of art and

design knowledge for business applications and provide assistance for researchers

and students to commercialise their ideas. The Designium Network in industrial

design, based at the University of Art and Design in Helsinki, supports all Finnish

art and design institutes and also includes participants from the Nordic and Baltic

countries. It aims to increase the utilisation of design expertise in the innovation

and product development activities of the business sector. The Network links and

groups user-orientated design projects across the participating HEIs, and acts as a

‘store front’ and sign-post for design activities. Designium also aims to promote


the creation of new knowledge and expertise in design, market-driven design R&D

and commercialisation. Designium is just one component of wider activities to

develop a design based cluster in the Helsinki region.

Exemplar D: Networks of Centres of Excellence, Canada

The Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) programme, established in 1989,

took a similar HEI based approach as the US Engineering Research Centers, in

supporting academic-industry research collaboration. Due to the geographical

dispersion of Canadian researchers, virtual research clusters were created to link

established Centres of Excellence into new identifiable groupings. The resulting

networks are nation-wide, multidisciplinary and multi-sectoral research

partnerships with two key features: a distributed network model in which groups

of researchers at universities across Canada collaborate on common research

problems; and a focus on generating practical applications from fundamental

research programmes through close collaboration with industry. The Networks

support collaborative R&D, postgraduate training, technology transfer and

networking activities. They are part-funded by the NCE Programme (in turn

funded by the Canadian Research Councils and Industry Canada) with additional

funds from industry, the universities and provincial sources. On average,

Networks are funded to the order of C$7.5 million with approximately 50% of

funds received from the NCE Programme. There are currently 24 NCEs in areas

including engineering, manufacturing, health and biosciences, ICT, natural

resources and the environment.

Exemplar E: Competence Centres, Sweden

The Competence Centres Programme was inspired by the Engineering Research

Center Program in the USA. In the late 1980s and early 1990s Sweden was viewed

as having a very rigid disciplinary based research structure, focused on

universities, with little interaction with, or influence by, industry. The Competence

Centres were created as a forum for co-operation between business, the public

sector, universities and colleges, research institutes and other research

organisations. The programme sought to develop industry-related centres that

would be responsible for conducting co-operative interdisciplinary research across

a number of specific technical areas, and the application and commercialisation of

the research outputs. The Competence Centres are housed at, and administered

by, individual universities and organised as public-private partnerships with

financial support and participation from both industrial and public sector

participants. Typical funding for a Centre is SEK 18 million (£1.3 million) which

funds collaborative R&D, postgraduate training, technology transfer and

networking activities. The Programme recently came to an end and is being

replaced by the Excellence Centre Programme. This new programme is currently

open for proposals. A related initiative has also launched a call for proposals for

Competence Centres based at research institutes (rather than universities).

Exemplar F: Biopolis, Singapore

In 2000 the Singapore government launched its Biomedical Sciences Initiative

with the aim of developing Singapore’s infrastructure, skills and institutional

environment to support a biomedical industry – from basic and applied research


and commercial product development right through to the delivery of healthcare

services. The country not only wishes to support a biomedical industrial sector but

also aims to become the prominent healthcare provider in the region. While

Singapore was already home to the manufacturing operations of a number of

international pharmaceutical companies, it had little in the way of research

capabilities and needed to create an entirely new biomedical research sector.

Furthermore, it was recognised that the development of the sector would require

importing skills and knowledge from overseas. The cornerstone of the Biomedical

Sciences Initiative is the purpose-built Biopolis Science Park which was designed

to house and provide specialist facilities for biomedical R&D activities across the

public and private sectors. The aim, through the co-location of private and public

sector R&D activities, is to stimulate the flow of knowledge and people across

organisational boundaries and accelerate the commercialisation of research

outputs. Biopolis is currently home to: Singapore’s public research funding

agencies and biomedical regulatory bodies; five newly established public sector

research institutes; two international academic research groups from the USA and

Japan; biotechnology SMEs and the R&D centres of a number of multi-national

pharmaceutical companies.

The table on the following page compares the four categories of Global Innovation

Environments (GIE) against:

1) The balance of public-private participants and their level of co-location

2) The source and level of investment

3) The balance of capital vs. non-capital investment

4) Type of activities undertaken

5) The form of the outputs.


Tab

le 2

.1:

Typ

olo

gy

of

Glo

bal in

no

va

tio

n E

nvir

on

men

ts

Glo

bal

Inn

ovati

on

En

vir

on

men

t C

ate

go

ry(1

) G

IE P

art

icip

an

ts(2

) S

ou

rce o

f G

IE

investm

en

t

(3)

Investm

en

t u

se:

cap

ital vs.

acti

vit

ies

(4)

GIE

acti

vit

ies

(5)

GIE

Dir

ect

ou

tpu

tsA

dd

itio

nal In

form

ati

on

T1:

"S

cie

nce P

ark

s"

Aca

de

mic

s

Pri

va

te S

ecto

r

Pu

blic

se

cto

r re

se

arc

he

rs

Fu

nd

ing

fro

m a

mix

ture

of

pri

va

te a

nd

pu

blic

so

urc

es f

or

bo

th c

ap

ita

l

de

ve

lop

me

nt

& r

ese

arc

h

activitie

s

Ca

pita

l in

ve

stm

en

t in

bu

ildin

gs &

infr

astr

uctu

re

Se

pa

rate

pu

blic

& p

riva

te s

ecto

r

rese

arc

h f

un

din

g

Co

-lo

ca

ted

aca

de

mic

, p

ub

lic

an

d p

riva

te s

ecto

r R

&D

Ne

two

rkin

g

Kn

ow

led

ge

tra

nsfe

r

Co

mm

erc

ialis

atio

n

Tra

ditio

na

l a

ca

de

mic

ou

tpu

ts

Kn

ow

led

ge

tra

nsfe

r

Ne

w c

olla

bo

ratio

ns

IP g

en

era

tio

n

Ne

w p

rod

ucts

& p

roce

sse

s

Aca

de

mic

, p

ub

lic &

pri

va

te s

ecto

r R

&D

co

-

loca

ted

in

th

e S

cie

nce

Pa

rk

De

gre

e o

f co

llab

ora

tio

n b

etw

ee

n p

art

icip

an

ts

de

pe

nd

s o

n t

he

pro

ce

sse

s a

nd

str

uctu

res in

pla

ce

T2:

Ph

ysic

al

HE

I-b

ased

"Co

mp

ete

nce C

en

tres"

Aca

de

mic

s

Pri

va

te S

ecto

r

Pu

blic

se

cto

r re

se

arc

he

rs

Aca

de

mic

activitie

s

fun

de

d f

rom

th

e p

ub

lic

se

cto

r

Se

lf-f

un

din

g f

or

pri

va

te

se

cto

r p

art

icip

atio

n

Pu

blic

fu

nd

s f

or

Ce

ntr

e

ma

na

ge

me

nt

& c

olla

bo

rative

R&

D p

rog

ram

me

s

Pu

blic

pro

gra

mm

es m

ay a

lso

fun

d c

ap

ita

l e

qu

ipm

en

t

Se

lf-f

un

de

d p

riva

te s

ecto

r

pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n in

co

llab

ora

tive

R&

D

pro

jects

Co

llab

ora

tive

R&

D

Po

stg

rad

ua

te t

rain

ing

Ne

two

rkin

gK

no

wle

dg

e

tra

nsfe

r

(Co

mm

erc

ialis

atio

n o

ccu

rs

ma

inly

ou

tsid

e o

f th

e

Ce

ntr

e)

Tra

ditio

na

l a

ca

de

mic

ou

tpu

ts

Kn

ow

led

ge

tra

nsfe

r

Ne

w c

olla

bo

ratio

ns

IP g

en

era

tio

n

(Ne

w p

rod

ucts

& p

roce

sse

s in

the

lo

ng

er

term

)

Ce

ntr

es lo

ca

ted

at

a H

EI

with

exi

stin

g e

xpe

rtis

e

in t

he

th

em

e/s

ecto

r

R&

D c

on

du

cte

d in

th

e C

en

tre

Ce

ntr

es f

ocu

se

d o

n t

ech

nic

al th

em

es w

ith

ind

ustr

ial re

leva

nce

T3:

Vir

tual

HE

I-b

ased

"Co

mp

ete

nce C

en

tres"

Aca

de

mic

s

Pri

va

te S

ecto

r

Pu

blic

se

cto

r re

se

arc

he

rs

Aca

de

mic

activitie

s

fun

de

d f

rom

th

e p

ub

lic

se

cto

r

Se

lf-f

un

din

g f

or

pri

va

te

se

cto

r p

art

icip

atio

n

Pu

blic

fu

nd

s f

or

Ce

ntr

e

ma

na

ge

me

nt

& c

olla

bo

rative

R&

D p

rog

ram

me

s

Pu

blic

pro

gra

mm

es m

ay a

lso

fun

d c

ap

ita

l e

qu

ipm

en

t

Se

lf-f

un

de

d p

riva

te s

ecto

r

pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n in

co

llab

ora

tive

R&

D

pro

jects

Co

llab

ora

tive

R&

D

Po

stg

rad

ua

te t

rain

ing

Ne

two

rkin

gK

no

wle

dg

e

tra

nsfe

r

(Co

mm

erc

ialis

atio

n o

ccu

rs

ma

inly

ou

tsid

e o

f th

e

Ce

ntr

e)

Tra

ditio

na

l a

ca

de

mic

ou

tpu

ts

Kn

ow

led

ge

tra

nsfe

r

Ne

w c

olla

bo

ratio

ns

IP g

en

era

tio

n

(Ne

w p

rod

ucts

& p

roce

sse

s in

the

lo

ng

er

term

)

Ce

ntr

es lin

k a

nu

mb

er

of

HE

Is m

akin

g t

he

ir

skill

s &

exp

ert

ise

mo

re w

ide

ly a

va

ilab

le

R&

D c

on

du

cte

d in

th

e C

en

tre

Ce

ntr

es f

ocu

se

d o

n t

ech

nic

al th

em

es w

ith

ind

ustr

ial re

leva

nce

T4:

Inn

ovati

on

Netw

ork

s

Aca

de

mic

s

Pri

va

te S

ecto

r

Pu

blic

se

cto

r re

se

arc

he

rs

Pu

blic

an

d p

riva

te

se

cto

r fu

nd

ing

Pu

blic

fu

nd

s f

or

Ne

two

rk

ma

na

ge

me

nt

& o

pe

ratio

ns

Se

lf-f

un

de

d p

riva

te s

ecto

r

pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n in

ne

two

rkin

g

activitie

s

Ne

two

rkin

g

Kn

ow

led

ge

tra

nsfe

r

(Ma

y b

e in

vo

lve

d in

po

stg

rad

ua

te t

rain

ing

)

Kn

ow

led

ge

tra

nsfe

r

Ne

w c

olla

bo

ratio

ns

(Ne

w p

rod

ucts

& p

roce

sse

s in

the

lo

ng

er

term

)

Ne

two

rks h

ave

no

de

dic

ate

d p

ub

lic s

ecto

r

rese

arc

h f

un

ds b

ut

aim

to

stim

ula

te n

ew

R&

D

co

llab

ora

tio

ns a

nd

kn

ow

led

ge

tra

nsfe

r


In summary, the HEFCE report finds that there are numerous approaches to the creation of

Global Innovation Environments to support innovation, which relate closely to universities

and which aim to retain and attract private sector R&D and innovation activities. Despite

differences in initial economic and policy contexts, all are based on the interdisciplinary

nature of innovation activities and the need for knowledge exchange and collaboration across

organisational boundaries – public and private, academic and business, small and large

companies, national and international. At a minimum level pro-active networking activities

are required to bring together the individuals to stimulate technology and knowledge

transfer and create new collaborations. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s further support for

Global Innovation Environments resulted in the provision of public programmes for

collaborative research aimed at solving technical challenges and deepening relationships and

networks. More recent approaches appear to be centred on the development of identifiable

physical infrastructures to support technology and sector clusters. These clusters are

integrating many of the features of the earlier models with the physical proximity of private

and public R&D, creating increased opportunities for structured and unstructured

interactions. Biopolis and Designium are intentionally international in focus and,

simultaneously, regional in nature.

There is no suggestion that the Western Cape and the CHEC partners should pick one of

these four categories or seek to emulate one of the exemplars. The Western Cape needs to

develop its own approach based on its own circumstances and making use of the particular

national and regional policies that impact on innovation. The COFISA report on the Western

Cape identifies regional innovation strengths – in innovation assets and centres of

excellence. These can be part of a platform for better co-operation and to build critical mass.

Several additional pointers towards this goal can be extracted from CHEC’s 2009 study tour.

3. CHEC conclusions from Barcelona and England

CHEC partners went on a study tour to North England and Barcelona in 2009 to look at the

role of universities in regional development. The general aim was to inform a joint

understanding of the structure and nature of successful university, business and government

partnerships with colleagues in the Provincial Government of the Western Cape and the City

of Cape Town37. The general lesson, perhaps, was the critical contribution of strong higher

education institutions in local development, social reconstruction and place-making. The

37 The City was included in the invitation, but did not in fact join the October study tour, having visited Barcelona with two CHEC representatives in June 2009. The Cape Biotech Trust (now TIA) participated in the October study tour to Barcelona.


particular lesson was the need for the roles and responsibilities of the various partners to be

clear.

Specific objectives included the investigation of how universities have addressed knowledge

transfer and innovation in a regional context.

In both the UK and Spain they found a heavy emphasis on innovation. Initiatives range from

networks and partnerships to incubators to Science Parks. Attraction of talent to the region

is seen as a priority and higher education is seen as a key instrument for this goal.

In the North of England (and in the UK generally) higher education is recognised as a key

partner in leveraging growth. Universities (either individually or through their collective

associations) are involved in three key levels of engagement :

o As a partner in policy and strategy development with both business and

government, particularly through the Regional Development Associations.

The RDAs are controversial instruments of regional government, unique to

England, which control very considerable resources, both from national

government and from the European Union.

o In collaborative developments where there are complimentary interests38;

o As a provider of services – research and innovation, consultancy, skills,

including teaching and learning.

While the primary role of higher education is seen to be teaching and research, there is much

more than a recognition of technology transfer within the context of research. The ‘third

mission’ of universities in knowledge transfer to society in general is an area of increasing

emphasis and integration. In this context, however, the roles and responsibilities of the

various stakeholders are clear. The view is that if talent is attracted to the universities, other

forms of talent will follow and this will benefit the region in a general sense.

In Barcelona, the CHEC delegation was most impressed by two initiatives related to regional

development, both of which include higher education institutions and make full use of their

contributions to leadership, skills, research and innovation.

38 For example, the Daresbury Science and Innovation Campus, listed as one of the major innovation assets in the North of England (SQW Consulting, 2008, p.10), was created by the Northwest Regional Development Agency, the local authority and the universities of Manchester, Liverpool and Lancaster, with support from the Government. Daresbury won the UK’s Outstanding Science Park 2009 award and is home to 100 high-tech companies.


Barcelona Activa has a twenty five year history as the development agency of the City of

Barcelona. It is responsible for business creation and growth, the promotion of innovation

and human capital development. Its activities include tailored programmes of support for

entrepreneurs (acknowledging different levels of capability) and various mechanisms to ease

knowledge transfer from universities to business ventures. Many of their programmes draw

on support from universities or were led by universities in their establishment.

22@Barcelona is an urban regeneration project, which has transformed two hundred

hectares of industrial land “into an innovative district offering modern spaces for the

strategic concentration of intensive knowledge-based activities. ...It is the most important

project of urban transformation of Barcelona city of recent years” (website). Prior to the

establishment of this project, the City of Barcelona had long-standing strategies to

regenerate the city, using funding for the 1986 Olympic Games as a springboard. Following

more than a decade of infrastructure developments that improved the accessibility of the

area, the 22@ Plan was approved in 2000 for the refurbishment of the Poblenou industrial

areas. University expertise was used in these initiatives, both as expert advice and in chairing

key workgroups, but there was also direct collaboration in development of physical

infrastructure for identified university faculties in areas marked for regeneration and

innovation. One of the regenerated sites had been prepared for the relocation of the media

and communication faculty of one of the leading universities as an anchor for a major media

hub, which includes the head office of a leading media house, amongst others. Other areas of

focus include energy, health technology, design and ICT.

CHEC found that many of the same lessons from the north of England also applied to

Barcelona. Higher education is fully included as a valued partner in the triple helix. The role

of higher education is recognised as a long-term one without inappropriate short-term

service provision expectations. Roles and responsibilities of the various partners are clear

and goals for different interventions are clearly understood.

Barcelona (and Catalonia) seeks to promote itself as a study centre. Increasing numbers of

post-graduate enrolments and successful efforts to market the MBA offerings of its several

universities have established the higher education sector as an important contributor to the

local economy in its own right. Collaboration of the city with the state and the universities

has been a feature of this process. There are various projects to support this, for example

one of the initiatives to make the City more attractive to new academics staff and students

helps them to find suitable accommodation.


The CHEC delegation visited two Science Parks, the University of Barcelona Science Park

(Parc Científic de Barcelona—PCB)39 and the Scientific and Technological park of the

University of Girona (Parc Científic i Tecnològic de la Universitat de Girona).40 Each has a

range of focal areas from high level research to spin-offs from research, to start up

companies. Both matched this with outreach to the public as well as to school students in

particular and saw their role also to promote science in society.

Science Parks are a recent phenomenon in Spain, none being more than a decade old. They

were seen as a way to change practices across the whole university. In Girona, for example,

university curricula across the board emphasised entrepreneurship. The advice to the CHEC

delegation was to start small with one project and to concentrate efforts before growing. The

role of the university and academic activities were pivotal in avoiding a real estate type

development. Developing a critical mass of experienced researchers, post-graduate students

and innovative companies is a condition for success.

All the successful initiatives demonstrated:

Shared vision and commitment, built up over a long period

The vision, demonstrated even in funding provided by regional government, tended

to be long-term rather than focussed on short-term issues such as immediate job

creation.

Leadership at the highest levels of all the stakeholders

In addition to this, the role of what colleagues at the University of Salford termed

“academic politicians” had been important in taking their universities to new levels.

They worked together with a committed group of “can-dos” who could implement the

vision at every level and work through challenges. Visionary leaders and effective

implementers, who were consistently able to marshall support for resources were

necessary for each project.

.

39 Founded by the University of Barcelona in 1997, it was the first science park in Spain. The first tenants moved in 2001 and the present space was fully occupied in 2003. At present the park is home to 3 research institutes, 75 companies, an incubator for biotechnology companies and more than 70 research groups . 2,200 people work in the park. Present buildings provide 25,000 m2 of space. In 2011 the Barcelona Science Park will finish its current expansion project and it will then have a total area of 96,000m2. (PCB website) 40 Founded by the University of Girona in 2001, on land provided by the Town Council of Girona, 100km north-east of Barcelona. The first buildings were occupied in 2007. The park covers 7,5ha, with 6 buildings (36.000 m2) constructed. 29 Research Groups and 66 companies are located in the Park. 1,000 people are employed at the Park.


An appreciation of important, and multifold, role of strong universities

Universities were seen as assets to each of the regions. Regional and city government

would mention universities not only as skills providers in presentations to attract

investors. They helped to promote and market universities to students who would

relocate to the city and to businesses who could make use of university research

expertise and patents. Universities also contribute generally to a creative and

attractive living environment.

There was strong evidence of joined up work in all the regions visited. Barcelona Activa and

22@Barcelona were particularly impressive because of the interconnections between various

components of their work and the integration of social and economic dimensions.

Mechanisms for the cross-pollination of ideas were encouraged as being key to overall

promotion of innovation. All had a broader view of development, which incorporated social

as well as economic and technological elements.

The CHEC delegation was told that Science Parks are only likely to succeed if there is a

critical mass of researchers as well as companies. Science Parks must be located close to

universities. One key to their success was the generation of new research and ideas by

locating people from different disciplines together. Large investments by government and

business, including banks, and the ability to raise venture capital are required and this will

have to be ongoing. Science Parks in themselves are not necessarily profitable entities.


4. Science Park issues in the literature

The idea of a science park41 was the starting point for this study.

Science Parks are mentioned specifically only once in the Department of Science and

Technology “Ten-Year Innovation Plan” of 2008. But science park approaches are very

strongly favoured in the DST’s 2009 Draft Regional Innovation Systems Strategy document

and by the Cofisa research (See the Cofisa book, Enhancing Innovation in South Africa: The

COFISA Experience, 2010), which inspired the National Science Park Draft Strategy (DST,

2009). Science Parks are under serious consideration at present in the North West and in the

Eastern Cape, where two are planned, one for the East London Industrial Development Zone

and one adjacent to the NMMU, in Port Elizabeth.

But the case for a science park in the Western Cape as an immediate strategy is not clear. It is

weakened by the experiences of two unsuccessful science park efforts in the Western Cape –

those of the Stellenbosch Technopark and Capricorn – and by the 2009 Cofisa report on

innovation networks in the Western Cape. This found that while “science parks may be a

good idea in the long term” they are probably not a useful focus in the short term.

The report said that “there are fundamental issues that need to be addressed in the short to

medium term before a science park can succeed e.g. promoting a culture where learning and

innovation are prioritised by the majority of triple helix players, building trust across the

triple helix, and generating a sufficient volume of innovation activity to sustain a science

park” (p. 57)

The ten-year experience of the Innovation Hub, South Africa’s only accredited science park,

also contains lessons for the Western Cape. These are explored in a chapter specifically

researched for CHEC for the present study (see page 9, above). The conclusion echoes the

cautionary messages of the Western Cape Cofisa report.

Link and Scott (2007) undertake a useful survey of international literature on university

research parks, how the best parks operate and their impact. They use the following

definition:

41 According to Link (2009): “The term research park is more prevalent in the United States, the term science park is more prevalent in Europe, and the term technology park is more prevalent in Asia.”


“A university research park is a cluster of technology-based organizations that locate

on or near a university campus in order to benefit from the university’s knowledge

base and ongoing research. The university not only transfers knowledge but expects

to develop knowledge more effectively given the association with the tenants in the

research park.” (citing Link and Scott 2006)

They conclude that there is sound evidence that “parks enhance the two-way flow of

knowledge between firms and universities. Thus, parks enhance innovation and,

subsequently, competitiveness.” But the authors also find that while science parks may have

a galvanizing effect on the knowledge flow between universities and industry; they do not

necessarily create this flow. It follows, in their view, that university research parks (URPs)

“should not a priori be considered a primary element of a nation’s innovation system. A

national innovation system “includes competitive firms and a competitive environment, an

effective educational system, strong university research, a legal system with property rights,

and a capital market that includes venture capital”. “Successful two-way knowledge flow

between universities and industry is a key ingredient for a national innovation system, and

we do have evidence that URPs play a role in that knowledge flow. However, URPs are not a

sine qua non of the knowledge flow”.

The international literature shows that science parks can play a part in assisting regions to

develop. They provide agglomeration benefits for companies and sectors, independent of the

knowledge flows they encourage between universities and businesses. This brings us to the

relationship between innovation and space.

Miles and Daniels (2007) in their commentary on The State of the Innovation Economy in

the UK give instances of the way that regional advantage (for example in an area such as

ELAt—Eindhoven, Leuven, Aachen Growth Triangle in the Netherlands) “is purposefully

‘constructed’ by enabling collaboration focused on key industrial-innovation platforms using

pervasive technologies.... The ‘full constructed advantage’ approach involves building

creative regions and cities that are attractive cultural environments in which innovation is

increasingly fostered and promoted; talent, that drives the innovation economy, requires an

excellent quality of life.”

They comment that “Building an innovation-industrial platform is perhaps best done at a

sub-regional level, as it is often easier to marshal resources, networks and a ‘communality of

sentiments’ at a more confined geographical scale than a nation state.”


Simmie (2005) states that “innovation is an economic and social phenomenon that at first

sight has no necessary relationship to space”. But he presents a survey of empirical studies

that “have increasingly shown that there is a distinctive geography of innovation ... This is

significant both from a theoretical perspective and because of the possible insights that it

gives for public policies that seek to generate or accelerate innovation in particular

localities”.

The way that innovation advantages can flow from science park initiatives is the uniting

theme of the Cofisa book (2010) – which presents Finnish experiences in the context of a

project to promote innovation in South Africa.

This study on how to drive innovation in the Western Cape has found many persuasive

arguments against making the construction of a science park a prominent element in the

solution to the innovation problems that have been identified in the region. One of the early

working hypotheses for the research was that the vision of a science park – “or similar

physical facility” – could be a catalyst to get all the parties working together on one project

and to use common activities towards a common goal as a way of strengthening networks,

developing collaboration and challenging the silo-minded cultures of separation which

characterise our regional innovation ecosystem.

This idea still lingers – but we are convinced that a science park is not the appropriate

catalytic project to provide a shared agenda for all stakeholders. Nevertheless, we do think

that a case should be made for the Bellville precinct to be transformed in ways that will

enhance its contribution to innovation, triple-helix networks and City development.

We do not think that CHEC is the right vehicle to lead a proposal on the Bellville precinct,

but CHEC can play a useful role in outlining the issues and stimulating a debate.

Bellville

The Bellville proposal is centred on access to a particular piece of land. The proposal is able

to accommodate the findings of the Cofisa report “against” a science park, because it would

agree that this is a long-term proposal and that it depends upon the improvements in

collaboration and co-operation that are suggested as the short and medium-term steps for

strengthening innovation networks in the Western Cape.


The proposal endorsed by CHEC in 2009 calls for the City to put in place planning and land

use frameworks that would make the development of the site as a science park a possible

goal over a long period of time, in the context of urban regeneration and the creation of

innovation communities.

The 340 hectare size of the whole site42 is large for a science park – the International

Association of Science Parks (IASP) describes science parks that are over 1 million square

meters as “the giants of our industry”43. The Turku science park in Finland, named as a

possible model for Bellville, is 500 hectares. The Innovation Hub site in Pretoria extends to

60 hectares. Many members of the IASP are much smaller. Some are just single buildings,

others are large expanses that include residential areas, universities, parks and streets.

Total surface (area) of your Park or Incubator (including built areas, green areas, roads, etc)

Science Park ha Sq km No of companies

Research Triangle Park, NC 2,833 28.3 170

Turku, Finland 500 5.0 352

”Bellville precint” 340 3.4

22@Barcelona district 200 2.0 ?

The Innovation Hub, Pretoria 60 0.6 52

Daresbury Science and Innovation Campus, UK 25 0.3 100

University of Warwick Science Park, UK 17 0.2 150

Cambridge Science Park 15 0.1 85

Barcelona Science Park 10 0.1 75

Girona Science Park, Spain 8 0.1 66

Manchester Science Parks 6 0.1 80

Source: IASP, Daresbury, PCB and UdG websites

Part of the reason for including the table above, which is selective, is to illustrate how flexible

the concept of a science park can be when it comes to its manifestation in space. The IASP

has a particular definition of a science park, which emphasises the way that it fosters a

climate hospitable to innovation as opposed to developments that may call themselves

technology parks but which are simply business parks that offer space to tenants.44

42 A City of Cape Town document states that “The Bellcon precinct is ±233 ha in extent” (“Transnet Marshalling Yards (Bellcon)” Tygerberg District planning document - Executive summary, August 2009) 43 Only 19% of IASP members in 2006/7 were larger than 100 hectares. 44 This definition is used in presentations on the Bellville Science Park (Ridge, 2010), in Cofisa (2009b), in DST (2009) and also in Wessner (2009) who comments: “Alternatively referred to as research parks, science parks, technology parks, technopoles, science centers, business innovation centers, and centers for advanced technology, there appears to be no singular characterization of a research park.”


Definition: A Science Park is an organisation managed by specialised professionals,

whose main aim is to increase the wealth of its community by promoting the culture

of innovation and the competitiveness of its associated businesses and knowledge-

based institutions.

To enable these goals to be met, a Science Park stimulates and manages the flow of

knowledge and technology amongst universities, R&D institutions, companies and

markets; it facilitates the creation and growth of innovation-based companies

through incubation and spin-off processes; and provides other value-added services

together with high quality space and facilities.

—International Association of Science Parks, April 2002

Many people who have responded to the proposal for the Bellville science park have

interpreted it in the context of this definition, and they have therefore been blind to the

spatial implications of the proposal which are integral to it.

“The envisaged developments will also make a major contribution to the development

of new, post-apartheid spaces in the Western Cape, triggering a highly desirable

pattern of urban transformation.”

– “Preliminary information on Science Parks”, Addendum A to DST (2009)

The spatial aspects of the proposal for the Bellville precinct (Ridge, 2010) are extremely

ambitious. Some would say they are fanciful, even when seen in the long term.

They embody a vision of a nodal “smart city” centre within Cape Town with the following

features:

a. Excellent high-density housing in mixed-use, Transit Oriented

Development45 near a revamped station: trigger for other renewal of

Bellville CBD

b. State-supported Science Park in middle (managed facilities, broadband,

secure electricity, specialist services, incubation)

c. Excellent recreational and social facilities (parks, sport, gymnasium,

galleries, theatres, restaurants, coffee shops)

d. Interface developments near the institutions (medical and legal clinics,

model schools, retirement village etc.)

45 “Transit Oriented Development is the exciting new fast growing trend in creating vibrant, liveable communities. Also known as Transit Oriented Design, or TOD, it is the creation of compact, walk able communities centered around high quality train systems. This makes it possible to live a higher quality life without complete dependence on a car for mobility and survival”. TOD is a major solution to the serious and growing problems of peak oil and global warming because it reduces burning of fossil fuels. (http://www.transitorienteddevelopment.org/)


e. Excellent public transport: Rapid Transit System, Bellville Station

upgrade.

The proposal is motivated by the opportunity that is presented to leverage innovation off the

existing capacity and achievement of the academic institutions, hospitals, research facilities,

colleges and major companies that surround the Transnet-owned Belcon site. It then leaps

into a plan to develop the freight yard with new buildings, roads and parks. It shifts the focus

from innovation to land use in the crudest possible way.

We have approached the question differently. We recognise the opportunity presented by the

knowledge institutions that surround the site. We know that spatial arrangements can

improve their inter-action and can possibly assist in constructing an innovation-industrial

platform or in forming the critical mass of capable researchers, well-governed institutions

and targeted public support that is needed for improved innovation performance.

One option would, indeed, be to build something new and good on the 340ha site. But that

might not be the first goal to set, even if the site were easily available. If the Belcon site was a

lake, or quicksand, what steps could be taken to work with the space around it?

The research reports we have compiled outline complex, practical difficulties that surround

the use of the site. For this reason alone, it is sensible to look for alternatives. But we would

argue that the alternatives make better sense. They allow immediate actions to be taken to

improve the innovation ecosystem. They do not exclude the eventual use of the Transnet site

for developments that will enhance the environment for innovation, but they do not depend

upon it.

We have structured this alternative under an arbitrary name, the “Bellville Innovation Zone”

[this proposal arises out of this study and will be better defined for the workshop after the

completion of Report 3]

It is important to emphasise that the “Bellville Innovation Zone” is fully aligned with the

recommendations of the Cofisa Western Cape Report (a document that is deserving of wider

attention and more careful reading than it has received to date).


The Bellville Innovation Zone will

1. Have a specific location and defined (but alterable) borders,

2. Be a space that can accommodate all agendas related to innovation - a

knowledge economy, information sharing, collaborative projects, social

engagement towards a fairer city...

3. Concentrate energy that is presently dissipated or never assembled (especially

from township areas in Bellville, Khayalitsha, Mitchells Plain and the south)

4. Attract participation from other parts of the City. (Something new, something

extra, something special – but embodying the spirit of constructive

competition)

5. Be regulated by City measures that provide for Special Rating Areas46 and by a

Charter that ‘inhabitants’ can develop and then subscribe to.

6. Allow the universities, colleges, research facilities and hospitals in the

identified area to begin to live now in an “innovation zone” that includes them

all and the character of which they can begin to define. This could include:

i. a green building, sustainability theme.

ii. a common branding and signage for buildings.

iii. a public transport system

The Bellville Innovation Zone will be a defined place to illustrate new ways of living and

doing and which draws on the universities and other institutions to provide leadership and

content. The universities (individually and collectively) have a choice on how they will

participate and the amount of effort they dedicate. They will have the opportunity to shape a

new relationship between learning and research, business and community.

46 SRAs are used by communities to provide top-up services when those provided by councils are seen as inferior to their needs. More than half of a community's members have to agree to the imposition of the extra rates involved. The expenditure is in terms of an approved business plan and is ring-fenced within the community's area. The total of all SRA income in Cape Town at present is R81 million. The SRA for the Cape Town CBD, the Cape Town Partnership, has the largest budget. For the other 21 SRA's in existence, the average budget is just short of R200 000 a month. UCT, with its concern for the safety and security of its staff and students, recently led the way in forming the Groote Schuur CID. Athlone, Claremont, Rondebosch and Observatory already have SRAs. (Includes information from “Special Rating Area the wrong vehicle for upliftment” Cape Times September 30, 2010)


Bibliography

All of the items listed here are referenced and copied or summarised in the Annotated Bibliography files assembled by ODA during the research.

Abbey, J., Davies, G. and Mainwaring, L. (2008) 'Vorsprung durch Technium: Towards a

System of Innovation in South-west Wales', Regional Studies,42:2,281 — 293

Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf) (2010) “The PhD Study – Consensus Report,

September 2010” available online at http://www.assaf.org.za

Cape Higher Education Consortium (2009) “Planning to make the best use of Universities

in promoting economic and social development”, pp.4 – approved by the CHEC

Board at its meeting held on 24 February 2009; submitted to Dr Martin van der

Merwe, Director: IDP and Business Planning, City of Cape Town on 25 March

2009 [Attached below as an Appendix].

CHEC (2009b) “Report to CHEC Board - Study tour to North-West and North-East

England and Barcelona, 12 —22 October 2009” ,by Nasima Badsha, CEO and

Erica Gillard, Consultant, Cape Higher Education Consortium, 19 November

2009, p.15

CHEC (2010) “Feedback from CHEC institutional representatives on the Western Cape

Regional Innovation System Final Strategy” – prepared after a meeting of

representatives from the four CHEC higher education institutions at UWC on 7

June 2010

Comins, N., Gwintsa, T., Kuukasjervi, L., Rammbuda, R., Ridge, S., and Van der Walt, R.

(2010) “Science Parks”, Chapter 7 in (2010) Enhancing Innovation in South

Africa: The COFISA Experience, February 2010, pp.86-103

COFISA (2009b) “Mapping triple helix innovation networks in the Western Cape -

October 2009 : Final report”, Prepared by Kaiser Associates Economic

Development Practice, pp.89

Cooperation Framework on Innovation Systems between Finland and South Africa (2010)

Enhancing Innovation in South Africa: The COFISA Experience, February 2010,

pp.75

Currall, S.C. et al, (2006) “Engineering Innovation: Strategic Planning in National

Science Foundation-funded Engineering Research Centers”, Report to the

National Science Foundation, Division of Engineering Education and Centers,

pp.91

Department of Economic Development & Tourism, Western Cape (2009) “Business Case

Development: Expansion of ICT Incubator, March 2009, Final report”, pp.38,

prepared by Kaiser and Associates

DEDT (2010b) “Project Plan: Expansion of the Bandwith Barn – Impact Assessment &

Demand Study”, pp.18

DEDT (2010c) “Cape Catalyst 2010 Project Portfolio”, September 2010, pp.37 plus

annexures


Department of Science and Technology (2008) “Ten-Year Innovation Plan”, pp.42

[formally published copy provided by Prof. Bharuthram]

Department of Science and Technology (2009) “Draft Regional Innovation Systems

Strategy: A Framework for Engagement in Regional Innovation Systems

Development”, pp.23 [copy provided by CHEC, Mr Strauss says this document is

“being refined” into a final version at present.]

Department of Science and Technology (n.d. c.2009) “National Science Park

Development Plan (Draft version) - Promoting awareness and use of Science

Parks In the development of the National System of Innovation, Submitted by:

The Innovation Hub Management Company (Pty) Ltd, pp.40 <copy marked

Restricted for Internal Use Only, file date is 13 March 2009> [most recent copy

provided by Mr Strauss, DST, 14 July 2010]

DesRosier, J. (2008) “Start-Ups for Smarties: A Primer for the UGA Investigator on

Forming a New Company Based on Your Research Discovery”, pp.32, University

of Georgia: Georgia BioBusiness Center (see

http://www.ovpr.uga.edu/gbbc/startups)

DST (2009) “Project Plan: Development of a conceptual model for driving innovation in

the Western Cape, 18 September 2009, prepared by: University of the Western

Cape”

DST (2009b) “The Technology Innovation Agency (TIA): Background, Status and

Rollout”, presentation to the AMTS Project Symposium, 15 September 2009,

presented by: Steven Ratsatsi, Chief Director: Innovation Instruments, DST

Economist (2009) “A special report on innovation in emerging markets”, Apr 15th 2010

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) “Global innovation

environments (Study A) - A report to HEFCE by Paula Knee, Quotec Ltd and Dr

Martin Meyer, SPRU, University of Sussex”, February 2007, pp.86

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) “Experimental Third Stream

Strategic Development Fund Projects (Study B)- A report to HEFCE by Quotec Ltd

and SPRU, University of Sussex”, February 2007, pp.20

HMSO [UK Government] (2003) “Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration:

Final Report”, 4 December 2003 (London: HM Treasury) http://www.hm-

treasury.gov.uk/

Interim Steering Committee for the Western Cape Regional Innovation Forum (2010)

“Western Cape Regional Innovation System Final Strategy, 24 March 2010 (To be

distributed for consultation and inputs to relevant stakeholders)”, pp.28

Isis Innovation (2010) “OIF: Oxford Invention Fund”, pp.20 downloaded from

http://isis-innovation.com/about/documents/OxfordInventionFund.pdf

Knutsen, R.D. and Steyn, C. (2009) “Building links between manufacturers and research

resources to promote innovation”, draft article submitted to Gateways on CIMM

Link, A. N., and Scott. J. T. (2006) ‘US University Research Parks’, Journal of

Productivity Analysis, 25(1), 43–55.


Link, A. N., and Scott. J. T. (2007) “The Economics of University Research Parks.” Oxford

Review of Economic Policy 23(4):661-674.

Link, A. N. (2009) “Research, Science, and Technology Parks: An Overview of the

Academic Literature”, in Wessner (2009) pp.127 to 139

Miles, N. and Daniels, R. (2007) “The State of the Innovation Economy in the UK -2007

Problems, Opportunities and Solutions. A Brief Overview.” (Oxford to Cambridge

(O2C) Arc ; / Norwich Research Park), pp74.

National Advisory Council on Innovation (NACI) (2006) “The South African National

System of Innovation: Structures, Policies and Performance, Background Report

to the OECD Country Review”, edited by D. Walwyn, (Pretoria: NACI) 21 July

2006, pp.128

NESTA (2008) “Unlocking innovation in British cities and regions” Policy Briefing

HM/26 / Published: July 2008

OECD (2007) Higher Education and Regions, OECD Policy Brief September 2007, pp.8

OECD (2007), OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: South Africa, OECD, Paris. pp.254

Perry, S.J., Currall, S.C., & Stuart, T.E. (2007) “The Pipeline from University Laboratory

to New Commercial Product: An Organizational Framework For Technology

Commercialization in Multidisciplinary Research Centers”, in M. Epstein, T.

Davila, & R. Shelton (eds.) The Creative Enterprise. Westport, CT: Praeger

Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group, pp. 85-105 downloaded from

http://www.stevecurrall.com/pdf/Currall_CE_Pipeline.pdf.

Preston, L. (2007) “National Science Foundation (NSF) Engineering Research Centers

(ERC) Program”,23 PowerPoint slides

www.nsf.gov/eng/cbet/aiche/53_engrg_research_centers.ppt

Ridge, S. (2010) “Belleville and the Knowledge Economy”, 40 PowerPoint slides

Simmie, J., Carpenter, J., Chadwick, A. and Martin, R. (2008) ‘History Matters: Path

dependence and innovation in British city-regions.’ (London: NESTA), pp.96

Simmie, J. (2005) “Innovation and space: a critical review of the literature.”, Regional

Studies, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 789-804

SQW Consulting (2008) “Major Innovation Assets in the North of England - A Report to

the Northern Way”, October 2008, pp.28

Toronto Regional Research Alliance (TRRA) (2006) “At the Crossroads – Strengthening

the Toronto Region’s Research and Innovation Economy. Lessons from leading

high-tech centres around the world”.

Toronto Regional Research Alliance (TRRA), (2007) “The Role of Universities in

Economic Development, June 2007, A discussion document prepared for TRRA's

Research Working Group”, pp.63, viewed on 7-Jun-2009,

http://www.trra.ca/en/reports/TRRAReports.asp

Unctad, Commission on Science and Technology for Development (2006) “Bridging the

technology gap between and within nations”, E/CN.16/2006/2, 31 March 2006,

pp. 20 http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162006d2_en.pdf


Wessner, C.W. (ed) (2009) “Understanding Research, Science and Technology Parks:

Global Best Practice: Report of a Symposium”, pp.214 (NAP: Committee on

Comparative Innovation Policy: Best Practice for the 21st Century; National

Research Council) downloaded from: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12546.html

World Conference on Higher Education (1998) “The Role of Universities in Regional

Development” Thematic debate: Contributing to National and Regional

Development (Unesco: Paris, 5-9 October); includes working paper authored by

Prof John Goddard, Newcastle upon Tyne

Articles from newspapers, magazines and websites

“Concerted intervention needed to escalate South Africa’s PhD numbers”, Academy of

Science of South Africa (ASSAf) website, October 11, 2010

“Europe 2020: Commission proposes new economic strategy in Europe”, IP/10/225,

Brussels, 3rd March 2010

“New Oxford Fund to Bridge 'Innovation Gap'”, Isis Innovation website, June 2010

Websites

22@ Barcelona (“the innovation district”) website

http://www.22barcelona.com/index.php?lang=en

Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf) website: http://www.assaf.org.za

Barcelona Activa website: http://www.barcelonactiva.cat/barcelonactiva/en/index.jsp

Barcelona Innova! Website:

http://w3.bcn.es/V42/Home/V42HomeLinkPl/0,3555,83057194_83070514_3,0

0.html

Barcelona Science Park (Parc Científic de Barcelona—PCB) website:

www.pcb.ub.es/homePCB/live/en/p1.asp

Cape Town Activa website: http://capetownactiva.com/ and

http://www.creativecapetown.net/cape-town-activa/ {links do not work}

Daresbury Science and Innovation Campus website: http://www.daresburysic.co.uk/

Engineering Research Center (ERC) Program (USA) website: http://www.erc-assoc.org

European Commission (2010) “Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and

inclusive growth”, March 2010, website:

http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/index_en.htm

Georgia Research Alliance (GRA) website: www.gra.org

National Advisory Council on Innovation website: http://www.naci.org.za/

NRF website: http://www.nrf.ac.za

Scientific and Technological park of the University of Girona (Parc Científic i Tecnològic

de la Universitat de Girona Website: http://www.parcudg.com

Sunrise Valley Science and Technology Park, Vilnius, Lithuania website:

http://www.sunrisevalley.lt.


Appendix

CHEC, “Planning to make the best use of Universities in promoting

economic and social development” (2009)

CAPE HIGHER EDUCATION CONSORTIUM

PLANNING TO MAKE THE BEST USE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PROMOTING

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

The City of Cape Town (the City) and the universities in the city, working together in the Cape Higher

Education Consortium (CHEC), signed a Collaboration Protocol in 2008. In the spirit of that

agreement, the universities wish to put before the City the kinds of planning considerations which

would be conducive to their making a sustained and strong contribution to economic and social

development in and around Cape Town. CHEC has attempted to bring together best international

practice on innovation with the dynamic planning initiatives already undertaken by the City,

especially the City Development Strategy, the Integrated Development Plan, and the District Spatial

Development Frameworks. A particular point of engagement is the notion of “directed growth or

development”. CHEC has also attempted to take into account major directional documents like the

OECD report on Innovation in South Africa, and current initiatives which promise considerable

synergies with City planning, such as the National Innovation Strategy, National Research Chairs,

National Centres of Competence, the promotion of a five-fold increase in doctoral graduations, and

the work of COFISA, the Finnish-South African cooperation on Innovation.

The key to global competitiveness is the so-called “knowledge economy”. Countries which have

neglected it to improve employment through the provision of cheap labour have soon recognised

that false oppositions are traps: meeting immediate needs for employment and developing capacity

for higher level work are mutual imperatives in a country like South Africa. CHEC’s concern is

primarily with the knowledge economy, but it has attempted to bear the full picture in mind.

The successful city is increasingly measured by its capacity to attract and retain talent. To a very

significant extent this depends on there being an integration of four factors in particular local

environments:

• attractive living conditions (safe, convenient, within easy reach of major amenities, with

adequate recreational space nearby, and well-served for e-activities)

• the proximity of knowledge institutions (universities, research councils, R&D laboratories)

• the productive engagement of business and industry in setting up laboratories and related

businesses in the area, and

• the active role of city and regional authorities in promoting and supporting incubation and

relevant economic development activities.

The expertise of COFISA (the Cooperation Framework on Innovation Systems between Finland and

South Africa) and the range of knowledge brought to South Africa through the world conference of

the International Association of Science Parks in Sandton in 2008 and through visitors sponsored by


the National Business Initiative, Accelerate Cape Town and the Cape Town Partnership confirms that

planning for innovation and participation in the global knowledge economy cannot be separated

from planning of attractive and convenient integrated environments. The modern science park is

thus not an industrial area or a business park: it is an integrated environment in which excellent

technical facilities in workable proximity to universities go along with safe and comfortable living

conditions and good cultural and recreational facilities to attract and retain concentrations of talent.

The City and the Western Cape region are generally very attractive, and the universities in the area

are among the best in the country. However, we are not able to make the best use of these assets

because of low levels of spatial integration and inadequately synergised investment. Work is

currently under way nationally in exploring the potential for enhanced innovation activities of four

areas in and near the city:

1. The Stellenbosch Technopark site

2. The Bellville precinct

3. The Cape Biotech site in Observatory

4. The area close to CPUT’s Cape Town campus for a design centre

It is clear that progress in all four sites will require new levels of cooperation and partnership

between universities, business and various levels of government, with the City playing a prominent

role in three of the sites.

As the process of investigation and development proceeds, CHEC may make recommendations

about all the Cape Town sites as a respectful partner with City, business and other tiers of

government. At this point we wish to raise our concern about the medium to long-term future of the

Bellville precinct and request that the City gives attention to it in the light of current developments

and of its potential significance.

The Bellville precinct is in the centre of metropolitan Cape Town, as has been noted as significant by

City planners since the late 90s. For our part, we can point out that such sites have proved

outstandingly suitable for urban regeneration and the development of innovation communities and

science parks in Aarhus (Denmark), Barcelona (Spain), Newcastle (UK) and Turku (Finland), to name a

few places. In our opinion, the Bellville precinct is a site with critical potential for the economic and

social progress of the City of Cape Town and of the Western Cape Province. In Bellville, the city has a

concentration of leading academic, research and health services institutions which we think would

be extraordinary in almost any country.47

However, most of them have a marginal location around a

340 hectare Transnet freight yard which was superimposed on planned urban development. This

47 These include the Health Sciences campus and Business School of the University of Stellenbosch, the Science

and Engineering campus of the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, the Oral Health campus and the main

campus of the University of the Western Cape, and several campuses of Northlink College, along with the

Medical Research Council, Tygerberg Hospital (the largest teaching hospital on the continent) and six other

hospitals. Other university campuses are within a 25km radius east and west and 20kms to the south. As some

indices of the competitive standing of the institutions in the area, there are three WHO Collaborating Centres,

the most developed capacity in Bioinformatics with a National Research Chair in Bioinformatics and Human

Health, a Unesco Chair in Hydrogeology heading a team which advises the African Council of Ministers on

water affairs, a cluster of distinguished medical research groups, and national centres in the hydrogen

economy and fuel cells, nanotechnology, biosensing, biolabelling, and indigenous herbal medicine.


radically undermines their potential. For the City of Cape Town and the Western Cape Province to

make best use of these major assets a way has to be found of securing a vision for the medium term

that would see the freight yard transformed into a modern urban centre hospitable to innovation. At

present there is a tendency to increased low-level industrialisation on the site. Settling the vision for

the area would counter that tendency and enable modest steps towards the new identity to be

taken with confidence on any land which Transnet could free. Such developments would not be

random initiatives, then, but steps towards the achievement of the comprehensive vision.

Underlying our request are the following considerations:

1. The potential for the economic development of the city and the province in a global

knowledge economy which requires a physical and regulatory environment conducive to

innovation and to cooperation on an unprecedented scale. No other site in South Africa is

more conducive to development of this kind or better equipped to benefit from national

innovation strategies. It is relatively undeveloped, the planned urban linkages which had the

railways imposed on them are still viable, the institutions are in exemplary proximity, and

there is keen business interest. There is also high-end capacity in ICT, Health-related

disciplines including Drug Discovery, Biotechnology, Nanotechnology, and Alternative

Energy.

2. The impact on the social and economic development of disadvantaged communities and on

efforts to counter the structured inefficiencies of apartheid socio-physical planning in

socially and economically sustainable ways. The development would break through the

apartheid-imposed industrial cordon sanitaire separating the amenities of the city from the

people in the townships, signalling a new beginning. More constructively, it would create a

post-apartheid space with high potential for modelling socially healthy patterns of

interaction. The development would also create new SMMEs with the opportunity for

upskilling people from the areas to the south.

3. The exceptional opportunities for high-impact synergies between a concentration of

eminent knowledge and service institutions in the area. To a remarkable degree, the site

meets the characteristics of the models presented by the OECD in its report on innovation in

South Africa. A critical factor for our development is scale: we have excellent researchers

and innovators but we still tend to go for relatively small research groups with disastrous

effects on sustainability and scale. This site offers a unique opportunity to enable institutions

in its vicinity to work together on “neutral” ground and thereby build extended innovation

capacity. This neutral ground strategy has been highly successful in other countries, with

Finland a major example. In Turku the ICT departments of the three universities there are

now housed in one building with Nokia and two other companies, and overall productivity

levels have soared.

4. The opportunities for economical and environmentally responsible urban development,

including:

• Transit-oriented development in a key metropolitan focus area, demonstrating the

principles of the “new mobility”. The area immediately south of the station offers

major opportunities for such development. It requires really good high-rise

accommodation (probably with businesses on the ground floor), safe paths to

transport points, good recreational areas, and other amenities like theatres and


cinemas which people from elsewhere can reach using public transport. Such high-

density, low-traffic, city-centre living areas with easy access to recreational and

cultural facilities, serve both as a means of attracting and retaining talent for the

innovation economy, and as a model alternative to costly urban sprawl. An

important consideration is that they should have widespread broadband access

factored into the development, as the kind of people the development is intended

to attract require such access as a condition of their being able to work properly.

The example of Recife in Brazil illustrates this well.

• The establishment of innovation industries and a business incubator. These would

probably require dedicated space to start with. Different models of ownership apply

in different parts of the world. At Aarhus, the university foundation owns the land

and buildings. At Turku, the facilities are owned by the city and regional

governments. But the need for these areas to be planned in coherence with the

other urban aspects is common to the examples. The overall plan must be of the

kind which enables the region to attract and retain talent more effectively.

• The best use of major transport infrastructure: the site is accessible to a large station

and a major bus station, close to the airport , and is positioned between the major

transport axes. Attention would have to be paid to the station and bus station,

particularly as the development would be “new mobility” inspired.

• Providing for the qualitative development of the environment of the universities and

other major institutions in ways conducive to achieving the City’s goals as a major

centre in the knowledge economy. It should be noted that national planning would

have enrolment on the Bellville campuses of the universities grow from 30 000 to

50 000 over a 12 year period and would see a major growth in science and business

enrolment. The synergies achieved if this growth is accompanied by the influx of

significant numbers of knowledge workers in innovation enterprises form the

foundation for the kind of success CHEC and the City envision.

Against this background, the universities in the Cape Higher Education Consortium (CHEC) ask the

City of Cape Town to make decisions at a macro planning level which would secure the site from

fragmented industrial development and establish the vision of a revitalising, innovation-friendly

central area for Bellville as a planning imperative. The tonic effects on the existing CBD which hosts

the national headquarters of SANLAM and Vodacom, the regional offices of Eskom and several state

departments would soon be evident. And with the assurance that the macro-level decisions had

been taken, it would be possible to proceed with the envisioned development of the area in smaller

parts against a horizon of 10 – 15 years.

In conclusion, we undertake that our discussions with Transnet, with the City, with Province, and

with the national departments of Public Enterprises, Education, and Science and Technology will

continue, and that we will vigorously pursue outcomes of benefit to Cape Town and our province

and country.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR DRIVING … Second Report Revised20101122... · 2016. 9....

Documents

Transcript of THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR DRIVING … Second Report Revised20101122... · 2016. 9....