confronting societal and economic challenges: role and responsibility … › sites › default ›...

Confronting Societal and Economic Challenges:

Role and Responsibility of RTDI

Vienna, 10 June 2013

CC OO NN FF EE RR EE NN CC EE SS UU MM MM AA RR YY

© TAFTIE – The European Network of Innovation Agencies | www.taftie.org

TAFTIE Annual Conference | 10 June 2013 | Hotel & Palais Strudlhof, Pasteurgasse 1, 1090 Vienna, Austria

http://taftie.org/content/taftie-annual-conference-vienna-10th-june-2013

http://taftie.org/content/taftie-annual-conference-vienna-10th-june-2013

Contents

TAFTIE Annual Conference 2013 3

Forewords 4

Objective & Questions 6

New Missions for Innovation Policy 7

Austria’s Performance in RTDI 9

Instruments & Mechanisms 11

Transnational Initiatives 13

Skills & Attributes 16

Conclusion & Perspective 18

Attendee List 19

Foreword

4 TAFTIE Annual Conference 2013

TAFTIE, the European Network of Innova-

tion agencies, was founded in 1992 and

currently consists of 28 agencies from 25

countries. We are delighted to welcome to

TAFTIE the three new members who joined

the network in summer 2013.

TAFTIE represents an impressive body of

knowledge and experience in developing

and implementing innovation policies, cov-

ering the entire field from research and

development funding to innovation support.

TAFTIE’s relevance is clearly underlined by

the increasing interest in membership and

invitations for TAFTIE to contribute to a va-

riety of subject areas with the collective

know-how of the association. As the or-

ganization grows we are also undergoing

and supporting internal development, thus

increasing TAFTIE’s managerial profession-

alization.

FFG, the Austrian Research Promotion

Agency, has been a TAFTIE member since

1995. We are very proud of being the

TAFTIE chair for 2013.

In general, we believe it is very important to

be part of TAFTIE, to network together with

our sister agencies and to learn from each

other and exchange experiences.

Apart from regular meetings of the Execu-

tive Working Group and the TAFTIE Board,

these exchanges take place at a variety of

levels, for example:

_ in the TAFTIE Academy which is organ-

ized by FFG and provides staff training,

networking workshops and webinars on

jointly defined topics relevant to the asso-

ciation.

_ in the TAFTIE Task Forces which address

crucial issues such as state aid rules and

their implementation, or how to measure

and benchmark impact, effectiveness and

efficiency of TAFTIE member agency activi-

ties.

_ at the annual TAFTIE conference where

around 70 participants from 19 countries

discussed how intervention mechanisms for

RTDI can best contribute to the societal and

economic challenges we face. You will find

these discussions documented in this bro-

chure.

We want to thank everyone at the FFG who

contributed to the TAFTIE conference and

other TAFTIE events, and to organizing our

chairmanship for TAFTIE 2013, in particular

Mr Klaus Schnitzer, our TAFTIE board

member. We are grateful to have the op-

portunity to work so closely with leading

European agencies and would like to thank

our TAFTIE partners for their cooperation

and contributions to the network.

Henrietta Egerth, Klaus Pseiner

Managing Directors of FFG

Klaus Pseiner, Henrietta Egerth,

FFG Managing Directors. © FFG/Petra Spiola

Foreword


Discussions are currently ongoing at na-

tional, European and international level

about the most appropriate ways of invest-

ing public RTDI budgets. During FFG’s

chairmanship of TAFTIE we have decided to

focus on the following topics:

Which set of funding instruments do we

need in each phase of economic develop-

ment?

Spotlighting new European innovation-

related instruments and their link with na-

tional funding.

What is the impact of the different funding

mechanisms? How can impact be measured

and monitored? How can the contribution of

agency activities be assessed?

And finally the theme of our Annual Confer-

ence: Are the intervention mechanisms for

RTDI appropriate and effective in facing up

to societal & economic challenges in

Europe?

Discussion on this topic is documented in this

brochure.

I want to thank all my colleagues for their

engagement in organizing this TAFTIE Con-

ference, and especially FFG Thematic Pro-

grammes for the preparation and set up.

In particular I would like to thank all the

lecturers who made this conference possible

through their contributions, opening up the

space for interesting discussions.

Klaus Schnitzer, FFG

Klaus Schnitzer,

Head of General Programmes at FFG

and TAFTIE Chairman

Objective & Questions


Opening the conference, Emmanuel Glenck, Head of Thematic Programmes

at FFG, defined the objective and scope of the conference

© Petra Spiola

Research, technology development and in-

novation (RTDI) contribute significantly to

identifying, preventing and remedying socie-

tal and economic challenges. A central re-

quirement is a reliable, flexible and well-

balanced set of instruments offering clear

added value for academia, industry and

public agencies at different policy levels in

Europe.

The objective of the TAFTIE Conference

2013 was to exchange thoughts and discuss

possible solutions for the following topics:

RTDI instruments and mechanisms for socie-

tal and economic challenges

How can RTDI contribute to solving societal

and economic challenges?

Which sets of public and/or private inter-

vention mechanisms for RTDI are available

and what is their impact?

Who are the relevant stakeholders and how

are they involved?

Is there any available best practice for gov-

ernance?

What are the arguments for direct vs. indi-

rect RTDI incentives?

Transnational research initiatives – interplay

of national and European levels for more

effective research systems in Europe

How can we support the interplay of funding

and support schemes at national and Euro-

pean level?

How can we make use of good practices for

coordinating measures and for implementa-

tion, such as project selection processes?

How do funding agencies adapt to the com-

plexity of transnational research initiatives?

Skills and attributes for human capital in

RTDI and funding organizations

How can agencies support development of

the skills needed to promote innovation in

business and academia?

Are there any publicly funded HR pro-

grammes supported by TAFTIE members

aimed at developing skills to promote inno-

vation in business and academia?

What are the issues or lessons learned from

these programmes?

New Missions for Innovation Policy


A historical view of RTDI policy and a resumption of recent debates: Wolfgang Polt

In his introductory presentation Wolfgang

Polt, Director of the Centre for Economic

and Innovation Research at JOANNEUM

RESEARCH, gave an outline of recent de-

bates on appropriate sets of public interven-

tion mechanisms for RTDI. Starting with a

historical overview of policy approaches

during Europe’s post-war period, Polt illus-

trated the focus shifts in RTDI policy, begin-

ning with a period of state-owned ap-

proaches based on a classic mission-

oriented philosophy, and later giving way

to key civil technologies, closely related to

industrial and large-scale technological

systems. In contrast, the 1980s and 1990s

focused on generic elements of innovation

systems. Since then a new mission orienta-

tion has arisen, confronting new challenges

and using decentralized multi-actor ap-

proaches. This new mission orientation

epitomizes the complexity of policy ap-

proaches and requires the coherent use of

instruments ranging from basic research

funding to close-to-market and diffusion-

oriented measures and social innovations

for acceptance and adoption.

However, Polt emphasized that although

policy approaches have changed over time,

they have maintained their vigour and led

to increasingly comprehensive and complex

portfolios of instruments. Thus today’s policy

challenge lies in finding the appropriate

policy/instrument mix and ensuring policy

coherence among actors and instruments.

Main strands of debate

In his overview of recent debates, Polt iden-

tified some dominant strands:

_ Broadening the approach to innovation

policy appears justified, including social,

organizational and institutional innovations

which are necessary complements to tech-

nological innovation. But it runs the risks of

diluting the concept of innovation and its

operationalization, leading to uncertainty

about what innovation actually is and how

it can be measured.

_ In the past decade there has been an

increasing emphasis on demand-side poli-

cies, especially at European level. How-

ever, to truly implement this policy on a

large scale we need a strong political entity

and political legitimation. This leads to

fields such as infrastructure and defence,

with large scale public procurement, but

this is still the domain of nation states and

has no role to play at European level.

_ Another strand is the “grand challenges”

and their link to RTDI policies that show

signs of becoming more promising. Ad-

Sourc

e: G

ass

ler/

Polt/

Ram

mer

2008

New Missions for Innovation Policy


dressing societal challenges through a vari-

ety of policies, including RTDI, has become

a prominent policy thrust.

_ On the level of individual instruments, we

have a perennial debate on the role of

direct and indirect funding for private R&D.

In monetary terms, we have seen a signifi-

cant shift towards the indirect channel of

funding in several countries over the past

years. However, some of the countries that

have gone furthest along that path are ac-

tually rethinking this approach, fearing

exploding costs, and the verdict on the

effectiveness of this approach is still out-

standing.

_ Against the background of constraints on

public funding, another debate arises over

the question of institutional vs. competitive

funding, with a European trend towards

competitive funding. This may be justified,

but as yet there is no mapping of the effects

of these changes on the behaviour and

portfolios of research institutions.

New mission orientation

The main strand of debate – not least the

consequence of Horizon 2020 – remains

the new mission-oriented policy in which

innovation policy goals are linked to goals

for other policy targets (environmental,

energy, transport, safety/security policies

etc.). And so there is a need for a policy

dialogue between these spheres. It is not an

easy one, but it is necessary in order to

align RTDI policy closer to the grand chal-

lenges society is facing today.

Another aspect is that innovation and diffu-

sion need to be considered simultaneously.

Policy will not be successful if it only trig-

gers innovation; it needs to treat innovation

on a scale that allows it to actually contrib-

ute to solving societal problems. Therefore

innovation diffusion along market policy

lines must be an essential part of these pol-

icy strands. This requires stakeholder in-

volvement on a broader basis, including the

general public and users. It also frequently

involves what we call “system innovations”,

i.e. changes in major socio-technical sys-

tems.

Examples of policies being pursued in this

way already exist: The OECD has its own

innovation strategy, the EU has established

Horizon 2020, and the Joint Programming

Initiative and SET Plan are beginning to

materialize. At the national level we also

see increasing societal orientation in tech-

nological development, for instance in

Germany’s High-Tech Strategy. The same

goes for countries such as Austria or

Finland where we have dedicated funds or

programmes addressing societal problems

by encouraging technological innovation.

If there are policy lessons to be drawn, then

addressing the grand challenges within the

European or global context means strug-

gling to find the most appropriate institu-

tional forms. For this purpose we need a

constant review, evaluation and compari-

son of the policy instrument mix to achieve

effectiveness and efficiency.

Finally, due to the cross-cutting nature of the

new mission-oriented policy, governance

must be the task of government in a broad

sense. It cannot be left to the narrow con-

fines of science and innovation policies as it

has over the past decades.

Austria’s Performance in RTDI


2009

6th – Austria’s R&D – close to the innovation leaders

1,0

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

2,0

2,2

2,4

2,6

2,8

3,0

1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010

Austria

OECD

EU-15

In its 2011 RTDI strategy the Austrian government

defined an R&D intensity of 3.76% as its goal for

2020 – an important figure intended to close the

gap on the innovation leaders.

2013

9th Austria’s R&D – losing contact with innovation leaders?

Austria’s performance in IUS: Do we need an up-

grade? (Source: RFTE 2013)

Dynamics of innovation development compared to

the OECD and EU-15 (Source: OECD MSTI)

Ludovit Garzik, Managing Director of the

Austrian Council for Research and Technol-

ogy Develop-

ment, pre-

sented an

analysis of the

Austrian inno-

vation system

and its per-

formance over

recent years.

Austria has

lost some

ground in the

Innovation Union Scoreboard; with the

dynamics in other countries appearing

stronger, the gap between Austria and the

innovation leaders is widening. That is the

challenging picture. Still, if we look back

over the past thirty years we get a positive

picture of innovation development in Aus-

tria. Measured by the rise in R&D intensity,

growth is stronger than the EU-15 average

and the OECD, and funding is pouring into

the system.

What we need to examine is how efficiently

this funding is being applied. On the input

side, 60% of funding volume comes from

the private and 40% from the public sector.

The countries in the group of innovation

leaders enjoy a higher percentage of pri-

vate investment. So this is one of the results

of the Council’s performance report: private

sector investment into R&D must increase.

As for future trends, the most likely level for

Austria’s R&D intensity in 2020, as calcu-

lated by the Austrian Institute of Economic

Research on the basis of multiple macro-

economic factors, is 3.3%. The official gov-

ernment target is 3.76%, so there is room

for discussion on how to fill that gap.

Two years ago the government presented

its R&D strategy going forward to 2020. It

was the first strategy to which the govern-

ment has committed itself. This has had a

very positive impact on political discussions

regarding RTDI in Austria.

Austria’s Performance in RTDI


Since then it has been the task of the Aus-

trian Council to implement the strategy.

Each year the Council publishes a report

based on a set of 62 indicators, analysing

the capabilities and performance of Aus-

tria’s science and technology system com-

pared to Europe’s innovation leaders. The

2013 report has just been released.

Starting with the positive aspects of the

performance analysis, Garzik stressed that

Austria has put in an impressive economic

performance over recent decades; Austria

is ranked the third wealthiest country in

Europe and eleventh in the world.

These economic achievements are clearly

reflected in indicators including high GDP

per capita and low rates of unemployment.

However, examining employment rates

reveals a gap between Austria and the

innovation leaders. This is partly due to the

relatively low rate of female employment in

Austria, and this is one field in which cor-

rective measures need to be intensified.

However, the dynamics of RTDI are only a

partial factor in this development. The rele-

vant indicators actually show a mixed pic-

ture. While innovation performance, as

reflected in the Innovation Union Score-

board, lags behind the innovation leaders,

Austria is already meeting its targets in the

field of energy efficiency.

For indicators representing developments

beyond the strictly economic, it appears

that there is still a strong need to catch up.

Indicators for quality of life and life expec-

tancy clearly show room for improvement.

And Austria is still far from meeting its tar-

gets in dealing with greenhouse gases.

Regarding the performance of the tertiary

education system, the data indicate that in

order to meet the 2020 objectives the

budget for the tertiary sector needs to be

adapted to the needs of researchers and

organizations. Garzik noted that indicators

of underperformance, such as the acquisi-

tion of ERC grants and the number of

graduates in MINT (mathematics, informat-

ics, natural science and technology) sub-

jects, are still off target but have a good

chance of improving sufficiently.

A discrepancy appears when analysing

intra-sectoral versus inter-sectoral structural

change in Austria’s economy. Within indi-

vidual industrial sectors, firms are striving to

intensify innovation and become more

knowledge-intensive. Here they only lag

slightly behind the innovation leaders. But

when it comes to restructuring industry as a

whole by moving into more knowledge-

intensive sectors, Austria lags further behind

and indicators including export data for

knowledge-intensive services point to struc-

tural weaknesses.

And finally, there is also the question of

image. A study by the Austrian National

Tourist Office revealed how Austria is seen

from abroad and what attributes are asso-

ciated with Austria: Mountains, skiing and

Mozartkugeln are all part of the picture,

while science and technology are hardly

mentioned. As Garzik concluded, altering

this image remains a major task.

Instruments & Mechanisms


Searching for the right instruments and mechanisms: Matthias Weber, Rupert Pichler, Emmanuel Glenck,

Maria Bendl and Gerald Murauer

In a panel session moderated by Emmanuel

Glenck, experts from Austrian ministries,

industry and research institutions reflected on

the presentations and discussed the choice

of RTDI instruments and mechanisms to meet

societal and economic challenges.

Maria Bendl, Department Head at the Fed-

eral Ministry for Economy, Family and

Youth, expressed pride in the impressive

RTDI spending developments in Austria. R&D

expenditure in Austria has now reached

2.81% of GDP, and even increased in the

last year while other policy fields saw a

reduction in budgets. This indicates strong

political commitment to RTDI. However, the

share of private investment in R&D remains

just below 60% and greater involvement of

the private sector is essential for the future.

All the ministries are trying very hard to

secure greater private involvement by means

of programmes and policies.

As for RTDI policy priorities, the Ministry of

Economy remains in line with government

strategy and its focus on the educational

system, especially the tertiary level. There is

a constant need to develop new ways of

involving young people and making their

knowledge exploitable for industry. One

good example is the R&D Competence for

Business programme which aims to improve

qualifications in line with industry demands.

Additionally, as identified in the strategy

(keyword: grand challenges) thematic priori-

ties have been established to address socie-

tal challenges. They form an integral part of

the ministry’s policy mix which includes pro-

grammes for health & aging, resource effi-

ciency and eco-innovation.

Rupert Pichler, Department Head at the Fed-

eral Ministry for Transport, Innovation and

Technology, emphasized the historical per-

spective offered by Wolfgang Polt’s presen-

tation and stressed that a lack of consistency

in the RTDI system is not a recent phenome-

non. Parameters change all the time and

RTDI policy must constantly react to chang-

ing frameworks. The need to respond to

societal challenges and technological

change has been, and continues to be, an

RTDI policy task.

However, the role of government is where

we really face major challenges. The priority

over the past 15 to 20 years was to channel

increasing amounts into the system. Now

that an adequate level has been reached,

we need to reach out to new policy fields

such as education policy, climate change,

resource scarcity and global warming. These

are different policy fields which have to be

dealt with through a different set of instru-

ments: regulation, infrastructure, taxation.

Bringing together these policy fields, each

Instruments & Mechanisms


with their own logic and all related to but

not yet fully integrated with RTDI policies is

the truly challenging task. This is the real

work that needs to be done when organiz-

ing research policies – not politicians’ Sun-

day speeches promising new programmes

for an ageing society or other challenges.

Gerald Murauer, Head of Corporate Tech-

nology for CEE at Siemens AG, explained

how a company like Siemens aligns with

such policy objectives and challenges.

Murauer stressed the importance of indirect

funding via tax incentives. For Siemens, a

German-based company, indirect funding in

Austria plays a prominent role. It greatly

influences company decisions on bringing

projects to Austria. Austria is one of the

countries with the highest percentage of

foreign R&D funding, which is understand-

able bearing in mind the size of the country

and its companies. R&D funding in Austria is

at a good level, direct instruments and tax

incentives work well.

With reference to mission orientation, Mu-

rauer pointed to a big project Siemens is in

the process of setting up in cooperation with

other companies in Austria. This five-year

mission-oriented programme is a rather diffi-

cult endeavour because it is a horizontal

policy programme in which R&D represents

only a quarter of the overall expense (others

being implementation, investment etc.). This

indicates the new challenges that mission

orientation brings. R&D can only represent a

fraction of the project, and other fields must

be integrated. Murauer concluded that if you

want mission-oriented activities then you

must have very broad and well organized

schemes to support it.

Mathias Weber, Head of the Research,

Technology and Innovation Policy Unit at the

Austrian Institute of Technology (AIT),

stressed his conviction that RTDI policy is

insufficient in trying to build a well-

functioning research and innovation system

to cope with major economic and societal

change. What is vital is coherence with

thematic or sectoral policies such as energy

policy or health policy. This will decide

whether RTDI policy has the potential to

tackle economic or societal challenges.

Four years ago AIT reoriented its mission

and structure, basing its departments not on

technological fields but on domains address-

ing the areas of challenge: energy, mobility,

safety and security, health and environment,

and foresight and policy development. This

orientation needs to be translated into an

ability to generate the necessary national

and international knowledge to develop

systemic solutions. Smart cities are one such

example demanding collaboration with so-

cietal organizations and users already in the

development stage, considering, for exam-

ple, health and mobility issues. AIT recog-

nized a need to join users at an early stage

and engage in pilot collaboration with in-

dustry whilst also acting as a partner to gov-

ernment.

Thus the role of research is defined as the

ability to create the knowledge which en-

ables such systemic solutions. This requires

researchers solidly rooted in the interna-

tional research community. It is crucial that

research agendas are not decided solely on

the basis of demand-side orientation.

Transnational Initiatives


Aim:

Long-Term

competitiveness

1. ERC

2. Future and Emerging

Technologies (FET)

3. Marie Curie

4. Reserach

Infrastructures

Aim:

Growth

1. Enabling

Technologies

2. Risk Finance

3. Innovation in SMEs

Aim:

Concerns of citizens

1.Health, demographic

Change & wellbeing

2.Food security, agriculture,

marine, bio-economy

3.Efficient energy

4.Transport

5.Secure Societies

6.Climate action, raw materials

1. 2. 3.

Excellent

Science

Better SocietyCompetitive

Industries• More Years Better Lives

• Climate Knowledge

• Seas and Oceans

• Antimicrobial resistance

• Urban Europe

• Water challenges

• Neurodegenerative Des.

• Agriculture, Food Security

& Climate change

• Healty Diet

• Cultural Heritage

Art. 185 AAL Eurostars

Bonus EMRP

JTI

Artemis Eniac Clean Sky IMI FCH

• Graphene

• Human Brain ProjectFET Flagships

EIP AHA, Water, Agri, SCC, Raw Materials

ETP

PPP

ERA-Nets

new

EIT (KICs)Climate, Energy, ICT,....

• FoF

• GC

• EeB

• FI

• BRIDGE

• SPIRE

• Photonics

• Robotics

The ERA landscape within Horizon 2020 – a picture of intensifying complexity: Thomas Zergoi

In opening the session on transnational re-

search initiatives, Thomas Zergoi from FFG

depicted the landscape of the European

Research Area at the interface of FP 7 and

Horizon 2020 – with the perspective of

intensifying complexity.

Apart from Horizon 2020, the European

Research Area includes further strategic and

operational opportunities for cooperation

(e.g. calls).

Article 185 Actions, ERA NET Initiatives and

Joint Programming Initiatives (JPI) coordi-

nate national research core areas and,

through joint calls, offer possibilities for co-

operating at European level.

Future and Emerging Technology (FET) Flag-

ships are initiatives based on long-term re-

search to establish ties between industry and

society. Joint Technology Initiatives (JTI) and

so-called contractual PPPs are intended to

develop strategic plans to strengthen indus-

trial competitiveness. In the same context,

European Technology Platforms (ETP) deliver

valuable input with regard to content, and

offer excellent opportunities for international

networking.

The European Institute of Innovation and

Technology (EIT) brings together research,

education and innovative entrepreneurship

around selected topics that are handled

within networks, so-called Knowledge and

Innovation Communities (KIC).

In addition, COSME makes it easier to secure

financial resources for SMEs and establishes

convenient surroundings for start-ups and

expanding enterprises.

EUREKA is a European/international network

for application-oriented research and devel-

opment in Europe and offers scope for

transnational cooperation projects for com-

panies and research institutions.

The European Innovation Partnership (EIP)

has no EU subsidies at its disposal, but ac-

tion group members can participate in calls

of single EU programmes such as Horizon

2020, structural funds or national funding

programmes.

All these initiatives are strongly linked to

Horizon 2020 but have different participa-

tion rules and can also cover different activi-

ties along the value chain. These differences

and backgrounds must be understood by the

funding agencies and communicated to

European researchers so that they can bene-

fit from the opportunities to cooperate in

research, technological development and

innovation.

Sourc

e:

Zerg

oi 2013



Johann Massoner, Director for Coopera-

tions, IP and Funding at Infineon Technolo-

gies Austria, pre-

sented the Joint Un-

dertaking Initiative

ECSEL (Electronic

Components and

Systems for European

Leadership). Indicat-

ing the thousands of

microelectronic de-

vices we all use dur-

ing a typical working day, Massoner

stressed that fewer than 10 % of these elec-

tronic devices are actually produced in

Europe. Realistically, if production moves out

from Europe development will move with it.

Urgent changes are needed to reverse this

trend.

Massoner referred to the Nanoelectronic

Strategy of the European Commission re-

cently presented, and quoted Neelie Kroes,

Vice-President of the European Commission:

“It’s a strategy with a very clear mission. To

reverse the declining market share of the

European semiconductor industry. To double

our chip production by 2020 to around one

fifth of the global total, overtaking the United

States. In short, there are three goals: to

make chips faster, smarter, and cheaper.”

The Joint Undertaking ECSEL, which is in

discussion right now, is a perfect vehicle for

supporting this plan. It combines former

ENIAC focusing on hardware, ARTEMIS

directed at embedded systems, and the

Technology Platform EPOSS for smart sys-

tems. This illustrates the importance of soft-

ware when it comes to combining disci-

plines. There is no system without electron-

ics, consequently the support of electronic

industries in Europe is of key importance.

Alois Saria, Director of the Department for

Experimental Psychiatry at the Medical Uni-

versity in Innsbruck, presented the EU Human

Brain Project, one of the two big flagship

projects selected by the European Commis-

sion early this year. It represents a large-

scale, coordinated effort to improve and

exploit the understanding of the brain. This

project is finishing the negotiation phase

and is hopefully due to start in October. It

currently involves 85 partners, making it the

largest project ever funded by the European

Commission by far.

The research areas in this project are highly

interdisciplinary; understanding the brain,

developing treatment

for brain-related dis-

ease and using brain-

like computing tech-

nologies. There are

currently huge

amounts of valuable

data spread over

Europe. What is

needed is integration

via a large-scale, collaborative approach.

So the concept is to build ICT platforms lo-

cated in different countries with a capacity

to gather and organize data and knowledge

on the brain. In order to understand the

similarities and differences between brain

diseases this platform will be open to re-

searchers to collaborate and participate,

including through competitive calls.

Across the Atlantic the US Brain Initiative is

taking place concurrently, and aims to ac-

celerate the development and application of

new technologies that give researchers in-

sight into the interaction between individual

brain cells and complex neural circuits. As

both initiatives are largely complementary, it

should be a good time for both of them to

accelerate knowledge and research about

the brain.



How do transnational initiatives impact national funding systems: panel discussion with Koen De Pater, Klaus

Kubeczko, Alois Saria, Thomas Zergoi and Johann Massoner

A panel discussion moderated by Thomas

Zergoi focused on aspects of the interplay of

regional, national and European levels for

more effective research systems in Europe.

Zergoi opened the discussion by asking

about the effects of transnational initiatives

on national funding systems, strategies or

even funding programmes.

Klaus Kubeczko, researcher at the Austrian

Institute of Technology, referred to Joint Pro-

gramming Initiatives with specific arrange-

ments that differ from other initiatives. Firstly,

they are state-run, with the EU taking the role

of facilitator. The strategic research agenda

must be developed by the nation states.

Secondly, they deal with challenge-oriented

policy making, which is new in the EU. That

makes their complexity even greater. In

terms of alignment, three levels have to be

considered. The funding issue: How should

funding be organized between different

partners? The governance issue: How should

different projects be reviewed? The stake-

holders/advisory aspect: What system of

reporting needs to be implemented?

Koen De Pater, from the Dutch agency

Agentschap NL, referred to the complex

picture given in the initial presentation. This

is, however, highly logical because the most

expensive fields have been tackled at a

multinational level, starting with ITER, Airbus

and the ICT industry. These are the first

nodes of cooperation. Now we gradually

move into the cheaper areas of research,

where it is also profitable to combine re-

sources. There is also a link to the degree in

which you can protect knowledge, as in the

pharmaceutical and chemical industry; they

are not as well integrated into the European

approach as the ICT sector, because it is

hard for them to protect their knowledge

from each other.

In the past we have seen the establishment

of two generic platforms for cooperation:

COST for scientists and EUREKA for indus-

trialists. Many scientists want to cooperate,

but the cheapest research is still national. As

a rule for agencies, simplicity is highly rec-

ommended, both for users and scientists.

One solution to the problem of complexity

could be to make national initiatives more

open to the outside world.

Skills & Attributes


What are the skills needed for innovation and how could they be provided: panel discussion with Karin

Grasenick, Richard Grice, Michaela Fritz and Andreas Wildberger

The last session brought together a promi-

nent panel to discuss skills and attributes of

human capital in RTDI and funding organi-

zations. It was opened by moderator An-

dreas Wildberger from FFG who asked

what kind of support should be offered to

talents throughout their careers.

Michaela Fritz, Head of the Health Depart-

ment at the Austrian Institute of Technology,

sees finding excellent Austrian researchers

as the first and biggest challenge, as eight

out of ten companies in Austria have prob-

lems in finding the experts needed for their

research. Fritz greatly supports mobility

programmes and stressed the need to de-

velop system skills. This is what customers

demand: system skills for solutions (project

management, IT management) which will

help to address the grand challenges.

Bringing social skills and training to the fore

could be one of the fields in which innova-

tion agencies can play a crucial role.

Karin Grasenick, Director of the innovation

consulting company convelop, started with

the perception often registered among re-

searchers that leadership abilities are some-

thing you are born with. Consequently, this

is still rather a blind spot, obscuring the

need to know how to work together and

become better. Grasenick proposed that, in

future, funding agencies should strengthen

networks in order to share good practice on

supporting researchers. Institutions, organi-

zations and managers should be obliged to

include leadership training as one of the

criteria in funding projects.

Richard Grice, CEO from British business

support company Pera Training, gave a

more general overview on how to maximize

skills in organization. Quoting Peter

Drucker, who said that innovation is about

creating new forms of customer value,

Grice emphasized that everybody in an

organization is an internal customer, there-

fore their understanding of what the busi-

ness strategy is and where we want to go

as an organization contributes to a com-

pany’s effectiveness. Not everybody has to

be an innovation leader, but if everybody

in an organization understands what suc-

cessful organization means and finds a way

of contributing to this, this helps create or-

ganizational systemic innovation, which in

turn increases the positive impact of or-

ganization and its added value.

Skills & Attributes


Asked about differences in the way R&D

employees are trained in industry and in

research institutions, Michaela Fritz con-

firmed that the skills needed are different

when you regard

research as curi-

osity driven. These

scientists work in

a very independ-

ent way – they

could also do their

work in isolation.

The world at AIT is

different. Resear-

chers here must

have customer needs in mind and it is part

of their job to train young scientists for in-

dustry.

Andreas Wildberger brought an agency

perspective and hinted at the discrepancy

between the attention HR issues are enjoy-

ing, also as part of political marketing, and

the money that actually goes into these

initiatives, which is ridiculously small com-

pared to the budgets for competence cen-

tres, for instance. But what we learned in

the conference sessions was exactly this:

education and skills formation is a priority

for the future if we want to join this innova-

tion path that we are supposed to be on by

2020. What role can the agencies play?

Michaela Fritz believes that many countries

have already reached the stage at which

Human Resources have become an integral

part of other innovation programmes.

Richard Grice looked back at the phases of

recent industrial development: In the 1970s

and 1980s the

focus was very

much on compara-

tive advantages

based on quality,

then came the shift

to competitive ad-

vantage. Conse-

quently the next

phase should fo-

cus on a more col-

laborative advantage in order to create

technical solutions, for example by combin-

ing and bringing in technologies from

around the world and stimulate the way to

compress scientific development into com-

mercial exploitation.

Karin Grasenick stressed that there should be

no funding without clearly designed HR pro-

grammes and lea-

dership skills from

programme man-

agers. FFG has ini-

tiated some inno-

vative approaches

which provide

good examples of

how to implement

these indicators

prior to funding a

project, as leadership skills are definitely

needed in order to carry out the agenda

and to innovate.

Conclusion & Perspective


Searching for solutions and strategies in a complex world of European research …

Emmanuel Glenck closed the conference

with final remarks and conclusions on assess-

ing RTDI contributions to societal and eco-

nomic challenges.

The conclusion arising from the four sessions

is that there are two conflicting driving

forces. On the one hand, there is a wish and

intention to simplify (defining priorities, pro-

gramme design, evaluation processes etc.).

On the other, there is a need to integrate a

range of differing policies in order to gener-

ate solutions from RTDI for society and

economy more effectively, thus resulting in a

certain “complexification”.

For instance, programmes should have a

much broader scope. New types and gen-

erations of mechanisms for interacting with

societal and economic challenges are

needed and are already emerging, and this

will be reflected in the increasing number of

policies adopted, organizations involved

and mechanisms used.

Glenck summarized: The world of RTDI is

becoming more and more complex, making

it hard for anyone to conclude this confer-

ence by offering a clear solution. But, if

nothing else, important questions were ad-

dressed during the TAFTIE Annual Confer-

ence 2013 and they will stimulate further

discussion on how we can help to face fu-

ture societal and economic challenges

through RTDI.

… and stimulating further discussions on how to face societal and economic challenges through RTDI.

Attendee List


Last name First name Organization Country

Baurecht Marlis Federation of Austrian Industries Austria

Bendl Maria Federal Ministry for Economy, Family and Youth Austria

Berg Lisa FFG Austria

Bertram Kristof Project Management Jülich Germany

Berzinskas Arunas Agency for Science, Innovation and Technology Lithuania

Binder Michael FFG Austria

Brandenburg Roland FFG Austria

Brandl Bianca Institut für Höhere Studien Austria

Buchbauer Heribert Federal Ministry for Science and Research Austria

Curaj Adrian Executive Agency for Higher Education, Research,

Development and Innovation

Romania

Dall Elke ZSI Austria

De Pater Koen Agentschap NL Netherlands

Eiselt Isabella Federal Ministry for Science and Research Austria

Ellingsen Tobias Research Council of Norway Norway

Fritz Michaela Austrian Institute of Technology Austria

García-Serrano Javier CDTI Spain

Garzik Ludovit Austrian Council for Research and Technology Austria

Gavaud Celia PERA United Kingdom

Gessner Wolfgang VDI/VDE-IT Germany

Glenck Emmanuel FFG Austria

Goede Joanne Prisma & Associates Netherlands

Golding David Technology Strategy Board England

Göritzer Gottfried Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology Austria

Grasenick Karin convelop Austria

Grice Richard PERA United Kingdom

Grill Harald WKÖ Austria

Grönroos Ari Tekes Finland

Höglinger Andrea FFG Austria

Holtermann Cathinka The Research Council of Norway Norway

Holzner Gabriel FFG Austria

Huber Sebastian ITG Salzburg Austria

Hungnes Pål Aslak Innovation Norway Norway

Jäger Johann ACR Austria

Jaksa Krisztina FFG Austria

Kaufmann Peter KMU Forschung Austria Austria

Klaffke Werner Bayern Innovativ GmbH Germany

Komárek Pavel Technology Agency of the Czech Republic Czech Republic

Kubezcko Klaus Austrian Institute of Technology Austria

Kundakovic Ljiljana Innovation Fund Serbia Republic of Serbia

Attendee List


Last name First name Organisation Country

Leopold Martina FFG Austria

Lichtenwöhrer Thomas Federal Ministry for Science and Research Austria

Lories Veerle IWT Belgium

Ludwig Jean-Michel Luxinnovation GIE Luxembourg

Massoner Johann Infineon Technologies Austria Austria

Matolín Petr Technology Agency of the Czech Republic Czech Republic

Mayer Sabine FFG Austria

Mert Wilma Siemens AG Austria Austria

Meštric Hrvoje Business Innovation Croatian Agency – BICRO Croatia

Murauer Gerald Siemens AG Austria Austria

Naczinsky Christian Federal Ministry for Science and Research Austria

Ostapczuk Anna National Centre for Research and Development Poland

Paasi Marita Tekes Finland

Passweg Miron AK Wien Austria

Pecharda Christian FFG Austria

Pichler Rupert Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology Austria

Podgorska Joanna Polish Agency for Enterprise Development Poland

Pohlak Sermo Enterprise Estonia Estonia

Polt Wolfgang Joanneum Research Austria

Rohrmeister Ulrike FFG Austria

Sabbatini Giuliana UAS Technikum Wien Austria

Saria Alois Medical University Innsbruck Austria

Sautner Heidi FFG Austria

Scheer Johannes FFG Austria

Schiller Karl Austria Wirtschaftsservice GmbH Austria

Schnitzer Klaus FFG Austria

Schüssler Uwe Bayern Innovativ GmbH Germany

Sekanina Klara KTI Switzerland

Sellner Richard Institut für Höhere Studien Austria

Steinlin Walter KTI Switzerland

Ulutas Ferda Technology Development Foundation of Turkey (TTGV) Turkey

Võõras Madis Enterprise Estonia Estonia

Ward Rita Enterprise Ireland Ireland

Weber Matthias Austrian Institute of Technology Austria

Wildberger Andreas FFG Austria

Zergoi Thomas FFG Austria

confronting societal and economic challenges: role and responsibility … › sites › default ›...

Documents