cooperation framework on innovation systems … framework on innovation systems between ... rasigan...

Cooperation Framework on Innovation Systems between Finland and South Africa |

Enhancing Innovation in South Africa:

The COFISA Experience

February 2010

Cooperation Framework on Innovation Systems between Finland and South Africa | Page 3

| Cooperation Framework on Innovation Systems between Finland and South Africa Cooperation Framework on Innovation Systems between Finland and South Africa | Page 5

CONTENTS

TABLES AND FIGURES

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSFOREWORD - MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, SOUTH AFRICAFOREWORD - MINISTER OF TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT, FINLANDACRONYMS

SECTION 1 COFISA: FROM CONCEPT TO IMPLEMENTATION

1. COFISA: A SOUTH AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE- COFISA – the Origins- Innovation Towards a Knowledge Economy- Lessons from Finland- Highlights

2. COFISA: THE FINNISH PERSPECTIVE- Introduction- The Finnish Perspective- The Finnish Innovation System- Why Test the Finnish Innovation Model in South Africa?- Why COFISA?- COFISA – Conceptualisation and Inception- COFISA Emerging- Conclusions

3. COFISA: AN OPERATIONAL PERSPECTIVE- The Systems of Innovation Approach- Evolution of the Programme- Elements underpinning the COFISA Concept- Challenges- Conclusion

SECTION 2 COFISA: PUTTING INNOVATION TO WORK

4. FORESIGHT AND INNOVATION: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY AND MULTISHAREHOLDER APPROACH IN A DEVELOPING CONTEXT

- The Knowledge Society, Innovation and Foresight Cycle - Innovation and Foresight in the Developing World - The Foresight Processes - Possible Future of Futures in Africa - Case Study – Taking Foresight Forward – KIRD in the Eastern Cape

5. THE INNOVATION HUB ACTIVATORTM PROGRAMME- Introduction- What is ActivatorTM?- How the Programme Started- The ActivatorTM Concept for Multi-Helix Collaboration and SME Development- Development and Implementation of the ActivatorTM Concept- Existing ActivatorTM Projects- ActivatorTM in the Future

6. RURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS IN SOUTH AFRICA: LIVING LABS- Introduction- Background- Living Labs- Implementing the Living Labs Concept- Reconstructed Living Labs (RLabs) in the Western Cape- The Siyakhula Living Lab (Eastern Cape)- The Living Labs in Southern Africa Network (LLiSA)- The Future

EditorTina James

ContributorsActivator Team, The Innovation HubNeville CominsBob DayDaan du ToitAki EnkenbergPeter GreenwoodThando GwintsaLauri Kuukasjärvi Ilari LindyRasigan MaharajhMmboneni MuofheMarlon ParkerThomas PogueReuben RammbudaStanley RidgeKobus RouxNirvashnee SeetalThembinkosi Semwayo Helena TapperAlfredo TerzoliRudi van der WaltAshley Westaway

DesignFlow Communications (www.flowsa.com) +27 11 440 4841

PrintingHot Dot Print+27 11 792 6015

Copyright © February 2010 Department of Science and Technology, Government of South Africa

This book is available on www.cofisa.org.zaFrom July 2010 this can be accessed at http://www.dst.gov.za/links/cofisa

Hardcopies can be obtained from:Department of Science and Technology, Private Bag X894

PRETORIA 0001, South AfricaTel: +27 (12) 843-6341 email: [email protected]

The information contained in this publication may be reproduced, used and shared without prior permission but with acknowledgement of this publication as the source

7

89

1012

1616181920

222224262929303131

343435364041

444447515962

6666666668697072

747476767778828585


TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 4.1 Selected Themes and High-Level Actions Emerging from the Provincial Foresight Workshops 53

Table 6.1 Stakeholder Activities in the RLabs Project 80

Table 8.1 The Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Framework for COFISA 109

Figure 2.1 The Finnish Innovation System 27

Figure 4.1 Linkages between Foresight, the Development of Innovative Regions, and the Development of Innovation Systems 50

Figure 4.2 An Example of a Futures Wheel as Developed in the South African Regional Foresight Workshops 52

Figure 4.3 Quadrant-based Innovation Scenarios for the Eastern Cape 55

Figure 8.2 LogFrame Extract for COFISA 111

CONTENTS

7. SCIENCE PARKS- History of Science Parks in South Africa- The Role of COFISA- Case Studies- Lessons Learned

SECTION 3 COFISA: MONITORING AND EVALUATION FOR LEARNING

8. MONITORING AND EVALUATION FOR LEARNING: COFISA’S APPROACH- Introduction- History of Beginnings: A Learner Paradigm- The ME&L Framework for COFISA- The Logical Framework(LogFrame) Approach- Qualitative Monitoring and Evaluation- Quantitatively Measuring Outcome and Impact- Conclusion

9. SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF INNOVATION INTERVENTIONS- Introduction- Assessment Instruments- Innovation System Scoreboards- Innovation Policy Scoreboards- Innovation System Appraisals- Innovation Policy Appraisals- Systemic Assessment of the COFISA Programme- Conclusion

10. LESSONS LEARNED- Introduction- Inception- Governance- Alignment- Linkages- Stakeholder Management and Awareness Raising- Resources, Workplan and Administration- Making a Contribution- The Way Forward

SECTION 4 REFERENCES AND USEFUL RESOURCE MATERIALS / AUTHORS

- References- Authors

86868994

102

106106106109109111113113

114114115115117118119120121

122122122125125126127128129131

134

134139


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Istarted this acknowledgement by writing down a list of the people whom I thought should definitely be named for their unselfish and invaluable contributions

to COFISA since 2006. However, as the list grew longer I realised, firstly, how impractical the task was becoming but secondly, and more importantly, how lucky COFISA in fact was to have built up such a strong backbone of trusted, competent and dedicated intellectual resources that helped carry us through our journey.

Sadly, its time to say goodbye to COFISA but the relationships that have been built up during its time will endure long after. On behalf of the Programme, the Department of Science and Technology and the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs I want to extend my sincerest gratitude and appreciation to all those who have had a hand in shaping and realising COFISA .

Finally, a special thank you to the editor and the various authors who helped bring this book to life and thus preserve COFISA’s legacy a while longer.

Nirvashnee SeetalSouth African National CoordinatorCOFISADecember 2009

FOREWORD - MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, SOUTH AFRICA

It is with pride that I launch this milestone publication. The Cooperation Framework on Innovation Systems between Finland and South Africa (COFISA) has proven

that through hard work and determination, new and ambitious projects can be implemented to improve the effectiveness of the South African national system of innovation. My Department is pleased that this Finland and South Africa collaboration has led to success in creating effective innovation systems. COFISA was designed to be a pilot programme − a catalyst that would challenge our thinking and approaches to innovation systems development. The programme has successfully delivered on its mandate, and whilst COFISA officially closes on 28 February 2010, my Department is committed to building on the networks, relationships and projects that the programme has put in place.

This book represents part of COFISA’s legacy. It captures the lessons and experiences of a pioneer project that undertook the task of contributing to the improvement of the national system of innovation, primarily and uniquely through the development of regional (provincial) systems of innovation. This approach represents my Department’s commitment to ensuring that South Africa becomes a vibrant multi-level system of innovation that responds effectively to our socio-economic needs.

I am confident that you will find this publication both inspiring and enlightening, and I encourage all its readers to pay attention to the important messages that it conveys. Only through collaborative hard work, a will to succeed, a shared vision of our country’s future, and an innovative mindset can we ensure that South Africa truly soars.

I would like to extend my gratitude to the Finnish Government for their partnership in this Programme and, finally, I would like to congratulate all those who have been actively involved in making COFISA a success.

Naledi Pandor, MPMinister of Science and TechnologySouth Africa


Globalisation is challenging all economies regardless of their phase of development and position in the global landscape. Today, the interdependency

between countries and regions has become stronger than ever before. Many of the developed countries are building up their economies based on knowledge - education, science and research and development. The majority of developing countries are today resource based economies and at an early stage of building their knowledge societies. An innovation system is one of the key elements in this building process.

During the last decades, Finland has heavily invested in our innovation system, research and development as well as in education. Close and flexible collaboration between public and private sectors is characteristic in financing. Competitiveness of the innovation system is continuously evaluated and its operations are adjusted to meet the future challenges in Europe and globally.

As a small country, Finland is strongly dependent on the world economy. Global economic and financial crises hit us hard. However, we have learnt how to cope with these challenges. In the early 1990s Finland suffered a severe financial and economic downturn. During that period Finland made an investment in an information and knowledge based economy. The impact of these changes has been increased productivity and competitiveness. ICT-solutions have also been applied in traditional industries.

The collaboration between South Africa and Finland in the area of information society and knowledge economy started with the COFISA programme in 2006. This programme focuses on strengthening the national, provincial and local innovation system in South Africa. The programme is the first of its kind in Finnish Development Cooperation.

COFISA has focused on building innovation systems in three provinces, Gauteng, Western Cape and Eastern Cape. The outcomes can be measured in new activities and continuity with various organisations. Some of these activities and outcomes are the following: using Foresight

in planning, rural innovation, development of science parks and innovation forums that bring together public and private stakeholders.

COFISA has strengthened Finnish and South African partnerships between various organisations. We would like to see this collaboration continue into the future. The lessons learned from COFISA will also be introduced to the entire Southern African region. Innovations will strengthen economically and ecologically efficient allocation of natural and human resources and increase overall sustainability in the development of these countries.

Paavo VäyrynenMinister for Foreign Trade and DevelopmentFinland

FOREWORD - INNOVATION IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY


ACRONYMS

AURP Association of University Research ParksCBD Central Business DistrictCHEC Cape Higher Education ConsortiumCIPRO Companies and Intellectual Property Registration OfficeCMT COFISA Core Management TeamCoE Centre of ExcellenceCoE Centre of ExpertiseCOFISA Cooperation Framework on Innovation Systems between Finland and South AfricaCPUT Cape Peninsula University of TechnologyCSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial ResearchDAS Drug Advice SupportDST Department of Science and TechnologyEIS European Innovation ScoreboardELIDZ East London Industrial Development Zone (South Africa)ELSTP East London Science and Technology ParkENoLL European Network of Living LabsEU European UnionFDI Foreign Direct InvestmentFOR-RIS Foresight Regional Innovation Systems applied in NACsFOSS Free and Open Source SoftwareGDP Gross Domestic ProductGERD Gross domestic Expenditure on Research and DevelopmentGM Genetically ModifiedGSM Global System for Mobile CommunicationsHEI Higher Education InstitutionHIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus / Acquired Immune Deficiency SyndromeIASP International Association of Science ParksICT4D ICT for Development ICTs Information and Communications TechnologiesIDM Impact Direct Ministries, a community organisationIDZ Industrial Development ZoneINSPIRE Provincial Information society strategy initiative (Limpopo/ Northern Cape, South Africa)IP Intellectual Property IPA Innovation Policy Appraisals IPR Intellectual Property Rights IPS Innovation Policy ScoreboardISA Innovation System AppraisalsISS Innovation System ScoreboardJDF Joint Development Forum (Northwest Province, South Africa)KAD Knowledge for African DevelopmentKIBS Knowledge Intensive Business ServicesKIRD Knowledge and Innovation for Rural DevelopmentLAN Local Area NetworkLFA Logical Framework ApproachLLiSA Living Labs in Southern Africa NetworkM&E Monitoring and EvaluationMDGs Millennium Development GoalsME&L Monitoring, Evaluation and LearningMOU Memorandum of Understanding

NACs Newly Associated Countries (European Union)NBIA National Business Incubator AssociationNEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s DevelopmentNGO Non-Governmental OrganisationNRDS National Research and Development Strategy NSI National System of InnovationNWSP North-West Science ParkNWU North-West UniversityOECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentOSKE Centre of Expertise Programme (Finland)PNC on ISAD Presidential National Commission on Information Society and DevelopmentPSI Provincial System of InnovationR&D Research and DevelopmentRDI Research, Development and InnovationRIS Regional Innovation StrategiesRLabs Reconstructed Living LabsS&T Science and TechnologySABS South African Bureau of StandardsSADC Southern African Development CommunitySAFIPA South Africa-Finland Partnership on ICT SAINE South African Innovation NetworkSANORD South African- Nordic Centre (located at University of the Western Cape) SANSI South African National System of InnovationSEDA Small Enterprise Development AgencySHOKS Key strategic high-technology sectors of innovation (Finland)SITRA Finnish Innovation FundSLL Siyakhula Living Lab (Eastern Cape)SLLMU SLL Management UnitSME Small and Medium EnterpriseSMME Small, Medium and Micro-Enterprise STI Science, Technology and InnovationSTP Science and Technology ParksSU Stellenbosch UniversityTEKEL Finnish Science Park AssociationTEKES Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation TeLL Tshwane eHealth Living Lab ActivatorTM

TIA Technology Innovation AgencyTIH The Innovation HubTRM Technology RoadmapTUT Tshwane University of Technology, PretoriaUCT University of Cape TownUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNISA University of South AfricaUSAASA Universal Service and Access Agency of South AfricaUWC University of the Western CapeWAN Wide Area NetworkWiMAX Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave AccessWSIS World Summit on Information SocietyWSU Walter Sisulu University, Eastern Cape


COFISA – THE ORIGINS

The origins of COFISA, the Cooperation Framework on Innovation Systems between Finland and South Africa, can be traced back to the last decade. The policy framework for South Africa’s fledgling

democracy, which included a National System of Innovation (SANSI), was developed through a comprehensive series of international policy learning and comparison engagements. This has, since the late nineties, included a number of study visits to Finland by South African officials and innovation policy experts. This cooperation formed part of the Finnish Government’s early and subsequent consistent and strong support to assist the economic development of the young South African democracy, most notably in the fight against poverty. The role played by science and innovation during the early days of the South African–Finnish development cooperation partnership was largely ad-hoc in the absence of an overall, concerted coordination framework to leverage the synergy between innovation and development. The development of COFISA therefore found its motivation in an attempt to better harness the role cooperation could play in innovation policy and programmes to support development.

Internationally, the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 and the World Summit on the Information Society in 2003 placed greater focus on the role played by knowledge and innovation in supporting development. It sparked an emerging global policy consensus on the critical need for development cooperation partnerships with developing countries and emerging economies which extended beyond the traditional areas of cooperation, science, technology and innovation capacity-building. Leveraging its own domestic strengths in innovation system and information society development, Finland was eager to include innovation systems cooperation as an important component in its cooperation with the developing world. It found in South Africa an eager partner to prepare and implement such a first pioneering initiative.

By 2004, as South Africa celebrated its first decade of democracy, the country was ready to enhance its innovation system development to the next level, building on the work of the first decade. This was undertaken by the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, and then the Department of Science and Technology, in creating South Africa’s first comprehensive policy framework for the SANSI.

The creation of the fully-fledged Department of Science and Technology in 2002 also led to a significant strengthening of the Department’s institutional capacities to build international partnerships. A dedicated division was, for example, created to seek to leverage international resources and investment to enhance South Africa’s science, technology and innovation (STI) capacities. It was this division which in 2004 engaged with the Finnish Embassy in South Africa to prepare the way for what would

1We wish to acknowledge the significant inputs provided to the COFISA programme by Dr Neville Arendse, Department of Science and

Technology, during the conceptualisation and planning stages of COFISA.

become COFISA. From late 2004 a series of scoping exercises and studies were undertaken to determine the areas of intervention where Finland’s unique expertise could be best leveraged to support the strengthening of innovation capacities in South Africa. These studies were undertaken by Finnish and South African experts working in close cooperation – even during the initial preparatory phase the emphasis on transnational partnership and close cooperation was one of the hallmarks of COFISA. The engagements included meetings and consultations across South Africa with a range of public and private sector policy- and decision-makers. The preparatory phase itself therefore became an important catalyst and facilitator for a deepened national innovation policy discussion in South Africa.

The COFISA preparatory phase, through its meticulous and thorough consultation, ensured that COFISA would address policy objectives prioritised by South Africa, such as the development of provincial/regional innovation systems, where cooperation with Finland would offer a unique comparative advantage. Due care was also taken to ensure that the programme would not duplicate any of the existing national South African initiatives but would serve to complement them. From the outset ownership of the programme would reside with South Africa. The intention was to create a programme which would become an instrument at the disposal of the Department of Science and Technology, to be best deployed as it deemed fit and mainstreamed with its broader national programmes. Harnessing innovation to fight poverty was always going to be at the heart of the programme and the preparatory effort did not shy away from proposing innovative interventions in this regard. An important pattern of intervention was therefore set early on for COFISA, building carefully on what had been achieved before but also proposing bold, new interventions where circumstances so required. The ground-breaking COFISA programmes in the Eastern Cape were a clear manifestation of this philosophy.2

It was also evident during the early days that an intervention of the nature and of the planned scale of COFISA had not yet been undertaken by any other development cooperation partners. There was much talk about innovation for development, but COFISA was the first to put this into practice in a concerted manner. COFISA would therefore offer rich learning for other parties, and it was agreed early during the preparation to include a component of learning with other Southern African Development Community (SADC) partners. The excellent cooperation between Finland and South Africa in the preparation of COFISA also provided a platform for the partners to convene, in partnership with the World Bank in May 2006, a major international conference on the role played by knowledge in Africa’s development. This critically analysed the essential interface between innovation, education and information society technologies.

Prior to COFISA’s launch, South Africa and Finland also embarked on the

2See Section 2, Chapters 6 and 7 for more details.


preparation of two additional programmes, one targeting information and communication technology partnerships for development and the other support for biotechnology programmes in the Southern African region, the latter in support of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD’s) science framework. COFISA was thus bearing fruit before it was even officially started.

The South African-Finnish partnership in science and technology has brought an interesting new dimension in official development assistance, one that emphasises partnership, local ownership and sustainability. This partnership between South Africa and Finland was described as refreshingly unconventional and as one that could set the benchmark for future bilateral programmes.3

This is primarily due to its strong focus on science diplomacy and insistence on capacity development and knowledge transfer. The joint financial investment by the two governments was to effectively facilitate access by South African researchers, entrepreneurs, government officials and representatives of the private sector to Finnish innovation experts and institutions.

The South African National Research and Development Strategy (August 2002) towards whose implementation COFISA was intended to contribute, gives expression to the national goals of economic development and the improvement of quality of life for all citizens through three strategic objectives:

With tremendous strides having been made in the past couple of years to establish the SANSI, the desired levels of innovation are yet to be achieved. Some of the key problems were identified during the formative stages of COFISA:

• National level deficiencies in understanding the workings of the SANSI and its necessary evolution, mainly expressed through the lack of Foresighting capabilities at national and provincial levels;

• Lack of a shared understanding between SANSI stakeholders as to the roles, operation and interactions of SANSI components;

• Insufficiently developed provincial systems of innovation that are poorly integrated with the SANSI;

• Lack of provincial innovation mechanisms such as science parks;

• Poor communication and collaboration between national and local levels;

• Lack of realisation of the potential of STI to address issues in rural and impoverished communities; and

• Lack of connection between the first and second economies.

3Planting, Sasha (6 April 2007). From Aid to Trade. Financial Mail. http://free.financialmail.co.za/innovations/07/0406/cinn.htm

Innovation Towards a Knowledge Economy

South Africa is well known for its mineral wealth, biological diversity and clear skies. As a resource-rich country, South Africa has largely relied on

this natural endowment to build what is today one of the largest economies in the continent. However,

it is widely accepted that knowledge, far more than endowment, has become the major driving force of economic and social development globally. The concept of a ‘knowledge economy’ has become a focus for many progressive economies, based on the generation

and adoption of new knowledge created by scientific research and technological advances; investments in education and research; adoption of best practices; and openness to social, economic, and cultural innovations. For advanced industrialised countries with high labour and infrastructure costs, the knowledge economy offers competitive advantages in high-technology product manufacture and efficient service sectors. For natural resource-based economies it offers improved technologies and higher-value added products with closer customer linkages, as well as a path for sustainable development. Developing countries such as South Africa look at knowledge for possibilities to short-circuit development phases, leapfrog technologies, and more quickly integrate into the global economy by becoming more attractive to international investors. In acknowledging the innovation partnership between the two countries, Minister of Science and Technology, Mr Mosibudi Mangena, remarked at the launch of the COFISA programme in September 2006, that

He added that COFISA offered a unique opportunity to demonstrate in practice the logical interface between sustainable development and poverty alleviation, and the innovative application of knowledge and technology.

Lessons From Finland

Until recently, Finland was a resource-driven economy whose factors of production were mainly timber resources, some minerals, hydropower

and waterways for transportation. Firms in Finland relied mainly on technologies adopted from elsewhere. As a consequence, the economy was sensitive to fluctuations in world commodity prices. It therefore came as no surprise when Finland’s economic situation in the early 1990s went through a severe economic recession characterised by a major banking crisis, high unemployment rates and the accumulation of government debt from modest levels to over 60 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) that were approaching international lending limits.

What makes Finland an appealing partner for South Africa in innovation is that in a relatively short period, it has transformed itself into a model knowledge economy. In recent years, it has been consistently ranked among the top performers in international competitiveness rankings. Measured by many indicators related to the knowledge economy, it has been ranked first. As Minister Paavo Vayrynen put it during his address at the Finland-South Africa business Forum in South Africa recently, Finland has always understood the importance of open economy and liberal trade, and had to strive to use natural resources and other productive assets to the best knowledge in order to be competitive in the world. Minister Vayrynen

further remarked that this is the source for the strong Finnish know-how that is so central to the success of the country’s forest industry and technology, energy technology, environmental technology and Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs).

One of the key steps taken to turn the situation around was Finland’s 1993 publication of the National Industrial Strategy White Paper by the Ministry of Trade and Industry. This strengthened a focus towards developing and promoting a national innovation system in the context of industrial clusters. This and other Finnish innovation policies generally call for collaboration, networking and internationalisation. This approach seems to be at the core of Finland’s success. In terms of the governance of the system of innovation, the strategic development and coordination of science and technology policy are the responsibility of the Science and Technology Policy Council (recently renamed the Research and Innovation Council). This body involves a much wider range of sectors than similar councils elsewhere in the world, is chaired by the Prime Minister and boasts the participation of the Ministers of Education, Trade and Industry and Finance. The governance and coordination role of the Research and Innovation council no doubt shares the credit for Finland being one of the world’s most ICT-intensive countries in terms of R&D, employment and exports. By the standards


of international research institutions, it ranks among the most competitive countries in the world. The Public-Private-Partnerships characteristic of Finland’s science system enables the common use of limited resources and the formation of joint ventures. Finland also tackles its challenges by allowing the science system to respond to prevailing challenges. As a sparsely populated nation, Minister Vayrynen also argues that Finland needed a new channel of communication with friends and relatives often living far away, thus raising the need to connect people by means of telecommunications. This became an opportunity for growing a telecommunications industry,

one for which Finland is currently known.

A bedrock of Finnish success is its efficient education system. The education policy exhibits the principle of equality in terms of gender, region and socio-economic background while in South Africa the education system is still plagued by many challenges. Education in Finland is publicly funded and run, making it free. The system is also well supported by the social security system which incentivises young people to continue educating themselves.

Highlights

During its short lifespan from 2006 – early 2010, COFISA embarked on a mission to play primarily a facilitative role and to support programmes

relevant to respective provinces so that sustainability could be continued by existing institutions post COFISA. Below are some of the highlights achieved by COFISA:

• Building Provincial Foresight – this process entails methods and techniques used to develop viable and sustainable futures for communities. These are crucial in the short term for the development of strategies as they are proactive and a departure from short term incremental planning which typically focuses on how to solve present problems. The value of Foresighting is on the “what can be” and then directing efforts towards systematically developing the desired futures. This exercise was conducted in the three targeted pilot provinces – Gauteng, Eastern Cape and the Western Cape.

• Establishment of the Activator Initiative - adapted

from successful Finnish experience focusing on triple-helix4 collaboration in innovation-based projects, Activator aims to assist in bridging the innovation chasm though the translation of research into useful products, services or businesses in a more direct and effective way.

• Science Parks – COFISA has been instrumental in increasing awareness and understanding of the role of Science Parks as key innovation-enabling mechanisms across South Africa, and has conducted studies related to their coordination and development.

• Support for a Network of Living Labs – The Living Lab platform focuses on promoting open, user-driven innovation in rural ICT services and applications.

• Development of Knowledge and Innovation for Rural Development Platform (KIRD) – KIRD is an initiative which intends to build on European, and particularly Finnish, experience and expertise to

turn the Eastern Cape from being the core of South Africa’s rural (and urban) poverty, to becoming an exemplary region of socio-economic stability and growth based on an environmentally sustainable urban-rural balance. The idea for KIRD arose out of the Foresight exercise conducted during the first year of the implementation of COFISA, wherein the need for sustainable interventions for stimulating innovation in rural areas in the Eastern Cape was identified.

• While COFISA was only piloted in three provinces, all SANSI stakeholders stood to benefit from a number of instruments, one such being the COFISA Seed Fund. This mobility fund aimed at funding individuals and organisations in support of exchanging knowledge; information sharing; skills transfer; sharing resources; and building long term networks. The purpose of the Fund was to support and motivate actors involved in the SANSI to explore, network, gain international experience and influence others within their networks to create long-term relationships for the development of the SANSI. Beneficiaries of the fund included officials from national, provincial and local government, research agencies and the private sector, mainly Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs).

• COFISA has benefited stakeholders far beyond the three pilot provinces, with the Limpopo province, through the Office of the Premier, taking its own initiative to seek COFISA support in the development of their regional innovation strategy. Officials from this province also participated in study visits to Finland and were able to establish their own networks and build capacity in amongst other areas, understanding the importance of Living Labs and the role and relevance of a science park in the province.

As a pilot, COFISA was meant to provide useful lessons on how the system of innovation can be strengthened to address social and economic challenges effectively. A number of lessons have been learnt, some of which will be shared with other provinces in South Africa and exported to the rest of the Southern African region and the continent. It is with much contentment that one has begun to witness commitment from various stakeholders to take ownership of some programmes initiated during COFISA. Although COFISA as a formal programme has now been concluded, building on the foundation laid

the DST will continue to work with a series of partners in Finland to develop new innovation partnerships.

4The Triple Helix refers to the notion of cooperation between stakeholders from the private sector, public sector and research.


INTRODUCTION

Globalisation makes countries and economies increasingly competitive and offers considerable opportunities for those who can seize what globalisation makes available. Globalisation

increases the mobility of goods, money, capital, people, ideas, cultures and values across borders with increased interdependency between countries, economies and cultures. For those who are not able to do so, globalisation poses great risks of further marginalisation from global trade and investment flows, and even of disappearing from the map of global markets. Many of the leading countries in the global economy are knowledge-based economies which have invested in education, research and development and through those investments have been able to build their innovation system and science and technology base.

An innovation system consists of producers of knowledge (researchers and communities of practice), users of knowledge and their interactions. The key elements of an innovation system are education, research and development, and knowledge-intensive industries. But the key question is:

The short answer is that investment in an innovation system generates economic growth and employment; enhances productivity and through economic growth enhances the wealth of a country or region. One of the long-term impacts is poverty reduction.

To build an innovation system, a country or region needs to integrate innovation policy and science and technology policy into its economic policy objectives and identify the key objectives to build its knowledge economy, priority areas and instruments to implement these policies. In addition to policy the establishment of a national or regional innovation system is key to understanding the stakeholders, their roles and the expected outcomes of the system.

The South African government requested support from Finland to develop their innovation system in the early 2000s. After government consultations the two countries agreed to share experiences in science, technology and innovation (STI). In October 2006, the COFISA programme was the start of this unique collaboration between the two respective ministries, the Department of Science and Technology (DST) (South Africa) and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs (MFA) (Finland).

After just over three years of extensive work, from 2006 – 2010, COFISA has brought in new elements and interventions, particularly in regional

5Previously with the Embassy of Finland, South Africa.


(provincial) innovation systems. The challenges have been great but understanding the role an innovation system

plays in economic growth has expanded.

The Finnish Perspective

Globally Finland is one of the leading information societies measured by technology and its use, competitiveness and education levels.8 Finland

has managed to change its economic development from a state of severe economic crisis in the early 1990s (the result of the collapse of the industrial base of the economy), to an information economy and society. This development took place with collaboration between the public and private sectors and a long-term trust-building process in the broader society. Some of the key characteristics of Finland have been the long-term investment in public education and R&D, building political trust, government support for the development of the Information Society (Information Society Programme), a regulatory environment supporting competition, and the participation of all key stakeholders in decision-making to build an information or knowledge-based society.

ICT, innovation capacity and education are the key

elements of a knowledge-based society, and building the knowledge base is perhaps the strongest element of competitiveness and success of any country today and in the future.

Finland’s recent economic development has been as a result of policies supporting innovation and information society. Tarmo Lemola9 summarises the development of Finland’s technology policies in the following way:

In the early 1990s an information society policy and strategy was produced to guide the transition from an industrial economy (that was in a severe recession at the time) to an information economy, where ICT was the leading technology. The goal of the policy was to make Finland a global leader in ICT products and services.11

The Innovation Policy aims at the following:

• Promote the overall functionality of the innovation system and the system’s ability to renew itself;

• Enhance the knowledge base;

• Improve the quality and targeting of research;

• Promote the adaptation and commercialisation of research results; and

• Secure adequate economic prerequisites for the activities.

The continuous development of human resources also ensures top-quality competence for the future.12

The Finnish Innovation System reflects innovation as an instrument to economic growth, with both division of labour between stakeholders and collaboration between the public and private sectors.

6South African Department of Science and Technology. Innovation towards a Knowledge Economy. The Ten Year Plan for South Africa (2008 – 2018). http://www.dst.gov.za/publications-policies/strategies-

reports/The%20Ten- Year%20Plan%20for%20Science%20and%20Technology.pdf

7South Africa’s National Research and Development Strategy (August 2002). http://www.dst.gov.za/publications- policies/strategies-reports/reports/sa_nat_rd_strat.pdf

8Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) (2006). Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World. OECD.

9President of Advansis Ltd., Finland.

10Lemola, Tarmo (2001), Management of Engineering and Technology, 2001. PICMET apos: 01. Portland International Conference, Vol. 1, Issue 2001, p.483.

11Tapper, H. (2001). The Potential Risks of the Local in the Global Information Society. Journal of Social Philosophy, Winter 2000, vol.31, no. 4, pp. 524-534, Blackwell Publishing, USA.

12Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland (2006). Science, Technology, Innovation Series of publications: Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland.


The Finnish Innovation System

Finland, based on its population size, is a small country of only 5.2 million people. The economy was previously dominated by strong pulp and paper

industries, while the metal industry gradually became the second largest sector. In the early 1990s Finland suffered a strong economic recession due to a number of concurrent factors:

• The fall of the Soviet Union, one of Finland’s biggest export countries for industrial products;

• The economic recession in Finland’s other main export countries, which led to the fall of both export volumes of pulp and paper products as well as their prices; and

• The liberalisation of financial markets in a carefree fashion, which led to an overheated economy. As a result, the country’s creditworthiness fell, many companies went bankrupt, and the unemployment rate rose to close on 19 %.

Finland had to re-invent itself and formulated a new vision and national policies for the future of the country. One of the major goals was to build Finland as a knowledge-based society and global player in ICTs.

The transformation was not just about undertaking the correct analyses and drafting appropriate policies, but also carried with it a fair amount of luck. At the time Nokia, today one of the globally leading mobile communications companies, changed its industrial path from pulp and paper, consumer electronics, tyres and rubber boots to that of being an ICT company. Nokia has since become a world leader in mobile phones and their applications, and is a major company in telecommunications networks with Siemens, as Nokia Siemens Networks. The Nokia cluster is today a key player in the Finnish economy.

How did Finland manage the change in a relatively short time?

• Finland invested, for decades, in building its education system - it is public and free for everyone, from kindergarten to the doctoral degree level;

• The public sector provided the initial push to build the Finnish innovation system, but gradually the private sector increased its investment in R&D, and is currently financing two-thirds of the total R&D investment;

• A systemic approach was put in place to build collaboration between stakeholders in science and technology on the one hand and the Finnish innovation system on the other;

• Finland has built a common vision as a knowledge-based society - or information society - and as a global player in ICT;

• The information and communications environment was deregulated and liberalised for free competition at a very early stage, in order to make ICTs serve the business, people and the country - and not the other way round.

A key task for STI policies is to ensure balanced development of the innovation system and strengthening cooperation within it. Alongside this, and increasingly important, are cooperation relationships with other sectors such as economic, industrial, labour, environmental and regional development, and social welfare and health care services.

A key element of the Finnish innovation system has been the collaboration between universities and research institutes, industry and the public sector. This collaboration is supported by measures such as the funding of research programmes that encourage collaboration between universities and industry (Academy of Finland); funding private sector R&D and its commercialisation (TEKES, The Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation); identification of key strategic high-technology areas of innovation (SHOKs) and supporting the collaboration between research organisations and the private sector; and funding of specific thematic areas for innovation (SITRA, the Finnish Innovation Fund).

The science policy is supporting long-term development of the Finnish innovation system and is implemented by the Ministry of Education.

The technology and innovation policy supports competitiveness of the Finnish industries and their innovation environment. The Ministry of Employment and the Economy is responsible for implementing this policy. A new national innovation strategy is being prepared. In addition to technology, emphasis is given to the commercialisation of innovations, service innovations andthe growth of businesses.

Finnish science and technology system

PARLIAMENT

GovernmentResearch and

Innovation Council

Advisory Board for

Sectoral Research

Ministry of

Education

Ministry of Employment

and the EconomyOther Ministries

Academy of

FinlandTekes Sitra

Universities, Polytechnics and Public Research Institutes

Business Enterprises and Private Research Institutes

Figure 2.1 The Finnish Innovation System 13

13http://www.research.fi/en/innovationsystem


The future challenges of the Finnish innovation system have been identified in a recent study.14 These challenges are specific to Finland but also reflect the global environment:

1. Globalisation. Finland is losing traditional and lower-level industrial jobs to other parts of the world; economic growth is also shifting to other parts of the world.

2. Change in the population structure. The aging population in Finland has an impact on labour markets, consumption and needs for services. Changes in the population structure change the economy and society as a whole.

3. ICTs are opening new opportunities as information and knowledge become accessible and ubiquitous. This changes communication patterns, work methods

and social interactions between individuals.

4. Sustainable development presents challenges and requires long-term investments in the environment. Climate change, changes of world’s ecosystems, water problems and waste management call for new solutions in consumption as well as in the production of goods and services.

5. A competent workforce is crucial for success in any country. There is increased competition globally for a competent work force. In the future there is need for investment in competencies that integrate scientific and technological know-how with business, cultural, social and legal competencies. Good living and working environments for a competent workforce become increasingly important. Finland needs to find its competence areas within this globally competitive environment.

6. Open source becomes more relevant globally. Work becomes independent of time and location globally as organisations are global and managed through ICT networks. Therefore, Finland needs a more skilled and competent workforce in this changing and globally networked environment.

7. Multicultural equality becomes important. People are increasingly working in multicultural environments where multicultural equality is a must.

8. Global governance and managing change requires more international cooperation, regulations, standards and agreements. Nation-states continue to be important players but they will need to work together with international and domestic players to secure their interests. Managing risks and security become increasingly important.

Why Test the Finnish Innovation Model in South Africa?

Firstly, there was a request by the South African government to assist in the development of the South African National System of Innovation (SANSI)

and particularly the regional (provincial) system of innovation. It was the systemic structure and combination of knowledge transfer mechanisms that South Africa was also looking for in partnership with Finland.

South Africa was the first country in which such collaboration was attempted, in this case through the COFISA programme. This was not without its challenges in learning:

• Finland is a country of 5,2 million people; South Africa has over 45 million;

• The size of Finland is one third that of South Africa;

• Finland is a knowledge-based economy, South Africa a resource-based economy; and

• The Finnish innovation system has adopted a systemic

approach based on STI policy to build a knowledge- based society; South Africa has several sectoral policies. South Africa has identified key strategic areas for the science and technology development of the country, as well as a strategy to become a knowledge economy. The STI policy is implemented through the Department of Science and Technology. Other departments are implementing their own policies and plans.

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. The answer lies in the fact that this is what Finland has done in the Finnish environment, and that the results have been measurable. The Finnish model may provide some advice and experience of interventions and support mechanisms to develop the SANSI, but ultimately the main task remains in South African stakeholders’ hands. Finland could only be a pathfinder in this process, to share what was learned in that context.

Why COFISA?

International trade and flows of finance are increasingly moving from south-to-north and south-to-south to link the technological capacity of the North to the

growth markets of the South. Skills and ability to scale technological inventions into innovations advancing social and economic development are today found in

14Finnsight, 2015. http://www.finnsight2015.fi


global knowledge networks instead of closed laboratories of advanced economies. Recent years have seen a shift towards ‘south–south’ technology alliances amongst emerging economies instead of ‘old north-south’ thinking.

Fast-paced development of ICTs combined with a young and increasingly skilled population may also gradually transform the developing countries from aid recipients into equal partners in technology alliances. Thus the ongoing global re-allocation of economic resources calls for a new type of cooperation and partnerships between advanced economies and the developing world. Such was also the thinking of the MFA when discussions were initiated with South Africa on how to match development cooperation to the needs and modalities of the new Millennium.

In the annual consultation between the Governments of Finland and South Africa, held in Helsinki in June 2003, it was confirmed that Finland would continue its

bilateral development cooperation with South Africa until 2010. The cooperation would continue focusing on the education sector, the environmental sector, job creation and SMME development as well as human rights and democracy development. As the gradual phasing out of the bilateral grant support eventually commences during the latter part of this decade, special focus would be put on strengthened trade relations and increased institutional linkages. It was also agreed that more attention would be given to the role of ICT in development along the lines envisaged by then Prime Minister Lipponen and then President Mbeki during their meetings in both Skagen (2000) and in Molde (2002). Hence all new bilateral programmes to be prepared would focus on capacity development in the area of the information society. A dedicated expert was to be posted in the Embassy of Finland in Pretoria to guide the preparation of these new programmes.

COFISA - Conceptualisation and Inception

At the time the access of developing countries to the benefits of ICTs was becoming one of the key themes of discussion in international development

policy fora. Both Finland and South Africa were active participants in this debate and expressed their support for the UN Millennium Development Goals and the declarations adopted by the WSIS (World Summit on Information Society) in Geneva in 2003 and later in Tunis in 2005.

It was evident that lack of access to information had become a major problem in a growing number of developing countries including economies in transition such as South Africa. Developing countries did and still do not have the same possibilities to make use of digital information and communications that industrial countries commonly enjoy. The challenge of the ’Digital Divide’ also includes concerns relating to the widening gap in overall access to information and to the opportunities for communication and knowledge which are the key to economic and social development. Thus mainstreaming ICT into the different sectors of society in order to attain the development goals can remain unaccomplished without the creation of more general preconditions for sustainable development both globally and regionally.

The pre-conditions – or enabling environment – for a sustainable information society call for an extensive skills and knowledge base among the citizens, legislation, strategies, the required infrastructure, and information economy instruments that support development. This can be done only in partnership between the private and public sectors as well as research/academia and civil society cooperating in the production of key services. Such a framework for a sustainable Information Society can also be seen as laying the groundwork for national innovation systems.

Such thinking provided the starting point to establish first and foremost a cooperation platform – COFISA - which would facilitate the operating environment for the identification, assessment and take-up of ICT and its applications. By focusing on an enabling environment such an instrument would also establish itself as a broad platform for actively drawing in a new type of constituency – R&D - into the cooperation with South Africa. The existing platform could also give Finnish public and private institutions a springboard to act as partners in future strategic projects in South Africa. Broad guidelines for the COFISA programme were thus starting to become visible.

COFISA Emerging

The first initiative for cooperation in the field of Innovation Systems took place in September 2001 when the former Minister of Arts, Culture, Science

and Technology, Dr Ben Ngubane, and the then Director-General of the Department of Science and Technology (DST), Dr Rob Adam, visited Finland. This included the city of Oulu and its Centre of Expertise Programme. Following the visit and topical discussions, a specific report investigating conditions for ICT and development cooperation in South Africa was prepared by the Department of Development Studies at the University of Helsinki. As follow-up a Finnish S&T delegation reciprocated with a visit to South Africa in May 2002 and participated in the SA-Finland Workshop on Innovation. By then the seed for the future thematic cooperation on innovation was firmly planted.

From 2004 onwards the new Counsellor for Information Society and STI at the Embassy of Finland in Pretoria was already participating in discussions with the South African DST in identification of concrete areas for cooperation within the STI framework. Both parties quickly agreed to support the idea by the DST, which was to establish a specific programme inside the Department to support the South African national and provincial innovation system development. DST and the Embassy of Finland formed a partnership to develop a framework for cooperation in the area of national and regional innovation systems, the latter focused on three pilot provinces, namely Gauteng, Western Cape and Eastern Cape.

An identification study for a dedicated programme was commissioned by the MFA in early 2005. This study assessed the SANSI and its component institutions and was generally very positive. The identification recommended several issues be considered for further work in South Africa:

• A national, more focused innovation programme coordinated by the DST;

• Innovation management activities based on regional strengths;

• Development of cluster-based programmes in key core competence sectors;

• Strengthening the coordination of a national Centres of Excellence (CoE) Programme;

• Identification of provincial innovation programmes coordinated by local science/technology parks;

• Target-based R&D activities to promote local and foreign companies;

• Increased and more effective utilisation of foreign technology; and

• Well-defined spin-off and start-up processes including financial and commercialisation tools.

There was significant agreement on the recommendations dealing with issues that were common to the later COFISA programme preparatory study commissioned by the MFA. However, the approach of the identification study did not take sufficient note, for example, of the large differences in economic development between the provinces, and it did not address directly the issue of poverty alleviation and the role of science and technology (and ICT) in this process. These gaps were later filled by a number of studies, including a draft Programme Document which laid the foundation for the COFISA programme. The draft programme Document paved the way for the selection of a Finnish-South African Technical Assistance team which kick-started the programme in the latter half of 2006.

Conclusions

Finland’s science and technology policies represent historically long-term investments in the knowledge base of society. STI policy is integrated into

economic and industrial policies but also into education policies. The national innovation system functions because of collaboration between the public and private sectors, and there is a division of labour between actors in the

innovation system. A small country can achieve this easily. There is also a new networked approach to develop the strengths of Finland to be able to play a role in the global economy.

South Africa has recognised investments in a knowledge-based economy and education and research as necessary


to become a strong player in the global economy and in Africa. The DST is focusing on the knowledge economy and innovation in its Ten-Year Plan, 2008-2018. The focus on the innovation chasm - transforming innovations into commercial products and services – has also been recognised. The new Technology Innovation Agency (TIA) has been established and clusters based on regional/provincial strengths are supported. South Africa is a large country with a large economy. It has great potential to create provincial clusters and build collaboration at the national and provincial levels. Building the knowledge base of society takes years and decades, and building provincial innovation systems by establishing new fora and collaboration between the public and private sectors may provide new platforms for building a provincial innovation system that is supported by the national innovation system and enabling environment.

The COFISA programme is well in line with the guidelines of the Finnish Development Policy Programme and the Guidelines of ICT and Information Society in Finnish Development Cooperation (2005) emphasising that special attention be paid to the creation of preconditions for information economy development in partner countries. Based on Finland’s own experiences related to the Information Society as well as economic and social policy, it is important that, by upgrading local innovative

activities, legislation and economic policy, development cooperation ensures economic and social growth and its more balanced distribution especially to the benefit of the poorest parts of the population. It is also vital to secure the establishment of a nationally significant entrepreneurial sector in developing countries, which will step up local employment and encourage content production based on national languages and cultures. In its small regional-specific activity, COFISA can provide an example of how to support the coherent development of innovation policy and system development related to regional or national activities and how it links to the Millennium Development Goals and poverty reduction.

COFISA has done valuable work in South Africa and its impact in creating a culture of innovation in southern Africa will bring it close to Finland’s new National Strategy of Innovation calling for stronger incentives in international cooperation and pioneering markets regardless of their location. Through the COFISA Programme both countries have been able to learn from each other. COFISA’s interventions in support to rural development and innovation, science and technology parks, Foresight and enhancing collaboration between the public and private sectors have contributed to building the SANSI. These activities will continue through various organisations after the COFISA programme has ended.

Par ticipants at the Eastern Cape Provincial Foresight Workshop

Community meeting – Siyakhula Living Lab, Eastern Cape


THE SYSTEMS OF INNOVATION APPROACH

The National System of Innovation (NSI) as a policy framework was adopted in Finland in the early 1990s for developing policies and structures for promoting science, technology and innovation. This

concept, and an associated policy framework, is something both Finland and South Africa have endorsed, South Africa having adopted it since 1996 when the White Paper on Science and Technology was published.

The next major national step in planning and implementing innovation policy in South Africa was the development of the National Research and Development Strategy (NRDS), which was approved by Cabinet in July 2002. COFISA was conceptualised utilising the NRDS as the basis for its approach. Within the NRDS the South African National System of Innovation (SANSI) was characterised by several weaknesses and challenges, which informed the design of the COFISA programme as a means to enhance the SANSI. These were among others the fragmentation of relations between organisations/actors, the mis- or non-alignment of policies and strategies, the innovation chasm, weak articulation of the innovation systems approach at Provincial level and inadequate human resource capacity.

To simplify the situation, the COFISA programme was designed to translate the existing policies into new practices, to adapt experiences from Finland into a developing country context and to investigate how the national policies, strategies and practices of South Africa could be pushed forward and given extra momentum. What the programme documents stipulated, was that the system needed to be enhanced, made more efficient in terms of how the knowledge it produced translated into real-life solutions, new products and services, innovations commercialised and taken to the market. A basic premise of the programme was that this was to be achieved primarily by enhancing the way cooperation and collaboration took place in the system.

From the very beginning, COFISA was designed to follow and utilise the NSI as a fundamental framework for development. The regional (provincial) derivative of the concept, a Regional System of Innovation, was equally important as it placed the level of analysis and development more firmly on the provinces of South Africa, many of which are equally or more populous than the whole of Finland. For this, COFISA focussed on the provinces of the Eastern Cape, Western Cape and Gauteng. The main aim was to strengthen collaboration between key stakeholders and to pilot a well-functioning and sustainable support structure for enabling and promoting innovation for greater economic growth and social development within the three target

15Now at the Confederation of Finnish Industries, Finland.

16Now with the Regional Council of Päijät-Häme, & Susinno Ltd, Finland.

provinces. Furthermore, the Programme aimed to enhance collaboration between national and provincial level stakeholders in the NSI, based on the understanding that the provincial (regional) systems of innovation are integral components of the SANSI.

COFISA was of too short a duration to mitigate the SANSI’s identified weaknesses and threats. The Programme was thus designed to be an experiment in catalysis. It was created to test various elements of the South African innovation fabric and in so doing provide lessons to interested and affected parties to be taken forward as part of the agenda of South Africa’s economic growth and development.

Evolution of the Programme

The original project documents offered a general framework and a multidimensional description of the system to be developed. These were mostly based on the experiences of Finland and lessons learned

in South Africa from the early to mid 1990s. The importance of both the public and private sectors in the innovation system was recognised and within these categories, emphasis was specifically placed on actors in the spheres of research and development, industry and public sector. Promoting the development of intermediaries like science parks were seen as playing a key role in innovation systems development. The outlined approach strongly emphasised the role of the national government, with the idea that the Department of Science and Technology (DST) could and should play a leading role in organising and promoting innovation in the country and its provinces.

The first plans that the Finnish team developed in the tender phase formed an interpretation of all these factors. The outcome was relatively general in nature and did not pay much attention to the concrete activities that would form the heart of the eventual programme. Certain operation principles, the four-pronged component structure of the programme, composition of the project team and the way that Finnish expertise would be drawn in and utilised in the programme were already evident at this stage. The network of Finnish experts ready to provide their services for the programme also started to take shape.

Between September and December 2006, the COFISA operational team was brought on board. This comprised the Chief Technical Adviser (Finn), Junior Professional Officer (Finn), South African National Coordinator (South African) and the Project Officer (South African). The Steering Committee and Supervisory Board were constituted in early 2007 and the operational team produced the first COFISA workplan during this time. The first workplan was strongly premised on national-level management with no real recognition of local or regional players and their role in the forthcoming implementation. This was due to many factors, but with hindsight, it is evident that the discussions and preparatory consultations with many of the key stakeholders were to some extent superficial and did


not receive enough attention in the COFISA design phase. Nevertheless, the first workplan was crafted and the programme took its first steps in implementation.

The importance of monitoring and evaluation was understood from the very beginning and the corresponding function for carrying out this work was established in mid 2007. An independent team was appointed to conduct COFISA’s monitoring and evaluation on an ongoing basis. This would allow the operational team, to examine the Programme against evidence of how things were really working on the ground. The team was thus able to learn and make adjustments to the Programme as it unfolded.

The second and third annual plans for 2008 and 2009 were produced with more practical and specific knowledge of what seemed to be realistically achievable. The Programme plans were never static, but responded to the evolving thinking of the team and also to external circumstances and pressures at the time. This kind of flexibility was necessary. In Programmes such as COFISA, it is impossible to envisage both the success of the actions and the changes in the operating environment beforehand. The plans, including logical frameworks and/or other planning instruments must be sensitive to this fact. Throughout the Programme’s implementation however, certain key elements or principles remained unchanged.

ELEMENTS UNDERPINNING THE COFISA CONCEPTStakeholders as Partners

Finding the right stakeholders to take over projects to ensure the sustainability of the COFISA efforts was a challenge that was always at the forefront of

the team’s minds. Therefore, a critical message conveyed during the entire duration of COFISA was that of local ownership of the Programme’s projects and results. The projects initiated had to be championed or owned by strategic stakeholders to ensure their sustainability after the Programme closed. COFISA thus actively nurtured and relied upon the regular feedback of its stakeholders as the various initiatives unfolded. It took the lead in getting pilot projects off the ground and investing crucial financial and human resources in the various initiatives. During this process, stakeholders were kept closely involved and potential champions were capacitated to allow for a smooth transition with the exit of COFISA.

Triple Helix Collaboration

Innovation does not occur in isolation but within a complex, interactive and interdependent network of multiple actors and influences, and within dynamic

systems. As a process it is systemic, non-linear and iterative, involving a variety of agents interacting with each other and with their external environment for seeking, acquiring and exploiting intellectual resources17. A varied milieu of organisations and institutions with both functional and structural connections is therefore important for a local innovation system.

The Triple Helix in essence refers to the beneficial collaboration between firms, academia and government in supporting and developing innovations. Most concrete and visible examples of the triple helix are local ecosystems such as science parks, or innovation programmes such as the Centres of Expertise in Finland (CoE) that have tried to foster this collaboration with the goal to provide different support services, facilitate innovative activities and enhance the commercialisation processes of new technologies and innovations.

Simplified, government is there to facilitate and invest in infrastructure and know-how, academia leads the research, and the private sector takes the results to the market. Even where geographic proximity is a limiting factor it is fundamental for the triple-helix structure to operate within an enabling institutional framework.

Triple helix collaboration was actively sought throughout COFISA’s implementation. A variety of mechanisms were used to achieve this, including the simple act of ensuring that role players from the different sectors were jointly invited to events, to more complex projects such as the Gauteng Activator18 initiative which was modelled on the Finnish Centres of Expertise.

Networks

Varied knowledge sources are an important element of any system of innovation. Today, businesses increasingly rely and build their R&D functions on

external sources of knowledge such as other companies, their customers, universities or research institutions.19

Different types of networks thus play a critical role in linking businesses and other role-players into broader environments, enabling an interactive system of knowledge creation and transfer. Persistent problems that have confounded the development of vibrant innovation networks in South Africa have been the low levels of cooperation between academia, government and the private sector, silo-mentalities and self-reliant attitudes.

Innovation performance is not however a simple matter of having many or sufficient organisations and institutions that interact. The nature of their interactions/relations, their role within the broader objective of the system of innovation, constraints that negatively impact innovation, stimuli for innovation, and knowledge networks are also important considerations.20 Furthermore, besides geographic proximity, cognitive proximity is important. Role players within the system must know each other and maintain open communication channels. COFISA pushed for the creation of various linkages among actors/organisations and actively encouraged the exchange of ideas and information. Various mechanisms were employed to get players around the same table to discuss perspectives originally deemed disparate. Foresight (Provincial, Biotechnology and Local Municipality)21 was one such a mechanism. Other networking mechanisms included regular information sessions, the establishment of the South African Innovation Network (SAINE), the annual COFISA Conference and the various COFISA study visits to Finland. These worked well towards our goals, but

are naturally not the only tools or mechanisms that one could use.

A critical factor for creating the necessary connections and conversations essential for innovation system development is the presence of competent network managers. This is a competence that South Africa desperately needs in order to build the bridges between the various actors in the innovation system.

18Refer to Section 2, Chapter 6 for a more detailed description.

19OECD (2008). Open Innovation In Global Networks. OECD Publications, Paris.

20Edquist, C. (2001). The Systems of Innovation Approach and Innovation Policy: An account of the state of the art. Lead Paper presented at the DRUID Conference, June 2001.

21Refer to Section 2, Chapter 4 for a more detailed description.17Varis, M. and Pellikka, J. (2004). Local Technology Policy in the Kuopio Region: A System of Innovation Perspective. Department of Business and Management, University of Kuopio. http://web.bi.no/

Eastern Cape Foresight Workshop, Port Alfred


Strategic Focus

The sectoral characteristics of an economy are said to affect the nature, direction and intensity of innovation.22 A local innovation system should be built on the particular strengths and opportunities of the

local economy, because for any particular area, the ability to be competitive in all business environments and all areas of the value chain is very difficult. A certain strategic focus and a process of making choices of where and how resources should be invested is therefore necessary. In this way, the local milieu of actors, organisations and institutions can be developed and relevant competence areas pushed forward intensively. Regions must thus establish the capability to identify, nurture and exploit their assets; and engage in collaborative processes for socio- economic growth and development. In this way the regions and consequently the NSI will be able to ensure an effective response to the global knowledge economy.

In one sense, this comes down to having the relevant strategies and visions in place to guide decision making in the regions. COFISA placed particular emphasis on supporting the process of strategy development and decision-making. However, given that government (national, provincial and local) planning cycles are long and could not be controlled by the Programme, most of the activities were related to kick-starting the kinds of networks, thinking and concrete activities that could support the regions in their work. For instance, Foresighting, science park development and the CoE programme were some of the tools that were provided.

22Godinho, M.M.; Mendonca, S.F.; Pereira, T.S. (2003). Mapping Innovation Systems: A Framework Based on Innovation Data and Indicators.

Globelics Conference Paper.

Knowledge Diffusion & Technology Transfer Mechanisms As briefly noted above, innovation requires that the spheres of knowledge production and knowledge utilisation in society connect, interact and benefit from each other. Networks, triple-helix collaboration, public-private partnerships, and clustering activities were all promoted through COFISA. These and other such mechanisms relate directly to the manner in which new knowledge is diffused among the different elements of the system. Technology transfer plays a key role within any system of innovation, most notably in how intellectual property rights (IPR), knowledge and technology produced within the sphere of universities or research institutions can be exploited elsewhere by other parties. For this reason COFISA used its access to technical experts to inform relevant South African stakeholders on how to build and manage technology transfer offices. The workshops were aptly titled “Learning through Sharing and Collaboration” and were intended to support the implementation of the recently promulgated IPR Act.

Human Social Dynamics, Trust and Neutrality

Networking and other types of interactions within an innovation system rest strongly on a foundation of human social dynamics. Trust has a critical role to play in social interactions and thus in innovation processes. Trust is important as it can promote the free, unrestricted trading of questions and ideas. 23 Establishing trust is however a complex process that can be frustrated by organisational cultures, cultural diversity, power distances and various other factors. Establishing trust requires commitment and persistence from all role-players as well as a mindset conducive to collaborative knowledge creation and sharing. Therefore, an inclination to accept change and new ways of thinking and acting is important.

COFISA’s first year proved to be extremely trying. Coupled with a limited stakeholder understanding of the innovation system concepts and mechanisms, the team was faced with the daunting task of building relationships with potential stakeholders from a zero baseline. Consequently the creation of environments and attitudes conducive to the promotion and development of innovation systems became the first priority of the COFISA team. The process of

building and maintaining its credibility and trustworthiness began in earnest in 2007 and had a significant role to play in how COFISA was thereafter perceived and accepted by the various role players in the system.

The process of building this credibility and trust involved a range of “soft issues” which the team as a whole continued to give precedence throughout the Programme’s implementation. Face-to-face engagements, regular feedback, increased visibility of Programme members, a display of competence, the willingness to listen and learn, and an overall approach that involved the co-construction of knowledge and experiences comprised some of the human elements that went into building strong credibility. In addition, COFISA’s perceived institutional “neutrality” also provided significant credibility mileage. Whilst being recognised as part of the Department of Science and Technology, the Programme’s nimbleness and flexibility was seen as uncharacteristic of government bodies. A short timeframe, coupled with an ambitious agenda and a small results-driven operational team provided the ideal setting for a spearhead Programme with much to achieve.

23Nielsen, M. (2008). Building a Better Collective Memory. http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=448, 17 July 2008.

24www.cofisa.org.za; after July 2010 this website will migrate to http://www.dst.gov.za/links/cofisa

Information Dissemination

A well-maintained and regularly updated website24 (www.cofisa.org.za), coupled with newsletters, brochures, guides and emails served as the key media in ensuring that the knowledge emerging out of COFISA was readily accessible to all interested and affected parties. Furthermore, the

operational team was active in ensuring that platforms (e.g. conferences and seminars), providing the opportunity to exhibit COFISA, were readily exploited – both nationally and internationally.


COFISA’s readily available information played a contributing role in building and maintaining the Programme’s credibility and positive profile. It was important in ensuring that the

Programme “walked the talk” by sharing its information, knowledge and experience and making channels available for others to share and learn.

Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning

In a development programme such as COFISA, monitoring and evaluating the state and progress of activities against the set targets and examining

whether the planned outcomes were achieved is extremely important. But equally important is to question those targets and forms of activities themselves, and continuously follow and improve the programme’s structures and modes of operation based on evidence collected along the way. A formative monitoring, evaluation and learning (ME&L) project for supporting this was put in place in 2007.25 This very critical element of COFISA served as an invaluable source of constant learning and renewal for the operational team. It allowed the team to make needed adjustments, based on the

perceptions and demands of stakeholders, thus allowing the Programme to maintain an effective degree of responsiveness and stability.

The COFISA ME&L approach allowed for both quantitative and qualitative assessments of the Programme’s performance. Qualitatively, the Programme was judged based on wide-ranging stakeholder interviews that were conducted on a bimonthly basis. Quantitatively, the ME&L team applied the LogFrame methodology and an objective data-based approach to the measurement of performance. This involved an analytical assessment of innovation-related indicators at a national and provincial level.

Challenges

What follows is a brief overview of several of the challenges faced during the implementation of COFISA.

Limited alignment with key national institutions, strategies, programmes and projects made the Programme’s start-up complicated. The team had to focus a lot of effort and energy on attempting to build the necessary mutually reinforcing relationships that would hold the Programme in good stead through the rest of its implementation. The limited introduction of the Programme into the NSI prior to the team’s appointment and the limited support during the initial phases of its implementation to “open doors” proved challenging. Building the necessary networks, awareness and working relationships with the many organisations and individuals took a lot more time and resources than expected. This impacted on the implementation of the first workplan as the team had to first make up ground. The lack of a shared understanding, language and culture of innovation and innovation systems in South Africa further complicated implementation.

There was strong emphasis in the early days of the programme on achieving quick wins but ultimately, many of the projects that seemed like quick wins were among the

most difficult and time consuming to implement. The team learnt quickly that all activities should be carefully planned and executed only after evidence supports them, and all targets should be realistic.

Building a cohesive project team proved to be amongst the most challenging issues for COFISA. A new team, from different cultural and work backgrounds, mandated to implement a short but ambitious Programme, was a recipe for chaos. However, the team’s individual and collective aspirations to make COFISA a resounding success proved to be more compelling than differences of opinion and work style.

25For a more detailed perspective refer to Section 3, Chapter 8.

Conclusion

Many factors influence the development of a local / regional system of innovation. They include the existence of relevant, functioning institutions and

organisations that are within geographic and cognitive proximity. In addition, the existence of a sound network of users and producers of knowledge; innovation incentives; support services and strong learning environments; the presence of social capital in the form of innovation-propitious mindsets, attitudes and behaviour is critical for the development of innovation systems.

All of these issues were included, in some form, on COFISA’s agenda. The different development activities and projects started under the Programme had one principle in common: the investments made were almost completely on intangibles - learning, knowledge, know-how and competence; capacitating people and organisations to be innovative and innovate.

It is difficult to even attempt to guess which aspects of the programme will remain and have a lasting impact in five to ten years’ time. However, any developing country or region will probably benefit from having an organisation such as COFISA challenging perceptions, linking different organisations, and mediating between the many players that make up the innovation system. This does not need to take place in the form of a programme or project, but the function that COFISA performed in its limited timespan should be given serious thought, and particularly how its legacy can be sustained in the future.

One key message is that any policies related to advancing science, technology and innovation have to be increasingly open, outward and flexible to global trends and circumstances. No single country is able to stay still or focus on just itself anymore. Even the Finnish success story of the past decades is not guaranteed to last in the future without constant vigilance and increased agility. The global economic system is open to new countries and regions in a way that we have not seen before, which makes it increasingly challenging even for Finland to maintain its position. At the same time, the world is faced with dramatic challenges that require new solutions to be found. For any country, including South Africa, these are the times when investments in innovation are needed.


THE KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY, INNOVATION

AND FORESIGHT CYCLE

The knowledge society is at the door. Some view it as providing the opportunity to build a world without want, where mankind (at last) can and will live in sustainable harmony with his fellows and the

biosphere. Others treat it with various levels of suspicion and even fear, seeing it as the new face of neo-colonialism, destined and intended to entrench and even widen the gap between the traditional “haves” and “have-nots”, both between and within countries.

The negative view is the stuff of self-fulfilling prophecies, yet it does not have to be so. Einstein is famously quoted as saying:

The majority of today’s global population, especially the leadership core, has been raised in an industrial socio-economy. Therefore, the industrial approach dominates our thinking. Assuming Einstein was right, we are unlikely to progress towards the “true” knowledge society if we continue to use industrial thinking, and to look in the same directions (via the same industrial mechanisms) for solutions.

Foresight provides a mechanism not only for exploring both the above possible negative and positive futures of the knowledge society (and many others between these poles), but also for helping us all, individually and collectively, to influence which of them comes to pass. Foresight can bring innovation and balance to the thinking (and particularly the strategic thinking) not only of “experts”, but of us all.

A Brief History of Futures Thinking

Our ability to consciously consider our long-term futures is one of the characteristics that differentiates humans from all other life forms on planet Earth. Earlier societies across the continents

- the Egyptian pharaohs, the Ancient Greek Oracle, the Inca Priests, the Monomotapa and Nguni kings of Southern Africa, to name but a few - invested significant time and resources in a lone, invariant strategy to improve their futures, i.e. by placating the relevant deities of the day. Is there any greater power (whether vested in men or deities) than the belief throughout a population that some entity has control over their individual and collective futures? Surprisingly, the popularity of astrology even in today’s most sophisticated societies indicates that many retain what appears to be an innate belief that our futures (individual and collective) are somehow pre-determined, and beyond our control. 26Refer to the Reference section at the end of this book for some useful resource materials.

A long established, alternative way to think about, and to try to influence, our futures is to develop strategies. “Strategy” is an ancient concept of unknown origin, but was recognised by the Chinese military around 500 B.C. in Sun Tzu, their military classic, as well as by ancient Greek philosophers, notably Socrates.

Only much more recently has strategic thinking been considered seriously by business leaders, who have invested significant resources in management research. In the 1930s, Alfred Sloan introduced “strategic thinking” to General Motors, although recent events indicate that they managed to lose this ability in the past decade. In the 1950s, the need to rebuild nations after the Second World War resulted in strategic decision making being influenced by a range of futures activities, such as strategic planning, technological forecasting and economic analysis. By the 1960s, Shell and General Electric had taken the next step of introducing futures activities into their corporate planning to explore both new markets and new products. Since the mid-1960s, strategic business planning has been extensively practised, researched and taught in a growing number of management schools around the world. In the following decades, strategic business planning theory has itself become a growth industry, acquiring ever greater diversity and complexity, with questionable benefits.

In many minds, scenarios and futures thinking have become synonyms. The first documented use of scenarios for strategic planning was by the USA military following the Second World War. Herman Kahn then adapted scenarios for strategic business planning in the 1960s with the aim of identifying and analysing as many possible futures as could be imagined in order to generate better strategic decisions.

In the late 1960s, in response to the growing inadequacy of their traditional forecasting techniques, Royal Dutch Shell employed Pierre Wack, who transformed their use of scenarios. Wack’s scenario approach was to highlight the ways in which the future would not resemble the past. He used scenarios to promote “the gentle art of reperceiving”, without which, he believed, decision makers would soon (usually subconsciously) revert to their habitual assumption that tomorrow would bring more of the same. The growth in Shell’s success during and following the Wack era is legendary.

The Delphi method, an anonymous survey technique developed in the USA which questions experts on the future likelihood of certain issues, has become widely used (e.g. in Japan since 1971 in the National Technology Forecast Survey). Another widely used futures method is trends analysis. Many additional methods have been developed, but their use and effectiveness varies widely.26 However, the corporate use of all these Foresight methods has become more professional as they have become more widespread, and now they are applied not only to strategy development, but also increasingly to innovation, as well as in marketing and Research and Development (R&D).


By the 1990s, the systematic organisation of these methods within large scale (usually national) technology Foresight programmes was fairly common in many parts of the world, even in developing economies. In European countries, Foresight methods have become widely used

in policy-making. Of particular interest to Africa has been the success of the widespread application in Europe of Foresight methods in regional (i.e. sub-national27)planning and decision making.

What is Foresight?

The terms “futures” and “foresight” are largely interchangeable, and Foresight means different things to different people. Rather than being a fully

fledged academic discipline, Foresight should be viewed as an evolving (and growing) set of processes and tools that mankind has devised to help us imagine, capture, analyse and act upon a range of possible longer-term futures.

Foresight is a family of mechanisms intended to capture the dynamics of change by re-evaluating today’s reality within the context of tomorrow’s range of possibilities.

• It is inherently proactive, reflecting the belief that the future may be influenced by today’s decisions and actions – i.e. a mechanism for shaping the future.

• It is NOT prediction, recognising instead that addressing the future necessitates the management of uncertainty.

• It examines development trajectories within a range of alternative futures, in contrast to what is currently believed to be most likely, or “business as usual”.

• It emphasises the human abilities of forethought, creativity, and systems thinking, in addition to the traditional emphasis on analysis and judgement.

The short-term nature of consumerism, the interests of share-holders, and the electoral cycle, make it difficult for today’s decision makers in both the public and private sectors not to neglect longer-term challenges. Yet events such as the current economic down-turn are raising concerns. The traditional projection techniques, such as forecasting and trend analysis, which use indicators about past and current trends in order to extrapolate about the most probable, usually shorter-term, futures, have serious limitations. Awareness is growing of the need to focus on longer-term time horizons as the context even for shorter-term responses.

Foresight is not intended to replace such well-tried and tested projection techniques. Instead, it complements them and increases their effectiveness. Used alone, they may provide a dangerously narrow picture of the future, and often give a false impression of certainty about their predictions due to the sophisticated statistical and modelling techniques employed. Foresight, on the other

27 Throughout this chapter, the term “regional” is used in a sub-national sense (similar to “provincial”, or at a cluster level), rather than the alternative multinational sense, as for example in defining the Southern

African Development Community (SADC) region.

hand, can identify opportunities and risks which would not otherwise have been considered, as well as helping to identify strategies that are robust to a variety of outcomes, to examine the unintended consequences of decision options, and to shape long-term actions. Foresight is essential in providing a more balanced approach to and context for short-, medium- and long-term strategies.

Many of the methods that are commonly associated with Foresight e.g. Delphi surveys and scenario workshops, derive from futures research. Although Foresight continues to gain from such futures research, it differs from it. Whereas futures research can be highly academic, and even abstract, Foresight programmes are designed to be much more practical, intended to influence policy, strategy and decision making, and to lead to tangible actions and results.

A common concern regarding many Foresight activities is that the many tools and processes employed, such as the production of scenarios, can take precedence over implementation and action. Yet Foresight is intended to anticipate plausible future events with the specific aim of feeding insights back into the strategic processes to help decision makers take action. This can be a one-off activity, but it is more effective as part of a continual process of challenging both the ends and the means of the strategic process. However, to date mechanisms are lacking which cycle Foresight thinking back into policy, strategy and decision making processes. Examples of tangible actions that can and should result from Foresight activities include: framing policy goals; creating an organisational vision; setting research priorities; building networks; or aiding participants to develop or adjust their own strategy.

Another common concern relates to the level of participation best suited to Foresight activities. Participation can lie anywhere between the following two “Foresight poles”:

• Expert-driven: where expert evidence about the future

informs debate on longer-term strategic issues. However, use of expert opinion can lead to images of the future that appear incontestable and downplay the assumptions and uncertainties on which they are based.

• Participatory: which are more interactive and more likely to challenge the assumptions of expert knowledge. They take into account a greater number of views, gather widely distributed knowledge, and place more emphasis on uncertainties and inter- relationships. The participants can include public authorities, business, research organisations, non-governmental organisations and the wider public. While this increases the legitimacy of, support for, and implementation of the outcomes, it is more time consuming and complex to organise.

A further concern is raised by the fact that the growth in futures activities has not yet been matched by monitoring and evaluation that is both systematic and transparent. More resources need to be devoted to the open evaluation of Foresight activities to assess, for example, whether objectives have been met, how the exercise was managed, and to define follow-up actions. Evaluation should focus on the contributions made to the achievement of outcomes and impact, such as changes in the behaviour and activities of the people and organisations involved. As such, the Foresight landscape is far from finished – it is a work in progress. There is room for improvements to and customisation of many of the existing tools and processes, as well as their application in as yet untried circumstances and communities. There is also room for new tools and processes to fill any gaps in futures thinking that may emerge. This is particularly true for “regional Foresight” and “community Foresight”, and their development and application in a developing world context.

Innovation and Foresight in the Developing World Context

As the knowledge society emerges, we are experiencing a world where uncertainty abounds, change occurs ever more often and more rapidly, and complexity

appears to be growing exponentially. In the developed world, it is hoped that the knowledge economy will bring sustained growth and prosperity, whilst in developing countries the

knowledge society is expected to bring not only economic growth but also to eradicate poverty. It is recognised that a major pillar of the knowledge society is a well-functioning system of science, technology and innovation (STI), with a much broader concept of innovation being both understood and practised throughout all sectors and levels of society.


It has become clear (particularly from European experience over the past decade) that a well-functioning STI system in general, and widespread innovation in particular, require Foresight to be understood and practised where and when required, using the most appropriate techniques across all levels and sectors of society. In other words, a culture

of Foresight is an essential, ubiquitous component of an emerging knowledge society. Such a ubiquitous culture of Foresight is a goal that has not yet been reached anywhere in the world. We next discuss how far we have gone in reaching that goal at the national and regional levels of government, as well as in the private sector.

Foresight at the National Level

Today, most industrialised countries conduct national Foresight exercises of some form, driven by the escalation in industrial and economic competition

and increasing pressures on government spending. The European Commission has been influential in promoting technology Foresight by supporting Candidate Countries to develop a full Foresight capability.

Most public Foresight programmes in the 1990s had a technology focus, with participation limited to experts in nominated fields. However, there is now a trend towards increased participation and the inclusion of broader socio-economic challenges, as undertaken in the UK, Germany and Japan. One of the merits of broader models of Foresight is their ability to take account of scientific, economic, social

and environmental factors in any fields, even the most technologically complex . The European Foresight Monitoring Network is the most comprehensive database of futures activities available. Its clear bias towards science and technology Foresight and national level activities almost certainly reflects the dominance of this level of Foresight activities over the past twenty years.

It is a concern that the historical top-down, national approach to Foresight initiatives across Africa has created unfortunate misconceptions, particularly among those in leadership roles, that Foresight is (and can only be) done by experts, and is a major exercise to be run only once every (say) 10 years.

Foresight at the Regional Level

In many countries there is movement towards complementing their national innovation policy with a strong regional development focus. For example, in the

UK, greater user-centred and demand-based approaches to Science, Technology and Innovation (STI), alongside increasing devolution of political authority to the regions, has led to the successful use of Foresight techniques in the development and delivery of regional policies by engaging with local communities. The participative approach to Foresight is particularly well adapted to the local and regional levels, where a wide array of participants can actively be involved to build a vision of possible regional futures. Local Foresight exercises allow solutions which fit the specifics of local circumstances, such as demographics and economic factors.

In 2001 and 2002 the European Union (EU) launched a range of projects aimed at developing and implementing Regional Innovation Strategies (RIS) in the ten Newly Associated Countries (NACs28). Major activities aimed at achieving this objective have included:

• Applying Foresight in a context of RIS projects in many European regions (over 150 to date);

• Developing regional Foresight into a more permanent, often embedded, activity; and

• Creating synergy by combining Foresight and RIS into a broader perspective, i.e. as a basis for the

development towards knowledge-based regions.

Foresight techniques have been widely used in each NAC (under the acronym FOR-RIS) and are continuing to prove of high value at every stage of the process of establishing and “wiring up” their RIS (See Figure 4.1).

The most distinct differentiation of Foresight from most other RIS activities is the LONGER time horizon, which also underpins the main benefits of RIS-related Foresight, including:

• Foresight uses both quantitative and qualitative methods which allow consideration of several alternative development possibilities;

• The long time horizon “neutralises” contentious issues, facilitating cooperation between diverse regional actors, reducing (and even resolving) conflict, and building consensus;

• Foresight enables continuation, expansion and establishment of dialogue and collaboration between the RIS’ main stakeholders; and

• The regional innovation policy should be linked to other regional policies (industrial and labour policy for example) and the need to coordinate with related development measures is often amplified by Foresight activities.

28The NACs are: Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.


The development of knowledge-based region = innovative-driven region

The development ofregional innovation systems

RISS projects

FOR-RIS

wiring up

Foresight

a veryimportant

aim ofForesight

today

Foresight can be used also

for other kindsof futures

issues

Other goals of regional development

Figure 4.1 Linkages between Foresight, the Development of Innovative Regions, and the Development of Innovation Systems

In South Africa, the national system of innovation (SANSI) has been criticised for the weak integration between policy at the national level; and at the provincial and local levels, innovation-related policy and support measures as well as organisations. The concept of a regional innovation system is relatively new in South Africa. Hence,

successful innovation processes need to be developed between a large number of actors such as companies, R&D organisations and the public sector. Regional innovation policies and aligned mechanisms, such as regional and local Foresight activities, are needed to provide platforms for cooperation between these different actors.

Foresight and SMEs

Historically, in the private sector, Foresight has been a tool mostly employed by large companies and multinationals, but is almost certainly beyond

the capabilities (and current thinking) of many Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). Yet, SMEs are widely recognised as essential mechanisms for sustainable, organic growth in developing and emerging economies. But, most of these countries are slow to adapt their regulations and policies to the needs and realities of SMEs, many of which, as a result, stay outside the formal economy in “grey” systems. However, the potential

benefits of Foresighting are probably the greatest for these entities.

Governments throughout Africa (including in South Africa) have yet to recognise this need. Ideally, they should develop mechanisms to facilitate SME Foresight, but without over-bureaucratising the process, which would likely drive away the very people that need to be encouraged.

In summary, much of the evolution of the application

of Foresight to date has been focused on the military, national governments and large corporations, and quite naturally, most of the commonly-used tools and processes reflect this focus. However, the more recent focus on sub-national Foresight (particularly in Europe), and its application beyond the traditional development of policies and strategies, opens the door to much wider horizons and the exploration of a variety of possible

futures. This is where the collaborative COFISA initiative has benefited from Finnish experience and has shown that these tools can be useful to a wider, and differently motivated (and constituted) audience, including impoverished regions and clusters. This has significant implications for how the South African Foresighting experiences can be applied elsewhere.

Regional Foresight in South Africa

Regional Foresight has been one of the major mechanisms chosen by COFISA to stimulate the development of South Africa’s regional systems

of innovation. To our knowledge, Foresight techniques have not been used previously at a provincial level, either in South Africa or elsewhere in Africa. Given Finland’s globally recognised expertise in futures research and the application of Foresight techniques, particularly as applied to its world-class innovation systems, Finnish expertise was called on throughout the exercises by the South African Foresight experts and practitioners.

Between October 2007 and April 2009 two main Foresight exercises were undertaken by COFISA in three of the nine provinces - the Eastern Cape, Western Cape, and Gauteng: Provincial Innovation Foresight (2007 - 2008), followed by Provincial Biotechnology Foresight (2008 - 2009). This summary of these Foresight exercises is based on the fifteen detailed reports and two overviews (intended for both practitioners and researchers) that were generated during the process.29

29http://www.cofisa.org.za; After July 2010 http://www.dst.gov.za/links/cofisa

The Foresight Processes

For both Provincial Foresight exercises the general objectives were to:

• Introduce participants to the role of futures thinking, particularly in helping to establish and maintain regional innovation systems;

• Introduce participants to the value and practice of appropriate Foresight tools and processes;

• Encourage participants to use these methods collaboratively to create a range of possible futures for their province, to consider and prioritise the challenges and opportunities that emerged, and to devise action plans that would enable them to be addressed;

• Encourage the multi-sectoral, multidisciplinary networks of people established via the Foresight exercises to continue to communicate and collaborate with each other; and


• Build regional Foresight facilitation capacity by involving in the process a coordinator from each province (with little previous Foresight experience), who would receive training in a learning-by-doing mode.

Prior to each of the two main Foresight exercises, a full-day Foresight capacity building workshop was held with the provincial coordinators, COFISA team members and the Foresight experts. Further capacity building and process learning sessions were held in the evenings before and after each of the workshops.

Throughout the process, workshop participants were drawn from the public, private and tertiary education sectors, as well as civil society. The objective was to have inputs of ideas, issues and opportunities from as many legitimate viewpoints as possible, thereby encouraging lateral thinking and creativity.

All workshops in each province began with an introductory session which provided: an update on the COFISA programme; a summary of the background and

status of the Foresight initiative; and an explanation of the rationale behind the Foresight techniques chosen for the exercise. In all these workshops, a small number of groups (usually three) of between four and seven delegates was established to work together in learning and applying the Foresight techniques.

Provincial Innovation Foresight

Nine workshops were held between October 2007 and March 2008, made up of three workshops in each of the three target provinces. In the first set of workshops, each group created a futures wheel capturing their main ideas about innovation in their province in 2050 (an example of a futures wheel is given in Figure 4.2), and then prioritised the most important themes identified. They then drew up tables capturing the most important characteristics of their theme.

Based on each of these specific themes, subject matter specialists were identified and added to the invitees for the remaining workshops.

Figure 4.2. An Example of a Futures Wheel as Developed in the S outh African Regional Foresight Workshops

In the second set of workshops, each group worked on one of the main themes. They developed futures wheels for 2050 for their theme, which allowed them to identify a range of more focused issues which they again prioritised. In the third and final set of workshops, each group worked on one of the focused issues for which they produced fairly detailed action plans.

The focus of the first two workshops in each province was at a high level. The outputs constituted a multi-faceted, often complementary (but sometimes contradictory) picture or vision of what life in the province would look like in 2050. Although independently developed, there was significant commonality between these visions, along with features that were specific to each province. The aspects of the visions that were common across the three provinces were:

• Free societies, with full participation in the economy, and governance through free and transparent access to user-centric knowledge;

• “Green futures”, where there is no contradiction between meeting human energy, housing, and food needs, and maintaining a high-quality environment where people live in a self-sustaining, pollution-free ecosystem;

• A knowledge society, with a knowledge-driven economy; and

• Innovative societies with a particular focus on innovative green technologies.

The third workshop focused at a more detailed level. Each working group developed action plans for one focused theme that they selected as being central to the future that they desired to see emerge by 2050. One example from each province of these high-priority, focused themes and their corresponding high-level actions, is presented in the following table:

Eastern Cape

Province Theme High-Level Action(s)

Western Cape

Gauteng

Platform for Agrarian Innovation and Transformation

Service Innovation via Knowledge Intensive Business Services (KIBS)

Free Info-infrastructure: Breaking the Monopolies

Establish rural integration framework

Kick-start Knowledge Intensive Business Services (KIBS) for “clusters” via mapping

Use market drivers and awareness creation to kick-start process

Table 4.1. S elec ted Themes and High-Level Ac tions Emerging from the Provincial Foresight Workshops

Provincial Biotechnology Foresight

Six workshops were held between October 2008 and March 2009, made up of two, two-day residential workshops in each of the three target provinces. Two sets of documents were prepared as inputs to the first set of workshops:

• Biotechnology trends analysis (at global, regional and South African levels); and

• Sets of three provincial innovation proto-scenarios (2030) for each target province.

In the first set of workshops, each group examined the biotechnology trends analysis document, and added emerging trends at the provincial and local levels for their province. Next, each group chose one of the provincial innovation scenarios, and used futures wheels sessions to create material to transform them into biotechnology scenarios.

In the second set of workshops, the delegates were first coached on the benefits, basics and creation of Technology Roadmaps.30 Each group then selected a main theme from their biotechnology scenario, and produced a biotechnology road map till 2030 for their theme. Finally,

30This is a complex and intense process, which is described in some detail in the relevant reports available at www.cofisa.org.za; After July 2010 http://www.dst.gov.za/links/cofisa


they identified specific opportunities for existing and potential SMEs within their biotechnology road map. The facilitators were particularly impressed with not only the large numbers of opportunities for SMEs that were identified, but also the wide variety of niches (often inter-sectoral and interdisciplinary) that emerged and required SMEs to fill.

Being a much more focused, technology Foresight exercise, the two sets of workshops in each province resulted in a fairly comprehensive set of products:

• A general Biotechnology Trends Report, supplemented by information on emerging trends within each province.

• Three sets of three full biotechnology scenarios were developed for each province, incorporating a wide set of scenario fragments from every working group.

• Technology Road Maps, consequent action plans, and opportunities for SMEs were identified in each province for the following biotechnology focus areas:

Insights Concerning Tools and Processes

The following insights have been gained from both of the above Provincial Foresight Processes.

Tools

Futures Wheels These provided a fast, non-judgmental, brain-storming tool to tap into participants’ diverse views on issues and possible opportunities concerning the future. The tool also created an opportunity for synergistic thinking not normally experienced in the working environment. It is a non-adversarial mechanism, even when contentious issues arise. It encouraged participation by all, rather than domination by single individuals, which resulted in a sense of joint ownership of the futures envisaged. It proved easy to use for both delegates and facilitators alike, quickly resulting in surprisingly rich material, and fostering energy and enthusiasm amongst the participants.

Full Scenarios generated from Futures Wheels Because the general provincial innovation futures wheels for 2050 produced in the first set of workshops were very rich, it was decided to take this base material from one of the provinces (Eastern Cape was chosen), and attempt to work them into full blown provincial innovation scenarios.

Once the base material had been collated and clustered, two major axes emerged, and so quadrant-based scenarios were developed for three of the four quadrants (the fourth was seen as “business as usual”, and not developed further – see Figure 4.3).

In this way, three substantive scenarios were written by the South African Foresight experts. The process was deemed so successful that, as input to the subsequent provincial biotechnology Foresight exercise, a similar method was used to create sets of three innovation scenarios for the other two provinces, Gauteng and the Western Cape.

KnowledgeEconomy(Global Interdependence)

“Rural” Balance“Commons” activities

Transparency

Divides reduce +++

Quality of life

Little early growth -

Later sustained growth

Rural FocusUrban Focus

“Successful” City “states”Fortress suburbs

Private police forces

Urban squalor

Rural poverty persists,

“dependency” grows

Economy grows, but

Much civil strife

Business As UsualPolarisation

Divides Increase

High global dependency

Early growth ++: later collapse

Rural Industrialisation -ExploitationFood vs Fuel

Divides reduce + at first

2 level society entrenched

High global dependency

Neo Industrialisation(Global Dependence)

Figure 4.3 Quadrant-based Innovation S cenarios for the Eastern Cape


Technology Road Maps (TRMs) A TRM is a powerful tool for longer-term planning, which was used both to minimise risk and to amplify innovation. It proved especially useful where there was a lack of knowledge regarding the readiness or even existence of various technology components. In these circumstances, a range of parallel, interlinked paths were mapped out with associated decision trees, so that immediate progress could be made along several of these paths towards the chosen long-term goal.

Building a TRM did not prove to be an easy exercise. Its complexity required a commitment from all participants in the group to be prepared to learn throughout the process (especially from inevitable mistakes), whilst maintaining good group dynamics. Focusing in on a technology theme of the appropriate size proved particularly difficult. The tendency to choose too broad an area always led to too much complexity, which, in turn, forced the group to retrace its steps and reduce the theme’s scope.

Processes

Participant Selection For the first workshops of both exercises, it proved valuable to draw delegates from different sectors of society and the economy (public, private, tertiary education sectors, international community, civil society) to ensure that as broad a vision as possible of the future was captured. Bringing only experts together at this stage (which is often done in first world technology Foresight processes) can produce a narrow vision of the future, which is less useful in the context of emerging and developing economies. Participants were selected through tapping into existing networks and through a co-nomination process.

However, the identification and subsequent participation of appropriate experts in the following workshops added to the plausibility, legitimacy and practicality of the outputs. Some even became champions of the ongoing actions.

Working Group SizeThe value of using small groups of between three and

seven persons cannot be overemphasised. The volume and creativity of their outputs went significantly beyond the expectations of the organisers. In addition, their predominantly constructive (often humorous!) dynamics seem to have amplified the network building qualities that are an important, but difficult-to-quantify product of most Foresight exercises. Once the groups had worked together in person, it seemed that they also continued to work well together virtually using digital media. Indeed, the impact of these groups was so impressive that collaborative research into their dynamics is planned by the Finnish and South African Foresight experts.

Input Materials The production of quality materials as inputs to each workshop pays dividends. Many delegates said that these documents gave the process stature and credibility, and encouraged full commitment to the process. They also significantly saved on the amount of time required for each workshop, thereby reducing inconvenience to the delegates, reducing the workshop costs, and improving the efficiency and quality of the overall exercise.

Workshop Structure The one-day workshops were rushed and difficult to manage. Significant time was required for the introductory session leaving insufficient time for the working group sessions, which produced the important outputs of the workshops. By contrast, the two-day workshop, being residential, introduced a new dynamic which significantly increased the commitment of and enjoyment by the

delegates, as well as enhancing the quality of their outputs. In addition, several delegates remarked that they had been particularly impressed by the level and value of sustained networking they have experienced subsequent to the residential workshops.

The above learning suggested that future exercises should not be spread over several one-day workshops. Instead, just

two, two-day, residential workshops should be used, with a longer period between the two workshops (about six weeks) to allow for significant value addition (especially from newly introduced experts) via electronic means. This format was adopted for the second biotechnology Foresight exercise, and worked well.

Capacity Building

Both Foresight exercises were intended not only to create useful future visions for each of the provinces, but also to create broader general awareness of

the value of futures thinking, and particularly to build capacity. Capacity building in a learning-by-doing mode was achieved at three levels: Both Foresight exercises

were intended not only to create useful future visions for each of the provinces, but also to create broader general awareness of the value of futures thinking, and particularly to build capacity. Capacity building in a learning-by-doing mode was achieved at three levels:

• All delegates were actively introduced to some of the most popular and easy-to-use Foresight tools so that they felt empowered to use them (unaided) in their own future planning activities.

• Finnish and South African futures experts and researchers were brought together in an actionlearning environment to stimulate further collaboration, particularly in the adaptation of Foresight techniques to the needs and realities of emerging and developing economies.

• Five provincial coordinators (at least one from each province, chosen from the local black SME pool), were

provided with intensive in-situ coaching so that they could include the facilitation of similar Foresight initiatives as part of their professional service provision profile. They were also provided an opportunity to visit Finland to interact with experts, researchers, academics and government officials who had been involved in regional Foresight in Finland.

The capacity building of the provincial coordinators appears to have exceeded expectations, both of COFISA, and the coordinators themselves. Based on interviews with selected local coordinators, the positive outcomes were many:


• The Foresight training and facilitation created new opportunities across the board for the provincial coordinators. All are now offering Foresighting and futures planning as part of their business service offerings.

• The COFISA workshops created opportunities for networking with a diverse range of players and across many disciplines. This has resulted in increased exposure and opportunities for collaboration long after the Foresight workshops were completed. For example, two of the local facilitators (Gauteng and Eastern Cape) have recently undertaken a successful contract to address possible futures for housing in the Gauteng Province – the 2055 Housing Settlements initiative. Without the training provided through COFISA, contracting for such work would not have been possible. The biotechnology facilitator has also entered into a new business venture with an SME met during the COFISA Foresight workshops.

• The Foresight experience has resulted in requests from others e.g. government officials in the Northern Cape, for training in the use of this methodology.

• The provincial coordinators have all in their own right become advocates for the use of Foresight as a planning tool. They have increased their visibility in their respective fields and have been called upon on numerous occasions to present at conferences and workshops regarding their experiences with the COFISA Foresight exercises in South Africa.

Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time Foresight initiatives have been practised at the regional (sub-national) level in South Africa, and

the investment appears to be succeeding. South Africa’s earlier implementations of public funded Foresight initiatives have tended to be at the national level, have addressed macro-issues, and many have been perceived

to have not fulfilled the anticipated impact. By contrast, this regional Foresight approach, employing many small groups in short but intensive creative sessions, has been significantly less costly, and taken less than four months per exercise to produce results of high quality, innovativeness and value.

POSSIBLE FUTURE OF FUTURES IN AFRICA

In Africa, where top-down Foresight initiatives have dominated to date, balance needs to be created via much more emphasis on bottom-up Foresight

initiatives, contextualised to the circumstances of regions, communities and individuals in even the poorest and most remote areas.

However, this does not mean that Africa should not continue to benefit from, and grow, high- level public

sector Foresight initiatives, as well as from world class futures research in a range of crucial areas (from global climate change to population dynamics, integrated rural development to balanced urban planning). Indeed, there is a particular national Foresight mechanism that justifies further investigation in the context of every African country and which is presented in the next section.

Futures Activities in Parliaments

Futures work which occurs in legislatures is sometimes referred to as public interest futures. Unlike early models of national Foresight in

governments, these are often driven by social issues and include STI only as one aspect of broader issues, if at all. It is becoming widely realised that governments should not be the only body framing debate about the future.

Some advocates argue that forums modelled on Finland’s Committee for the Future or Scotland’s Futures Forum could increase a parliament’s capacity to engage with outside experts and the wider public.

Both the above models are regarded as a success in their countries, but not all such initiatives have


endured. In 1976, the USA established the Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future to help members address emerging policy challenges. In 2001, the Israeli Knesset set up the Commission for Future Generations to assess the impact of legislation on future generations. Problems with funding and structure have since resulted in both being terminated.

The above examples suggest that different models have pros and cons and that cultural context is particularly important. Hence any interested country should investigate all aspects of several models (including those that have failed) as a basis for creating their own forum.

“Bottom-up” Foresight

From the above experiences, it seems likely that there is a major opportunity/market for Foresight thinking and practice that to date remains

essentially untapped, not only in Africa, but throughout the developing world. If Foresight techniques and processes are customised (or created de novo) to fit the circumstances of the majority of Africa’s people, who are struggling with urban and rural poverty, informal economic sectors, inadequate education and healthcare, they can help in a variety of ways:

• Changing individual mindsets: opening minds to a better tomorrow that is possible; reawakening self- esteem; legitimising “dreams”.

• Empowering communities, no matter how impoverished, to consider a variety of long-term futures, instead of being overwhelmed by today’s problems.

• Creating mechanisms for SMEs to identify “joint visions” in which they can share mutually beneficial facilities and capacities that, alone, they do not have the time, funds or expertise to develop.

• Allowing local and regional (provincial) stakeholders to create possible futures as a basis for plans and strategies that will involve and benefit all players.

The issue of changing individual mindsets bears further discussion. As seen above, Foresight can and has had some impact in improving strategic activities of companies and governments (at national, regional and local levels). Yet a higher level of benefit is promised when Foresight is used as a mechanism to help individuals and groups to change not only their visions and plans, but the way they use their minds. As Einstein argued, successful new futures need new minds – minds willing and able

to adjust their thinking as circumstances (current and anticipated) dictate.

For example, it has been suggested that Foresight might play a significant role in improving the plight of the majority of African youth, two thirds of whom currently are excluded from the formal education system at pre- or

early secondary stages. How might Foresight techniques be used to change the mindset and future prospects of these excluded youth (both male and female)? Could it move them from their current, understandable but counter-productive “dependency mindset”, to one where they begin to regain control of their futures as individuals and a generation?

Futures Wheel developed at the G auteng Biotech Foresight Workshop


CASE STUDY

The overall objective of COFISA was to enhance the SANSI in order to promote economic growth and alleviate poverty. One of the four major COFISA components was the piloting of mechanisms for rural

innovation. In the provincial Foresight exercise undertaken in the Eastern Cape during the first year of implementation, the need for sustainable interventions to stimulate innovation in rural areas was identified. One of the outcomes was the proposed implementation of KIRD - Knowledge and Innovation for Rural Development (KIRD).

The following KIRD objectives were introduced:

• To compile a database of policies, strategies, initiatives and other activities in the Eastern Cape (past, current and planned) that have a potential impact on rural development;

• To pilot the establishment of several new community-based associations, modelled on the concept of Finnish Village Action Groups, but adapted as necessary to meet local conditions; and

• To identify the top priority interventions for appropriate action in partnership with community-based associations.

Phase 1 implementation was initiated in December 2008 with a study visit to Finland by four consortium members33, a specialist in charge of the Integrated Rural Development Programme from the Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG) and an expert from the Promotion of Rural Livelihood (RuLiv) in the Eastern Cape. During the visit the delegation became acquainted with the rural development system, organisations and activities in practice in Finland. During February 2009, a short-term Finnish expert was brought in to assist in assessing the status quo of rural development in the Eastern Cape and give recommendations concerning possible interventions. This was followed by a final report34

produced by the consortium in May 2009. Both reports made the recommendation to take KIRD forward into Phase 2 and to pilot the Local Action Group (LAG)–method35 in the Eastern Cape over a period of a few months.

31Knowledge and Innovation for Rural Development32Now with the Regional Council of Päijät-Häme, & Susinno Ltd, Finland33Umhlaba and the Border Rural Committee (BRC)34Umhlaba Rural Services (May 2009). Introduction to the Leader approach to Rural Development in South Africa: A Comparison and

Assessment. www.cofisa.org.za/pdfs/intor_leader_ca.pdf. [Note: The LEADER programme is an EU approach to rural development

incorporating LAGs]

Border Rural Committee (May 2009) : Integrated Local Economic Development Plan for Northern Keiskammahoek (May 2009) www.

cofisa.org.za/pdfs/brc_iledp_nk.pdf; after July 2010 http://www.dst.gov.za/links/cofisa35LAGs are registered associations which are open to local members and organisations and which draw up development plans in

cooperation with these stakeholders. Plans are implemented largely through development and business projects. Decisions on

projects are made by the LAGs and Employment and Economic Development Centres.

As part of this process an Integrated Local Economic Development (LED) plan was formulated for Northern Keiskammahoek, with tourism, agriculture and forestry identified as the economic sectors with the most potential. Four villages – Cata, Lower Mnyameni, Upper Gxulu and Upper Mnyameni – are participating in this pilot.

KIRD Phase 2 aimed to:

• Develop the methodology for the selection of LAGs and to define and communicate their functions and decision-making processes;

• Assess, design and implement a suitable training programme for LAG members to enable them to carry out their functions;

• Assist the LAGs in developing fund-raising strategies and developing methods to present these to suitable funding agencies and/or donors;

• Define and obtain community agreement on the development strategy and implementation plan, highlighting the way in which communities would be engaged in various projects;

• Assist the LAGs in organising a workshop to present project priorities to potential funders; and

• Define further steps to continue the development of LAG pilots, including recommendations about linking to existing or newly emerging local, provincial and national government programmes.

With the support of COFISA and BRC, the four communities made the decision to take responsibility for themselves through the establishment of a representative LAG, with representation from the civic structures of each of the four villages. The context within which this decision was taken was faltering attempts at state-driven development in the area. The LAG was set up with the explicit aim to facilitate the emergence of an alternative, more effective approach to rural development.

Following several community meetings in October 2009, the LAG made the decision to initiate and implement three quick-win projects which are likely to benefit about 100 people directly:


• Support to smallholder farmers in Upper Gxulu;

• Start-up of a trout fishing business in Upper Mnyameni; and

• Wattle clearing around the Mnyameni Dam and along the lower reaches of the Cata River.

What makes these projects different is the element of innovation that has been introduced – in aims, tools and methods. They are characterised by being:

• Area-based rather than project-based;

• Bottom-up rather than top-down as they are driven by a representative LAG;

• Driven by local partnerships between various levels of private and public sector players;

• Multi-sectoral to exploit synergies across sectors; and

• Network-driven with active promotion of information exchanges and adoption of best practice.

At the time of writing (December 2009), independent funding had already been secured to support planning

and implementation in the area for 2010/2011. This will also allow the LAG-method to be expanded to a further eight villages by the end of 2010, giving the LAG geographic significance akin to the LAGs in Finland. In addition, additional resources were secured from the Community Works Programme and the Expanded Public Works Programme Phase II to undertake wattle eradication, road maintenance and food security activities in the four villages.

The LAG-method has gained credibility within the communities for one simple reason – it has been able to create jobs and has delivered tangible short-term benefits to the community. There is however much work to be done to build and strengthen local capacity in the LAG so as to ensure its future sustainability. Likewise, creating acceptance for alternative rural development approaches by provincial and local government will require more effort in the future to ensure access to the public fiscus for future development initiatives.

The LAG-pilot is a significant example of how the provincial Foresight process was able to trigger an innovative rural development initiative, which could then be taken further by adopting a bottom-up approach for implementation at the community level.

Flyfishing on the M nyameni Dam, with area cleared of wattle in the background

Community workers c learing wattle


INTRODUCTION

ActivatorTM is a programme developed and implemented by The Innovation Hub36 and COFISA to promote multi-helix collaboration37

with the objective of involving and developing Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in large scale projects together with research partners, large corporates and government. Other contributing stakeholders included the Gauteng Provincial Government through its holding company Blue IQ Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd.

What is ActivatorTM?

36Refer to Chapter 7 for a more detailed discussion of the Innovation Hub.

37Multi-helix stakeholders refer to entities from the private sector (including the industry and SMEs); public sector (government and

public support entities such as incubators); research and academia; and the end-users or beneficiaries of new products or services.

How the Programme was Started

In the growth and development of The Innovation Hub as a science park in Pretoria, various models and alternatives for innovation and collaboration interventions were investigated. One such model was

the Finnish Centre of Expertise programme (CoE), which had a profound impact on the development of the Finnish Innovation System. CoEs contributed significantly towards Finland regularly ranking amongst the top global economies in terms of innovation, competitiveness and efficiency.

The Finnish CoE programme was developed in the 1980s to promote regional development. As a first phase, regional clusters of competence were defined and then coordinated to stimulate collaboration between SMEs, large industry, research institutions and science councils, private research laboratories and universities. The aim of the CoE programme is to create economic benefit through market-focused innovation.

The Innovation Hub received first-hand exposure to the implementation of the CoE in Finland, facilitated through the Embassy of Finland in South Africa. It later participated in a study visit to Finland, which contributed to the groundwork for the establishment of the COFISA programme. On returning to South Africa, The Innovation Hub indicated its interest in developing the CoE concept. Following the completion of a COFISA-funded feasibility study,38 the CoE pilot implementation project was included as part of the COFISA programme.

38Saarinen, T. (September 2007). Centre of Expertise Programme Gauteng: Feasibility Study. http://www.theinnovationhub.com/

newsbits/vol6no11/pdfs/fesstudy.pdf


The programme commenced in November 2007 with a five-month inception phase during which a working model was developed for multi-helix collaboration as well as a methodology for securing and managing such projects. The initial intention was that The Innovation Hub would source projects and then nurture them towards the key CoE Pilot objective.39

By the end of March 2008, six ICT-based projects had been shortlisted, of which two were developed further as platforms for SME involvement and development.40

COFISA provided additional support to continue the pilot for a further period, from April 2008 to November 2009.

The ActivatorTM Concept for Multi-Helix Collaboration and SME Development

The ActivatorTM Concept, as a business model, involves methodologies, business processes and know-how relating to the creation of an environment conducive

for the collaboration of so-called multi-helix stakeholders. This includes:

• 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.

The emphasis on collaboration is based on proven

research and global best practice indicating that innovation output, quality and quantity increase in proportion to the diversity of the role-players responsible for innovation. The theoretical model for end-to-end innovation implies that all stakeholders need to work together to ensure that innovation can take place. Practice has proved that many innovation projects simply do not succeed due to the absence of a structured collaboration model into which all stakeholders can deliver.

Development and Implementation of the ActivatorTM Concept

The Activator TM Concept focused on the identification and engagement of innovation projects41 that were relatively close to the market. As ActivatorTM was a

pilot initiative, projects that had too long to go before offering tangible products or services to the market or end-users could not be considered.

A second requirement was that such projects needed to represent a clear and actionable opportunity to expand the stakeholder base by involving multi-helix role-players in the implementation and commercialisation of activities, especially if they were able to expand innovation output into different areas.

The success of these projects was increased through the use of various support platforms and enablers such as incubation, access to funding, and IP management and mentoring, all part of the service offering of the Innovation Hub.

The ActivatorTM methodology involves a four-step approach:

Step 1: Identify innovation-type projects close to the market and with expansion potential.

Step 2: Connect additional stakeholders to the project who are able to complement the business case, e.g. research institutions to assist with R&D, commercialisation partners to assist with product development, and/or third-party SMEs able to use the outputs from the project to develop further opportunities in other non-competing market channels.

Step 3: Engage directly with all participants/collaborators through the various business development services offered through the stakeholder base (in the pilot study this was the Innovation Hub) to assist each entity in growing beyond the initial business activities proposed for the project.

Step 4: Identify, cultivate and nurture emerging areas of focus, both within individual projects (Activators) and in

portfolios of Activators that present niche and/or market-leading expertise.

39See http://www.theinnovationhub.com/pdf/coe_incephase.pdf for details on bids were solicited from consortia

40A Steering Committee was called into being to provide credibility to the selection of the shortlisted projects, and to provide inputs towards developing the process for selecting and implementing such projects.

41Innovation-type projects refer to projects that have an element of novel development and/or even a short phase of applied research before commercialisation; ActivatorTM does not engage with projects limited

to licensing-in, imports, sales and distribution – there must be an element of newness in the proposed solutions, products or services.


Existing ActivatorTM Projects

The ActivatorTM programme sourced a number of projects through a public call for proposals. However, a key finding was that this is not the most suitable process to obtain the desired mix of projects, as most public proposals do not have clear market focus, industry partners and/or funding. As a result, ActivatorTM thereafter proactively targeted specific large industry players and public sector institutions with tangible innovation needs. Specific partners secured through this alternative approach included Eskom (national power utility); Vodacom (mobile operator), CSIR (research institution) and the City of Tshwane (metropolitan city council) for which ActivatorTM

developed specific innovation themes of interest to the industry or public sector partner.

The following projects were developed using the tested ActivatorTM 4-step methodology:

Broadband For All Project – Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) Meraka Institute

The Broadband for All project aims to remove or minimise communication technology barriers, enable bottom-up creation of wireless access infrastructure and provide cheaper broadband to remote and rural communities while developing local village operators to become entrepreneurs.

Research focused on mesh networking, low-cost voice/messaging devices, low-cost access points and antennae, and network security. Mesh networking provides interesting opportunities for communities to establish a wireless network without the need for large capital investment in radio masts. The Meraka Institute is the project leader and the consortium includes Sentech, Parsec, Redline SA and the Universal Service and Access Agency of South Africa (USAASA).

ActivatorTM structured this market-driven innovation value-proposition by focusing not on technology involved in mesh networking, but rather on the needs of a village operator and how such needs translate into multi-helix collaboration and SME development opportunities.

Fourier Approach’s ‘Centre of Excellence in Complexity’ Model

The Fourier Approach consortium developed a ‘Centre of Excellence in Complexity’ Model and related methodologies that assist with the design, development, implementation and measurement of operational processes within a complex environment, while striving towards realising the organisational strategies in a resilient operation. The consortium consists of two organisations:

• Fourier, an industrial engineering consultancy; and the• University of South Africa (UNISA).

The model found very good acceptance amongst local government structures and other development organisations, as the complexities of their environment is often poorly understood. Once fully implemented, the model and its results will be validated as part of the academic objectives of UNISA.

Stimulating the Energy Innovation Market – Eskom

Eskom, the South African electricity utility, and ActivatorTM

reached an agreement to work in close partnership to identify tangible opportunities for Eskom to partner with SMEs and research institutions. With the current electricity shortages in South Africa as background, Eskom intends to develop new capacity and improve the management of existing energy utilisation, particularly through ‘smaller’ innovations and opportunities that may otherwise be

overlooked by a large utility.

The Eskom ActivatorTM specifically seeks to empower players in the South African National System of Innovation to work with Eskom to support such smaller innovations. Through this initiative, Eskom developed an innovation portal to facilitate new idea creation, the sharing of information and facilitating collaboration. Two specific projects have been implemented:

• The Eskom Hot Water Challenge which provides innovative solutions to the supply of hot water to households not currently serviced by the utility; and

• The Eskom Board Game which aims to educate the youth about the advantages of energy saving through traditional and mobile media.

The Tshwane eHealth Living Lab ActivatorTM (TeLL)

The Tshwane eHealth Living Lab ActivatorTM (TeLL) was launched as a collaborative project between Vodacom, the City of Tshwane’s Primary Health Care Clinics and GeoMed, a South African SME and pioneer of mobile health applications and integrated solutions.

TeLL is creating a multi-helix innovation environment in which researchers, SMEs and other players can collaborate with primary health care clinics to introduce innovative solutions to address the enormous service delivery


challenges facing the South African national health system.

TeLL is not about technology - its primary objective is to develop business models combining specific technology, business processes, networks, regulatory and policy requirements necessary for the sustainable application of innovation in the primary health care environment.

Telecommunications and ICT Development – Vodacom

Vodacom, South Africa’s leading cellular network operator, decided to establish a physical presence at the Innovation Hub through the ActivatorTM programme. This entails the establishment of a public networking and collaboration facility in close proximity to the Business Incubator of The Innovation Hub. Participants in The Innovation Hub’s development programmes will gain insight into the latest mobile, networking and ICT developments by engaging with Vodacom technology and business executives. Vodacom also undertook to support the Innovation Hub’s pre-incubation programme, which is tasked with entrepreneurial development. In return Vodacom will nurture relationships with SMEs, entrepreneurs and research institutions to canvass new products, services and offerings for inclusion in its value proposition to Vodacom clients.

ActivatorTM in the Future

The ActivatorTM programme is a departure from rigid, recipe-type interventions, to a people-and-relationship driven methodology, to bring the

desired mix of willing and committed partners to the table to focusing on resolving market challenges and exploit opportunities.

In the African context, the importance of investing in the time and effort to connect key stakeholders and facilitate mutually-beneficial business relationships is often overlooked as most traditional innovation support programmes take the form of infrastructure investment and the setting up of formal platforms – often under the premise of ‘build it and they will come’.

By investing in the capacity and commitment of neutral project drivers and innovation facilitators, multi-helix stakeholders in the ActivatorTM Pilot Programme proved

that even traditional commercial competitors can be motivated to move from the periphery to collaborate, and large industry players and public sector institutions can open up procurement processes to SMEs and research institutions and still receive top quality solutions.

ActivatorTM created tangible proof through valid, proven business cases of how structured interventions can result in the achievement of tangible benefits for stakeholders (irrespective of size) and create wealth and improved levels of service delivery to the ordinary man on the street.

Finally: ActivatorTM is a methodology, not an institution. The spirit in which the methodology and best-practice was developed is to share it as widely as possible and thereby contribute to an improved methodology and success story through which new innovation projects are sourced, structured and implemented.

Tsietsi Maleho (previously Ac ting CEO of the Innovation Hub) and Wendy Poulton (ESKOM) signing a Memorandum

of Understanding

Inside the Innovation Centre at the Innovation Hub, where the Ac tivator TM programme is housed


INTRODUCTION

In the 1990s, Finland faced a full-scale depression, brought on by the loss of the country’s most important markets as the Soviet Union disintegrated. Unemployment soared to 20 percent. However, the Finns

took control of their future, made painful adjustments and came out of the crisis with an economy that the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, ranks as the most competitive in the world.42 It is often argued that this feat was achieved as a result of an efficient innovation system in Finland. The current conditions in Africa need a feat of similar magnitude and impact. Imagine a future where every village in South Africa is competing and excelling in the global marketplace in terms of products, people and improved quality of life. This can only be realised through effective and efficient local innovation systems that see collaboration at a local and global scale between government, industry, academic and civil organisations.

The Finnish and South African governments partnered to enhance South Africa’s innovation system through the Cooperation Framework on Innovation Systems between Finland and South Africa (COFISA). One of the components of this initiative focused on enhancing rural innovation systems since it was believed that this held the promise of contributing in a sustainable manner to economic growth and poverty alleviation. Three strategic result areas were identified:

• The enhanced use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in rural development projects;

• Identified opportunities for research funding to support new initiatives aimed at research and development (R&D) in rural and social innovation; and

• Best practices identified and adopted for the promotion of sustainable rural and social innovations for local economic development.

42The Washington Post, July 14, 2005.


Background

In 2005 researchers from Finland visited South Africa as part of the Sustainable Information Society Development Programme.43 This visit included interviews with many

actors in the South African system of innovation, and in particular with research institutions such as the Meraka Institute (CSIR), Rhodes University, University of Fort Hare and the Cape Peninsula University of Technology. The visit highlighted the need to advance the understanding of local innovation systems and that this could best be achieved by piloting rural innovation mechanisms.

In September 2006 the COFISA programme was launched, which included a component to support the piloting of rural innovation mechanisms. This component was to be supported by training and other interventions aimed at building human capacity, enhancing economic development and promoting poverty alleviation in rural areas.

In February 2007, a meeting between stakeholders concluded that immediate action was required to establish local public-private partnerships to facilitate new frameworks for sustainable cooperation in rural innovations. The Meraka Institute had already been in discussion with Nokia in Finland to pilot a Nokia “Wireless Village” 44 in South Africa. Since a critical element in any local innovation system is a reliable and

affordable communications infrastructure, this presented an opportunity for quick action in the COFISA rural innovation component. COFISA could facilitate the deployment of this pilot in one of the target areas and in the process address some of the deficiencies of the South African System of Innovation (SANSI), including collaboration between national and local actors, participation by industry, and attracting funding for R&D in rural and social innovation.

The outcome of the meeting was that:

• International expertise, preferably from Finland, would be contracted to assist in the planned construction of the rural living lab and to build local capacity. Where possible, local technology and human resources would be used;

• The Meraka Institute would manage the project and take responsibility for setting up an in-house Wireless Village laboratory;

• COFISA would facilitate the finding of local partners and financial commitments required for the field trials; and

• An internal workshop would be held to scope the pilot.

43A programme that combined Futures Research and the study of Information Society concepts, applications and case study examples as tools for promoting sustainable development.

44The wireless village concept is now sold as the Village Connection product of Nokia Siemens Network.

Living Labs

In South Africa, citizens are mostly seen as passive and adaptive actors in the innovation process (Enkenberg, 2008),45 merely using technology developed elsewhere

or prescribed to them by experts external to their situations. On the other hand, the challenge of developing sustainable solutions that involve disadvantaged sections of the population highlights the need to understand these user groups thoroughly. User-driven approaches could thus provide real value for developing and validating new concepts, services or products, allowing more rapid insights into how different users think, adopt, use and influence technology. As a systemic approach, this could lead to empowering users to become active partners in research, development and innovation (RDI) processes for the future. It could also greatly benefit the current ICT for Development (ICT4D) community and help in creating more sustainable outcomes for using technology in social and economic development. The Living Lab approach

can play an important role in addressing the need for the sustainability and scaling of ICT4D projects. Processes of institutionalisation have been found to be crucial and four key processes have been identified:

1. Gaining symbolic acceptance by the community;2. Stimulating valuable social activity in relevant

social groups;3. Generating linkages to viable revenue streams; and 4. Enrolling government support.46

The establishment of a Living Lab can be seen as a means of bringing institutional partners on board and kick-starting the process of institutionalisation.

Living Labs are systemic initiatives, which focus on creating multi-stakeholder collaboration in different

stages of the RDI process. It is a concept which refers to an R&D methodology where innovations such as services, products and application enhancements are created and validated in collaborative, multi-contextual empirical real-world settings (Eriksson, Niitamo & Kulkki, 2005).47 In Living Labs, users or citizens are seen as a source of new innovations, as co-creators of new services and products, typically linked to creation or application of ICTs or ICT-enabled services. Living Labs are platforms for exploring these opportunities in various areas; for instance in e-commerce, healthcare, transport, tourism development, energy production and so forth.

The thinking and practice behind Living Labs has been developed over the last years, especially in the European Union (EU), where the promotion and implementation of the approach has resulted in the creation of the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL), which in 2008 expanded beyond European borders. Its mission is to help create first class innovation environments for ICT-based products,

services and social innovations and facilitate innovation and collaboration between users, industry and research stakeholders. While the community is still young, and some of the pilots have a low degree of maturity, the approach has in many cases proved successful and is being adopted more widely by different actors, public and private. The network and pilot projects have also received strong political support, ranging from cities and local governments to the European Commission. This can be described as a collective effort to include users in a systematic way in a European innovation system.48

It is only through well established partnerships between citizens, businesses and public authorities, that the Living Labs model allows people, industries, higher education institutions, government, governmental organisations or local governments to collaboratively test tomorrow’s best innovations in ICT. It was with this view in mind that the Siyakhula and Reconstructed Living Labs were established in Dwesa and Athlone respectively.

45Aki Enkenberg, Junior Professional Officer for COFISA .

46Madon, S.; Reinhard, N.; Roode, D. & Walsham, G. (2009). Digital Inclusion Projects in Developing Countries: Processes of institutionalization. Information Technology for Development, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp 95-107.

47Eriksson, M.; Niitamo, V.-P; & Kulkki, S. (2005). State-of-the-art and Good Practice in the Field of Living Labs. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising: Innovative Products

and Services through Collaborative Networks, Milan, Italy, 2006, pp 349-357.

48Ståhlbröst, A. (2008). Forming future IT: The living lab way of user involvement. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Luleå University of Technology Department of Business Administration and Social Sciences, Division of

Informatics, Finland.

49http://www.dst.gov.za/links/cofisa

Implementing the Living Labs Concept

An essential element to a well functioning Living Lab is a good communications infrastructure. The Nokia “Wireless Village” was initially proposed as

a trial communications infrastructure in the Siyakhula Living Lab, as a platform to support this local innovation environment. This was not however fully implemented in COFISA as originally envisaged. The in-house Wireless Village Laboratory was set up at the Meraka Institute and a number of workshops and meetings were held during 2007 and 2008 to implement the pilot in the Eastern Cape. In October 2008, Ungana Afrika, a local NGO, conducted a business modelling and feasibility analysis,49 which found that the partners needed to invest more time and resources in the trial, as well as address a range of other

challenges. The key obstacle to deployment was obtaining commitment from one of the national GSM network operators, as the Village Connection technology could not be deployed without the cooperation or support of a GSM licensee.

The COFISA expectations were ambitious and met with many obstacles, most often impacting on the time it took to implement these ideas.

• Human capacity and innovation capacity are very limited in the rural context, which meant that key individuals had limited availability for meetings, due to busy schedules.


• Building trust requires time and it took longer than expected to achieve collaboration and agreement between players in South Africa;

• The European technology concepts could not be adopted in Africa, as there were challenges in regulations, logistics, and again the lack of human capacity to implement;

• Contracts and orders took longer to put in place, as many organisations have intricate and bureaucratic systems that govern the decision making authority of individuals; and

• Socio-economic conditions in many rural areas are daunting and it is a struggle for any initiative to become sustainable.

Despite these challenges, the COFISA programme has had many positive outcomes, some of which are highlighted below:

• The need for investigating the appropriate Southern African model of Living Labs was facilitated through COFISA. The European concept of Living Labs holds a lot of promise as a framework and philosophy for advancing local innovation, but the assumptions are often flawed in the Southern African context;

• The Siyakhula and Athlone Living Labs were established through the efforts of COFISA; and

• COFISA seeded the Living Labs in Southern Africa (LLiSA) network that will facilitate the community of Living Labs, Living Lab researchers and practitioners in this region. COFISA also established the need for having a local champion as key facilitator and driver for the local innovation mechanism. It partly funded coordination champions for the Dwesa and Athlone projects during the duration of the COFISA initiative.

Reconstructed Living Labs (RLabs) in the Western Cape

The Reconstructed Living Labs (RLabs) is one of ten in Southern Africa, and the first one to be established in the Western Cape. The project has grown out of

collaboration between the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT), a community organisation Impact Direct Ministries (IDM), and the Bridgetown Civic Organisation. It has features that are unique in Living Labs as it is community-led and is based in a socially-deprived area in Cape Town.

Athlone is situated on the Cape Flats of the Western Cape in Cape Town, South Africa. It is today known for two features, the new football stadium and the obsolete power towers which dominate the area. The society is described

by Parker (2008)50 as a community in tension. Factors for the grounds of tension include:

• Lack of economic development e.g. unemployment, inflation;

• Social inequality e.g. lack of social services;• Lack of education; and • Lack of appropriateness and use of technology, for

example, technology that is not utilised fully within communities for its intended use.

Athlone has all of these social problems and is plagued by violence, drugs and gangsterism.

50Parker M. B.; Wills, G. B.; & Wills, J. (2008). Community in Tension (CiT). ECSTR-LSL08-002 ISBN: 978-0-620-42256-7. Wealthy Mind Publishers. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/16678/1/ParkerWills_CiT.pdf

RLabs aims through the creation, dissemination and application of knowledge to increase the empowerment, upliftment and development of individuals and the Athlone community, including parts of it that are, in or headed for, tension. They aim to do this through the use of innovative ICT solutions

• To facilitate the health and social care of citizens;

• To inform citizens about problem behaviours, their consequences and preventative mechanisms; and

• To educate citizens and to train them in specific skills which will generate wealth and an enterprise work style.

Its primary aim is empowerment and reconstruction of the individual and the community.

As part of the Living Labs in Southern Africa (LLiSA) network sponsored by COFISA, SAFIPA51 and Meraka Institute, the Reconstructed Living Lab aims to place the citizen at the root of the innovation system. This has not often been the case. Stoecker (2005)52 raised the question of whether community informatics benefits communities or just business and academics. Being controlled by those with funding is essentially a situation which the community is eager to resist. The Athlone community envisages that the technology used will be transferable

to other socially excluded groups nationwide and that this will fund the development of their community. The University of Southampton and Malmö University in Sweden are also connected to the Living Lab and supported early development of this initiative. The community groups included in the project include non-governmental organisations (NGOs), schools, youth and family centres. The Bridgetown Civic group and IDM have been instrumental in engaging the community in the project.

51SAFIPA is the South Africa-Finland knowledge partnership on ICT which aims to support the creation of an environment which facilitates the development and deployment of ICT service applications for the

benefit of South African citizens.

52Stoecker, R. (2005). Is Community Informatics good for communities? In: The Journal of community Informatics, 1(3), pp 13-26.

Eighty-six-year- old M r Madolo G obinamba from M pume expresses his opinion


Four stakeholder networks - the community, academia, industry and government - have produced tangible tools, help, advice and inputs which have made the RLabs operational (See Table 6.1). This has enabled the community to take a dominant role in the process. The

Community Steering Committee has an independent role and is directly responsible for the decisions made at a local level. The Living Labs Harmonisation Cube53 was used by the steering group to monitor the development of the project .54

53The Living Labs Harmonisation Cube identifies exchange possibilities and explicitly defines interoperability elements from organisational, technological,and contextual perspectives in which different standards

are relevant.

54Mulder I.; Velthausz D.; and Kriens M. (2008). The Living Labs Harmonization Cube: Communicating Living Labs’ Essentials. In: Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks, 10, pp 1-14.

Steering Committee

Community Government Industry

Open Forums

Development Space

Endorsements

Steering Committee

Agencies

Work Groups

Technological help

Agreements

Academia

Incubation Space for Ideas

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Community Partner

Research

NGO Partners Internships Contract ResearchInternships Basic training for volunteers

Workshops COFISA -Research Visits

Provision of Services Living Labs of South Africa vendorsement

-International collaboration

Choice and Patenting of new technology

Provision of technology tools-Testing of technology

CPUT is playing an important part in providing incubation and innovation space for training volunteers to work at the Living Lab, as well as training citizens in life skills which are essential for the community to develop. IDM provides the community space where technology becomes operational. There is a local agreement with CPUT which assigns the community as the leading partner.

This Socio-Techno bridge is important to the success of RLabs, as citizens receive free training that builds capacity and enables them to run the project themselves. The uniqueness of this Living Lab is that the community leads the project and is fully part of the development of innovations.

Craig Ross, RLabs community faci l i tator, training youth on the use of Web technologies for social change

Reconstructed Living Labs (RLabs) offer the local community an opportunity to enhance their skills through the use of various technology programmes specially developed to support the needs of the citizens. Another development by IDM, was a mobile instant messenger aggregation technology used to manage mobile chat conversations. The technology could be used to offer additional support and advice to people affected by substance abuse, HIV/AIDS, and general social problems. Its services are available to all members of the local and extended community. By using available technologies appropriately, RLabs has set up a series of Advice Support Networks:

Drug Advice Support

Drug Advice Support (DAS), launched in 2008, enables multiple advisors to assist during a given advice support session. The advisors are volunteers who have received training and offer counselling services to people impacted by the scourge of drug abuse. By August 2009, after being operational for a year, the DAS system has 9 193 subscribers.

Debtbreaker

An estimated 60% of approximately 19 million people require assistance in South Africa for over-indebtedness.

Drug advice suppor t advisors during a l ive session

suppor ting cit izens across S outh Africa

Table 6.1 Stakeholder Ac tivit ies in the RLabs Projec t


Debtbreaker, launched in April 2009, is a collaboration with a local debt counselling company to offer debt counselling via mobile phones to consumers who are over indebted. The service already services more than 1 000 people via mobile technology.

National AIDS HelplineIn August 2009 RLabs commenced collaboration with the non-profit organisation Cell-Life to provide mobile counselling services to people impacted and affected by HIV/AIDS. This project is the first of its kind in Africa

providing real-time support using mobile chat as a counselling medium.

RLabs is a testament to the effectiveness of a bottom-up approach to social innovation. Having the support of the community and strong innovation partnerships is important to the overall success of Living Labs.

Organisations such as COFISA have a facilitating role to play in ensuring the continuous legacy of Living Labs in Southern Africa.

The Siyakhula Living Lab (Eastern Cape)

The Siyakhula Living Lab (SLL)55 is part of an ambitious multi-component, multi-partner and multi-disciplinary initiative initiated by the universities of

Rhodes and Fort Hare at the end of 2002 and catalysed, during 2008 and 2009, by COFISA. The SLL represents the re-organisation of the field work component of this initiative, along the lines of the emerging R&D methodology commonly known as a ‘Living Lab’. The SLL is located in the proximity of the Dwesa Nature reserve on the Wild Coast of the Eastern Cape Province and is conducted jointly by the two universities.

Such re-organisation, which is taking place at the time of writing, is very natural because the main underlying principle of a Living Lab - co-creation with empowered users – has been in place since the inception of the field work in Dwesa in the second half of 2005. Apart from restructuring the field work along the better defined

lines of a formal methodology and social innovation environment, COFISA has facilitated the process of integrating the work done in Dwesa into the larger provincial system of innovation. This has opened the way to an explicit link with the TechnoPark under construction at the East London Industrial Development Zone (EL IDZ), as well as into the national system of innovation.

Results achieved to date include the establishment of communications infrastructure, and the creation of e-commerce and e-government websites, underpinned by continuous ICT training for the local community.

The section below situates the SLL within the system of the larger initiative mentioned above, and briefly traces its history, followed by a presentation of the achievements to date.

Rocky Coast in the D wesa Nature Reser ve, Eastern Cape, S outh Africa

55http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/pdfs/siyakhula-living-lab.pdf; See also the booklet Siyakhula Living Lab which provides a more detailed overview of the various project being undertaken at the SLL, and which

cannot be covered in this chapter. http://www.cofisa.org.za/pdfs/siyakhula_living_lab_09.pdf; after July 2010 http://www.dst.gov.za/links/cofisa

The Dwesa field work operation, the precursor of the SLL, was the result of a classic Triple Helix56 initiative by Telkom SA57 in the constitution of a network of

Centres of Excellence58 which brought together industry, academia and government through the Department of Trade and Industry. Two of the Centres are located in the Computer Science departments of the universities of Rhodes and Fort Hare in the Eastern Cape. The initial work in Dwesa focused on building an e-commerce/telecommunications platform for marginalised rural areas, based on the premise that there was an untapped, immature telecommunications market in rural South Africa and that the Centres could create an entry point for industry partners.

Through its relationship with the Centres, the SLL can tap into specialised knowledge from academia and industry, and resources from all three of the partners. The specialised knowledge extended beyond ICTs (and the competence offered by the computer science departments of the two universities). This realises the multidisciplinary aspect of the initiative and makes available anthropological, sociological, linguistic, educationalist, communication and media competences through co-opting appropriate staff and students at the universities.

The Centres are still the main support system for the SLL, but COFISA became increasingly important. In particular, COFISA is supporting the establishment of the SLL management unit (SiLLMU), responsible for the transformation of the Dwesa field work into a recognisable Living Lab. SiLLMU is in the process of being constructed and represents an important systems component.

Another essential component is the EL Techno Park, which represents the formal link of the SLL to the provincial system of innovation. COFISA has been the main instigator of the Techno Park, helping in its conceptualisation and design. Within the Techno Park, the SLL will offer a grounded and instrumented experimentation space to interested tenants of the Techno Park (among others) and will channel independently created innovation into commercialisation, via an existing or a new tenant. At the time of writing, temporary facilities for the EL Techno Park

were being completed (November, 2009).

Peer relations are being established with other Living Labs created or under creation in Southern Africa and Europe:

• The first set of relations is being formalised through LLiSA which was launched at the beginning of 2009. This component, located at the Meraka Institute, is essential for the continued existence of the local Living Labs and is an outcome of the work by COFISA.

• The second relationship is with the ENoLL (European Network of Living Labs), which has been in place since the end of 2008. This association was also made possible through COFISA.

• Finally, a new component is being established through SAFIPA, which in part continues the seminal work done by COFISA. Through a project codenamed ESTIMA, a software factory is now under construction, specialising in software artifacts to support development in realities such as the one which underpins the SLL. The project is jointly run by the two Centres of Excellence and a commercial company, Ekhaya ICT. It represents a breakthrough in the South Africa landscape, moving the creation of solutions for reality such as Dwesa onto a robust, commercial footing. The first output of the software factory will be an eServices platform (the software product mentioned above) which brings together an increasingly larger number of eServices needed by a rural community, either developed ab initio, or most often adapted and integrated from the large repository of available Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) components.

An initial set of components will include eCommerce, eGovernment and eHealth, supporting grassroot activities and interactions. For example, the eCommerce service will be directly managed by local producers of goods such as crafters and micro-tourism operators. eGovernment will allow less costly and more efficient interaction by the people living in the community with the various levels of government, from local to national. Similar grassroots perspectives will inform the eHealth services.

Systemic Relations and History

56Refer to Chapter 5 for a more detailed description of the triple helix model.

57Previously the incumbent telecommunications operator in South Africa.

58Browne, D. and Leitch, A. (2009) Case Study of Telkom South Africa’s Centre of Excellence Postgraduate Research Programme. In: IST-Africa 2009 Conference Proceedings, 6-8 May, Uganda.


The choice of Dwesa was a logical one as the previous work done by Rhodes simplified the initial connection with the community, allowing for an

overlapping top-down / bottom-up approach.

The communications infrastructure underpinning the activity of the SLL consists of five points of presence (Digital Access Centres) located in schools and interconnected by means of a wireless LAN using WiMAX. The LAN is connected to the Internet via a satellite link provided by Telkom. Schools represent an obvious starting point because they are, at the same time, focal points for the community and a centre of knowledge, and can often be open to all members of the community.

The establishment of the network was an achievement in itself:

• From a technical point of view, it was one of the first WiMAX installations in rural South Africa;

• From a logistical point of view, it was done after very recent electrification of the schools, with all the associated problems; and

• From a Living Lab perspective, it started the relationship with the community on an enthusiastic and collaborative note. There are probably many reasons for this, but the most important one is probably that the work in Dwesa was informed, from inception, by an explicit focus on bringing tangible value to people and helping the community to discover its strengths.

While the initial purpose of the installation was to pilot, in real conditions, an eCommerce platform that was being completed at that time (for art and crafts and later tourism),59 the reality of the needs of the community took centre stage from the beginning. This meant, first of all, computer training, an ongoing operation now conducted by local champions. The training has been offered during regular monthly trips by participating researchers from Fort Hare and Rhodes. Since mid-2009, this line of intervention also involves the local Department of Education (in Dutya), which is co-funding a certified literacy course for teachers in preparation of the higher ACE (Advanced Certification in Education) in ICT next year. Such certification has rarely, if ever, been offered in a rural school.

The second need was the localisation, cultural and linguistic, of the systems interfaces that support the interaction with the members of the community, such as craft makers.

The third was the creation of tools to allow community members to do first-line troubleshooting, something progressively more important with the wider use of the Internet in the community.

One important activity, fully supported by COFISA, was a baseline study, concluded in the second quarter of 2009 by researchers at Rhodes University and Fort Hare. This updated the information on the area, gathered first in 1998 and 2003-4, and provided important information of the actual use and types of mobile phones in the community. This knowledge on the availability of mobile phones is important because one of the proposed directions for the ICT infrastructure expansion in the SLL is to provide easy access via mobile phones to the core systems.60

Two other studies were made possible by COFISA: • A feasibility study on transforming the operation

in Dwesa into a Living Lab;61 and• A report investigating the business model for the

Village Connection installation, a series of low cost GSM towers by Nokia.62

Computer Literacy Training Session at the Mtokwane Junior

Secondary School

59www.dwesa.com

The Living Labs in Southern Africa Network (LLiSA)

Naomi Isabirye and Thandeka Mapi, research students, with a craft maker in Dwesa

South Africa is a particularly complex and diversified society, and correspondingly the market environment is very heterogeneous, incorporating

groups of citizens and organisations that can be regarded as typical for both developing and developed countries. The diverse situation can be regarded as a core strength and opportunity for Living Lab activities, providing a rich array of contexts and groups of users for experimentation and innovation. It was therefore felt that a network of Living Labs similar to ENoLL should be established in Southern Africa to support innovation from a user-driven perspective. The Living Labs in Southern Africa network (better known as LLiSA) was therefore formed and officially launched on 24 February 2009. The network

support and coordination project was initiated by COFISA, SAFIPA and the Meraka Institute of the CSIR.

The LLiSA network allows for small groups of Living Labs in different regions to join forces by sharing knowledge, services and even developments based on win-win strategies to pave the way for co-selling developments and services to the Southern African market rather than just to their local provincial/regional markets. This network can be of particular interest for rural communities, SMMEs, which do not have the expertise and resources to expand their activities to other regions or across Europe due to different structural characteristics, regulations, or societal and economic structures in the respective regions and countries.

60http://www.cofisa.org.za; after July 2010 http://www.dst.gov.za/links/cofisa

61This report was written by Patrizia Hongisto, a specialist in Living Lab theory from the Helsinki School of Economics. It is available on the COFISA website as above.

62This report, written by Ungana Afrika, is also available on the COFISA website.

The FutureAchieving systemic change will take time. The “Rural Innovation Systems” component of COFISA did pioneering work in identifying some of the challenges to achieving a positive change and facilitating the partnerships that are needed for this change. The establishment of the LLiSA network was a practical way of implementing this collaboration framework and continuing the work on local innovation systems beyond the duration of the COFISA programme.

Through partners’ and collaborators’ work in the domain of Rural Innovation Systems, we may achieve a future that will see many African villages prosper through innovations and compete and excel on the global marketplace with their products and people.


HISTORY OF SCIENCE PARKS IN SOUTH AFRICA

Science Parks, or if one explores the many different titles for the subject - technoparks, technopoles, research parks, science and technology parks and so on - are by no means a new concept

globally.64 They were started as early as 1951 when Stanford University (USA) established its first research park. Over the decades, the concept has evolved through a number of generations as the success factors for such institutions became better understood.

The evolution in South Africa, however, has had a somewhat chequered history, with universities mostly playing the role of initiator, often through the efforts of progressive individuals. The University of the Witwatersrand had a field research station at Frankenwald dating back to before the 1930s and attempts were made in the 1980s to establish industrial research on materials handling and the clustering of some industrial associations. These did not grow however and soon disappeared. The most significant earlier achievement was the establishment of the Stellenbosch Technopark in 1987. The University of Pretoria was part of two earlier initiatives, viz. the Persequor Technopark and the Highveld Technopark. None of these projects really established any of the value-adding services needed to cultivate a vibrant science park environment. Such was the ongoing interest in these ventures and the belief in the ‘build it and they will come’ philosophy that, in the mid-1990s a group of business and financial investors planned a multi-billion rand development in Cape Town named Capricorn Park. While the developers had the resources and the ambition to attract high-tech businesses, create jobs and develop in a depressed area, with a stated approach to move away from the model of close association with universities, it failed to attract the required market with any enthusiasm.

Reflecting on all these projects, one element stands out - the parks were really established as real-estate initiatives, and often quickly reverted to normal business parks, with no specific services and management suited to stimulate the original intent. The university linkages, while contemplated and initially desired, generated too few vibrant business-research interactions with resident companies, and none established incubation facilities to support the emergence of start-up companies from university research. Over a fairly short period of time, the interface between research and park residents withered and no mechanisms were in place to nurture this relationship.

Why then did we not achieve similar development and successes shown in other parts of the world? Firstly and significantly, the chosen management models were dominated, or even totally set up, with the real-estate

Overview

63Now with the Regional Council of Päijät-Häme, & Susinno Ltd, Finland.

64For convenience, the abbreviation “STP” will be used throughout this chapter to denote these as appropriate.

perspective in mind. Some internationally successful parks also started this way, but these parks were surrounded by more entrepreneurial ecosystems which delivered a plentiful supply of emerging technology companies. Generally, however, the successful parks internationally understood the criticality of paying more and more attention to the quality of the activation or value-added services. These are needed to support and nurture the knowledge-intensive emerging companies or attract larger established companies through facilitated linkages to academic and research personnel in associated institutions and organisations. Worldwide the understanding of what makes science parks successful stressed that while the real estate and facilities may be necessary, the real value lies in what a park can add to assist companies to grow, be sustainable, competitive and globally active.

The late 1990s saw the Gauteng Province reassess its future economy in the Trade and Industrial Strategy (1997). Flowing from this, a number of interventions was started, one being to stimulate knowledge-based economic growth, with the science park model being objectively revisited. The previous attempts described above raised wide concerns, and thus a process of deeper understanding was demanded, achieved through linkage to learning from a number of experienced members of the International Association of Science Parks (IASP) and the US National Business Incubator Association (NBIA). The exposure to the success fundamentals provided a different platform, and in 2000 The Innovation Hub (TIH) project was launched under the banner of the province’s special purpose vehicle Blue IQ, in partnership with the University of Pretoria and the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). Different from the others, the project started in pilot mode, with management concentrating on developing appropriate value-added services, initiating one of the first incubators in South Africa (later branded Maxum), the ‘INNOV8’ community of practice, and other programmes linking business and universities, e.g. the CoachLab.65

As a result, when the main site was ready for occupation in 2005, companies were keen to move. Anchor tenants such as the SAPPI Technology Centre and Bigen Africa built their own buildings providing visible substance to the park model.

In 2006, the launch of COFISA provided a new dimension to defining the importance and roles of science parks as key components of a functioning system of innovation. The Finnish experience, built up since the early 1980s, brought focus to the manner in which science parks could actively contribute and assist in defining local economic development strategies, stimulating new emphasis and relevance to the discussions. The COFISA focus on three provincial regions as priorities (Western Cape, Eastern Cape and Gauteng), extended the understanding of the role of science parks to a much broader community, where the need was felt for some new linking institutions to initiate the building of regional systems of innovation.

In this chapter, we will explore how this interest has unfolded and 65See www.theinnovationhub.com for more details


developed, and how the National Department of Science and Technology (DST) has responded. But before exploring these developments, it is valuable to summarise

the important aspects of a Science Park using the IASP definition.

Globally, the last ten to fifteen years has seen a dramatic growth in science parks, many in emerging countries where the goal is to develop competitiveness in the newer types of business related to the knowledge economy. Current membership of IASP is 372 over 72 countries, with over 200 000 companies resident on these parks. Parallels exist in the USA where the dominant institution is the Association of University Research Parks (AURP), also with

over 300 members. Africa as a continent still has only two full members of IASP, one in South Africa (The Innovation Hub), the other in Tunisia. One legacy of COFISA will be a number of new science park projects, built on firm foundations; a National Science Park Development Plan (DST), and a broadened community with a deeper understanding of the concept and potential. The journey, however, is far from complete.

The Finnish Model and its Relevance for South Africa

The first science park in Finland and also the first in the Nordic countries was established in Oulu in 1982. Called the Oulu Technology Village it was first

located in a building that had been a dairy.

The first new Technology Village building, however, was built next to Oulu University. The expansion of the Science Park movement in Finland took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s. At that time, these institutions were usually called Technology Centres, with a strong emphasis on collaboration with universities, and accommodating the high-tech companies. New parks were started in other cities e.g. Turku Science Park in 1988 and Lahti’s Park in 1991. The years during the late 1980s were very positive, showing fast and strong growth mainly due to the extremely fast growth in the Finnish economy in general. The financial markets became more open and it was easier and cheaper to find finance from abroad. Demand for different kinds of new building space was growing fast.

At the same time, Oulu had been successful in boosting the regional economic growth such that the civil servants in Helsinki, in the Ministry of Regional Development, decided to investigate the “Oulu phenomenon” as it was called at that time. In the investigation they found out that the Oulu Technology Village had and was continuing to have a very important role to play in these developments. They came to the conclusion that by extending this through a systematic, well- structured programme, science-based development could be extended in a way that was appropriate for modern industries, and based on R&D in universities and closely-related institutions. One on the main findings was that private R&D could be promoted with the arrangement of correctly positioned public sector interventions - making money available was important but not the only measure.

Resulting from this evaluation, the first phase of the Centre of Expertise (CoE (OSKE)) Programme was prepared

in 1993 and the programme launched in 1994 as a national competition based on regional proposals. Every region willing to participate had to agree on a proposal and the local organisation which would become the lead applicant. Thus the need to have inter-institutional triple-helix collaboration and the adoption of a regional view was stimulated, factors which have become increasingly important in the later years. These competitions, run again in 1998, elevated the role of regional science parks and the technology centres as facilitators and managers of the OSKE process, establishing them as leading organisations with key roles in their regions.

The realisation of the importance of these neutral organisations in regions, able to implement programmes

such as OSKE, resulted in a much higher status for the parks, without which their role would have been much more modest. Without this role, most of the science and technology parks would have been minor real estate providers with a limited contribution to the wider development for their regions.

The Finnish experience brought to the fore that, with the right policies and supportive structures, science parks could be critical and unique implementation agents for innovation programmes in regions, a matter which was yet to emerge in South Africa. It was therefore not surprising that in the original planning of COFISA, science parks were identified as key components to be investigated and stimulated.

Barriers to Entry

The commencement of COFISA came at a time when the dominant focus of the DST was in strengthening the input factors in the R&D agenda, viz. increasing

the size of the national public sector R&D budget; strengthening the human capital development in the fields of science and technology; and re-building the research capacity in science councils among others. While there was a growing realisation that the gap between the research outputs and the commercial world (i.e. innovation as opposed to invention) needed to be addressed, the mechanisms to achieve this were still under development. The release in 2007 of the DST’s ten-year Plan entitled “Innovation towards a Knowledge–based Economy” and the proposed Technology Innovation Agency (TIA) focused new attention on the need to find solutions to this so-called innovation chasm, and the acknowledged fragmentation

present in the South African National System of Innovation (SANSI). Thus the approaches used in Finland, and core to COFISA to stimulate more triple-helix collaboration and to use neutral facilitating organisations such as science parks, were timeous and appropriate.

However, outside of the Gauteng province, the level of discussion on these matters in provincial and local government, and local industry, was very fragile. Before any dialogue could be opened on such ideas, concepts of regional innovation systems and the relationship with economic development needed to be introduced. Likewise, the constructive interaction between the necessary role players was another aspect requiring priority. The task facing COFISA was thus larger than anticipated in the planning phases.

THE ROLE OF COFISA

While the SANSI concept had been accepted long before the initiation of COFISA, the glaring differences between Finland and South Africa were

readily seen. Firstly three fundamental aspects were well understood and widely communicated at all levels in Finland:

• The importance of developing a strong and globalised knowledge economy business base to complement any resource-based traditional industries;

• The fact that innovation in the modern world has

many components. This needs the participation of different actors, including government (at all levels) to create an empowering and supportive environment through well-designed policies and implementing agencies, knowledge generators often linked to R&D in academic and research institutions, and direct and participative involvement of business and industry; and

• Collaboration, networking and interaction between these elements, both regionally (sub-nationally), nationally and globally.

The Approach


Finland has over a period of 15 years developed policies and programmes, infrastructure and institutions which nurtured, supported and rewarded innovation to become a way of life. The relative ranking of Finland internationally as in the top three innovative countries globally indicated the potential for COFISA to provide a learning platform.

Thus, when devising the COFISA workplan, the contribution intended at national level was augmented with action-orientated developmental strategies to be applied in three selected provinces. In real terms, this move to take the SANSI concepts to the provinces was both insightful and new. Soon it became apparent that, while the provincial entities who regularly interacted with the DST may have been somewhat familiar with the principles, the vast majority of stakeholders had only a vague understanding of any of the concepts being discussed, and particularly so at the provincial and local government level, with perhaps some exceptions in Gauteng. For this reason, the approach taken by COFISA had to be adjusted in each pilot province.

Science and Technology Park development was part of the COFISA plans from the beginning. In the original documents, and even in the first version of the LogFrame to be used for monitoring and evaluation, the notion of the establishment of a science park could be found as one of the indicators to be followed.

In the evaluation of COFISA tenders by the international panel in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Finland in June 2006, the ‘science park issue’ was raised in the interview. It was also made clear that the one and only Science Park in

South Africa, The Innovation Hub, would be an important player in implementing COFISA.

The challenge for COFISA, therefore, was to present practical approaches to bring the concepts of innovation systems into the regional strategies. Here, broad experience from Finland proved useful in the way of methods and models honed to bring people together and provide facilitated debate. Firstly, regional baseline studies established understanding of the status quo, Foresight methods developed with local groups of decision-makers looked at scenarios of various futures for their regions, and the concept of science parks was used to produce discussion amongst the fragmented role-players in the regions.

The method used was ‘communicate, communicate, and communicate’. The neutrality of COFISA allowed easier formation of representative meetings, where it was possible to present, with emphasis, the necessity and benefits of collaboration in the evolving world. Furthermore, many selected groups were encouraged and supported to visit Finland to see and feel an innovative environment at work, and more importantly to create contact with people directly involved in implementing the same types of projects. While some may have seen this as a slow and cautious approach, i.e. COFISA had a ‘slow start’, it proved to be a key success factor. COFISA has developed, in each of its focus provinces, communities of practice, where members have often emerged as local champions. This approach succeeded because it was humble and lacked arrogance, never pushing views but looking for local benefits that could be achieved.

The development of STPs in South Africa had not generally inspired confidence. However, the Finnish experience of seeing such parks, not as university

extensions but as instruments of regional economic development, provided a new basis for discussion. The local example of The Innovation Hub in Gauteng, although still in its infancy, had also started to dispel negative perceptions and provided a useful counter to such ‘value debates’.

As the first real activity in Gauteng, COFISA and The Innovation Hub designed and arranged a Science Park Seminar in June 2007. The Seminar was to be a small informal information sharing session but it raised wide interest in many provinces in South Africa and neighbouring countries. This became a real starting point for a wider STP development movement in Southern Africa.

Why Science Parks?

Par ticipants at the S cience Park S eminar, S outh Africa, June 2007

An important first step was the commissioning of a pre-feasibility study in the Eastern and Western Cape66 which reached the following conclusions:

• The Eastern Cape appeared to be virgin land with limited links to STP issues, whereas the Western Cape was shown to have some experience based on its Stellenbosch and Capricorn STPs.

• The focus in the Western Cape was on the potential to re-energise the Stellenbosch Technopark to become a fully-operational science park. In the Eastern Cape the approach examined the innovation system elements and their potential to link up to create a viable innovation–driven economic development initiative, using a science park as the catalyst.

• While preliminary, the study concluded that the Stellenbosch area still lacked the champions to

rekindle activity at the right level. Strong elements were present but there was a missing component to create an innovation cluster – a neutral role player to pull people together and create the necessary synergies and linkages. Thus it was proposed to investigate the establishment of a Stellenbosch Innovation and Entrepreneurial Support Centre. Even so, the concept failed to ignite the necessary desire to move the region to another level, and as had happened before, the proposal never moved forward. One lesson from the Finnish success, and one adopted by COFISA, has been to find the right passion and leadership - it is usually fruitless to fuel this from the outside and achieves better results if timed until such leadership does reveal itself.

The study had the primary effect of stimulating discussion in all parts of the local triple helix. While some institutions had debated starting some form of STP, these were nearly

66Lamprecht S. (2007). Report on the findings of the Prefeasibility Study into Establishing Science Park Activity in the Eastern and Western Cape. http://www.dst.gov.za/links/cofisa/document/report_spa_2007.pdf The Innovation Hub’s Enterprise Centre, at which the COFISA offices were based in Pretoria, South Africa


always in isolation and had not been able to gain the level of acceptance necessary to proceed.

A key part of the COFISA programme was a Science Park working visit to Finland in August 2007. Attended by key people from DST, Stellenbosch Municipality, the Eastern Cape Provincial Government and Small Enterprise Development Agency (SEDA), they were exposed to six different cities and their science parks,67 as well as key role players who worked together to contribute to regional strategies. This provided understanding of the contributions they made to organisational governance. Visits to the Ministry responsible for the Centres of Expertise programme (called OSKE) also provided the link to the national strategic framework. This ran concurrently with a high-level visit led by the then Minister of Science and Technology, Mosibudi Mangena, which further broadened exposure to similar elements and institutions.

The Finnish science parks did not all fit a standard mould but had their own focus areas, appropriate to the location, and some with unique features. The strong message was that science parks and cities focused on economic benefits to their communities, with alignment of vision and objectives. It was also highlighted that innovation is not only about science and technology, but that social innovation is also a key element, a factor that is sometimes overlooked in South Africa.

The study, however, also highlighted that a number of other innovation-driven, multi-organisational debates were taking place in the Western Cape around similar

themes to Science Parks. The awareness of the COFISA study promoted a much wider discussion which led to new directions, as will become evident later.

The Eastern Cape, with its different economic centres, posed more complex challenges. In each, as in the Western Cape, one could see potential and needs for an institution which could bring the elements together, but that in this region, the developmental history and government priorities were equally important factors. The conclusion reached was that on the balance of factors, COFISA’s emphasis should be on a potential science park in the East London area, and linked to the East London Industrial Development ZONE (ELIDZ), which itself was a centre of economic growth.

67These were: 1) Oulu – Technopolis & Oulu Innovation; 2) Snowpolis in Sotkamo; 3) Joensuus – Science Park and University; 4) Kuopio – STP Teknia; 5) Lahti – Lahti Science and Business Park & LUT School of

Innovation; and 6) Helsinki – Helsinki University of Technology.

68Segal, N. (2008). Science and Technology Parks and Economic Development : Lessons from European Experience, (Private Communication and IASP XXVth World Conference Proceedings, 2008).

While the feasibility studies could foresee that the elements for a new STP were present in a given region, the real challenge lay in conceptualising

and implementing a project that could address local needs and objectives, while still retaining global ambitions. Success would be directly dependent on the right champions as well as the correct mix of services and infrastructure.

During 2008, the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs commissioned a study to review and critique the European experience relating to science parks and economic development.68 The intention was to better understand those elements that could be important for developing countries, where the background and

history can play a key role and wide heterogeneity exists. Extracting from the findings, some of the observations were directly relevant to COFISA’s identified STP opportunities, as summarised below:

• Whereas in developed countries, the overall strategy was towards innovation and the generation of sophisticated technologies as a means of moving their economies up the value-chain, this may be an unrealistic expectation in an emerging country.

• The role of SMEs, even if they only start through marketing and distribution of high-technology products and services, can move up the value-chain in

Facing the Challenges

time. Incubation support can catalyse this movement, and also strengthen links between the associated university and industry.

• It is important to identify those sectors or features of the economy which are important in terms of output, exports and employment, and which would benefit from the application of research and teaching to sustain their outputs.

• The knowledge base goes well beyond science and technology to intelligence about markets, industrial structures, corporate performance, intellectual property rights, financing mechanisms, and regulatory issues amongst many other factors.

• Where the R&D base is not well developed, the presence of an ‘impatient’ political and developmental agenda, and naivety about the complexities of the innovation process, too readily leads to equating innovation with invention.

It thus becomes important to use all the available learning from the developed countries such as Finland, but always keeping in mind the circumstances in which the STP has to operate. Thus the report’s insights were valuable as check points going forward with the various project concepts for COFISA.

Eastern Cape

The recommendations of the pre-feasibility study provided good insight into the potential of an STP linked to the ELIDZ, but this was not adequate to scope the project in more detail. COFISA then commissioned a limited-scope feasibility study to augment the previous work.69 This study focused broadly on authenticating the pre-feasibility study findings, but importantly, created understanding of the key stakeholder objectives and potential engagement with an STP in the region. From this, a number of important constraints were identified and set as critical success factors for taking the project forward. Some of the important ones were:

• The Walter Sisulu University needed to be secured as an anchor tenant upfront, but not to create an exclusive relationship preventing involvement of other academic institutions;

• DST and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) needed to be approached to introduce specific platforms for innovation support and entrepreneurial development;

• The STP should create focus and niche opportunities; and

• It should develop clear global positioning.

There was a clear conclusion that at present there insufficient entrepreneurial activity and momentum within the immediate region to justify a bottom-up science park development. The implication of this is that development of an STP will require long-term provincial or national support to create self-sufficiency and sustainability.

Thus, while recommitting to the initial conclusions, this study very objectively laid out key parameters to consider, and a proposed action plan. One supplementary benefit was widening the discussion amongst the regional role players.

As is COFISA’s philosophy, the rest of this story is told by a local champion through the case study presented later in this chapter.

Western Cape

As described earlier, the pre-feasibility study did not conclude positively on the original development concept in Stellenbosch. However, as is often the case, the participation in the process revealed other concept embryos involving new and important role players.

The development of Cape Town, like most parts of South Africa, had strong influences from the apartheid era, with the newer universities (University of the Western Cape and Cape Peninsula University of Technology) located in the more industrial areas of the city in Belville. This, together with the presence of the Medical Research Council and the Tygerberg Teaching Hospital (involving the University of Stellenbosch) has created an intellectual node of considerable substance. Thus the potential of a science park built on collaboration with the perceived benefits of local development of a knowledge-based precinct stimulated the formation of an action group. This spontaneous multi-role player reaction, with local championship, was just the initiative for which COFISA was

69Kakko, I. (2008). Report on the Limited-scope Feasibility Study into the Establishment of an East London IDZ Science Park (www.cofisa.org.za/pdfs/


searching and thus became a focus of the programme. The progress in this regard and the true emergence of the concepts and plans is presented below as our second case study.

Developments in Cape Town, however, had other important dimensions. Whether by virtue of its scenic beauty or cosmopolitan lifestyle, the city has become a major national centre for design, fashion, arts and crafts, and film and multimedia. This industry has started to form a natural cluster in the central business district (CBD), and has received support from both the province and city through the creation of support institutions such as the Cape Craft and Design Institute, and the Cape Town

Partnership Creative Cape Town Initiative. The design-related faculties of CPUT are also located in the area, and are providing leadership to establish a more participative and collaborative design precinct.

The City of Cape Town’s Integrated Development Plan supports this and seeks to position Cape Town as an innovation centre, with special emphasis on promoting SMMEs. Studies have been commissioned to examine the business case for formally creating a cluster with an appropriate management structure to grow the area as an economic hub. As many of the concepts relating to STPs have relevance to these debates, COFISA was able to provide information and knowledge support to these processes. A recent visit by a delegation from Cape Town to Barcelona to study their 22@Barcelona Urban Renewal programme shows the growing momentum in this venture.

What is evident is that the growing economic sectors which are knowledge-intensive require much higher levels of interaction and collaboration. The insights brought by COFISA and the encouragement of groups to join forces and think together of the ways forward have had a catalytic effect on a number of these developments. The challenge will be their sustainability into the implementation phases which require leadership and tenacity to achieve some major goals.

CASE STUDIES

Gauteng Province is highly urbanised and the core of the South African economy, generating 35.2% of the GDP, but having only 1.4% of the land area of

the country. The changes in the delimitation of provincial boundaries in 1994 changed the make-up and trajectory of the regional economy from the previous resource-based and heavy-industry orientation, to take much more cognisance of the emerging knowledge-led sectors. Starting with its new strategies coincided with the White Paper on Science and Technology, and awareness of the systems of innovation concept being introduced. The linkage of the goal of enhancing the knowledge–based contribution of the economy through an initiative based on a modern science park model as a driver was thus following a worldwide trend and consistent with national policy development. Given the make-up of Gauteng and the intellectual assets in the knowledge axis in the

City of Tshwane, the model for The Innovation Hub (TIH) was assessed as appropriate for the purpose. Gauteng was thus an early adopter in this new context, and even received international recognition when TIH was nominated as a finalist in the Intelligent Communities Forum’s Visionary Project of the Year in 2004.

From the outset, the TIH management were cognisant of the need to develop the future park’s capabilities to add value to knowledge-based companies. By starting in a pilot mode, the development of a virtual approach to build a community and learn of their needs through feedback proved most valuable. The so-called Hub2B became a natural meeting place for an ever increasing interest group. Based on this group experience a number of applicants took up residency at the Hub later in 2005 as they appreciated the benefits of collaboration with their

Gauteng Province

peers. Within a year, there were two anchor residents and some 70 companies on site, employing some 900 people,

some having graduated from the incubator, and others as new tenants.

The Innovation Hub, G auteng, S outh Africa

While successfully creating a resident community, there were oversights in terms of the role of TIH in the regional sense. In principle, the benefits of the science park in the City of Tshwane were acknowledged, but had little strategic impact in the city in terms of its development planning. Without this, TIH could have become an enclave that would not reach its full potential. These issues became clearer with the interactions between TIH and a Finnish/South African study team in 2005 during the assessment and planning stage for what became COFISA. These discussions helped define the challenges faced in strengthening the SANSI. With the launch of COFISA in 2006, the team soon established a strong relationship with TIH as a key role player in their programme for Gauteng, and later grew further when the COFISA offices became a resident. Opportunities were created for TIH staff to visit Finland and be exposed to the role that science parks played in their regional economies, as facilitators of innovation projects. In particular, the OSKE Programme was of great interest in its ability to promote triple-helix collaboration and linkages between R&D and industry, all designed to lead to local development. Given the acknowledged challenges in South Africa to break down the silo behaviour and close the commercialisation chasm, a programme of this nature appeared to meet the

requirement. COFISA thus launched a pilot project with TIH as champion in 2007. This became the Activator initiative discussed in Chapter 5.

The visits to Finland also highlighted the close relationships between most science parks and their host cities, with a particularly significant case being in the City of Oulu. This learning was introduced to the City of Tshwane and so the concept of a Smart City Project was initiated as a partnership between TIH and the City. The relationship between Oulu and Tshwane, facilitated by TIH, grew until a Memorandum of Understanding was concluded in 2008 on cooperation to establish this project. The project was launched in 2009, and specific initiatives are in progress at the time of writing.

TIH has thus been a significant partner of COFISA, and an agency ready to become involved in science park-based projects. This important role as a neutral intermediary cannot be underestimated and although still early days in the overall development, TIH has shown the potential of the science park model to impact on a regional innovation system, provided the critical assets are present. The road, however, is long to embed such programmes in the hearts and minds of the full community.


The East London Industrial Development Zone (Pty) Ltd (ELIDZ) is a government initiative aimed at stimulating regional economic growth, by

providing a conducive environment for the development and accommodation of export-oriented manufacturing

industries. The Industrial Development Zones are strategically located as back of port operations to facilitate access to foreign markets and thereby increase the location advantages for attracting foreign direct investment.

Eastern Cape Province

IDZs as an economic stimulating tool have been used throughout the world over decades and have yielded varied results in different countries. Many countries are operating third generation IDZs that have developed over time as the economic environment changes. When the South African government started some assumptions were made that gave rise to several programme objectives. The programme assumed that there would be technology diffusion into the local economy; that local SMEs would participate in the beneficiation value chain and that there would be large-scale absorption of labour. In reality these assumptions were far from the situation on the ground in that type of industry that is looking to locate globally was driven by new industry dynamics that mainly follow skills, new technology and established and efficient supply chains.

In fulfilling these divergent programme objectives the ELIDZ looked at developing an incubation environment to realise its objectives, as articulated in its founding mandate, and in its business plan of 2005. In 2006, it contracted the services of the Automotive Industry Development Agency (AIDC) to assist in the concept development.

In May 2007 the ELIDZ incubator model was presented to

various stakeholders ranging from industry, government institutions and tertiary institutions, most of whom had participated in the formative stages of the model. The business model was formulated around the principle that new business should be developed around individual feasible business ideas, with a focus on developing women entrepreneurs, technology development and skills development. The lack of entrepreneurial skills was cited as a major constraint in the success of the model and a training programme was incorporated. The model did consider the exploitation of commercially-ready ideas from institutes of higher learning, but this was not an integral part of the model. Rather, institutes of higher learning were viewed as sources of academic training that would be used only to train incubatees.

At about the same time as the stakeholder launch of the ELIDZ business incubator model, COFISA was conducting a pre-feasibility study into STP development in the Eastern Cape.

COFISA’s pre-feasibility studies in the Eastern Cape suggested that there were sufficient building blocks for the development of an STP - in particular, the four universities and other incubation activities which were already established plus the ELIDZ incubation

development which was being conceptualised. The study also recommended the development of the STP around the East London area because of its proximity to the most economically depressed area of the province.

The ELIDZ was chosen because of the work already done in soliciting buy-in from stakeholders that included tertiary institutions for the incubation programme, an integral component of the STP platform and for developing industries and new businesses. Incidental to the choice of the ELIDZ was the strong brand the organisation had created by changing a greenfield development into an operating industrial hub with 14 investors in just three years.

A further two detailed studies were conducted under the auspices of COFISA. Of particular interest was the analysis of the policy environment to ascertain where the STP development could be accommodated. A number of policy ‘hooks’ were established from national, provincial through to local levels, that make reference to the creation of a number of different innovation platforms.

It is encouraging that South African universities have seen the need to form part of the collaborative platform for economic development. The Walter Sisulu University (WSU) was formed as a result of Government’s campaign of merging institutions as part of post apartheid rationalisation and inherited multiple campuses, some of which are over 300kms apart. As part of its campus consolidation programme, the WSU plans to establish a school of engineering that houses all engineering related courses in one new facility. As part of the establishment of the school of engineering, the university has in its plans to establish an STP, specifically to encourage innovation and to position the university as a major contributor to regional economic development.

The common goal of developing an STP has brought both the ELIDZ and WSU together and as a collective

exploring the location of the school of engineering and the science park in close proximity to the industrial zone. This presents an exciting model for the ELIDZ in that the collaboration will provide research and development opportunities to industries locating in the zone as well as provide skills from the school of engineering. This synergistic exploitation through proximity will provide the ELIDZ with vital retention capability, because companies can continue to re-invent or improve product to keep up with the ever-changing business environment. It will also enhance its value proposition. In turn, the WSU will have proximity to industry to assist in streamlining programmes and providing students with industrial exposure, industry research opportunities and an industry-funded innovation platform for new business.

The development of the STP is now at an advanced stage - site location details are being finalised and a fully fledged STP business plan will address issues of funding governance and sustainability. Other universities (Fort Hare, Rhodes and Nelson Mandela University) will be partners in the development of the STP and its key activities.

It is envisioned that by 2012, the ELSTP will be operational, following the Provincial Government’s commitment to the development of the STP as articulated in the Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs policy speech. In the meantime, the ELIDZ is establishing a pilot science park activity centre in 2010. The structure that will house this activity is under construction and will be completed in December 2009, with resources to run the pilot phase having been secured.

The commitments on the ground signal that the ELSTP has reached a point of no return. The challenge is to maintain the momentum, grow and show results. It has been an exciting journey thus far, having taken almost five years to reach this point. It may yet be some time before it reaches its full development.

Conversations about STP activities in the Western Cape started off at a disadvantage. Two previous attempts at STPs had been costly failures. The fact

that both of them were edge-of-town ventures far from easy contact with university researchers or industry and bore little relation to modern science parks counted little. The only mitigating circumstances were some definite

plans by Cape Biotech and the Stellenbosch Technopark; the establishment of knowledge transfer or innovation offices at three of the universities; and new IP legislation for state-funded research requiring the establishment of IP offices.

The University of the Western Cape (UWC) found itself

Western Cape Province - Progress towards a Science Park in Belville, Cape Town

State - of-the -ar t Automotive Supplier Park at the East London Industrial Development Zone


in the paradoxical position, along with CPUT and Stellenbosch University (SU), of having campuses centrally located in close proximity to one another in metropolitan Cape Town, but cut off from metropolitan amenities and ready synergies by apartheid planning. The challenges of knowledge transfer led UWC to begin exploring the possibility of STP activities in the surrounding area, and particularly in the area currently occupied by a Transnet container depot, located there as a balkanising apartheid measure.

Transforming the apartheid landscape has huge potential for transforming the surrounding area and building the economy. The future of the Transnet site was discussed with the Minister of Education, whose ministry facilitated a discussion with the Minister of Public Enterprises.

UWC also pursued discussions with Transnet officials and obtained help in preparing a development prospectus for the site which it shared with a consultant appointed by Transnet. With the matter on the agenda of national government departments, though far from settled, UWC consulted its academic neighbours, including the University of Cape Town (UCT) which is only 20km away on major highways. This step coincided with the first meetings of the national STP Forum, convened by the DST. The academic partner institutions in the Western Cape were all participants.

The OECD report on Innovation in South Africa was released at about the same time as the STP Forum meetings began. Two of the STP ventures mentioned by it as particularly successful are at Aarhus in Denmark and Turku in Finland. The universities in both locations are members of the Southern African - Nordic Centre (SANORD) which has its central office at UWC.

On a visit to these campuses two UWC executives were given significant insights into what made for the success of the STPs – all factors which confirmed the suitability of the Transnet site. At Turku, they met Dr Tapani Saarinen, Vice-President of the STP, who told them he was soon to come to South Africa for work with COFISA.

A meeting with Dr Saarinen and the Chief Technical Advisor of COFISA, Mr Lauri Kuukasjärvi, was arranged in Cape Town under the auspices of the Cape Higher Education Consortium (CHEC) which represents all the universities in the province. The appropriate Deputy Vice Chancellors of the Western Cape’s universities

were invited. This discussion led to a number of further interactions with COFISA as the possibilities of STP development were discussed. Some of the meetings were planned by COFISA, bringing together a larger group of players in the Western Cape, and others were at CHEC’s instance.

Earlier, CHEC had begun pursuing a much more active set of relationships between the universities and provincial and city government, which had previously treated higher education as beyond their competence. Summits with the provincial cabinet and with the city council led to formal memoranda of understanding and the establishment of task groups around certain areas of possible cooperation.

Spatial planning and urban transformation is one of these. Issues related to the STP for Bellville were placed on the agenda. This allowed more detailed discussion with urban and economic planners. There is a great deal of goodwill and principled cooperation. This has been very helpful and may lead to important alignments. However, there remain many issues to be resolved relating to the area envisaged. Its significance has not been seen in the medium term planning frameworks.

Over the same period, the universities (independently and through CHEC) have been pursuing more active relationships with business. The business leadership organisations have a clear understanding of the importance of innovation in economic development in the era of the global knowledge economy. Accelerate Cape Town has been an active partner in making new connections between business and the universities and has consistently invited the universities to its events. Its Cape Town 2030 planning exercise has given a significant place to innovation.

The Cape Town Partnership has achieved significant success in the old CBD and is behind efforts to establish a design centre in partnership with CPUT. It is also extending its scope to the areas beyond the old CBD and is interested in our planning. The National Business Initiative has consistently invited the universities to its events, facilitating easy discussion with business leaders. It also took the important step of inviting Carol Coletta, the dynamic President of CEOs for Cities and host of the Smart Cities radio programme in the USA, to address a meeting. Coletta’s powerful message was completely in accord with the planning already undertaken.

Three other significant factors have to be mentioned. Through TIH in Pretoria, the International Association of Science Parks (IASP) held its international conference in South Africa in 2008. This meant that many of the world’s major players presented papers, providing excellent examples of best practice, often, as in the case of Brazil and India, in economic circumstances akin to our own. On a smaller scale, SANORD held an international seminar on Science Parks in Cape Town in December 2008, bringing together many of the players mentioned here, along with some top international figures. Finally, the OECD’s report on regional development in the Western Cape was released in 2009, again bringing the key players in the Western Cape into a common discussion.

The triple-helix players have come to a point where they have significant common understandings and are probably equipped to escape the traps of the past and engage with the possibilities of a more visionary but practical future. At this stage then, COFISA’s sponsoring a study of the innovation players and networks in the Western Cape is

timely. The results will provide important baseline data for further planning. Simultaneously, the DST award of a grant for a feasibility study of a Bellville STP in terms of the national STP Strategy will take the matter another step forward. The award was made to UWC, but the study will be managed as a joint enterprise through CHEC.

There is still a long path ahead, but the opportunities for a major knowledge transfer environment with three universities within walking distance can be neglected only to the lasting embarrassment of all political, business and academic authorities concerned. South Africa and our region need the economic stimulus which this venture is likely to supply progressively. Even more, the attraction and retention of high level talent on a scale to support Cape Town’s aspirations and the transformation of an inner city environment to create a distinctively post-apartheid space with transformative implications for the surrounding areas must be powerful incentives. The choices should not be difficult to make.

North West Province

The Southern District Municipality of the North West Province embarked on an economic development initiative, called the Joint Development Forum

(JDF), in 2003 and identified fifteen infrastructure projects. One of the initiatives was a so-called industrial park. At that time, none of the members of the JDF was aware of STPS or the formal innovation system concept. It became apparent, however, that the principles of the triple helix were entrenched in the planning of the projects. The local university, North-West University (NWU), was involved in the planning from the outset, but purely from a socio-economic research point of view.

In 2004 the industrial park project was changed into one of a science park with adjacent entrepreneur parks, and in 2005 developed a feasibility study on the new concept. The pre-feasibility study was submitted at the end of June 2006. Since the author had been involved in the planning and establishment of the incubator in TIH in Pretoria, and continued to be a mentor in the incubator, much of the learning, as well as the experience gained from earlier working in and visiting of a number of other science parks/entrepreneur parks in Europe, Asia and Israel, was incorporated in the North-West Science Park (NWSP) study. With the new district municipal government, the JDF process came to a halt in 2006 and closer ties with the

DST were sought. The turning point came in June 2007 during the COFISA Science Park Seminar held at TIH. DST responded by noting the plight of the North West Province and funded the NWU to prepare a fully detailed business plan for the NWSP. This was submitted in October 2008. Since then, DST has also funded the initiation of some of the development programmes in the proposed science park.

Through COFISA four representatives of the NWSP project, including the architect, visited a number of science parks and universities in Finland in February 2008. This contributed much towards the conceptualisation of the programmes planned for the NWSP. COFISA advisors attended a presentation to the local city council’s executive major and assisted in the selling of the concept.

• The NWSP drew the attention of DST due to its unique model. It is located in the second poorest province in South Africa, in a region with very few resources, except for the “Most Innovative Higher Educational Institute in South Africa” (2008 Innovation Fund award). The NWSP is coined as “a university-associated science park in a rural context”. The model emphasises the integrative role of the NWSP in the technology supply chain serving the Provincial Growth and Development Strategy. Prof. Tor


Afeasibility study was commissioned by the Limpopo Provincial Government through Trade and Investment Limpopo. The work was conducted by

a Finnish consulting firm, Professia Ltd, that specialises in regional business development and innovation strategy solutions.

The objective of this project was to discover the most feasible concept for an STP in the Limpopo Province by assessing whether it would be feasible to weave traditional science park concepts and ICT development initiatives into the economic and social fabric of the Limpopo Province. A parallel study had been conducted to look at the feasibility of starting an ICT institute. While independent in form, these two studies are intertwined in content.

The study was conducted by engaging a large contingent of public sector stakeholders in two workshops; the two local Universities, University of Limpopo and the University of Venda, industry, as well as individual/expert discussions to explore the potential for, commitment to and interest in an STP concept. It was concluded from the interviews that there was interest in a technology centre or techno-hub type of concept. However, it was also concluded that the traditional concept of an STP would not, on the one hand, fulfil the potential of the province, and on the other hand, would not have a large enough research base from which to operate. Thus, the concept was expanded and subsequently renamed the Limpopo Living Lab to better illustrate the inclusion of not only academia and industry but also the civil society.

The Limpopo Living Lab promises to be an entity which has

strong business development potential (technology and innovation, incubation and entrepreneurship), and covers cooperation between business, universities, government and the civil society.

The direction for the Limpopo provincial development has been outlined in the Provincial Growth and Development Strategy document with the ultimate goal of improving the quality of life of the people in the province. The concept of a STP (now termed the Limpopo Living Lab) addresses these aspects of the provincial development through the enhancement of economic development.

The purpose of the Limpopo Living Lab is to:

• Retain the educated workforce in Limpopo;

• Attract and retain investments;

• Develop key clusters through knowledge creation, transfer and exploitation;

• Foster entrepreneurship;

• Create jobs; and

• Enhance collaboration among businesses, universities, government and the civil society for the development of the province.

For the all-encompassing approach already adopted in the provincial government departments, the proposed broader concept of the Limpopo Living Lab is thus based on a more holistic business development approach. It will

be established on the four cornerstones described above and listed:

• Community Projects;

• Training and Education (as part of the ICT Institute);

• Business Incubator; and

• Innovative Solutions.

In the incubator, business ideas are transformed into new companies. The inputs for it originate from various sources, the main sources being business spin-offs, universities and innovative solutions activity. Training and education together with community projects also generate business ideas, a majority of which can be handled by existing organisations (such as the Limpopo Business Support Agency (LIBSA). Financial and funding institutions such as venture capital companies, banks and LimDev are important partners for the incubator. As a result, companies which have potential for growth are generated.

The incubating companies, together with existing companies, generate needs for training and education,especially in the fields of business management, ICT skills

and project management. Much of the actual training and education is carried out by existing training and education institutions with the Living Lab acting mainly as an initiator, catalyst and coordinator. Due to output of this activity, local companies and the business environment in general benefit in the form of a more adequate and skilled labour force.

Training and education needs often generate community

projects. Community projects in the concept are looked upon from the business development perspective. An important aspect is that they can serve as a test bed for companies testing their products for markets in developing countries. Community projects result in more jobs, especially in existing or new local SMMEs.

Innovative solutions need the expertise from companies and universities as input for joint, mutually beneficial undertakings between companies and universities. Also, high innovation – low technology applications needed by local businesses in order to transform themselves for the purpose of reaching the next level are included in the concept as well as innovative ideas stemming from community-level initiatives. As a result, applications and solutions for the benefit of the local economy and companies are generated as well as seeds for new SMMEs.

Developments in Other Provinces

TIH, as well as its predecessors in Gauteng and Western Cape, were all initiatives of provincial or local government, or universities. Since 2003, further

initiatives have followed the same route in a number of provinces, viz. Northwest, Limpopo, Free State and Western Cape. Despite these bottom-up projects and concepts all having a common goal of enhancing the system of innovation, there was at that stage no acknowledgement of such institutions in national policy, nor were there structured support systems.

The 2007 Science Park Seminar which highlighted the SANSI, and started as a local event, proved to be a major milestone with representatives from Botswana, Ghana, Namibia, Senegal, Nigeria and Swaziland describing their own projects. It became very clear that despite Africa being a late starter, the development of science parks as an instrument of emerging systems of innovation was widespread and growing.

This seminar appeared to stimulate increased discussion at all levels, including national, and The Manufacturing, Technology Transfer and Local Innovation Group of DST became active, firstly in a process to stimulate regional innovation in the provinces. Later in 2008, they initiated The Science Park Forum with the intention of developing a National Science Park Strategy. From these deliberations, in February 2009, a Science Park Development Plan, as it had now been titled after discussion with the DST Executive, was tabled and represents the first promising step in augmenting the bottom-up initiatives with a national support structure. Much work remains to fully integrate these elements, but COFISA’s role during the process proved most valuable.

In parallel, DST has continued with a series of Regional Innovation Systems seminars, where representation comes mostly from regional government. COFISA has been a significant contributor to such meetings and has provided many insights into this critical topic.

Limpopo Province - Limpopo Living Lab (Limpopo Technology &

Innovation Initiative)

Halverson noted during the SANORD conference held in Cape Town in December 2008 that this model is nearly the only one that will work in Africa.

The status of the NWSP at the end of September 2009 is as follows:

• NWU, the present home for the project, is an associated member of IASP;

• The Environmental Impact study has been approved by the province;

• The rezoning for the science park activities has been completed;

• The plan has been presented to the Premier’s executive committee’s technical committee;

• The occupation rate is already at 76% of the rentable units in the park; and

• Six of the ten NWSP development programmes have been initiated.


LESSONS LEARNED

The COFISA Programme came at a critical time and has provided objective inputs and oversight over the process of encouraging the linkages to create

Regional innovation Systems. The enthusiasm about science parks could have become a risk, but much learning has been stimulated in the resultant engagements, both through contacts locally and in Finland. The focus on Systems of Innovation, from the policy through to specific interventions, provides a framework which was missing in the debates. Science Parks are now considered in perspective and their role and potential better defined. Much emphasis has been placed on the linkage of regional development with the activities related to an STP, which will enhance the approach around future projects. This learning is now being shared with neighbouring countries in the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

It is good to highlight what an STP is not:

• It is not an exclusive ‘real estate’ development, if it is to contribute value to a Regional Innovation System(RIS);

• It is not a ‘silver bullet’ which is all one needs to progress in a knowledge economy; and

• There is no one model for a Science Park as the objectives and local ecosystems and needs determine the scale and the required activities.

What then should an STP strive to achieve:

• Science Parks can play important roles as neutral intermediaries in building an RIS. STPs are about relationships and collaboration, and it

must understand the needs and aspirations and potential of local industry;

• An STP can provide a focal point or ‘hub’ to connect fragmented components of an innovation system, and provide added-value functions to this community;

• The linkage of an STP to knowledge-generating institutions such as universities, research institutions and progressive businesses is an important ingredient, and needs to be stimulated for the STP to grow;

• In developing areas, there is no need for an STP to aspire to be a centre of world-class high-tech innovation, when the ecosystem is not ready and really requires a focus on technology acquisition, adaption and deployment. Keep the dream but deliver what is needed at that time;

• An STP is a long-term project. Careful assessment of the needs and objectives must be made to ensure the appropriate model is chosen;

• STPs are ideal locations for technology-based SMEs who benefit from being in a stimulating community of like-minded people. The encouragement of entrepreneurship and the use of incubation are thus fundamental components of any modern STP; and

• The Board and Management of any STP set the tone and are absolutely critical in meeting the objective of growing an active RIS. In the establishment phase, significant effort should be placed in the selection process, with advice from experienced people locally and abroad.

Moving Forward – The Next Steps

COFISA has opened our eyes to the potential of a vibrant system of innovation. It has often been said that South Africa does not lack

inventiveness, but it is poor at taking good ideas to market, or implementing them for social good. We have become a nation of competitors, and emerged from the previous isolated era, to a world which moves fast, and has learned the power of collaboration and continuous interconnection. For a system of innovation to develop and impact, be it national or regional, there is a need for

new policies and institutional arrangements. Modern science parks, internationally and increasingly so in developing countries, are becoming essential parts of the innovation ecosystem because of their ability to work across boundaries, stimulate collaboration and support the growing innovative and emerging businesses. Furthermore, the role of universities and research institutions is also changing, with increased emphasis on the commercialisation of research and technology transfer. Thus the synergy with science parks is both natural and

mutually beneficial, provided the roles and responsibilities are well understood.

Many seeds have been planted over the past 36 months. For the innovation system to grow, these projects and interventions will need to be nurtured. New structures such as the Technology Innovation Agency (TIA) of DST have an important role to play in ensuring that the lessons learned and initiatives are supported and nurtured as part of a coherent system of innovation, active at regional level.

Critical elements should be maintained:

• Regional Innovation Forums should be strengthened and need to ensure that they have multi-helix participation

• The current projects in the planning phase in the Eastern Cape, Western Cape, Northwest Province and Limpopo should be nurtured as core to the regional innovation system development, and not left in isolation once COFISA ceases;

• The Science Park Forum of DST needs to be revived and should evolve into a Science Park Association with defined roles, as with the Finnish Science Park Association (TEKEL) in Finland. One major requirement will be for science park management training to ensure the capacity exists to drive the new projects at an internationally acceptable level;

• Support and funding should be provided by National Government for the added-value activities on science parks, to avoid these being cut through internal

budget limitations and evolution of these parks into regular business parks;

• Attention should again be given to the earlier projects, such as the Stellenbosch Technopark and Capricorn, to re-engage their managements as part of this new wave of science park developments.

• Science Parks should be integral in the quest for commercialisation of research. Much is said about the gap created because the research is far from ready, and needs to progress further. New institutional frameworks and environments may be necessary to grow this capability, as has started to emerge inthe USA as proof-of-concept centres, or in Israel with Accelerators.

• We all still have much to learn about collaboration and pooling our strengths in the challenge of being an innovative and competitive nation. If science parks can contribute to improve this performance, then they will have made a major contribution to society. One major aspect of the learning is that “more of the same will not be enough” if South Africa is to become a significant player in the future knowledge- based economies of the world.

• The African Region of the International Association of Science Parks (IASP), launched in 2007 at the IASP World Conference in Johannesburg, has been dormant. Special efforts need to be made to ensure that this can become an important role player on the continent.


INTRODUCTION

In recent years the importance of monitoring and evaluating for development projects has been increasingly recognised. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) allow one to gauge not only whether a project is

executed in line with the stated objectives and results, but also to assess its wider impact. M&E during the execution of a project has the potential to assist in improving performance and achieving better results. Thus the immediate purpose of M&E is the measurement and assessment of performance of a project in order to manage its outputs and outcomes more effectively.

The practice of building into development projects, from their inception, the ability to effectively monitor and evaluate the performance of a project is becoming more commonplace. If this is not done, then the task of evaluation at the termination of the project can be exceedingly difficult.

The necessary data for assessment may not be readily available, and collating such data at the end of the project may be impossible because the data do not exist, or such an exercise may be possible but only at great cost.

History of Beginnings: A Learning Paradigm

From the outset those responsible for setting up COFISA recognised the important role that an M&E function had to play in contributing towards the programme’s success. This was reflected in COFISA’s

original Programme Document which called for a monitoring system that would “facilitate a continuous self-evaluation as part of programme

planning and decision-making”. It also set out an extensive Logical Framework (LogFrame) including specific objectives, results, indicators, sources and assumptions. However, at the time, no further details were specified concerning the envisaged monitoring system. There were several factors which had to be taken into account in shaping this function and the eventual M&E framework that was implemented:

• At the beginning of COFISA’s implementation there was a great deal of uncertainty concerning the specific form (and related activities) that the programme as a whole would take. The M&E framework therefore had to be shaped by the contents of the provisional workplan for the first year (which needed substantial revision), and the LogFrame contained in the original Programme Document. Thus, from an M&E perspective, there were two fundamental questions that had no straightforward answers:

o Specifically what was to be monitored? and

o Who would undertake the monitoring?

What was apparent, however, was that significant flexibility was required, allowing for adaptation as the programme became more clearly defined.

• Four full-time staff, all new appointments, were assigned to the programme (two Finnish experts and two South Africans, the latter including the national programme coordinator and a programme officer). None of these had the benefit of having being part of the initial process of conceptualisation and planning.

• There was initially a major vacuum in tacit knowledge of the programme as two key actors, one Finn and one South African, independently took up new assignments in Europe just as COFISA was getting off the ground. Both had been instrumental in making COFISA a reality, and had been primarily responsible for developing the conceptual framework for the programme.

A major factor that shaped the M&E framework was the strong belief that learning should be a central dimension, if not the primary focus of the M&E framework. As a starting point, the need was fully recognised for funding partners to assess the benefits accrued by their investment in the programme. However, what was seen to be of much greater value was a strong emphasis on enabling learning for the stakeholders of COFISA, both in the short term and in the longer term. This view was aligned with the sentiments, even if tersely expressed, in the Programme Document. There were several reasons for an emphasis on learning:

• There was a large degree of experimentation associated with the concept behind COFISA, it being a holistic and systemically-focused intervention to enhance a country’s system of innovation at several levels, in concert with several other related interventions. In this respect,


COFISA was breaking new ground, not only in South Africa but also worldwide. The exercise of implementing COFISA was very far removed from that of implementing a development project using relatively known technologies and methods (even if the outcomes were uncertain). In the case of COFISA there were significant uncertainties as to the specifics of what course or approaches should be followed, which tools would prove effective, and not least, how a small team with limited human resources should best engage with the ambitious objectives as articulated in the Programme Document. The possibility of failure (as perceived by the funding partners) was real; but a learning paradigm holds out the option of reframing failure as a stage on the path to successful outcomes.

• The primary purpose of COFISA was to enhance the system of innovation at different levels. Since an innovation system is made up essentially of people along with their actions and interactions, both as individuals and institutionally, enhancing this system will of necessity involve individual and institutional learning. COFISA as an (institutional) actor that was as much part of the system as any other, was itself not exempt from the need to learn. If anything, the imperative on it to learn was more pressing given that it would need to make adjustments to strategies and tactics as the system of innovation evolved and changed, from its initial state to (hopefully) states of increasing enhancement. Thus learning had to be built into the DNA of COFISA.

• COFISA had a wide and diverse range of stakeholders at national, provincial and local levels - from the private and public sectors, SMMEs and large enterprises, research and academia, and NGOs. Many of these stakeholders were key players in the innovation system and as such, their cooperation and collaboration was a sine qua non for COFISA to achieve its objectives. This would become unlikely if COFISA was seen to forge ahead on its own predetermined path, while oblivious to opportunities for learning and course correction as articulated by its stakeholders.

• Finally, there is considerable overlap between building an innovation system and building a knowledge society or economy. Fundamental to a successful knowledge society is ongoing learning.

In line with this emphasis on the importance of learning for the programme, the ‘learning’ dimension was made explicit in the programme’s M&E function, resulting in the function being known as the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning function, or ME&L.

The ME&L Framework for COFISA

The ME&L framework evolved over a period of about six months, as the nature of the programme and its activities solidified, and a better understanding was

gained of what was necessary and what was practical in terms of monitoring the programme and undertaking evaluation. The framework is set out in Figure 8.1 below.

Figure 8.1. The Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Framework for COFISA

Three components were envisaged, which together would contribute to a rich assessment of the performance of the programme and also allow for adjustments to be made. These components were:

• Qualitative: ongoing interviews with stakeholders, which would offer wide-ranging feedback;

• Quantitative: assessment of LogFrame indicators,

which would offer feedback that was largely output- oriented, and, to a degree, outcome-oriented.

• Quantitative and analytical: assessment of relevant innovation system indicators, based on readily available data, which could provide feedback that was outcome- and impact-oriented.

These three components are now discussed in more detail.

The Logical Framework (LogFrame) Approach

The Logical Framework (LogFrame) Approach (LFA) is a project design tool which uses an objective-oriented approach to planning, although it also

provides the basis for M&E projects. It has been widely

used by the development community, particularly by major donors, for assessing the performance of projects.

The LogFrame itself is based on a 16-block matrix:


In the far-left column the logic of the intervention is set out in increasing granularity as one moves down the column:

• Overall objective: the overall objective refers to the high-level objective to which the project as a whole contributes. Other projects and interventions may also contribute to the overall objective.

• Project purpose: this is the objective that should be reached by the intervention itself.

• Specific objectives and results: the results are outputs that together will lead to the achievement of the project purpose. Results can be structured under specific objectives for convenience, in which case the set of specific objectives, supported by their results, will lead to the project purpose being realised.

• Activities: these have to be undertaken for the results to be delivered.

The methodology is based on the assumption that the combined low-level activities will contribute towards achieving the desired specific objectives or results, which in turn contribute towards realising the purpose of the project. By achieving the purpose a contribution is made to the overall objective, which provides the context for the project.

In the second column of the matrix the objectively-verifiable indicators are set out. Indicators are intended to be quantitative measures which determine whether the corresponding result, purpose or objective has been achieved. Generally indicators will focus on what has changed and by how much.

The third column lists the sources of verification used to assess the value of the indicators at any point in

time, while the fourth column describes the project assumptions, i.e. factors external to the project, and therefore beyond the control of the project organisation or team, yet which are important for the successful realisation of the objective, purpose and results.

The Programme Document for COFISA included a LogFrame matrix that set out the overall objective and project purpose along with four specific objectives (corresponding to the four components of the programme) and their supporting results. Associated indicators and sources of verification were also identified, and in some cases assumptions were articulated. The LogFrame was required by the Programme Document to be used as an assessment tool for COFISA.

In the context of the ME&L framework, the LogFrame was positioned as a monitoring and evaluation instrument that would focus largely, but not exclusively, on more immediate activity-level outputs rather than higher-level outcomes. The advantage of this approach was that it provided a basic way of tracking the outputs of specific activities that were considered important in themselves, and for their contribution to the objectives of COFISA. Specific, quantitative indicators were formulated that measured the outputs of the activities. An extract of the LogFrame table is presented in Figure 8.2.

Steering Committee

Project purpose

Activities

Overall objective Sources of verification AssumptionsObjectively-verifiable indicators

Specific objective 2Provinicial mechanismsand structures for supporting innovationstrategies, coordinationand collaborationestablished in Gauteng,the Western Cape and the Eastern Cape

• DST and provincial governments that innovation policy and strategic planning frameworks and support ar in place in the provinces

• Pilot provinces remain committedto the development of the SANSI

Component 2: Supporting Innovation in Gauteng, Western Cape and Eastern Cape IndicatorsIntervention Logic Sources of verification Assumptions

• Strong leadership and clear visionat provinicial level

• Programme reports• DST annual reports• Provincial / local annual reports

Programme monitoring and evaluation mechanisms

21.a Foresight forums or working groups established in the provinces2.1b Reports available of the results of the Foresight baseline studies and Foresight exercises21.c Number of people trained with Foresight capabilities

Result 2.1Foresight capabilities developed and applied in the pilot provinces

Expected results Indicators Sources of verification Assumptions

Table 8.1. Lo gFrame Ex trac t for COFISA

There is some danger associated with following a set of output-oriented indicators, where there may be a temptation to view a set of completed indicators as signifying a successful outcome. This may have greater validity in the context of a programme that is intended to produce tangible outcomes. In the case

of COFISA, however, there is an inherent complexity, if not impossibility, in defining its outcomes in ways that are measurable, and for access to the requisite data to be practicable. This prompted the need for devising additional ways of monitoring and assessing the performance of the programme.

Qualitative Monitoring and Evaluation

The second component of the COFISA ME&L framework comprised a set of interviews with stakeholders of the programme. The aim was to gain

stakeholder inputs on a wide range of issues related to the definition of the programme and its implementation. Interviews were conducted every two or three months with a different set of stakeholders each time. Usually, but not always, the stakeholders involved in a round of interviews were selected on the basis of some common characteristic, e.g. interviews with those who were members of the programme’s governance structures, or with those who had participated in a particular initiative.

The interviews were conducted using a standard framework of topics and issues. However, this was modified slightly at times in order to address issues that

were of particular interest at different stages during the programme. The interview framework was merely a starting point and interviewees were free to make any inputs that were felt to be important or relevant. By the same token, if an interviewee had no particular knowledge concerning an issue raised, the interview simply proceeded to the next issue. Where practical, interviews were undertaken face-to-face. Where this was not easily arranged, telephonic interviews were conducted.

The inputs from all stakeholders in a particular set of interviews were collated, synthesised, and presented in a written report. All inputs were presented anonymously to encourage the sharing of candid perspectives. This was explained to interviewees prior to the interview.

Sources of verification AssumptionsObjectively-verifiable indicators

Sources of verification AssumptionsObjectively-verifiable indicators

Assumptions


There were several facets to the purpose of the interviews:

• It was recognised that stakeholder inputs would be essentially qualitative and subjective as they usually had a vital interest in the success of the programme as a whole, or of one or other aspect of it. (The exception proved this rule: in one or two interviews it became clear that the programme was perceived more as a threat or hindrance than anything else). Thus the feedback from the interviews was largely based on perceptions. Nevertheless, because of the importance of stakeholders to the success of COFISA, such

perceptions constituted an important input to the programme’s management team.

• During the interviews there was an attempt to glean not only superficial perceptions of stakeholders, but also to uncover any insights that could be given into underlying dynamics, inhibitors and hurdles, and potentials. Where possible, actionable inputs were sought.

In as much as the interviews were wide-ranging, the information gathered was pertinent to both outputs and outcomes, and even impact, of the programme.

Quantitatively Measuring Outcome and Impact

In order to complement the activity-oriented, quantitative monitoring provided by the LogFrame indicators, and the perception-based, qualitative

monitoring provided by stakeholder interviews, a third component was added. This was based on quantitative measurements that would be focused more on outcomes and even impact, rather than outputs. Since COFISA was designed to strengthen the innovation system, it was important to assess to what degree its impact could be measured. In principle, it may be possible to measure the impact by analysing data that characterises the innovation system and its performance. In practice, there were two issues stood in the way of such an assessment:

• Would the impact of COFISA (if there was one) be of sufficient magnitude to be detected?

• If an impact were to be detected, on what basis could

it be attributed directly to interventions associated with COFISA?

Despite some doubts as to feasibility, it was decided to proceed with this approach and to take it as far as readily-available data would allow. It was deemed to be of sufficient value merely to establish the non-viability of the method if that proved to be the outcome. In the event, insufficient data was available, particularly at the provincial levels, to measure any impact on the innovation systems due to COFISA. However, in the process of establishing this, a significantly valuable contribution was made to understanding what indicators could be used in practice to assess the performance of the innovation systems at a national and provincial level, and what gaps existed in the available data. This study is set out in detail in Chapter 9.

Conclusion

While having to grapple with the complexities and sometimes nebulous nature of COFISA’s context, operations and outcomes, the programme’s

monitoring and evaluation efforts were focused on

enhancing the learning from inputs gleaned, for the programme itself, and for its stakeholders. Some of the results of these efforts are presented in the following two chapters.

Foresight working visit to Finland - Thembinkosi Semwayo, Mphathi Nyewe, Mlungisi Cele and David Lefutso (left to right)


INTRODUCTION

Any initiative to change an innovation system has some explicit or implicit results in mind. These results will vary considerably. They may be enhancing output in a community’s agricultural sector

or increasing a nation’s engineering graduates. This chapter examines systemic means by which we can assess the results from interventions in an innovation system and through evaluation of those assessments facilitate a learning environment around the respective innovation system’s operation.

Facilitating a robust Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (ME&L) environment is assumed in assessments. However, assessments should not be seen as recipes. When done well assessments balance the needs and resources associated with an innovation intervention. This may require adjusting frameworks to ensure relevance and comparability.

Systemic assessments can play an important role in governance, planning and coordination, not only around the intervention of concern, but within the broader innovation environment in which these actions occur. They can demonstrate value and promote accountability as evidence is generated for programme and policy improvement. Through their systemic approach they can facilitate coordination across a range of agents who might otherwise perceive their roles in isolation to others. The evidence produced in these assessments can also be used in subsequent project and policy planning, and revision of priorities and resource allocations.

As a developing nation striving to advance an inclusive knowledge intensive economy, innovation assessments offer an important tool for South Africa. The true value of an assessment is primarily evident through the engagement it creates with its users. This engagement is not static, as the function of assessments develops with the users and producers. An initial function of assessments is to provide diagnostic advice about interventions in the innovation system. In this role assessments are about identifying what is working, what is not, and what needs work within an innovation system. As the needs and abilities of those using and producing the assessments develop, the function of assessments becomes more developmental and facilitates the achievement of strategic objectives and planning priorities. A further function of assessments is distinguished by the interactive role they play in identifying and developing objectives and priorities themselves. In this evolutionary role assessments are integral features of the learning and planning environments in which innovation system interventions are designed.

Systemic assessments are not project- or firm-specific, micro-level indicators, but they can support micro-level evaluations as elaborated later in this chapter. This chapter reviews assessment instruments before turning to an illustration of their application in the COFISA initiative.70

70References and a selected list of useful resources can be found at the back of this publication.

There are a variety of instruments that can be used in assessing an innovation system. This section reviews characteristics of two benchmarking instruments:

• Innovation system scoreboards (ISSs); and • Innovation policy scoreboards (IPSs).

It then discusses features of two evaluation instruments:

• Innovation system appraisals (ISAs); and • Innovation policy appraisals (IPAs).

Assessment Instruments

Innovation System Scoreboards (ISSs) are increasingly popular tools. An ISS allows a variety of complex relationships and indicators to be presented in a relatively accessible structure. ISSs thereby facilitate the

identification of strengths and weaknesses in innovation systems as well as providing evidence over time of the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of innovation interventions. In presenting and interpreting ISSs it is important to carefully consider features that might be missing from an ISS as they can make solutions or problems appear overly simplistic.

The importance of an indicator such as a nation’s total research and development (R&D) expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), referred to as GERD, illustrates this potential pitfall. Policy makers may see differences in GERD as a clear indicator of their innovation gap. Therefore, they may target GERD in isolation from other necessary components such as skills development as they seek to catch up with more innovative nations. This policy of unique indicator-driven reproduction can result in inefficient allocation of scarce resources and retard otherwise functional components of an innovation system.

Despite these potential dangers, quality ISSs facilitate stakeholder engagement that is needed to develop an innovation system. Internationally there are several well-established ISSs, among the more comprehensive being the biannual OECD Science, Technology and Industry (STI) Scoreboard71 and the annual European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS).72

In contrast to the expansive OECD STI Scoreboard the European Innovation Scoreboard focuses on key indicators of innovation.

To the authors’ knowledge the South African Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Scoreboard 2008 developed within the COFISA ME&L programme was one of the first ISSs to be developed for South Africa. Details of how the scoreboard emerged within COFISA are discussed later in this chapter, but in the present context it is useful to elaborate on significant features of the Scoreboard.

Innovation System Scoreboards (ISSs)

71www.oecd.org/sti/scoreboard

72www.proinno-europe.eu


The SA STI Scoreboard follows an innovation systems approach in presenting indicators across five structural areas of the national innovation system:

Knowledge Demand

This presents indicators of the existing economic environment and developmental challenges such as sectoral output, trade performance, and age distribution of the population as well as poverty and inequality indicators.

Knowledge Mobilisation

This includes indicators around the scale to which the nation’s resources have been mobilised to engage in the innovation system. An important aspect of this dimension were indicators of educational attainment and skills development. Because of its role in facilitating learning and access to knowledge, this section also reported indicators of information and communication technology (ICT) availability.

Knowledge Inputs

Knowledge input indicators are the traditional focus of innovation policy. These include a range of indicators associated with R&D investments. Other indicators include foreign direct investment (FDI) and fixed capital investment. These investments represent inputs into the knowledge system as they are assumed to generate tacit knowledge. Research and scientific workers are another important set of indicators within this area.

Knowledge Outputs

The frequency of innovation and impact of innovations, as reported in innovation surveys, are reported in this section. Other indicators of knowledge outputs include:

• Entrepreneurship, which is measured by the rate of start-up company creation;

• Bibliometric indicators, as these are important indicators of research outputs associated with innovation. Owing to prohibitive costs of accessing proprietary sources of this data, bibliometric indicators were not included in the scoreboard.

• Patents, as these are an important output indicator

rich with detailed information on the geographic and collaborative structure of invention.

Knowledge Flows

This includes indicators on the structural dynamics of innovation, for example, the mobility of highly-skilled individuals. In South Africa an important indicator in this regard has been the increasing number of post-graduate African learners attending South Africa’s higher education institutions (HEIs). Other indicators include foreign direct investment networks, as frequent trading partners are often associated with knowledge exchange.

As with any quality ISS, indicators throughout were selected when underlying data was publicly available and enduring. This often limited disaggregation but it ensured reliability and transparency.

Together the various sections of the scoreboard form a systemic view of the South African innovation system. As such, it provides important evidence about needs and priorities in South Africa’s development of an inclusive knowledge intensive economy. The scoreboard also identifies gaps in indicators about the system. The scoreboard helps identify areas for further data and indicator development, thereby facilitating understanding about data coverage over the entire national system of innovation.

Innovation policy scoreboards (IPSs) are another primary tool in the systemic assessment of an innovation system. These scoreboards typically compare innovation policy

indicators among regions or nations. As such they are important inputs to policy assessments of good innovation practices. The European Commission’s INNO-Policy TrendChart is a significant example of an IPS.As there is not as yet an IPS covering South Africa, the structure of TrendChart is discussed below.

TrendChart tracks the development of innovation policies across Europe and a selection of other nations. It defines an innovation policy measure as any activity that mobilises resources through innovation-orientated activities, which mobilises information geared towards innovation activities, or which mobilises institutional processes explicitly to impact on the innovation system. These policies must not be ad hoc and must contain some public funding as well as be open for private sector participation73.

TrendChart also reports policy measures across five categories:

1. Governance and Horizontal Research and Innovation Policies

This section covers innovation strategy documents such as green and white papers on science and technology as well as S&T structural funds. It also tracks cluster initiatives and innovation strategies as well as the horizontal support of financial measures. Innovation policy advisory services such as technology Foresight, sectoral strategies and cluster mapping are additional measures tracked in this category.

2. Research and Technologies

This section reports on policy measures to advance the relevance of research in HEIs, the number of research infrastructure initiatives, as well as the number of public and research organisations. Knowledge transfer offices are also tracked as are cooperative R&D initiatives. Indirect R&D support such as tax incentives, and direct R&D grant and loan programmes, are another important dimension to this section of the policy scoreboard.

3. Education and Skills Policies

Policies supporting science and technology education are reported and include initiatives to enhance awareness around careers in science. Policies to improve the relationship between teaching and research are also reported in this area. In terms of S&T skills development, this section tracks initiatives to increase PhD graduates, improve productive researcher mobility, recruitment of skilled personnel, and enhance on-the-job training of researchers.

4. Innovative Enterprise Policies

This section reports on sectoral innovation programmes and tracks programmes supporting organisational innovations and innovation management. Included are programmes to support risk capital finance and innovative start-ups. Lastly, this section reports on inter-firm technology transfer initiatives.

5. Policies Supporting an Innovative Culture

Initiatives such as technology road shows that are used to create a favorable innovation culture are tracked. It also records innovation prize initiatives; fiscal incentives for the diffusion of innovative technologies, products and services; and policies promoting intellectual property rights awareness and applications. Innovation impact assessment of regulations or policies is another area followed in this section.

The policy measures are reported on a count basis by country. These policy indicators are updated on an annual basis as individual country reports are produced.

In its entirety an IPS like TrendChart is an important source of system assessment of the innovation policy environment. Therefore this would appear to be an important area for potential development in South Africa. However, it is also important to realise that many aspects of an IPS are also covered within innovation system evaluation and these may also be major sources of information for assessment.

Innovation Policy Scoreboards (IPSs)

73www.proinno-europe.eu


Given the complexities of an innovation system, it is increasingly evident that benchmarking alone is not adequate and some form of multi-dimensional

evaluation is required if learning is going to be a product and process associated with an assessment. Therefore, both innovation system appraisals (ISA) and innovation policy appraisals (IPA) are important instruments to facilitate alignment and increase the value of interventions within innovation systems.

Depending on its purpose and the availability of information an ISA should at least consider addressing nine areas in its evaluation:

i. Institutional environment;ii. Resources;iii. Framework rules and policies;iv. Research system;v. Innovation networks;vi. Infrastructure and technical services;vii. Human resource development; viii. Critical socio-economic agents and interests; and ix. Performance.

Within the institutional environment consideration should be given to regulatory institutions. This includes institutions that have an implicit role in innovation, such as the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS); as well as explicit regulatory institutions such as South Africa’s Companies and Intellectual Property Registration Office (CIPRO). Private sector institutions promoting innovation and entrepreneurship also form part of the institutional environment as do technological initiatives.

Resources for innovative activities cover specific innovation funding and related broader financial access. Characteristics of venture capital markets

and entrepreneurial finance are significant features. Government financial incentives, direct funding and indirect tax incentives are also reviewed in this section.

The area on framework rules and policies examines innovation-related policies and their inter-relationships as well as many policies that are not explicitly innovation policies, but which have an important role in the innovation systems. In this regard initiatives such as regulatory reform or inter-provincial re-districting can have a significant impact on innovation yet are not explicit innovation policies. Foreign policy is another area that can have significant impacts on the innovation system through networking opportunities or through the curtailment of existing networks or changing competitive dynamics that drive innovation.

The research system component examines the structure of the innovation system’s research institutions and their inter-relationships and linkages to the larger political economy. Public and private research institutions lie alongside HEIs in their importance. Particularly given the often significant role played by public sector institutions, identifying their alignment and downstream relevance can be important information for policy makers to use in performance monitoring.

Innovation networks are very significant features of an innovation system. Among other roles they facilitate information sharing and user-producer feedbacks. Innovation networks are also a significant source of tacit knowledge diffusion through the interpersonal connections that compose the networks. Localised networks or clusters are also often significant features and their identification can promote competitiveness. Analysis of the structure of innovative networks can also be make a meaningful contribution to an ISA - such an analysis

Innovation System Appraisals (ISA)

may identify critical “gatekeepers” within the network who need to be better targeted if they are to influence the network.

Infrastructure and technical services covers a range of institutions and facilities of relevance to innovation systems. These include metrology and instrumentation capabilities, design centres and technical service providers. Basic infrastructure such as internet bandwidth, energy supplies, and shipping facilities may make important contributions to the structure and direction of innovation.

Human resource development is an area of critical importance to an ISA. Not only do HEI enrollments and graduations matter but also the fields of those learners, and their demand by the innovation system. In a country like South Africa, primary and secondary education systems and their preparation of students for study at HEIs are also significant features that will typically warrant some discussion. Within this area issues such as

skills development and continuing education are often important characteristics of an innovative workforce.

Critical socio-economic agents and interests address the structure of the economy and of existing innovation. It places these within the context of the system of innovation’s population structure, and the political and cultural features of that population. In essence this area of an ISA seeks to provide a contextual overview of the innovation demand and that demand’s agents.

Lastly, the ISA needs to evaluate the innovation systems performance. This need not be a separate area of analysis as it will often make more sense to assess concurrently within the discussion of a particular area. Wherever it occurs, appraising the performance needs to draw on available evidence so that performance is discussed in the context of alignment with other parts of the innovation system. Furthermore, the evaluation should try and identify as well as differentiate outputs, outcomes and impacts from the innovation system.

Innovation Policy Appraisals (IPAs)

Innovation policy appraisals (IPAs) are closely related to ISAs, but are differentiated by their emphasis on the evaluation’s integration into policy planning. As with

the ISS, the European Commission and the OECD offer good examples of IPAs. In Europe, the INNO-Appraisal initiative within the PRO INNO Europe programme draws IPAs from across Europe and analyses them along with other evaluations in order to systematically advance innovation policy within Europe and integrate innovation policy across Europe. The OECD IPAs review achievements in innovation within OECD member and non-member countries in order to identify means to improve that performance and promote learning about best innovation practices.74

IPAs are more explicit than ISAs in their concern with moving evaluations beyond external events to become a learning feature. As such, IPAs attempt to play a role in planning innovation policy measures as well as the more traditional control and audit function. In support of this function IPAs include explicit evaluation of the innovation system’s governance. This review examines implementation of initiatives and the effectiveness of

their monitoring and evaluation system. IPAs will also examine innovation policy challenges and opportunities. In this area issues such as stakeholder conflicts that could impede innovation policy as well as latent demand that could be supported by innovation policy may be examined. Lastly, IPAs will contain an evaluation of policy objectives and trends. Reviewing the dynamics of innovation policy objectives, this component of the evaluation attempts to highlight congruence or incongruence within and among innovation policy.

Given the variety of assessment instruments available and the breadth of their coverage, initiating an assessment may appear to be a daunting task. However, assessment may take a variety of forms and need not use all of the available instruments. In fact, the systemic assessment of the COFISA programme used just the ISS. User and producer needs, and available resources, will determine the nature of the assessment. Given the multi-dimensional nature of an assessment there are many means through which it may contribute to a range of stakeholders in the innovation system. This is illustrated in the next section where the systemic assessment of the COFISA programme is discussed.

74 PRO INNO Europe (2009). PRO INNO Europe INNO-Appraisal. http://194.78.229.57/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.display&topicID=53&parentID=53 www.oecd.org/sti/innovation/reviews OECD Reviews of

Innovation Policy.


Systemic Assessment of the COFISA Programme

The COFISA ME&L activities planned for a systemic assessment of all projects. This assessment was originally going to be based on indicators derived

from a Baseline Indicator Study that had already been commissioned before the appointment of the ME&L team. Unfortunately, the initial drafts of the Baseline Indicator Study did not address many of the systemic indicators needed for evaluation. After several rounds of consultation it was decided that the consultancy originally envisioned for providing the indicators would not be able to deliver the type of transparent, reliable data needed for evaluation. Therefore, the ME&L team, in consultation with the COFISA Secretariat, agreed to compile an Innovation Scoreboard, which would expand understanding of the system of innovation and provide a summary of reliable data with which to assess the COFISA programme. The commitment led to the production of the South African STI Scoreboard 2008.

The SA STI Scoreboard covered the national level and the three focus Provinces of the COFISA programme: Eastern Cape, Gauteng, and the Western Cape - details of the scoreboard approach were discussed above.

Once the SA STI Scoreboard was compiled, the ME&L team turned its attention to applying it to the assessment of the COFIA programme. The 44 indicators contained in the scoreboard were identified in a table of factors where the COFISA projects might have impacts. Using the 17 June 2008 version of the COFISA LogFrame a similar table of expected results from each of the programme’s four key result areas was compiled. These were then combined in a spreadsheet to form a factors-and-results matrix. Each of the ME&L Team members and an external consultant then ranked each factor with respect to each result according to a four-point scale ranging from zero (no impact) to four (high impact) on this indicator (factor). These results were then consolidated to identify the main indicators for each of the key result areas.

As this factor-and-results report was being reviewed by the ME&L Team it became apparent that available indicators would not be adequate to use in a systemic assessment of the COFISA programme. This inadequacy had two primary causes:

i. The data from which the indicators were derived was not available at a level sufficiently disaggregated to identify COFISA’s target populations.

ii. Lags in the likely impacts of the COFISA programme would mean that the assessment timeframe was not adequate to capture the results.

The ME&L Team identified potential micro-level surveys that could be conducted to address partially some of these short-comings from available data. It was however readily apparent that the resources which these additional surveys would require were beyond the time or scope of the ME&L programme or any reasonable expansion thereof.

Importantly, this was recognised as an important lesson from the COFISA ME&L programme. Reviewing the scoreboard highlighted important contextual details that would have been of tremendous value to the planning of COFISA. Unfortunately, as there was no scoreboard available at the time, COFISA’s planning developed without it. Recognising this role, the COFISA Secretariat has promoted the dissemination of the SA STI Scoreboard and, in conjunction with the ME&L team, has engaged stakeholders across the national innovation system. The aim has been to make them aware of the 2008 scoreboard, highlight the need for a regularly updated scoreboard, and describe potential benefits from the development of other evaluation instruments.

The systemic assessment of COFISA was not a costly and elaborate production that required tremendous resources. On the contrary, the assessment developed an ISS for evaluation based on reliable statistics that were readily available. This scoreboard was widely distributed to have as great a learning impact as possible. Using the scoreboard and the COFISA programme key results areas, the ME&L team systematically reviewed the measurability of the initiatives. The resulting analysis showed clearly that available indicators were not feasible for the evaluation. After detailing alternative means to provide data for assessment the ME&L team, in consultation with the COFISA secretariat, decided that programme assessment would be focused on programme level outputs. Chapter 10 presents a preliminary synthesis of these findings. This is to be followed by a summative evaluation in early 2010 that will survey stakeholders and participants in COFISA programmes to derive an indication of associated outputs, outcomes and impacts.

While at first glance it might appear that the systemic assessment of the COFISA programme was not a success, further consideration proves otherwise:

• The COFISA assessment showed clearly the need to develop the innovation system evaluation culture and capacity further. The programme has contributed to this directly through the production of an ISS for South Africa.

• COFISA has also worked to highlight the need for the further development of these instruments through engagement with a variety of stakeholders in the national system of innovation. Thereby, the COFISA programme has demonstrated the important role assessment, even on a modest scale, can make to evidence-based innovation policy. It has also highlighted the benefits of moving towards assessments playing a more developmental role in innovation interventions.

Conclusion

It is possible to characterise assessments as possessing a higher level of analysis when they are integral to the design, planning and realisation of innovation

interventions. Nevertheless, this chapter has also shown that, even when assessments play a more traditional diagnostic role, they may contribute to further development of “higher level” assessments. As South Africa seeks to advance towards an increasingly inclusive and knowledge intensive economy, development of innovation assessments will play an important component.

Moving forward, there are several important lessons that could be incorporated into any future COFISA-like initiative:

• It is critical that lessons from systemic assessments are built into policy making.

• Systemic assessments undertaken before a programme commences should appraise strategic goals and contribute to the objectives and indicators on which the programmes have to deliver.

• During the lifetime of a programme, assessment should evaluate progress toward the goals and indicate the extent to which it is delivering on its objectives.

• In the final stages of the programme, assessment should indicate the success that the initiative has had in meeting its goals and compare the results with the expectations.

• After the conclusion of the programme, the assessment should indicate the level of success in delivering outcomes, and contain an evaluation of its impacts in order to formulate lessons for further recommendations.


INTRODUCTION

Afull summative evaluation of the COFISA programme, including a comprehensive assessment of the lessons learned, is planned for early 2010 after the formal termination of the programme.

Therefore, the lessons learned that are set out below, and which are drawn from the experience gained and the monitoring and evaluations to date, must be viewed as provisional.

Several aspects of COFISA represent a new approach to development cooperation. The programme was the first in a suite of programmes that targeted the nascent South African innovation system and knowledge society holistically and systemically. As such, and with the benefit of hindsight, there are important lessons to be learned even at this stage when the programme is almost but not yet complete - particularly from the inception phase of COFISA,75 but also concerning other aspects of the programme.

The programme is a composite whole. From one perspective it consists of:

• People with a wide variety of expertise and roles;• A multitude of objectives, results, and activities;• Evolving processes and practices;• Governance and management structures;• Definition along with ambiguity, coherence along with tension; and• Static snapshots of a dynamic programme-orientated system.

The lessons learned during the past three or so years touch or cut through several of these and other aspects in a complex way. They often do not stand alone, but are interlocked and complement each other. Yet they must be, and are, presented in a sequential fashion using categories that offer one (limited) view of what is termed with disarming simplicity ‘COFISA’.

75See Section 1 for a detailed description of the inception phase of COFISA.

Inception

During the first year or so of COFISA’s life as a programme, progress in implementing the workplan was much slower than expected by most of its stakeholders, as well as what was desired by the staff

who made up the Core Management Team (CMT), and who were directly responsible for implementation. There were a number of factors that contributed to the slow start.

First, while there were several individuals whose involvement was essential in making COFISA a reality, as is often the case, there were those who acted as champions, and without whose vision and energy the programme would have foundered before it commenced. In the case of COFISA there were two such champions, one within the South African Department of Science and Technology (DST) and the other in the Finnish Ministry

for Foreign Affairs (MFA) – both based in Pretoria. Due to circumstances unrelated to COFISA, both champions left the country, leaving a knowledge and leadership vacuum which resulted in significant delays in getting implementation underway and a considerable learning curve for the newly appointed COFISA staff.

The initial delays were compounded by the fact that COFISA’s governance structures were not in place at the start of the programme. These structures consisted of a Supervisory Board and a Steering Committee. The Supervisory Board held supreme decision-making authority for the programme, and was required to approve the programme’s budget before any expenditure could be made. The Steering Committee was involved at a more operational level and sometimes made recommendations to the Supervisory Board, including concerning the budget.

It took considerable time to set up the Supervisory Board and the Steering Committee. Suitable candidates had to be approached and their agreement obtained, and then meetings of the Committee and Board arranged. Although the staff team commenced work on the workplan in December 2006, they were unable to commit to any significant expenditure because there was no approved budget. They were therefore severely impeded and execution of the workplan was effectively stalled for several months.

The first Steering Committee meeting was held in March 2007 and it took another two months before the first Supervisory Board meeting was held, in May 2007. At this meeting, spending on the budget was authorised, and COFISA’s resources could finally be deployed effectively.

During the period when the Supervisory Board and the Steering Committee were being constituted, there was a sense that COFISA had two ‘masters’, namely the DST and the MFA. The direction provided by these two institutions to the COFISA staff team was sometimes uncoordinated. In addition, even once the Supervisory Board and Steering Committee had been appointed and had met, Board members and Committee members were themselves still unfamiliar with COFISA and its intentions. Thus, although they formally took up their roles, the ability of Board and Committee members to provide guidance to COFISA was hampered until they had gained a better understanding of the programme, its intended purpose and objectives, and the role that it could and should play.

Finally, the CMT were under considerable pressure from the inception of the programme to execute the workplan and show results, despite not having had the time to plan properly and prepare for the first initiatives. There were also major obstacles to be overcome. For example, 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. Furthermore, in the context of pressure to execute the workplan, one apparent indicator


of progress of implementation that was easily measured (even if misleading) was expenditure of the budget. There was thus unfortunate pressure to spend the budget, especially given the limited three-year lifespan of the programme.

Lessons Learned

• Ensure that governance structures or arrangements are in place early, to avoid delays in implementation. The governance structures of a programme are always an important element. In the case of a programme such as COFISA they are essential for the programme to operate. Establishing them is therefore on the critical path, and early attention should be paid to identifying suitable candidates, and ensuring that those appointed are briefed sufficiently to allow them to play their intended role effectively from the start of the process. The establishment of governance structures before the programme staff commence implementation would also prevent the confusion that can result from their receiving direction from more than one programme sponsor.

Despite determined efforts to establish governance structures at the inception of a programme, delays should be anticipated. A bridging arrangement should be set up so that, if necessary, an interim budget may be approved for the inception period of the programme. Approval of a first-year budget can then be initiated once the appropriate governance structures are in place. Such an arrangement would ensure that the work programme is not unduly delayed.

• Establish an adequate formal inception phase for the programme. For a programme that is complex and breaking new ground, allowance should be made for a substantial inception phase (four to six months) during which time the CMT may identify and address knowledge gaps to commence the programme, gather information where possible and appropriate, and adjust the workplan accordingly.

Another important activity that may be started during an extended inception phase is that of gaining buy-in from key stakeholders. There is, however, a chicken-and-egg aspect to gaining buy-in at the early stages of a programme that is somewhat exploratory and experimental: some stakeholders would first need to understand the

programme more tangibly before being able to offer it their support.

The desire on the part of the sponsors of a programme to see ‘quick wins’ is expected and understandable, but in the context of a programme that must take a strategic and systemic approach to enhancing something as complex as an innovation system, such desire is misplaced. Initially, the CMT laboured to produce quick wins, but later it realised that such an approach could result in valuable resources being committed to an initiative that was expected to be quick to deliver a ‘win’, but that in reality simply tied up resources in a longer-term process of dubious outcome. In short, the pressure for ‘quick wins’ during the inception phase should be resisted by the governance structures.

• Build the Core Management Team. COFISA’s CMT was made up of a small number of individuals who were drawn from a wide variety of backgrounds, with various levels of experience, and with no clear structure within the team. For any programme such as COFISA it may be expected that similar conditions would apply. Thus an intentional team building process should be put in place over several months, appropriate to the composition and experience of the CMT, to facilitate trust and close collaboration (the very qualities that are necessary in a well-functioning system of innovation).

• Ensure continuity of thought leadership. The departure of key champions at the commencement of COFISA has been mentioned. This created a leadership and knowledge vacuum that was difficult to fill. While it may not be possible to ensure the availability of such persons at the beginning of a programme, the potential impact of a departure should be anticipated and mitigating arrangements put in place as far as possible.

Governance

As mentioned above, there were delays in commencing implementation of the workplan due to governance structures not being in

place. On the whole, once established, the governance structures worked well. However, there was a lack of clarity concerning the different roles of the Supervisory Board and the Steering Committee, which resulted in some confusion. In theory the Board was meant to play a more strategic guiding role, while the Committee was meant to be more operationally involved. However, the similarity in size and composition of the two bodies blurred this distinction. Each consisted of five members who were leaders in their own right in the SANSI, along with a few persons who were directly involved with the programme. One of the motivations for involving a relatively large number of key actors in both the Board and the Committee was to extend COFISA’s linkages into the SANSI. A significant deficiency in both bodies was the lack of provincial government representation, which

reflected the initial lack of engagement with the three target provinces.

Lessons Learned

• The different functions of a programme’s governance structures should be clearly understood. While the involvement of so many stakeholders in both governance structures may have served a useful purpose, this goal may have been better achieved by setting up a reference or advisory panel for the programme, with selected representation from the Supervisory Board and the Steering Committee.

• The most important stakeholders should be represented on the governance structures. In COFISA’s case there should have been significant provincial government representation on the governance structures to ensure better buy-in and inputs regarding provincialperspectives.

Alignment

Alignment’ is an important word in South Africa, especially in the context of building a democracy and an equitable society in the face of skewed

structures and limited and unequally-distributed resources. ‘Alignment’ can have different meanings and implications for different people. It can mean being compatible with the high-level policies and strategies that have been adopted. It can also mean falling in precisely with the detailed priorities and processes that direct an agency or entity.

During the early stages of COFISA’s existence, questions were raised about its perceived alignment particularly at the provincial level. It was stated directly by one or two stakeholders that it was not seen as aligned and therefore as irrelevant or at worst an impediment.

For programmes such as COFISA to succeed, a necessary condition should be its fundamental alignment with relevant, over-arching policies and strategies as followed by principal stakeholders. For COFISA this meant alignment with both the National R&D Strategy and Finnish development policy, both of which were taken into account when the programme was conceptualised. However, during COFISA’s lifetime, the DST developed a

ten-year plan which presented a revised expression of its medium- and long-term strategy. Efforts were required to ensure and articulate COFISA’s alignment with this new statement of DST’s strategic direction.

An important function of COFISA was to act as an agent of change and to introduce new thinking and new ways of operating into the SANSI. This raised an inherent conflict of roles - a programme that is fully aligned at all levels would be very unlikely to effect or facilitate change, particularly change in the strategies to which it is aligned. Thus selective non-alignment by COFISA should be viewed as a virtue, and essential to any programme that is intended to facilitate change. This insight was not explicitly understood at COFISA’s inception, but was articulated more clearly during the course of the programme as momentum and confidence grew.

Lessons Learned

• Formulate and articulate a clear position and message concerning alignment. Efforts should be made during the inception phase of the programme to think through the question of the programme’s alignment to the various policy, strategic and tactical positions that


are relevant to its objectives and workplan. Depending on the environment and climate within which the programme operates, more or fewer resources may need to be devoted to this exercise. The governance structure should also be involved in agreeing a position on alignment.

• Be ready to adjust where necessary to changes in the strategic context of the programme. Undertake an exercise to reformulate and rearticulate the programme’s position concerning alignment, depending on changes to its strategic context.

Linkages

Amature system of innovation is characterised by, among other features, a multiplicity of linkages and relationships between practitioners and

organisations, across many sectors and levels in the system. In this respect, the SANSI required substantial enhancement, as a key deficiency was certainly the lack of widespread cooperation and collaboration amongst players. This lack was recognised by COFISA’s workplan, inasmuch as specific activities were targeted at fostering linkages. However, the impact of the lack of a culture of collaboration and knowledge-sharing on COFISA’s ability to execute its own workplan, especially during the early stages, was underestimated. This created significant challenges for COFISA as its only institutional link was to the DST, with little experience or knowledge in the staff team of other potential stakeholders, especially at a provincial level, and how they could best be engaged.

Even COFISA’s linkage to DST was not without its own challenges. The ideas and discussions that led to the establishment of COFISA took place within the DST’s International Relations section. Thus the COFISA work plan was very much in line with the Department’s thinking. However, with little participation from DST staff who were responsible for implementation of the department’s own programme of work, COFISA was often viewed by them as an appendage to DST (or even as an unwanted intruder) rather than as being integrated into DST’s priorities and activities. This general perspective was maintained for much of COFISA’s life. It was only in the last year or so of the programme’s existence, and through strong leadership exercised within DST, that the tide turned, and COFISA became recognised as making an important contribution towards DST’s mission.

The impact on COFISA’s execution of the lack of a culture of cooperation was aggravated by the fact that constitutionally, science and technology is a national, not a provincial competence in South Africa. There are therefore no entities or components within provincial

government that have S&T as part of their mandate. Therefore a DST-driven initiative does not have an immediate point of contact at the provincial government level. The implications of this were not fully recognised at COFISA’s inception. Instead, the Programme Document made the assumption that substantial provincial-level buy-in would already have been secured by the time the programme commenced. In reality, there had been almost no consultation amongst potential provincial government stakeholders prior to the formulation of the Programme Document. This led, not unexpectedly, to an initial reluctance, and even resistance, to engage on the part of provincial government staff, who perceived that a national department was encroaching on provincial territory, which was not within their national mandate.

On the positive side, COFISA’s Futures exercises (Foresight) were of great benefit not only in respect of their specific outcomes76 but also for building a network of innovation system stakeholders at a provincial level. This created and in a few cases strengthened linkages amongst such stakeholders, and in particular with COFISA.

Lessons Learned

• Developing linkages requires considerable time and effort. A ‘big-bang’ approach to developing linkages is not possible, nor is it desirable. Instead a sustained, organic process of engaging with stakeholders and gaining their buy-in should be planned for, to enable the effective implementation of the programme of work and to foster longer-term successes for, and perceived value to, stakeholders.

• Linkages are needed with a range of government departments or ministries. While the DST was key as the lead department for COFISA, attention should also have been paid to other departments and entities that are closely integrated into the SANSI, such as the Departments of Trade and Industry, Communication,

Education, and the Presidential National Commission on Information Society and Development (PNC on ISAD). 77

76See Chapter 4 for a detailed discussion.

77The PNC on ISAD was important because of its role in coordinating Information Society-related efforts in South Africa.

Stakeholder Management and Awareness Raising

Asignificant deficiency in COFISA was the lack of stakeholder management and development, especially a lack of follow-through at senior levels of provincial government

as well as with the private sector. Stakeholder management and development is difficult and requires specific skills and experience. COFISA did not have the necessary capability in this area, and the deficiency became more acute as COFISA attempted to engage more deeply with these stakeholders.

Related to the above point, a greater level of continuing advocacy was needed, especially in the provinces. This included the need to raise awareness concerning the SANSI and the Provincial Systems of Innovation (PSIs) amongst a wide range of stakeholders. The language of innovation that is integral to COFISA was poorly understood, or misunderstood, by some of COFISA’s stakeholders. Concepts such as ‘innovation systems’ in both its national and provincial flavours often needed to be explained, both in terms of what they signify and in terms of their relevance to existing strategies, programmes and priorities.

Underpinning any stakeholder management initiative is the need to build trust between role players. This is a necessary (although not a sufficient) condition for a well-functioning system of innovation. In addition to creating opportunities for such trust to be built, programmes such as COFISA should raise awareness amongst role players of the need for this essential ingredient.

A unique and particularly important stakeholder for COFISA was DST, and key members of staff within DST. COFISA’s National Coordinator had a formal reporting relationship into DST, but this was into the International Relations section of DST, not into one of the parts of DST responsible for implementation. This reporting relationship contributed to the initial distancing of COFISA within DST and made it more difficult for COFISA staff to engage productively with DST staff who were working in domains of immediate importance to COFISA.

Lessons Learned

• Stakeholder management and awareness-raising should be recognised as essential and be properly resourced. Appropriate


activities that support stakeholder management and awareness-raising should be built into the workplan, and they should be resourced with people who are adequately experienced and who have the ability to bring alignment amongst stakeholders towards the programme and its objectives and activities as needed.

• Catalytic interventions such as COFISA need to be mainstreamed into the sponsoring department’s or ministry’s activities. This must be implemented with care to avoid what is a change agent (COFISA in this case)

from being smothered by existing thinking and practice. Thus the responsibility of the programme towards its governance structures must be recognised and emphasised. Nevertheless, without being mainstreamed, a programme such as COFISA faces an uphill battle to be viewed as being part of the solution rather than being part of the problem. In addition, as a catalytic intervention but that is not mainstreamed, it has no inherent ability to maintain any momentum after its limited lifetime has ended.

Resources, Workplan and Administration

COFISA started its life with a highly ambitious workplan, especially for its first year of implementation. While the workplan was both

internally consistent and coherent, it was also insufficiently focused, with too many initial activities, particularly given the limited available human resources. The net result was that considerable unplanned work was necessary to make the workplan practical and well-adapted to the realities of the SANSI. Such flexibility is crucial for a programme such as COFISA, which was venturing into new territory with a range of significant unknowns. It was only as the programme moved forward that the problem domain became better understood and programme activities could be modified to meet changed needs.

The need to adjust the workplan at the outset highlighted some of the issues related to the programme’s human resources.

• There was a lack of programme-related knowledge within members of the CMT;

• Levels of experiences differed significantly across the COFISA team - the Finnish Technical Assistance experts brought their expertise and many years of experience, while the South African staff were less experienced (as might be expected). This difference was exacerbated by the fact that no early appointment was made for the position of National Innovation Advisor (NIA), which was to be filled by a South African expert.78

• Finally, little attention was paid initially to the need for an administrative function for the programme that would take care of the arrangements and processes necessary for contracting service providers. A state

institution was contracted to address this requirement, but the particular needs of the programme, especially for efficient processes, were sometimes not met.

Lessons Learned

• The roles and responsibilities of CMT members should be clearly defined, and more importantly, collaborative and teamwork skills need to be developed and enhanced. This point has already been mentioned in the context of programme inception, but it is also relevant for the whole duration of a collaborative programme such as COFISA. In this context a good understanding is necessary by the governance structures of the inherent tensions likely to arise as a result of the need for local, potentially less-experienced leadership, while acknowledging and harnessing the experience of international technical advisors.

• The choice of local staff should be made with care, with particular attention being paid to their potential and willingness to learn and grow in what are stretching roles. In this respect, COFISA set a positive example that should be followed in future programmes of this nature.

• Support structures for less-experienced local staff must be put in place. One way of achieving this is through the establishment of experienced management support and mentoring relationships. These aspects were not addressed adequately in the case of COFISA, and there were unnecessary and unwanted consequences.

• Adequate time and energy should be allocated to allow local staff, both individually and as a team, to undertake learning activities. This could be achieved through

78An NIA was eventually appointed during the third year of the programme.

formal and informal methods of learning without impacting negatively on the expected productivity of the team.

• Greater capacity needs to be allocated to carry out networking activities with stakeholders at national, provincial and local levels, in the public and private sectors, and with civil society. The programme had adequate financial resources (to the extent that during the first two years the ability to spend lagged behind the available budget). However, as indicated above, there were some deficiencies in capacity. There would

have been value in contracting in selected emissaries to fulfil this networking role, even if only to prepare the ground for subsequent follow-up by COFISA staff.

• Special programmes such as COFISA require customised administrative procedures. In the case of a special purpose programme, standard administrative arrangements are often not up to the task because they are designed for different purposes. Adequate conceptualisation is necessary in this area, along with effective implementation.

Making a Contribution

Any assessment of COFISA at the time of writing must be viewed as provisional and subject to the more wide-ranging and rigorous evaluation that

will be undertaken after termination of the programme. Nevertheless, it is already possible to identify that COFISA has contributed value to the innovation system in two general ways:

• At the level of specific projects or activities, a number of initiatives have been started that have made or are making a definite contribution, to a greater or lesser degree.79

• In addition, COFISA has played a facilitating and enabling role in promoting engagement and collaboration between practitioners and institutions in the system of innovation. Although an essential function for the effective operation of the SANSI, this was previously not being performed by any other entity.

Some further general comments concerning COFISA’s contribution may also be made in this regard:

• COFISA attempted to identify some of the gaps in the innovation system and to address some of these according to perceived priorities and its own resources. This often implied playing a role that complemented the activities and outputs of other institutions in the

system. Such a role adds value when the innovation system is not fully formed, but there is a delicate line to tread between, on the one hand, taking the lead and making effective progress, and on the other, alienating organisations that perceive their own areas of responsibility as being usurped.

• Broadly speaking, the SANSI is highly rigid, with ‘silo-thinking’ being the norm, with only the barest hint of an emerging culture of collaboration. The task of making communication, cooperation and collaboration the expected norms amongst practitioners in the SANSI is huge. There is still a long way to go before the triple-helix model of strong linkages between the public sector, the private sector, and the education/research sector is widely understood and put into practice. The activities undertaken by COFISA may be viewed as being ineffective when measured against the problem as a whole. Nevertheless, COFISA has managed to raise awareness concerning these issues amongst a wide range of people, numbering in the hundreds, and platforms such as the Futures exercises, workshops and seminars have been provided where the artificial boundaries in the SANSI could be crossed and collaboration initiated.

• COFISA has played a major role in introducing key innovation concepts to practitioners at all levels, but most notably at the provincial level. The language of innovation is better understood and used, which in itself promotes more effective communication amongst disparate actors in the innovation system. In addition, practitioners can now better identify and play their own roles.

79These are discussed in Section 2 of this publication.


80See Chapter 5 for a detailed discussion.

The Way Forward

With the life of COFISA having drawn to a close the question arises – ‘On what basis will COFISA’s initiatives and role be sustained?’ This question

assumes that COFISA’s contribution has been of value, and that furthermore it has been delivered on the basis of value-for-money. The assumptions are affirmed to be valid, at least in part, by much of the content of this chapter.

The question has received some considerable attention, particular by DST, and also by other stakeholders. One aspect is clear: COFISA’s role of facilitating collaboration and networking cannot simply be transferred to the DST, because there needs to be a level of flexibility and agility which cannot be expected from a government department. Instead, there needs to be an agency that is perceived to have legitimacy and credibility, that works in synergy with DST, but which has a distinct identity. It is unlikely that the newly-established Technology Innovation Agency (TIA) could fulfil this function.

An agency that continues some of COFISA’s initiatives will need to have a deep and comprehensive understanding of innovation in all its facets. Staff will need to be passionate, and will need to be seen as credible and impartial by key stakeholders. They will have to be well-networked amongst practitioners in the SANSI. While having clear objectives, outputs and activities defined, they would need to operate within a learning paradigm that enables the right balance between perseverance towards difficult but valuable and viable objectives, and avoiding the wastage of resources on objectives that are of value but are unattainable.

In conclusion, the longer-term impact of COFISA still needs to be assessed and thereby understood. It is to be hoped that there will be opportunity in the next two or three years to make that assessment, and thus provide further learning that may be applied to future initiatives. These could build on what has been a stretching, enriching, frustrating and valuable exercise over the past three years in stimulating the formation and growth of systems of innovation, for the longer-term benefit of South Africa’s people, and in time, the people in the subcontinent.

• Introducing new concepts and a more effective language of discourse is an important first step, but the task of changing mindsets and resultant behaviours is a long and difficult process, and is perhaps insufficiently understood as being a fundamental priority for enhancing the innovation system.

• In South Africa there is much documentation (e.g. policies, strategies) concerning innovation and related issues, but the practical application of these documents has been missing. COFISA has demonstrated how a start may be made to put policies and strategies into action. For example, it has been a vehicle for bringing together the private sector and academia, and for helping them both to be aligned towards fostering innovation.

• One of COFISA’s approaches, namely bringing world-class experts into the country to share their experiences and to communicate new perspectives on current issues, has proved to be extremely valuable. This has resulted in some significant changes to the approaches taken towards economic development. The experts did not come with ready solutions and an expectation that these solutions were the answer to local challenges. Instead, they offered to relate their experiences and share their knowledge. Local practitioners were then allowed to adapt and apply the knowledge thus gained.

• COFISA played an enabling role - it did not implement projects using its own resources, thereby disempowering the local actors. Instead, COFISA created opportunities for gaining awareness (by for example bringing in world-class expertise) and enabling local actors to make things happen.

• COFISA has made the contribution that it has (despite some weaknesses) because it has been able to operate in a flexible way, to move with agility, and to take calculated risks where appropriate. At the same time, the formal link with the DST has provided it with legitimacy and credibility, both essential to its success. Other institutions could have undertaken some of COFISA’s initiatives (including the DST itself, and other entities at a national or provincial level), but COFISA’s facilitating and enabling role required the unique characteristics of being closely linked and allied to DST, while at the same time distinct from it.

• With the perspective that ‘learning’ articulates in one word what COFISA’s goal is at the highest level (to enable the innovation system to learn to function more effectively), while at the same time understanding that

learning can often imply reflecting on ways that wouldhave improved performance, it is useful to identify those areas where improvement is seen to have been possible and of value.

• Although COFISA has been a programme of the DST (and the MFA), there is little evidence that mindsets have been changed significantly in DST. For example, it appears that there is little progress in addressing the issue of research and technology push, versus asking the questions: What is the value that can be added? What is the role of innovation in creating jobs? This is, of course, a huge task.

• More attention could have been paid to some of the ‘hygiene factors’ that are important in building a culture of innovation. For example, understanding helpful and unhelpful ways of communicating with people must be learned, either implicitly from experiencing and observing the behaviour of others, or by being explicitly taught.

• There has been substantial exposure to Finnish expertise and experience, both through the visits of Finnish experts, and through local practitioners undertaking a number of study tours of Finland. Many well-intended, follow-up actions were initiated withFinnish colleagues but everyday pressures and priorities pushed these action plans aside. COFISA did not pay sufficient attention to establishing a knowledge-sharing community to support such actions and to encourage and stimulate ongoing linkages and relationship building. Yet, it is such linkages that lead to unexpected opportunities for growth and development in a wide range of areas (e.g. economic, research, innovation).

• COFISA’s staff were based in Pretoria and in Cape Town. There was thus a lack of physical presence in the Eastern Cape that was addressed in part by short-term visits. With the benefit of hindsight is it clear that as a province, the Eastern Cape responded to COFISA’s interventions with far more commitment and results on the ground than did the Western Cape. While there may be several reasons for this (which are not analysed here) it can be cogently argued that had COFISA had a permanent presence in the Eastern Cape, results with a greater positive impact would have been achieved there. While hindsight was obviously not available at the time the decision was made to place the staff member, it may be asked whether adequate foresight was applied, or whether a simplistic assumption was made that because the Western Cape is a more

economically developed province, the case was clear cut that COFISA’s presence in that province was to be preferred.

The term ‘Centre of Expertise’ was derived from the Finnish programme upon which COFISA’s approach was based. COFISA subsequently rebranded their programme as Activator™.80 Despite the similarity in the (initial) names, there are significant differences between these two programmes, in terms of approach and focus. DST’s CoC programme was already defined (at least on paper) prior to COFISA commencing. With greater sensitivity to the potential for confusion, and adequate linkages and lines of communication with DST, the controversy could have easily been avoided, along with the resultant ill feeling, as well as delay to the Activator™ programme.


CHAPTER 1

References

Department of Science and Technology South Africa (October 2007). Innovation towards a Knowledge Economy. The Ten Year Plan for South Africa (2008 – 2018). Department of Science and Technology, South Africa.http://www.dst.gov.za/publications-policies/strategies-reports/The%20Ten-Year%20Plan%20for%20Science%20and%20Technology.pdf

Planting, S. (6 April 2007). From Aid to Trade. Financial Mail. http://free.financialmail.co.za/innovations/07/0406/cinn.htm

CHAPTER 2

References

Department of Science and Technology South Africa (August 2002). South Africa’s National Research and Development Strategy. http://www.dst.gov.za/publications-policies/strategies-reports/reports/sa_nat_rd_strat .pdf

Department of Science and Technology South Africa (October 2007). Innovation towards a Knowledge Economy. The Ten Year Plan for South Africa (2008 – 2018). Department of Science and Technology, South Africa.http://www.dst.gov.za/publications-policies/strategies-reports/The%20Ten-Year%20Plan%20for%20Science%20and%20Technology.pdf

Finnsight 2015 http://www.finnsight2015.fi

Lemola, T. (2001). Management of Engineering and Technology, 2001. PICMET apos: 01. Portland International Conference, Vol 1, Issue 2001, p. 483.

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) (2006). Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Research.fi – Finnish Science and Technology Information Service.http://www.research.fi/en/innovationsystem

Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland (2006). Science, Technology, Innovation. Series of publications: Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland.

Tapper, H. (2001). The Potential Risks of the Local in the Global Information Society. Journal of Social Philosophy, Winter 2000, vol.31, no. 4, pp. 524-534, Blackwell Publishing, USA

Further Reading

Carlsson, B.; Jacobsson, S.; Holmen, M. & Rickne, A. (2002). Innovation Systems: Analytical and Methodological Issues. Research Policy, 31, pp. 233-245.

Freeman, C. (1988). The Economics of Industrial Innovation. Pinter, London.

Metcalfe, S. & Ramlogan, R. (2008). Innovation Systems and the Competitive Process in Developing Economies. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Vol 48:2, May 2008, pp. 433-446.

Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland (2005). The Guidelines of ICT and Information Society in Finnish Development Cooperation.

Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland (2007). Development Policy Programme 2007: Towards a Sustainable and Just World Community. Government Decision-in-Principle 2007. Helsinki: Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland.

Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö (2008). Kansallinen innovaatiostrategia. Helsinki: Työ - ja elinkeinoministeriö [Ministry of Employment and the Economy].

CHAPTER 3

References

Department of Science and Technology South Africa (2002). South Africa’s National Research and Development Strategy. The Government of the Republic of South Africa. Pretoria.http://www.dst.gov.za/publications-policies/strategies-reports/reports/sa_nat_rd_strat .pdf

Edquist, C. (2001). The Systems of Innovation Approach and Innovation Policy: An Account of the State of the Art. Lead Paper presented at the DRUID Conference, June 2001.

Godinho, M.M.; Mendonca, S.F. & Pereira, T.S. (2003). Mapping Innovation Systems: A Framework Based on Innovation Data and Indicators. Globelics Conference Paper.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2008). Open Innovation In Global Networks. OECD Publications, Paris. http://www.oecd.org/document/43/0,3343,en_2649_33703_41441387_1_1_1_1,00.html

Varis, M. and Pellikka, J. (2004). Local Technology Policy in the Kuopio Region: A System of Innovation Perspective. Department of Business and Management, University of Kuopio. In: 13th Nordic Conference on Small Business Research, Tronsö, Norway, 10. - 12.6.2004.


CHAPTER 4

Further Reading

COFISA Document Library includes reports and other material on various Foresight exercises conducted in South Africa in the period 2007 – 2009. http://www.dst.gov.za/links/cofisa

European Science and Technology Foresight Knowledge Sharing Platformhttp://cordis.europa.eu/foresight/platform.htm

Foresight for Development Africa http://www.foresightfordevelopment.org

Futures Research Methodology CD (Version 3.0) - the largest, most comprehensive, internationally peer-reviewed collection of Foresight methods and tools. http://www.millennium-project.org/millennium/FRM-V3.html

Millennium Project. State of the Future Report is a “report card on the future” produced annually since 1997 by the Millennium Project. http://www.stateofthefuture.org

Proceedings of the EU-US Scientific Seminar: New Technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methodshttp://forera.jrc.ec.europa.eu/fta/fta2004.html

Segal, N. (2007). Breaking the Mould: The Role of Scenarios in Shaping South Africa’s Future. South Africa Node of the Millennium Project (2007) ISBN 978-1-920109-92-9.http://www.sun-e-shop.co.za/?Task=moreinfo&SKU=ISBN+978-1-920109-92-9

Case Study

Border Rural Committee (May 2009). Integrated Local Economic Development Plan for Northern Keiskammahoek. www.cofisa.org.za/pdfs/brc_iledp_nk.pdf; after July 2010 - http://www.dst.gov.za/links/cofisa

Umhlaba Rural Services (May 2009). Introduction to the Leader approach to Rural Development in South Africa: A Comparison and Assessment. www.cofisa.org.za/pdfs/intor_leader_ca.pdf

CHAPTER 5

Further Reading

Activator, The Innovation Hub www.activator.co.za

OSKE – Centre of Expertise Programme, Finlandwww.oske.net/en

Innovating Regions in Europehttp://www.innovating-regions.org/schemes/index.cfm

Turku Science Park, Finlandwww.turkusciencepark.com

http://www.turkusciencepark.com/default.asp?viewID=389

Activator Partners

ESKOM Innovation Circuit (power utility)www.eskom.co.za/innovation

Meraka Institute (CSIR, South Africa)www.meraka.co.za

Vodacom (mobile operator)www.vodacominnovation.co.za

CHAPTER 6

References

Browne, D. & Leitch, A. (2009). Case Study of Telkom

South Africa’s Centre of Excellence Postgraduate Research Programme. In: IST-Africa 2009 Conference Proceedings, 6-8 May, Uganda.

http://www.ist-africa.org/Conference2009/

Eriksson, M.; Niitamo, V.-P & Kulkki, S. (2005). State-of-the-Art and Good Practice in the Field of Living Labs. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising: Innovative Products and Services through Collaborative Networks, Milan, Italy, 2006, pp. 349-357.

Madon, S.; Reinhard, N.; Roode, D. & Walsham, G. (2009). Digital Inclusion Projects in Developing Countries: Processes of Institutionalization. Information Technology for Development, Vol 15, No. 2, pp. 95-107.

Mulder I.; Velthausz D.; & Kriens M. (2008). The Living Labs Harmonization Cube: Communicating Living Labs’ Essentials. In: Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks, 10, pp. 1-14.

Parker M. B.; Wills, G. B. & Wills, J. (2008). Community in Tension (CiT). ECSTR-LSL08-002 ISBN: 978-0-620-42256-7. Wealthy Mind Publishers.http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/16678/1/ParkerWills_CiT.pdf

Ståhlbröst, A. (2008). Forming Future IT: The Living Lab Way of User Involvement. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Luleå University of Technology Department of Business Administration and Social Sciences, Division of Informatics, Finland.

Stoecker, R. (2005). Is Community Informatics Good for Communities? In: The Journal of Community Informatics, 1(3), pp. 13-26.

Further Reading

Dwesa eCommerce Websitewww.dwesa.com

Siyakhula Living Labshttp://www.openlivinglabs.eu/pdfs/siyakhula-living-lab.pdf

Siyakhula Living Lab Booklet http://www.cofisa.org.za/pdfs/siyakhula_living_lab_09.pdf; after July 2010 http://www.dst.gov.za/links/cofisa

CHAPTER 7

References

Kakko, I. (2008). Report on the Limited-Scope Feasibility Study into the Establishment of an East London IDZ Science Park. http://www.dst.gov.za/links/cofisa/document

Lamprecht S. (2007). Report on the Findings of the Prefeasibility Study into Establishing Science Park Activity

in the Eastern and Western Cape. http://www.dst.gov.za/links/cofisa/document/report_spa_2007.pdf

Segal, N. (2008). Science and Technology Parks and Economic Development: Lessons from European Experience. IASP XXVth World Conference Proceedings, 2008. http://www.iasp.ws/publico/jsp/herramientas/lstLibrary.jsp?cd=10570&ca=251

CHAPTER 8

Further Reading

Department for International Development (DFID). Monitoring, Evaluation and Lesson Learning Guidelines.http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Working-with-DFID/Funding-Schemes/Funding-for-not-for-profit-organisations/DAF/Guidelines-and-Procedures-201011/Monitoring-Evaluation-and-Lesson-Learning-Guidelines/

International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD) (2008). Monitoring and Evaluation for learning - IICD’s unique approach.

http://www.iicd.org/files/MonitoringEvaluation.pdfUnited Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2002). Handbook on Monitoring and Evaluating for Results.http://www.undp.org/eo/documents/HandBook/ME-HandBook.pdf

World Bank (2004). Monitoring & Evaluation: Some Tools, Methods & Approaches.http://lnweb90.worldbank.org/OED/oeddoclib.nsf/DocUNIDViewForJavaSearch/A5EFBB5D776B67D285256B1E0079C9A3/$file/MandE_tools_methods_approaches.pdf


CHAPTER 9

References

Further Reading

European Innovation Scoreboardhttp://194.78.229.57/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.display&topicID=89&parentID=0

INNO-Policy TrendChart Annual Country Reports http://194.78.229.57/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.display&topicID=263&parentID=52

OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy www.oecd.org/sti/innovation/reviews

OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard www.oecd.org/sti/scoreboard

PRO INNO Europe websitewww.proinno-europe.eu

AUTHORS

Neville Comins Neville Comins is currently the Chief Technical Advisor for COFISA, having been the National Innovation Advisor from June 2008 to March 2009. He was previously the founding CEO of The Innovation Hub, the first full member of IASP (International Association of Science Parks) in Africa and elected a Board Member of IASP from 2004-06. He has been involved in innovation and science park programmes in South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Senegal

and Mozambique. Previously he held positions at the CSIR of Director of the Division of Materials Science and Technology, and later Director of Business Development (Integrated Projects). Neville holds a PhD degree in Physics from Cambridge University, is a member of the Academy of Science of South Africa and an Honorary Professor of the University of the Witwatersrand.

Bob DayBorn in the UK, Bob Day immigrated to South Africa 35 years ago after receiving his PhD in Applied Physics at Imperial College, University of London. Since the 1980s he has been applying Science, Technology and Innovation (STI), supplemented by ICTs, Knowledge Management, and Foresight to alleviate poverty and promote socio-economic development. He held senior positions in the Medical Research Council, the CSIR and UNISA, but in

2003 he founded Non-Zero-Sum Development to pursue this passion in a more focused way. Non-Zero-Sum Development is working with leading development organisations, regional and national research organisations, as well as several national government institutions on a range of STI initiatives in many African countries.


Daan du ToitDaan du Toit has held various senior positions, first in the South African Department of Foreign Affairs and since 2002 in the newly established Department of Science and Technology, related to the South Africa’s international scientific and technological cooperation. This

included responsibility for establishing and managing the European South African Science and Technology Advancement Programme - a dedicated platform to promote scientific and technological cooperation between South Africa and the European Union. He has also represented South Africa in various multilateral forums such as the OECD and the United Nations, and managed strategic bilateral cooperation partnerships. In October 2006 he was appointed as the South African Department of Science and Technology’s Senior Science and Technology Representative to the European Union, a position based at the South African Mission to the European Union in Brussels where he holds the position of Minister Counsellor.

Aki EnkenbergAki Enkenberg (M.Soc.Sc) currently works as a Senior Advisor on Innovations in the Confederation of Finnish Industries EK in Helsinki, Finland. He worked as the Junior Professional Officer in COFISA between October 2006 and March 2009. Before COFISA he was employed as an Advisor and Project Manager in TIEKE Finnish Information

Society Development Centre in Helsinki.

Peter GreenwoodPeter Greenwood is a director of the Pretoria-based consultancy Non-Zero-Sum Development that is focused on contributing to national, regional and international initiatives in the areas of knowledge ecology, the information society, the future, and innovation with the purpose of alleviating

poverty and promoting socio-economic development throughout Africa, through the application of science, technology, information and communication technology (ICT) and innovation. He has been involved in a wide range of initiatives including the development of national science, technology and innovation strategy, designing interventions in innovation systems, rural development and monitoring and evaluation.

Thando GwintsaThando Gwintsa was born in Alice in the Eastern Cape and holds a Higher National Diploma in Medical Laboratory Sciences from Ireland with a specialisation in Histopathology. He further obtained Masters degrees in Business Administration and Safety, Health and Environmental Management from Australia. His career started as a lecturer in the medical laboratory

sciences and he later joined the Lesotho Highlands Water Project as a Project Medical Biologist. This was followed by a position as the projects, safety, health and

environmental monitor under the employ of the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority. He contributed in the development of public health epidemiological baseline studies, water and sanitation as well as the health impacts of resettling communities impacted by the dam construction. He currently works for the East London Industrial Development Zone as an Executive Manager in charge of Investor Services. As part of his portfolio he deals with Safety Health and Environment, skills development and SMME development. He is currently championing the development of a science park in support of innovation in the Eastern Cape.

Tina JamesTina James has more than 25 years experience working on various aspects of ICTs in developing countries (particularly Africa). Work undertaken to date has drawn on her wide range of experience in the management of multidisciplinary projects in the fields of ICTs and environmental information management, ICT policy and strategy

development, and programme design. She was Senior Advisor to the Canadian International Development Research Centre’s (IDRC) Acacia Programme, which focused on ICTs for Development in sub-Saharan Africa. Her prior work experience includes various ICT-related management positions at the CSIR. She has operated as an independent consultant since 1997 and recently established icteum consulting, based in South Africa. Tina has been involved in various STI activities including as project leader for the Department of Science and Technology’s ICT Technology Roadmapping initiative; was a member of the DST’s Foresight ICT working group, and recently reviewed the Lesotho S&T policy (UNCTAD). She has worked with the Maxum Incubator (The innovation

Hub) since 2007 to support the development of women entrepreneurs in technology-enabled businesses. Tina has edited several publications including An Information Policy Handbook for Southern Africa and ICTs for Development in Africa (Networking Institutions of Learning). She is an associate lecturer at the University of the Witwatersrand’s LINK Centre in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Lauri KuukasjärviLauri Kuukasjärvi (M.Sc.) worked in COFISA as the Chief Technical Adviser between September 2006 and March 2009. Prior to that Lauri was in charge of the Centre of Expertise Programme (CoE) in Lahti Science and Business Park in Finland from 1999 to 2006. During the years 1981 – 1999 he worked at the University of Helsinki in SME training and development, regional and rural projects and international

activities. Currently he works with the Regional Council of Päijät-Häme in Finland and as short term expert in rural development in international programmes. He is a partner in Sustainable Innovation – Susinno Ltd.

Ilari Patrick LindyIlari Patrick Lindy is Advisor at the Department of Development Policy in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs (MFA) of Finland. He works on strategic development of the MFA’s global policies and instruments related to information society; and science, technology and innovation in the context of development cooperation. He has previously served as Counsellor on ICT4D for the Ministry at the Embassy of Finland in South Africa; Senior Expert for the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) and Project Officer at the European Commission DG Information Society. He has an MA in Communications Science from Helsinki University. He is currently co-chair of the European Expert Group of the EU-Africa strategic partnership (No 8) focusing on science, technology, information society and space.


Rasigan MaharajhRasigan Maharajh is currently Chief Director of the Institute for Economic Research on Innovation (IERI) based at the Tshwane University of Technology. He was previously the Head of the Policy Group at the CSIR following his deployment as National Coordinator of the Science and Technology Policy Transition Project for South Africa’s first democratic government.

Prior to 1994, he worked in the non-governmental sector concerned with literacy, education and human resource development whilst simultaneously holding elected leadership positions within various student, youth and organised labour structures of the mass democratic movement and the African National Congress. Rasigan is an active member of the Global Network for the Economics of Learning, Innovation and Competence-building Systems (GLOBELICS). and conducts research in the field of evolutionary political economy. This currently involves numerous international, continental and regional projects on the form, function and context of knowledge generation, application and diffusion in economic growth, social development and democratic governance.

Mmboneni MuofheMmboneni Muofhe is the Chief Director for International Resources at the Department of Science and Technology (DST). He previously served as Director for Strategic Partnerships and Global Projects in the Department. He has extensive experience in the management of science and technology

programmes which includes years of coordination, implementation and management of the Technology and Human Resources for Industry Programme (THRIP). This is a South African public-private partnership programme in research and development aimed at improving the competitiveness of industry, based at the National Research Foundation. He holds a B.Sc degree from the University of Venda, Master of Science (M.Sc) from

the University of Cape Town and a Master of Business Administration (MBA) from the University of Pretoria.

Marlon ParkerMarlon Parker is a social entrepreneur and has been an Information Technology Lecturer at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT) since October 2000. He obtained his Masters degree in Information Technology (cum laude) and is currently busy with his PhD at CPUT. He is often invited by

many organisations and institutions (UCT Graduate School of Business, University of Rhodes, schools, NGOs, corporates) across the country as guest speaker on ICTs for Community Empowerment. Marlon has also produced several academic research papers, supervises post-graduate students and co-authored the published book The Social and Economical Impacts of E-commerce. He was also one of the judges for the 2008 e-Commerce Awards and was nominated in 2009 as one of the Top Young South Africans by the Mail and Guardian. His passion for community development has influenced his research interests and he is currently working on a project titled Using ICT as a Change Agent to Empower Citizens in a Community in Tension (CiT) 1. The Advice Support Network was borne out of these efforts and serves more than 40,000 people across South Africa with social related issues using their mobile phones.

Thomas PogueThomas Pogue is a Visiting Research Fellow at the Institute for Economic Research and Innovation (IERI), which is part of the Faculty of Economics and Finance, Tshwane University of Technology. His research focuses on three inter-related themes: collaborative

innovation, human resource mobility, and systems of innovation. Prior to joining IERI, he worked at several research institutes including the CSIR, the University of Cape Town’s Development Policy Research Unit, and the University of Nevada’s Center for Economic Development. In that work an initial concern with sustainable regional economic development in rural mineral dependent communities evolved into an interest in the economics of technological change and its relationship to development. He has taught economics at several higher education institutions, including Maastricht University in The Netherlands, the University of Cape Town, and the University of Nevada, Reno in the United States.

Reuben RammbudaReuben Rammbuda (currently completing his M.Sc) is the Programme Manager for the Limpopo Living Lab initiative. He held several positions in Limpopo Development Agencies where his main duties were strategy development and project/programme leadership. His

interest is in developing business models, strategies and a sustainable ecosystem of partnerships on strategic projects and programmes in Limpopo. He worked for LimDev (Limpopo Enterprise Development), Absa Bank, Trade and Investment Limpopo (TIL) and the Small Enterprise Development Agency(SEDA), before joining the Office of the Premier-Limpopo as Programme Manager of the Limpopo Living Lab. He was the chairperson of the Limpopo Information Society Coordinating Committee (LISCC) which monitored the conceptualisation of INSPIRE and the Limpopo Living Lab initiatives. Reuben made significant contributions to the National System of Innovation as part of the Science Park Strategy Development Core Team and numerous innovation activities in the region. He made contributions to the development of the Limpopo Integrated Innovation System framework and the Limpopo Living Lab feasibility and business plan. Reuben remains key to the implementation of the Limpopo Living Lab (renamed the Limpopo Technology Innovation Hub). He is part of a

network of Living Lab specialists and is a Board member of the Living Labs in Southern Africa (LLiSA) network.

Stanley RidgeProfessor Stanley Ridge is Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Western Cape. He studied at the Universities of Natal, York (UK), British Columbia and Stellenbosch, and taught at Stellenbosch for ten years before becoming Professor of English at the University of the Western Cape in 1979. Professor Ridge has a wide range of

interests, not least in the interface between academe and society. In that connection he has been a member of the National Science Park Forum and of the group which drafted the national science parks strategy. He is currently

President of the English Academy of Southern Africa.

Kobus RouxKobus Roux is an electronics engineer with 15 years experience in the conceptualisation, research and development of radio frequency and wireless systems, network architectures and protocols, and information systems. He is employed as

Competence Area Manager of the Emerging Innovations group at the CSIR Meraka Institute, a national R&D organisation. Kobus is interested in applying technology through innovative business models and has a passion for working on improving opportunities for people in Africa with technology, bottom-of-the-pyramid and grassroots approaches.


Nirvashnee SeetalNirvashnee has a B.Sc (Hons) in Geography and Environmental Management from the University of Natal and an M.Sc in Environmental Studies from the University of the Witwatersrand. She has held positions in the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, the Innovation Fund and the Department of

Science and Technology. Nirvashnee has been the South African National Coordinator (Director) of the Cooperation Framework on Innovation Systems between Finland and South Africa (COFISA) from November 2006 to February 2010.

Thembinkosi Daniel SemwayoThembinkosi holds a B.A. degree in Economics and Geography, and an M.Sc in Geo-Information Systems. Thembinkosi has over ten years experience in Geographical Information Systems design, business strategy development, innovation mapping and knowledge engineering. He has, from 2007 – 2009, been the Western

Cape Coordinator for the Foresighting project of the Cooperation Framework on Innovation Systems between Finland and South Africa (COFISA). He has participated in provincial and industrial sector-specific Foresighting and scenario planning exercises in the Eastern Cape, Western Cape, Northern Cape and Gauteng provinces of South Africa. Thembinkosi has founded three companies: Phuhlisani Solutions, Knowledge Crucible, and Ontolligent Software Services. He sits on the boards of Phuhlisani Solutions and Knowledge Crucible, and is currently the Managing Director of Ontolligent Software Services.

Helena TapperHelena Tapper has a Licentiate and Master’s Degree in Political Sciences and a Master’s Degree in Forest Economics, University of Helsinki, Finland. She has received several academic awards and scholarships, amongst them a Fulbright Scholarship to study knowledge economy at the University of California Los Angeles and MIT,

Boston. She has a strong academic background: she was a senior lecturer in communications studies, specialising in knowledge economy and globalisation at the University of Helsinki. She has an extensive list of publications in this field. Ms. Tapper coordinates and supervises a cluster of four Science and Technology programmes in South Africa and Southern Africa: Innovation Systems, ICT for Development, Information Society Strategy in South Africa, and a Biosciences programme with NEPAD. A Regional Innovation Support Programme in Southern Africa is currently in the preparatory phase. She is a speaker at international conferences on these topics. Helena Tapper is currently chairing a Donor Working Group in Science, Technology and Innovation in South Africa. She has chaired and coordinated, together with the World Bank, EU and Department of Science and Technology (South Africa), two Regional Workshops on Science, Technology and Innovation. These Regional Workshops have brought together 17 African, particularly SADC countries, to discuss the needs and development of Science, Technology and Innovation in their countries. Ms. Tapper worked from 2001 to 2005 as a Senior Advisor in ICT4D at the Inter-American Development Bank in Washington DC. Before coming to South Africa in 2007, she worked as a Senior Advisor for International Programmes in the Finnish Information Society Centre in Finland.

Alfredo TerzoliAlfredo Terzoli (Laurea in Physics, UNIPA, Italy) is Professor of Computer Science at Rhodes University (South Africa), where he heads the Telkom Centre of Excellence in Distributed Multimedia. He also serves as the Research Director of the Telkom Centre of Excellence in ICT for Development at the

nearby University of Fort Hare. His main areas of academic interest are convergence in telecommunication and ICT for development. Prof Terzoli has a long history of experience in teaching, research and postgraduate supervision. He manages several international research projects.

Rudi van der Walt Rudi started his career as a chemical engineer in the petrochemical and chlor-alkali industries. He also lectured operations and technology management at UNISA’s Graduate School of Business Leadership. After a number of years at the CSIR as business development manager, he established the

CSIR’s venturing company Technovent (Pty) Ltd. This company formed, developed and sold technology companies based on CSIR technologies. Presently, he is Director: Technology Transfer at the North-West University, which has been responsible for preparing the business plan for the North-West Science Park. Rudi owned a technology business in his earlier years, which stimulated him in developing a passion to help technology and innovative entrepreneurs. He developed various

approaches to guide these entrepreneurs through the difficult start-up phase, when little support is available. He is mentoring a number of start-ups, of which most are in the Maxum incubator of the Innovation Hub in Pretoria. Apart from transferring university technologies to industry, he is also establishing a Regional Innovation System in the arid areas of Southern Africa around the North West Province.

Ashley WestawayAshley Westaway recently took up an Ashoka Fellowship. These prestigious international fellowships are awarded to outstanding social entrepreneurs around the world. Ashley’s fellowship will run from 2010 to 2012, during which he hopes to pioneer innovative approaches to

integrated rural development in the Keiskammahoek area of the former Ciskei Bantustan. He was the Managing Director of Border Rural Committee (a prominent rural development NGO in the Eastern Cape) from January 1997 to January 2010. He is a historian who holds a Doctorate in Literature and Philosophy, awarded to him by the University of Fort Hare in 2009. His current research interests include the production of historical truths in post-1994 South Africa, contemporary history of the former Bantustans, and the restitution and processes of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

| Cooperation Framework on Innovation Systems between Finland and South Africa

cooperation framework on innovation systems … framework on innovation systems between ... rasigan...

Documents