title: MEDEDELING VAN DE COMMISSIE aan de Raad, het Europees Parlement en het Economisch en Sociaal Comité betreffende de eindevaluatie van het strategisch programma voor innovatie en overdracht van technologie (SPRINT) 1989-1994

eurovoc_concepts:
action programme
innovation
report
technological change
technology transfer

text: * ** * A * * ** it À ir I COMMISSIE VAN Dt EUKOPESE GEMEENSCHAPPEN j j I I Brussel, 0J. 04. 199b LUM(VÖ) uu del. MEDEDELING VAN ÜE COMMISSIE AAN DE RAAD. HEi EUROPEEN PARLEMEN1 EN HEI ECONOMISCH EN SOCIAAL COMA IE BETREFFENDE DE EINDEVALUATIE VAN HET STRATEGISCH PROGRAMMA VOOR INNOVATIE EN OVERDRACHT VAN TECHNOLOGIE (SPRINT) 1989-1994 I. Inleiding 1. 1 1. 2 1. 3 Beschikking 89/286/EEG1 van de Raad van 17 april 1989, bevestigd en verlengd bij Beschikking 94/5/EG2 van 20 december 1993 betreffende de hoofdfase van het strategisch programma voor innovatie en overdracht van technologie (1989-1994) (SPRINT-programma), bepaalt in artikel 8 dat de Commissie na voltooiing van het programma het Europees Parlement, de Raad en het Economisch en Sociaal Comité een rapport over de verwezenlijking en de resultaten van het programma moet voorleggen. De Commissie heeft een panel van onafhankelijke deskundigen onder het voorzitterschap van de heer Chabbal met deze evaluatie belast. Het panel heeft zijn rapport op 11 november 1994 bij de Commissie ingediend. Het rapport werd in december 1994 voorgelegd aan het programmacomité dat het gunstig heeft onthaald en er de belangrijkste conclusies en aanbevelingen van heeft onderschreven. Het volledige evaluatierapport van het panel en zijn conclusies zijn hierbij gevoegd in bijlage A, met inbegrip van het mandaat van het panel en de samenstelling ervan. Bij de opstelling van het rapport heeft het panel rekening gehouden met het tussentijdse SPRINT-rapport en met evaluaties van specifieke actiepunten in het kader van SPRINT, zoals die voor de netwerken van onderzoek- en technologieorganisaties, voor netwerken van adviseurs of voor specifieke projecten (zie lijst in bijlage B). De opgedane ervaring in het kader van het Value-programma voor de exploitatie van de resultaten en het op 3 juni 1994 door het panel aan de Commissie voorgelegde evaluatierapport voor dit programma werden eveneens in aanmerking genomen. Voorts onderzocht het panel de samenhang van de SPRINT-ervaring met de benadering van innovatie en met de doelstellingen van het werkprogramma voor het specifieke programma voor de verspreiding en exploitatie van de resultaten van de activiteiten inzake OTO, inclusief demonstratie, de derde activiteit van het vierde kaderprogramma. 1. 4 Dit rapport is opgebouwd als volgt: hoofdstuk 2 geeft een samenvatting van het SPRINT-programma en de belangrijkste elementen ervan. Hoofdstuk 3 presenteert de algemene evaluatie van het programma in het licht van de belangrijkste conclusies van het evaluatierapport van het panel. Hoofdstuk 4 geeft ten slotte de gedetailleerde analyse van het panel van de belangrijkste elementen van het SPRINT-programma en de opinie van de Commissie over deze analyse. II Belangrijkste doelstellingen en instrumenten van het SPRINT-programma 2. 1 De hoofdfase van SPRINT had de volgende doelstellingen als vastgesteld in de bovengenoemde In-schik kim», van de l'aad vcrstciking van liet innovailevcmiogcn van de LuiopcNc pioducenteii van goederen en diensten met het oog op de interne markt van 1992; PBnr. L 112 van 25. 4. I989,blz. 12 PB nr. L 6 van 8. 1. 1994. bl/. 25 2e - bevordering van een snelle penetratie van nieuwe technologieën en verspreiding van innovaties in het gehele economische bestel van de Gemeenschap; - verhoging van de doeltreffendheid en de coherentie van de bestaande regionale, nationale en communautaire instrumenten en beleidsmaatregelen op het gebied van innovatie en overdracht van technologie. en onderzoek technologie, maar 2. 2 Om deze doelstellingen te bereiken, hadden de in het kader van het programma opgezette acties betrekking op innovatieactiviteiten die niet alleen gebaseerd zijn op houden met managementvaardigheden en handelspraktijken. Er werd niet alleen gestreefd naar de toepassing van nieuwe onderzoekresultaten in technologisch geavanceerde sectoren, maar ook naar de invoering van geavanceerde en beproefde technologieën in traditionele bedrijfstakken. Er werd bijzondere aandacht besteed aan de kleine en middelgrote ondernemingen als de belangrijkste uiteindelijke doelgroep van het programma. verband ook 2. 3 Overeenkomstig de bovengenoemde doelstellingen en specifieke prioriteiten en met een budget van 113 miljoen ecu voor een periode van vijfjaar heeft SPRINT zijn inspanningen toegespitst op drie hoofdgebieden: - de ontwikkeling van innovatieondersteunende diensten en van een daarvoor specifieke Europese infrastructuur. Dit werd bijzonder relevant geacht voor de kleine en middelgrote ondernemingen, die uiteraard veel vaker dan grote ondernemingen een beroep moeten doen op externe expertise voor hun innovatie en verwerving van technologie. Aangezien de kwaliteit en de beschikbaarheid van dergelijke diensten van essentieel belang is voor het innovatieproces, heeft SPRINT getracht de grensoverschrijdende uitwisseling van ervaring te bevorderen, paneuropese samenwerkingsstructuren tussen dergelijke diensten in de hand te werken en een daarvoor specifieke organisatie-infrastructuur op Europees niveau op te zetten. - de demonstratie van de intracommunautaire overdracht en verwerving van technologie. om de demonstratiecapaciteit van de lopende projecten voor intracommunautaire technologieoverdracht en de identificatie, ontwikkeling en demonstratie van de beste managementpraktijken ter zake te verbeteren. verband werden gevoerd acties dit In - de verbetering van de kennis van het innovatieproces en van de desbetreffende systemen en beleidsmaatregelen op communautair, nationaal en regionaal niveau. Het doel was bij te dragen aan de doeltreffendheid en samenhang van het innovatiebeleid via de verzameling van betrouwbare gegevens en informatie over innovatieactiviteiten en -processen, de verbetering van het conceptuele kader en de versterking van de uitwisseling van ervaring tussen beleidmakers en voor innovatie en verspreiding van technologie relevante eenheden (EIMS - Europees systeem voor het volgen van het innovatiegebeuren). 3<2 2. 4 Onder elk van de bovengenoemde actiepunten werden talrijke initiatieven uitgevoerd. Het panel presenteert en analyseert elk initiatief grondig in bijlage 1 bij het rapport. DL Algemene evaluatie van het pro2ramma 3. 1 Het referentiekader innovatieondersteuning voor een communautair programma voor Alvorens de evaluatie van het SPRINT-programma aan te vatten, achtte het panel het noodzakelijk het referentiekader voor een communautair innovatieprogramma te definiëren. Volgens het panel moet rekening worden gehouden met de volgende factoren: • het verschil tussen onderzoekbeleid met het oog op het creëren van nieuwe kennis en innovatiebeleid, gericht op de toepassing van kennis die nieuw is voor de gebruiker; • de noodzakelijke systematische aanpak van het innovatiebeleid door het stimuleren van de veelvoudige interacties tussen innovatieactoren en het waarborgen van het volledige, complementaire en coherente karakter van de maatregelen; • de relevantie van een op het MKB gericht innovatiebeleid dat sterk gebaseerd is op de vraag van de kleine en middelgrote ondernemingen en dat wordt uitgevoerd via structuren die dicht bij deze ondernemingen staan, vooral op regionaal niveau. Dit beleid legt de nadruk op de verspreiding van bestaande technologieën, een proces dat verband houdt met het integratievermogen van de ondernemingen. De Commissie is het met deze analyse van de kadervoorwaarden voor innovatieondersteunende programma's eens en is van oordeel dat de hoofdlijnen van het SPRINT-programma aan deze eisen hebben voldaan. 3. 2 Algemene conclusies over SPRINT en aanbevelingen De algemene conclusie van het panel over SPRINT is positief. Volgens het panel werden de doelstellingen van de beschikking van de Raad, rekening houdend met de daarvoor uitgetrokken middelen, op doeltreffende wijze bereikt en beantwoordt het programma wel degelijk aan de taken van een innovatieprogramma. Ondanks enkele tekortkomingen is SPRINT een origineel en goed aangepast instrument geweest om kleine en middelgrote ondernemingen van gelijk welk type in hun innovatieproces bij te staan: dank zij het experimentele karakter van SPRINT konden talrijke oplossingen worden beproefd en in het kader van het programma werd een origineel proces voor overleg, experimentering, evaluatie en voor verspreiding innovatieprocessen relevante actoren in SPRINT eindelijk een Europees kader voor samenwerking en interactie gevonden. van kennis uitgewerkt. Voorts hebben talrijke, 4P Wat het toekomstige communautaire beleid betreft, hebben volgens het panel innovatie en verspreiding van technologie de hoogste prioriteit. De verspreiding van technologie in traditionele sectoren wordt belangrijker geacht dan de massaproduktie van nieuwe technologie waarvan uitsluitend de technologisch geavanceerde sector zou profiteren. 3. 3 Het panel geeft ook een bevestigend antwoord op de vragen die in zijn mandaat werden gesteld: • Het SPRINT-programma heeft de vastgestelde doelstellingen bereikt; in de beschikking van 17. 4. 1989 • Beleid op het gebied van innovatie en verspreiding van technologie is ook thans nog relevant, vooral wat de verspreiding in traditionele sectoren betreft, en het door SPRINT gevoerde beleid beantwoordt goed aan deze eisen en doelstellingen; • Hoewel verbeteringen in de werkingsprocedures noodzakelijk zijn, acht het panel het algemene werkingsproces heel gezond en adviseert de belangrijkste kenmerken ervan te handhaven. 3. 4 Het panel identificeert een aantal zwakke punten in • de zichtbaarheid van het werkingsproces van het programma; • de verspreiding van de resultaten; • de katalysatorfunctie van innovatieacties op regionaal en nationaal niveau; • de interactie met andere diensten van de Commissie. 3. 5 De volgende punten worden verder opgenomen in de aanbevelingen van het panel * met betrekking tot de opstelling van een toekomstig programma en de actiemethoden ervan: • de keuze van nieuwe acties moet transparanter worden gemaakt; • het programma moet expliciete mechanismen ontwikkelen voor evaluatie, voortzetting en stopzetting van acties; • de gerichtheid op het MKB als doelgroep moet worden verbeterd door een typologie uit te werken van de kleine en middelgrote ondernemingen op basis van hun vraag naar innovatie; • behalve steun aan intermediairs wordt directe steun aan kleine en middelgrote ondernemingen op bepaalde gebieden aanbevolen; 5e • de keuze van EIMS-thema's moet worden gemaakt in nauwere samenwerking met andere betrokken diensten van de Commissie; • de methodologische aspecten van proefprojecten, zoals de definitie van doelstellingen en de evaluatie, moeten worden versterkt; • nieuwe methoden voor verspreiding van de resultaten moeten worden bestudeerd en toegepast; • over het algemeen moeten er interactiemechanismen tussen de derde activiteit en andere communautaire programma's worden ingesteld; • het aantal personeelsleden in vaste dienst dat zich met het programma bezighoudt, moet worden uitgebreid. De relevante punten werden door de Commissie besproken bij het ontwerp van het werkprogramma voor het specifieke programma voor de verspreiding en exploitatie van de resultaten van de activiteiten inzake OTO en zullen bij de uitvoering ervan de nodige aandacht krijgen. IV. Gedetailleerde analyse van de hoofdelementen van het SPRINT-programma Behalve de algemene evaluatie van het programma heeft het panel een nieuw en interessant model toegepast met het oog op de gedetailleerde evaluatie van de hoofdelementen van het programma en van de geschiktheid ervan om de doelstellingen van de derde activiteit van het vierde kaderprogramma te bereiken. 4. 1 Analyse van de toegepaste actiemiddelen en methoden De door SPRINT ontwikkelde werkmethode wordt gekenmerkt door de volgende cyclus waarmee overleg, experimentering, evaluatie en verspreiding worden gecombineerd: • Eerst kort overleg. • Dan bevestiging door experimentering en evaluatie. • Vervolgens het opzetten van menselijke netwerken in de vorm van macro- of mininetwerken, met als resultaat een groot multiplicatoreffect van de maatregelen. • Analyse van de resultaten en identificatie van de daaruit getrokken lering. • Ten slotte de passende verspreiding van geselecteerde resultaten en goede werkwijzen. De Commissie is van oordeel dat deze eerder geformaliseerde beschrijving van de methoden van SPRINT door het panel grotendeels met de praktijk overeenstemt. Deze methoden zijn echter niet het doel, maar een benadering om ruimere 6 t; doelstellingen op doeltreffende wijze te bereiken, rekening houdend met de ervaring van de partners in het innovatieproces. 42 Analyse naar categorie van actoren Volgens het panel werden bij SPRINT talrijke, voor de innovatie van het MKB relevante actoren betrokken, maar moet toch nog meer aandacht worden besteed aan een aantal intermediairs, zoals adviseurs op het gebied van intellectuele eigendomsrechten, centra voor specifieke technologische hulpmiddelen, financiële partners voor innovatieve kleine en middelgrote ondernemingen en regionale infrastructuren. Voorts is het panel van oordeel dat de communautaire activiteiten niet alleen moeten gericht zijn op de samenwerking tussen kleine en middelgrote ondernemingen, maar ook op de interactie tussen technologieleveranciers of -gebruikers, met name tussen middelgrote en kleine bedrijven en grote ondernemingen, en op de samenwerking tussen innovatiediensten voor het MKB. De Commissie is zich bewust van het feit dat de intermediairs en de structuren voor samenwerking tussen kleine en middelgrote ondernemingen maar gedeeltelijk bij het programma werden betrokken. Dit was voornamelijk toe te schrijven aan de schaarse beschikbare middelen en aan de noodzaak zich op een beperkt aantal experimentele en proefactiviteiten te concentreren. In het kader van de derde activiteit zullen meer inspanningen worden geleverd op met name twee gebieden: samenwerking met instrumenten voor innovatiefinanciering. Er zal bijzondere aandacht worden besteed aan systematische inspanningen van met name kleine en middelgrote ondernemingen op het gebied van onderzoek statistieken over innovatieactiviteiten. regionale beleidsinitiatieven en communautaire en 4. 3 Analyse naar doelstellingen Het panel heeft onderzocht of de activiteiten geschikt waren om de in het werkprogramma van de derde activiteit vastgelegde doelstellingen te bereiken, namelijk: • een voor de integratie van innovatie en technologie gunstig klimaat creëren; • de totstandbrenging van een ruimte voor het vrije verkeer van technologieën bevorderen; ( • de levering van technologie vergemakkelijken. De door SPRINT met betrekking tot de eerste doelstelling genomen maatregelen waren erop gericht de kwaliteit van de specialisten op het gebied van dienstverlening aan het MKB te verbeteren, de beste werkwijzen door middel van beleidsdemonstratieprojecten te verspreiden en de verspreiding van technologie te bevorderen. Het panel merkt op dat er meer systematische inspanningen hadden 7 c kunnen worden geleverd om uit deze verschillende ervaringen lering te trekken en die ervaring aan de lokale of nationale beleidmakers door te spelen. Volgens de Commissie was deze tekortkoming het gevolg van het feit dat er in die fase voorrang werd gegeven aan het onmiddellijk delen van ervaring door de deelnemers en hun branchegenoten, in de veronderstelling dat een ruimere verspreiding in latere fasen zou plaatsvinden. In verband met de tweede doelstelling onderstreept het panel de positieve rol van de Europese netwerken waarop SPRINT systematisch een beroep heeft gedaan. Het betreurt evenwel dat er op Europees niveau niet genoeg forums voor samenwerking tussen ondernemingen bestonden en dat er van deze netwerken geen groter gebruik is gemaakt voor de verspreiding van informatie tussen de diverse partners uit verschillende regio's. De Commissie onderstreept dat de communautaire steun van meet af aan alleen bedoeld was om de oprichting van dergelijke netwerken te bevorderen, die later hun levensvatbaarheid moeten bewijzen en financiële zelfstandigheid moeten verwerven. De Commissie is voornemens de samenwerking in netwerkverband in het kader van de derde activiteit te versterken, met name door de uitbreiding van het netwerk van Relay Centra te stimuleren en de Europese samenwerking tussen de bestaande nationale netwerken of initiatieven te ondersteunen. Het is de bedoeling om van dergelijke netwerken ook voor initiatieven in het kader van andere communautaire programma's optimaal gebruik te maken. Wat de derde doelstelling betreft, wijst het panel erop dat het hier niet gaat om de overdracht van technologie als zodanig aan het MKB, maar om de aanpassing van O&O-kennis aan de behoeften van innovatieve kleine en middelgrote ondernemingen. Ook wordt gewezen op de positieve bijdrage van SPRINT-steun voor samenwerking tussen technologiecentra (netwerken van onderzoek- en technologieorganisaties) en van bepaalde specifieke projecten. De Commissie zal haar inspanningen op dit gebied in het kader van de derde activiteit versterken door met name steun te verlenen voor projecten inzake technologievalidering en -overdracht. 4. 4 Opmerkingen van het panel over de SPRINT-programma individuele actiepunten van het De gedetailleerde opinie van het panel over individuele actiepunten wordt gegeven in bijlage 1 bij het rapport. De hoofdpunten ervan zijn de volgende: - De op technologische MKB-partners gerichte acties, waaronder met name het netwerk van onderzoek- en technologieorganisaties, worden nuttig geacht en dienen met een aantal verbeteringen te worden voortgezet. De maatregelen ten behoeve van de regionale centra voor technologisch advies leveren een goede toegevoegde waarde en moeten actief worden voortgezet. De ondersteuning van science parks wordt over het algemeen goedgekeurd door het panel dat voorstelt eveneens de synergie met DG I en het Phare-programma te onderzoeken en meer nadruk te leggen op de bevordering van de kwaliteit van dergelijke parks. De algemene evaluatie van het panel van acties die gericht zijn op adviseurs in het algemeen en op de bevordering van instrumenten ter verbetering van hun adviesverlening aan het MKB, zoals de projecten voor het beheer van de integratie van nieuwe technologie (MINT), waardeanalyse, design en kwaliteit, is positief en bevat specifieke aanbevelingen om een aantal operationele kenmerken ervan te verbeteren, voornamelijk op het gebied van de verspreiding en publikatie van kennis en verkregen resultaten. De acties gericht op adviseurs die gespecialiseerd zijn in licenties, zoals de netwerken tussen ondernemingen en de dagen voor technologieoverdracht, zijn volgens het panel nuttig gebleken en moeten worden voortgezet en zelfs versterkt. Van de initiatieven die gericht zijn op het financiële systeem, met name de technologiefinaneiering met rendementsafhankelijke terugbetaling en de investeringsforums, moeten de instrumenten en de benaderingen opnieuw worden overdacht. De maatregelen ter ondersteuning van de interactie van middelgrote en kleine bedrijven met andere ondernemingen hadden volgens het panel verder kunnen worden ontwikkeld. De acties die gericht zijn op het regionale beleid in het kader van de initiatieven en "Regionale technologieoverdracht" en "Regionale plannen op het gebied van technologie" zijn belangrijk en moeten verder worden ontwikkeld. infrastructuren strategieën innovatie voor en De versterking van het integratievermogen van het MKB in het kader van het actiepunt "specifieke projecten" wordt gezien als een voorbeeld van een geslaagde verkennende actie die in de toekomst moet worden voortgezet en uitgebreid. van oprichting De en transeuropese netwerken technologieoverdracht heeft volgens het panel een heel belangrijk europeaniseringseffect teweeggebracht dat bij de uitvoering van het vierde kaderprogramma moet worden gehandhaafd en waarvan ook andere diensten van de Commissie die zich met het MKB bezighouden, moeten kunnen profiteren. innovatie voor Het Europese systeem voor het volgen van het innovatiegebeuren (EIMS) wordt beschouwd als een heel belangrijk element van het programma, dat de 9A* analyse en de ontwikkeling van nieuwe concepten mogelijk maakt. Er wordt voorgesteld meer empirisch onderzoek te verrichten naar de situatie in het MKB. 4. 5 Het panel stelt voor de verschillende maatregelen die onder SPRINT werden ontwikkeld, in het kader van het specifieke programma voor de verspreiding en exploitatie van de resultaten van de activiteiten inclusief demonstratie, van het vierde kaderprogramma voort te zetten en daarmee alle aspecten van het innovatieproces te behandelen. inzake OTO, Zoals eerder vermeld, heeft de Commissie bij de opstelling van het werkprogramma voor het specifieke programma zoveel mogelijk rekening gehouden met de aanbevelingen van het panel. De Commissie deelt de mening van het panel dat alle aspecten van het innovatieproces moeten worden behandeld, maar onderstreept dat dit met diverse instrumenten binnen en buiten het kaderprogramma moet worden verwezenlijkt, waarbij terdege rekening wordt gehouden met de juridische grondslag van dergelijke activiteiten en een gecoördineerde aanpak wordt gevolgd, zoals aanbevolen in het Groenboek over innovatie. V. Conclusies 5. 1 De Commissie heeft het rapport en de opmerkingen van het panel grondig bestudeerd en zal de relevante aanbevelingen voor de uitvoering van het specifieke programma voor de verspreiding en exploitatie van de resultaten van de activiteiten op het gebied van onderzoek en technologische ontwikkeling, inclusief demonstratie, dat bij Beschikking 94/917/EG van de Raad van 15 december 1994 voor de periode 1994-1998 werd vastgesteld, in de mate van het mogelijke trachten op te volgen. 5. 2 Deze mededeling en het evaluatierapport van het panel zijn gericht aan het Europees Parlement en de Raad overeenkomstig artikel 8 van de Beschikking van de Raad van 17 april 1989 over het SPRINT-programma. Bijlagen A. B. Evaluatierapport van het panel Lijst van evaluatierapporten 10 «V PANEL EVALUATION OF THE SPRINT PROGRAMME SUMMARY OF THE REPORT PART ONE TERMS AND FRAME OF REFERENCE A B TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE GROUP; WORK METHOD REFERENCE FRAMEWORK 1. What is innovation? 2. 3 Research policy and innovation policy are two different things Characteristics of an S ME-targeted innovation policy C. WHAT IS THE ROLE OF A EUROPEAN PROGRAMME TO STIMULATE INNOVATION IN SME'S7 PART TWO ANALYSIS OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM A OBJECTIVES B METHODS AND MEASURES OF THE SPRINT PROGRAMME 1. 2. 3. 4. First combine reflection and experimentation, evaluation and dissemination Evaluate the actions Then build up networks Target SME partners C. COHERENCE OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM ANALYSIS BY CATEGORY OF OPERATOR Consultants Technological partners Field consultants Fmandal partners for uino\-ativc SMEs Local policy-makers 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. What SPRINT has overlooked Page 5 10 10 10 11 11 12 13 15 17 17 17 17 1 g 1 g 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 D. • COHERENCE OF THE SPRINT SYS TEM: ANALYSIS BY OBJECTIVES 22 1. Helping to create an environment beneficial to innovation in SMEs ' 23 a. b. c. Influencing specialists Influencing tools and policies Disseminating technologies 2. 3. Europeanising the operators in the innovation system Horizontal schemes E CONCLUSION PART THREE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A GENERAL APPRAISAL OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM B PROPOSALS FOR THE COMPOSITION OF THE PROGRAMME 1. 2. A programme such as SPRINT must be flexible and evolutionary Should the programme continue to target intermediaries or should it be aimed at SMEs directly? 3. A new dimension: a privileged relationship between SPRINT and regional authorities C PROPOSALS FOR SPECIFIC ACTION 1. 2. Improve the rcflccUon<xpcruncriialion-cvaJuation-disscmination cycle Reinforce and systematise the interaction between the SPRINT programme and its potential partners 3. Increase human resources within the SPRINT programme D. MISCELLANEOUS E. CONCLUSION: SUMMARY ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS PUT TOTHEPANEL 23 23 24 25 25 26 27 27 2g 28 30 32 32 33 34 35 36 36 39 40 41 42 45 47 49 52 54 56 59 60 63 66 6g 70 71 72 75 ANNEXES ANNEX 1: ANALYSIS OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM BY TYPE OF INITIATIVE 1. Schemes aimed at technological partners of SMEs 2. Schemes aimed at RTACs Schemes aimed at science parks Schemes aimed at consultants in general Schemes aimed at consultants specialising in licensing Schemes aimed at the financial system 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 8 9 Schemes aimed at ue interaction ofSMEs with other SMEs (networks) and/or large firms 52 Schemes aimed at regional policies Schemes aimed at the absorptive capacity of SMEs and their interactions with their partners 10. Evaluation of the action taken under SPRINT ANNEX 2 ANALYSIS OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM ACCORDING TO OBJECTIIES 1. First objective: Creation of an environment beneficial to innovation and the absorption of technologies 2 Second objective: Establishment of an area for the free circulation of technologies in the EU and for application of innovative products) 3 Third objective: Supply SKlE's with technologies adapted to their requirements ANNEX 3: NOTE ON THE I%RULE ANNEX 4: SPRINT EVALUA TION PANEL ANNEX S: TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE SPRINT FINAL EVALUA TION PANEL ANNEX 6: UST OF ACRONYMS Tables 1,2,3 and 4 and Figure 1 3. SUMMARY OF THE REPORT 1 Introduction This summary reiterates the main points of the evaluation report on the SPRINT programme (Strategic Programme for Innovation and Technology Transfer) submitted to the European Commission. The SPRINT programme, run by Directorate Xm/D, comprises a set of lines of action, the overall objective of which is to create a climate favourable to innovation around European small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Launched in 1984, SPRINT was the forerunner of jiumerous tools and "best practices" for technologie transfer on a pan-European scale. To do this, it relied on regional and/or national intermediaries (both public and private) active in the field of innovation and technology transfer and targeted a whole series of actors (technical, managerial, financial, etc. ) who each have a role to play in the innovation process. The set of corresponding initiatives encompasses what is generally regarded at national level as an innovation policy 2 Innovation policy at European level 2. 1 Innovation policies An innovation policy is a system of measures designed to facilitate the innovation process, that is the process which leads from the idea of new products or new processes to its successful commercialization; the novelty may be radical, but very often it is limited to an improvement of what already exists. The idea may be the result of research work, but this is an exception. In practice, it is SMEs which form the main target of innovation policies inasmuch as large enterprises are felt to be well equipped for innovation without any special outside help. Furthermore, it is important not to confuse research policy, which tends to develop scientific knowledge, with innovation policy, which tends to facilitate the production and successful conunercialization of new products and services or the introduction of new processes into enterprises, h is nevertheless increasingly vital for the two policies to be conducted simultaneously and on the same footing 2. 2 Value added of the European approach Specific innovation policies have been introduced in the Member States, especially at regional level. SPRINT looked at the problem in a European context. In order to do this, the programme set out to demonstrate the relevance of certain tools (networks, common projects, financial instruments, fora, consultation, etc. ) with, as the ultimate objective, their adoption by national and regional authorities so that they benefit directly a large proportion of European SMEs. This highlights an important aspect of SPRINT, i. e. its capacity for experimentation and evaluation of new types of action. In this it is assisted by the EIMS programme (European Innovation Monitoring System), which helps r. to identify the relevant actions which need to be carried out, in particular for the benefit of regional and national governments. Furthermore, those involved in innovation in the various Member States have been able to add a transnational dimension to their work by coming together, at the European level, thanks to the SPRINT networks. Lastly, SPRINT has contributed to the objective of European cohesion through the dissemination of proven technologies from particular countries to other regions, especially to those suffering from a "development gap", thanks in particular to the "specific projects" for innovation transfer. In line with regional or national innovation paries, a Community innovation policy needs to iiat there is some consistency in the actions be "horizontal", i. e. im undertaken by the vano-i Commission di rectorales-general with regard to innovation among SMEs. -nented so as to en. 3 SPRINT objectives and methods. lied SPRINT actions can be classified according to the three initial objectives of the programme / - DEVELOPMENT OF A PAN EUROPEAN INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT ^NOVATION networks (brokers, research organizations, university-m science parks and regional infrastructure for innovation; innovation financing, id technology agencies, regional interface try intermediaries) U - DISSEMINATION 'ND ABSORPTIONOFNEWTECHNOLOGIES AND PRACTICES innovation management tech* mes (MINT, design, quality, etc. ); technology transfer days. demonstration projects Cspecial projects" for innovation transfer); UI - PROMOTING AWARENESS OF INNOVATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF HOW IT WORKS "European Innovation Monitoring Sy m "(information gathering, studies, workshops on policies, etc. ). In response to the complex nature of the innovation system, SPRINT itself was bound to be systemic in nature and its actions were bound to be diversified. This explains the profuse aspect which is a feature of the programme. The programme gradually adopted an approach which was both pragmatic and considered, building up in-depth knowledge of the mechanisms which underly innovation and technology dissemination. This approach comprises a cycle which produces in turn reflection (what is to be done, what initiative should be launched? - the European Innovation Monitoring System), experimentation (the various actions in the programme other than the EIMS), evaluation and dissemination (proven and evaluated good practices). These actions are for the most part aimed at SMEs' partners (various types of intermediary and interlace) and interaction platforms (capital and technology markets, fora, science parks and technopoles). The programme thus targeted several thousand intermediary bodies, on the assumption that the service to several hundreds of thousands of SMEs would be unproved. SMEs were directly involved only in pilot projects (MINT) or promotional events (European Design Prize). 4 Results of actions: analysis according to categories of actors Has SPRINT succeeded or railed in achieving the objectives it was given? These questions need to be answered according to the category of actors in the innovation system In the systemic model of the innovation process, the six main types of partner who are able to bring to SMEs the varied skills which an innovation process requires and to supplement their internal know-how are as follows: consultants, technological resource centres (technological partners), financial institutions, non-specialist bodies which stimulate demand and organize the coherence of the various actions (field consultants and regional departments responsible for innovation), and other enterprises i) Consultants. Thanks to the launch of a large number of networks, the programme has made it possible to stimulate the work of the main types of non-technological experts, especially technology brokers (mmi-networks for inter-firm technology transfer, Til Technology, Innovation and Information macro-network, organization of technology transfer days), experts in the field of technology management (MINT initiative for the strategic review of SMEs) and specialists on science parks and similar structures (feasibility and evaluation studies). Lastly, the programme set out to promote certain techniques of innovation management such as quality, value analysis and industrial design. The field was broadly covered in spite of some gaps {consultants specializing in market studies or intellectual property problems). il) Technological partners or research and technology organizations (RTOs). Among these, the sectoral technical centres (involved in collective research on fundamental technologies in traditional sectors) benefited from one of the main initiatives in the programme: RTO mini-networks. As for contract research organizations (CROs), they were helped by setting up a European association. Technological research centres (TRCs) focusing on one technology have not been targeted by any SPRINT action. Hi) Financial partners. These partners, comprising bankers and venture capitalists, are of major importance. SPRINT focused chiefly on the second category by helping to set up the European Venture Capital Association (EVCA) and organizing a series of investment fora. As for the banking sector, it was solicited by the experimental TPF (Technology Performance Financing) action. Lastly, a wide-ranging action was launched in the final months of the programme to study the feasibility of European markets of the NASDAQ type (second market in North America) in collaboration with DG XVm (Credit and Investments) and DG XXm (Enterprises). There is still much to be done with regard to innovation financing, where SPRINT has started to play an important role. h) Field consultants. The multiple functions of these partners include prospecting SMEs with a view to anlaysing their needs, diagnosing problems and helping to launch and steer innovation projects. A network of Regional Technology Advisory Centres (RTACs) which fufils this type of function was launched under SPRINT two years ago Regional (and national) services responsible for innovation. SPRINT has been v) systematically involved in assisting science parks and similar structures, and has therefore made itself felt with those responsible locally. Actions to assist regional policy-makers took on more substance at the end of the programme with the launch of Regional Technology Plans (RTPs, undertaken in collaboration with DG XVI Regional Policies) and the RJTTS initiative (Regional Innovation and Technology Transfer Strategies and Infrastructures) for the strategic analysis of regional infrastructure for support to innovation, based on enterprise demand and resulting in an action plan accepted by all the technical and economic actors in a region vi) Other enterprises. SMEs' part•* rs in the innovation process are as much other SMEs as large enterprises. Apart from an EIMS * idy, SPRINT has not been very active m this area, and this is one of the major shortcomings of the programme The important role of "specific projects" (21 in all) must be stressed, these being projects for the transfer of proven technologies to regions where such technologies are in demand but not yet available. This action line made it possible to bring together a number of different actors (SMEs, RTOs, consultants, regional interface services, etc. ) around common objectives and to develop a common language among them • a difficult but vital task. Lastly, the European Innovation Monitoring System (EIMS) was considered by the evaluation panel to be the linchpin of a construction based on consideration and identification of the most suitable actions. It is primarily policy-makers in the Member States who arc targeted in the six main areas of EIMS analysis (evaluation, innovation in firms, innovation- support infrastructures, regional aspects of innovation, innovation financing and innovation policy). S Panel's conclusions and recommendations SPRINT occupies an essential and original gap, that of developing SME innovation policy. Furthermore, the programme has been able to develop tools which tackle a complex problem. Finally, SPRINT has become progressively acknowledged by field actors as a privileged meeting ground. For these three reasons, the panel considers that the overall working process and the actions which are carried out by the SPRINT programme should be continued and even amplified as part of the future programme for the Framework Programme's third activity. The panel is convinced that the programme's weaknesses would not justify the marginalization of the SPRINT system. The panel identifies the following weak points: a certain inability to publicize its global working process which has yielded a small overall visibility, and sometimes even a reputation for dispersion; poor dissemination of results from pilot actions such as EIMS studies, which therefore reduces their impact; insufficient interaction with national authorities and with other services of the Commission. The panel also feels that there is a lack of qualified staff for the size of the programme. While recommending that intermediaries remain the main target of the SPRINT system, the panel would like to see regular, category-specific reports on the impact on SMEs of the actions launched. The panel also considers that some direct intervention gaps on SMEs do exist, and that these could be developed - for example via carefully prepared pilot actions - without violating the principle of subsidiarity The panel stresses the importance of renewing Community actions by a rigorous process for discarding actions going hand in hand with and a mechanism for selecting new programmes, based on consultation (with the other directorates-general involved but also with all those involved in the innovation process) The Commission must strengthen its contact role with regional authorities and improve the dissemination of results and studies derived from the activities of the programme. Such dissemination means structuring the lessons learned and transforming "tacit" knowledge into explicit information which can be broadly disseminated in written form. Transparency (visibility), dissemination and interaction summarize the three axes for improving the SPRINT system Overall, the SPRINT programme represents a remarkable and highly articulated set of actions, and it has proved to be a very effective means of support for national and regional innovation policies, while respecting the principle of subsidiarity. 10 PART ONE TERMS AND FRAME OF REFERENCE A. TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE GROUP; WORK METHOD Our committee was asked by the Commission to produce an evaluation report on the SPRINT programme. Some of the questions asked are common for this type of exercise: have initial objectives been achieved0 Is there sufficient rationale for continuing current projects, taking into account economic trends? In this particular case a further question needs to be asked on how to derive the greatest benefit from the incorporation of SPRINT in the Third Activity" of the Fourth Framework Programme. It should be remembered that SPRINT was not part of the third Framework Programme and that its inclusion in the Fourth Framework Programme is linked to the innovation concept SPRINT has so far been the only Commission programme whose main objective is to strengthen the innovative capacity of providers of goods and services, this concept of innovation is added for the first time to those of research and technology in the very definition of the Framework Programme After getting to know the SPRINT programme and its many schemes, the panel was able to confirm that the programme had remained true to the intentions of its founders. It was not a classical technology research programme, but an implementation at Community level of an innovation policy intended mainly for standard SMEs As we shall see later, such a policy follows necessarily a systems approach: in particular, it means multiplying interaction paths between innovation operators, and guaranteeing that the measures taken for their benefit are complete^ complementary and coherent. The danger of such a policy is to focus on one element of the innovation system while ignoring the need for others and foiling to see the wood for the trees This has been avoided as a result of the highly experimental nature of SPRINT, which successively investigated all the methods of supporting innovation and was able to implement by trial and error what we shall later call the SPRINT system. The panel therefore essentially concentrated on analysing SPRINT as a complete and interactive system. It did not inevestigatc each initiative in detail, (even though Annex 1 provides a brief review of them with an appreciation), there was no time for detailed assessment, and moreover, most initiatives were the subject of separate evaluation exercises which, after having their validity assessed by a few restricted public-opinion polls, were a source of inspiration for the panel in its general conclusions. 11 The panel met SPRINT CIT (Committee for Innovation and Technology Transfer) delegates separately; visits were also paid to national policy-makers from two Member States. Finally, those responsible for each line of action of SPRINT were interviewed along with representatives of three Directorates with an interest in SPRINT. B. FRAME QF REFERENCE The SPRINT programme is made up of a variety of schemes or initiatives whose global coherence is often ill-perceived. There is a striking contrast between the opinions of those working in the field, very satisfied with the support they get, and policy-makers who worry about the dense overall appearance of SPRINT and cannot clearly distinguish its objectives and its logic. Before getting involved in evaluating each line of action, the panel considered it necessary to define tic framework within which the objectives and initiatives of SPRINT are located There is no innovation policy, whether research-led or technology d, which does not claim as a central objective the competitiveness of firms, in a context exposed to international competition and technological change. This also applies to SPRINT, of course, and to the programme inu nich it is to be incorporated: the Third Activity of the Fourth Framework Programme -vhich they are abruptly Ever since its origins (1984), the original aspect of SPRINT has b* n its intention to aim at innovation in SMEs. particularly those which do little or no R&D. This is in contrast with traditional policies which seek to develop prc-competitive research in industrial labo rat o nes, mostly within large firms. It is only recently, in fact, that the clear distinction between R&D policy and innovation policy been well understood. At Community level, SPRINT has been a useful focal point for those who have set the tone for the new policies m each Member r c and region. in terms of industrial policy, innovation m SMEs is a segment whose importance is universally recognised, but one in which it is difficult to act : either because we lack recipes or because the SME target is more diversified than the large firm or laboratory target, but also because it is tricky for public authorities to intervene in a area very close to the market, such as SME projects. This is why we need to act together, at a European level, to gain a dearer picture of the requirements, to compare experiences and to disseminate " best practices ". The panel summarises the latest ideas on innovation as follows: 1. What is innovation? Innovation is defined as "the process which leads from the idea of new products or new processes to its successful commercialisation; the novelty may be radical, but very often it is limited to an improvement on what already exists". In order to succeed in this innovation process, the firm must incorporate all the necessary knowledge in its product or process. To do so it must bring together a number of financial and human resources and combine its internal know-how with a wide range of external 12 expertise. Part of this knowledge is technological, but other parts deal with management, marketing, financing, intellectual property, market prospects, etc. The innovation process should not be confused with R&D. The two concepts are complementary, but there is a great deal of innovation without any specific R&D effort, and research by no means always leads to innovation. The dissemination of technology and the various forms of technology transfer. are important, but not unique, aspects of innovation 2. Research policy and innovation policy are two different things Besides research policy, also called scientific policy, there is now innovation policy, whose aims and content are very different: - research policy aims to develop scientific knowledge by supporting public laboratories and, more indirectly, industrial laboratories - innovation policy aims to promote innovation projects originating within firms, i. e. the successful commercialisation of new products and new processes. It therefore directly contributes to the competitivity of industry. The mistake has been to confuse these two objectives: even when the new product or process has a strong technological base, its commercial success depends on a number of factors of which the use of new scientific knowledge is rarely the most important. And vice versa, the competitiveness of firms is by no means the only goal of scientific development. It is therefore essential to unravel the two objectives, and hence the two policies. It should be remembered that this confusion, still acute today, stems from the "linear model" which describes the innovation system as a pipe: fundamental research results are injected at one end, and the commercial products come out at the other. This reasoning presupposed a direct and unavoidable link between economic competitiveness and intensive research. All the experience of the past 20 years shows how rarely this link actually exists. Not only the aims, but also the content of research policy and innovation policy are different Innovation policy takes into account the development of knowhow, since the economy is increasingly dependent on this, but whether the knowledge to be developed is tacit or explicit, whether it is part of a firm's heritage or that of the public sector, it goes far beyond scientific knowledge or technological knowledge stemming from research. The nature of innovation is also managerial, financial, commercial, legal, and so forth. Furthermore, the creation of new knowledge is not the purpose of innovation policy, (but the one of research efforts, whether locally or anywhere else in the world): the crucial question for innovation policy is whether or not the necessary knowledge is actually used by firms. Its aim will therefore be as follows: • to place the SME within an environment where all expertise and the necessary knowledge are available, i. e. the individuals and organizations which not only 13 have this knowledge but have also been trained to give efT -•. ;: help to firms, particularly SMEs; - to help SMEs to be in a position to use this knowledge and to combine and take advantage of this expertise. The & isrence between the two types of policy is well illustrated in the context of technology. For research policy, the aim is to create new technological knowledge, particularly of a generic nature, i. e. able to be used in many different sectors and suited to many different products. For innovation policy, the key issue is at a later point when relevant technologies must be disseminated to firms, at the right time and in the right place. There is interaction to the extend that awareness of demand brings to light new research areas. To summarise, research policy and innovation policy need to be conducted simultaneously and on the same footing. They must also, of course, interact and support each other. 3. Characteristics of an SME-targeted innovation policy As stated above, the aim of innovation policy is to boost the success 01 innovative projects in SMEs. What form should this policy take in the current climate? a. An SME-oriented innovation policy must be all-embracing and include a number of different aspects. All models describing the innovation system stress its systemic and interactive nature. The size of SMEs prevent* them from having all the necessary in-house expertise, however, and often they are neither prepared nor trained to work with partners and therefore have great culty in taking full advantage of their environment. An innovation policy should there. - ensure that: • SMEs have knowledge of and access to all the necessary partners; - - these partners are prepared to work with SMEs (this includes a training policy, in particular); the technological needs of SMEs, whether obvious or latent, are identified as a guide to the development of basic knowledge; * interaction develops between all operators in the innovation system via: • promoting interrace services and interac latforms; • enhancing the absorption capacity and appetite of SMEs for innovation; • helping SMEs to network; 14 specific (vertical) policies such as those relating to research, technology, education, energy, health, telecommunications, equipment etc. are encouraged to take account of the specific needs of SMEs; finally, but only where necessary, funds are injected where market imperfections are preventing the private sector from starting up or working properly. b. An SME-oriented innovation policy therefore has certain characteristics: - - - it has to run a number of different schemes simultaneously, since it has to take into consideration the wide variety of SME partners. It may therefore appear to be diffuse, it must attempt to coordinate policies already launched. by the various public authorities responsible for these partners, according to their profession. It is therefore horizontal, it will avoid becoming a substitute for such authorities. It will, for example, only exceptionally give direct financial support to laboratories developing new technologies (this will be the province of technology policy, a sub-structure of RTD polies). c. Innovation policy is to be guided by the demand from SMEs (unlike exploitation policy, which is supply-led). This demand varies from one category of SME to another: without going into detail, there are three major categories - new SMEs based on a technological idea (NTBFs), whose purpose is to commercialise a completely new product Thev usually lack financial resources as well as managerial skills; - research-intensive SMEs (and suppliers of technology in the form or* hardware, software, materials etc ), which are usually clients of public R&D programmes; - by tar the most common category is the adult SME which needs to review its product range or modernise its processes. Some are primarily sub-contractors of large firms, while others have their own products It is these SMEs whose needs are the most varied and difficult to satisfy, often because those needs are neither defined nor expressed. One basic challenge here is to strengthen the absorptive capacity of these companies in order to facilitate innovation Table 1 summarises these differences The need to take demand into account explains the importance currently given to general innovation advisers, or field agents (see annexes 1 and 2). d An SME-oriented innovation policy is largely implemented at regional level, because most SMEs find their resources in their local environment. But, as we shall see later, this does not preclude action on a European scale. 15 e. Innovation policy includes technology dissemination. Technology dissemination is an important aspect of innovation policy since it is crucial to know how to incorporate new technological knowledge into products or processes, whether originating directly from a laboratory or whether already used in another product or sector. It is therefore desirable and even necessary that those who are responsible fof innovation, whether in public institutions or private firms, devote a large part of their efforts to the cassemination of technology. This was recognised by the SPRINT decision-makers, setting dissemination as one of the three objectives of the programme. It is now understood that, if technology dissemination becomes an appendix of research, it will be less effective: research sees dissemination merely as a means of exploiting its results, and justifying the investment in retrospect. There is then a gradual shift towards the so called research exploitation policy: an interesting activity, but one with a limited impact. The policy of influencing those in charge of the dissemination and transfer process is more realistic: a first part of this knowledge is primarily tacit, i. e. it can only be disseminated by those who created it or acquired it by using it on a another product or sector. A first step is therefore to mobilise these experts, and make them take part in innovative projects in firms or, better still, create firms based on their ideas. Another part of the knowledge is explicit, or can be made explicit by building models or by technological research It can then be disseminated via physical media such as databases. In all cases it is essential to boost the absorptive capacity of firms themselves, the last chapter of the dissemination process this happens far more easily when firms have properly learnt how to interact with their information sources. Finally, to complete this description of innovation policy, it must be said that innovation policy requires extensive flexibility because of the wide variety and rapid changeability of situations. Any innovation policy must, at this stage, be experimental. C WHAT CAN BE THE ROLE OF A EUROPEAN PROGRAMME TO STIMULATE INNOVATION IN SME's? Since one of the first requirements for innovation in SMEs is face-to-face contact, the role and rat : nale of a European programme needs to be carefully established in view of the subsidiarity principle and the extreme diversity of regional circumstances. One of SPRINTs achievements has been to specify- what this policy could or should not be, by combining analysis, experimentation and evaluation. According to the panel, a European programme must: - echo the variety of regional and national policies; stimulate and nurture them; promote collective reflection and any exchange of experience between policy-makers and operators in the field It must therefore increase the Community's economic and social cohesion; 16 - study, evaluate and disseminate a range of best practices through common guidelines and pilot demonstration projects suggesting action models based on analysis. Establish a common language; - help build up a solid infrastructure of local agents, particularly interface services; - give this infrastructure a European orientation; - feed it with European information, thus aiding the free circulation of technologies, - accelerate the dissemination and utilisation of technology and strengthen the absorptive capacity of SMEs; - - increase the social and economic cohesion of the Community; in line with regional or national policies, this policy must be horizontal It should be coordinated with other horizontal policies such as those of DG XVI (support to LFRs), DG XXm (SMEs) and DG III (industrial policy). It must interact with "vertical" policies: research, education, telecommunications, energy, finance, competition etc and provide them with suggestions (not to say recommendations). Nevertheless, unlike regional innovation policies, it would be difficult for a European innovation policy to influence all SMEs. After having highlighted the frame of the reference, part two of this report analyses the whole range of SPRINT initiatives, regarded as a system which must respond globally and in detail to the broad objectives of an innovation policy. Part Three is a general appreciation, followed by recommendations for enabling the SPRINT system to adapt to rapidly-evolving tasks once it has been incorporated into the Third Activity. Let us state here and now that the policy implemented by SPRINT corresponds well to the stated objectives. It has succeeded in following up the transformation of policies in various areas of Europe Despite its obvious imperfections, therefore, SPRINT is an original and appropriate tool for tackling the innovation problems of SMEs of all kinds. The panel therefore stresses the serious losses which would be incurred by an even partial abandonment of this approach as SPRINT enters the R&D Framework Programme: the objective of the Framework Programme is first and foremost to give support to research; hence there is a danger that the "Third Activity" might be used merely for adding value to the specific programmes. According to the work programme of the Third Activity, its general objectives are very largely in line with those set out in this reference framework. 17 PART TWO ANAL YSIS OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM OBJECTIVES SPRINT action lines could be described as a juxtaposition of schemes adopted in accordance with the objectives defined in 1982 and 1989, which can be summarised as follows: a. to reinforce the absorptive capacity of SMEs; b. to promote rapid dissemination of new technologies and innovation throughout the Community economy, thereby strengthening economic and social cohesion in terms of innovation and technology transfer, c. in the field of innovation and technology transfer, to increase the coherence and. the efficiency of innovation tools and policies, whether regional, national or community- based. SPRINT tackled these objectives by implementing a system of schemes whose coherence we will assess later. B. METHODS AND MEASURES OF THE SPRINT PROGRAMME The challenge for SPRINT was to invent a working method in a completely new area. Even at local level, an innovation policy is difficult to conceive and implement. At European level, choices are still more difficult because the subsidiarity principle has to be respected and therefore, directly dealing with SMEs is an exception: indeed, it is now recognised that for the average SME, local schemes are most effective. Faced with these difficulties, the SPRINT programme has developed original working methods ever since its launch. 1. First of all, combine reflection and experimentation, evaluation and dissemination: - The EIMS (European Innovation Monitoring System) initiative makes up the first part of this approach. It is based on a series of studies and workshops which deal with the various aspects of innovation policy, and which have enabled to strengthen the European network of experts in the subject. 18 - Many of SPRINTs pilot schemes described below we launched as a result of this reflection platform. There is a now a well-known experimental approach within SPRINT which allows real-size testing of various projects. - Those experiments which turn out to be successful are adopted by the régional authorities and local agents which took part in them, but ideally their results should be more widely distributed, which ought to occur if there were effective dissemination of such practices. Indeed, a dynamic rogramme such as SPRINT, which must tackle ide generally an "exit mechanism*, or a means constantly-evolving needs, sboulr of handing over proven schemes miners. As Part Three will demonstrate, this exit mechanism is still far from adequate. The reflection / experimentation / evaluation / dissemination * in the Specific Projects Action Line (SPAL), but also in s SPNET etc. ; these systematically include SMEs as well as (intermediaries and others). ^ach is adopted not only. -. » such as MINT, TPF, ~ various types of partner 2. Evaluate the actions The logical follow-up to the reflection / experimentation cycle consists of assessing the policies of regional decision-makers. This is the case with the RITTS and RTP schemes recently implemented and with the consultancy schemes for science parks. 3. Then build up networks The aim of networks is twofold to disseminate best practice, particularly knowledge gained through SPRINT pilot projects, and to launch European : as of interaction between operators in national and regional innovation stems. •The purpose of some of these networks (macro-networks), such as EACRO, RTAC, etc. , is to bring the various operators together and to disseminate information. These also provide a framework for organising major conferences from time to time. -Other networks (mini-networks) are targeted more at collective action: the adaptation and dissemination of technologies (RTO mini-networks), or technology transfer (Inter-firm mini-networks). 4. Target SMEs partners To aim these schemes primarily at SME partners (various types of intermediaries and im -es), and interaction platforms (markets, fora, science parks and technopoles) is a cb "method. programme cannot directly influence some 300 000 SMEs, it addresses a few Si. SME partners and hopes for a wide multiplier effect. SMEs are directly the in a few pilot projects only to study the practicalities and difficulties of their invL inte; options with intermediaries and the effectiveness of interaction platforms. We shall come back to this. 19 The means available to SPRINT are very small for the task. Admittedly, stimulation rather than management is the watchword, implying a lightweight structure in which human resources are a key element. Because of insufficient permanent staff, SPRINT has relied on a network of consultants. We shall come back to this in Part Three of the report. The interconnections of the action modes with the categories of operator and then with the objectives are summarised in Tables 2 and 3. C. COHERENCE OF THE "SPRINT SYSTEM": ANALYSIS BY CATEGORY OF OPERATOR As mentioned above, a systems approach only can make a real impact on an environment as complex and interactive as the innovation system. Is the SPRINT programme a system, having an internal logic7 To assess its coherence, the panel chose to analyse it successively through two grids: the innovation operators grid and the objectives grid. The interconnections between these two grids are summarised in Table 4. Analysis by category of operator One of the main virtues of SPRINT has been its recognition that the innovation process relies on a variety of SME partners and its consequent promotion of emerging innovation services. Whatever the sector of activity, SMEs cannot work without partners with expertise conducive to innovation and complementary to the internal know-how of the firm. To illustrate this diversity, the panel uses the so called hexagon diagram (see Figure 1): SMEs are in the centre and on each side of the hexagon are the six main types of SME partner: - various types of consultancy (management, marketing, intellectual property), - Technology Resource Centres (RTOs, or Research and Technology Organisations); - financial institutions (banks and capital development organisations); generalists who stimulate the demand and organise the coherence of the various - field innovation consultants and - regional authorities responsible for innovation policy, and lastly - other firms (SMEs and large firms) 1. Consultants These were the original target of SPRINT. Technology-licensing brokers were grouped into "inter-firm mini-networks", still active today. The TII network, easily set up, grouped them on a wider European basis. More recendy, SPRINT launched a vast operation for bringing together SMEs and management consultants (MINT). They have 20 benefited from three original lines of action (value analysis, quality and design), thanks to which European specialists have been able to create real communities (similar to scientific communities) which developed the knowledge and various relevant documents to disseminate. The creation of a panel of consultants and managers of science parks and technopoles should also be mentioned. By tackling technology management, the programme neglected other types of consultant. such as those who conduct market analysis and those who deal with intellectual property problems. 2. Technological partners SPRINT grouped the various types of technology supplier under the heading of RTOs ( Research and Technology Organisations). A conference was organised by SPRINT in 1993 which enabled the development of these important SME partners to be assessed They include: - sectoral technical centres which mostly conduct collective research projects on basic technologies m traditional sectors; - CROs (Contract iRescarch Organisations), which have a similar work function but are privately owned, and work with SMEs for only part of their time, - Technological Resource Centres (TRCs), which concentrate on one technology only (laser technology, materials technology etc. ). Small technical teams developed, for instance in France, in close contact with laboratories and are totally dedicated to SMEs (testing, analysis, participation in product or process- based projects etc. ) The first category was supported by SPRINT m the early days; in particular though RTO mini-networks which are still successful, conferences and workshops which regularly bring together a number of RTOs on a European scale, and the creation of the macro- network FEICRO Industrial Cooperation Research Organisations). (Federation of European The second category benefited a few years ago from the creation of the macro-network EACRO (European Association of Contract Research Organisations), whose overall activity is fairly intense. The third category has been somewhat neglected. 3. Field Consultants (innovation &. technology consultants) It is only recently that the new function of RTACs (Regional Technology Advisory Centres) has developed. It can be described as follows: to explore the SME system, to diagnose their needs, and to offer SMEs a wide choice of technological partners (and others), and eventually to help SMEs launch and pilot the definition phase of their innovations. The rnacro-network of such consultants (RTAC) was launched two years ago. It is too early to assess its impact, but it should be noted that RTAC working groups have been created and do some useful work. 21 4. Financial partners for innovative SMEs Innovation is an industrial operation which requires not only self-financing and public support, but also substantial funding from the financial sector. Hence the importance of banks and venture capitalists as partners to the SME. To make banks aware of the specific problems of SMEs, to help venture capitalists to set up throughout Europe and to have access to the same tools as their American colleagues had to be one of the main priorities for a programme such as SPRINT. The nature of SPRINTs action in this new and difficult area is experimental At the beginning the macro-network EVCA (European Venture Capitalists Association) was created. Then the banking system was approached through the TPF scheme Because of its limited success, this initiative was recently reassessed, taking into account the lessons learned. In collaboration with DG XVTII and DG XXIII, an EIMS type initiative is adressing venture capital problems and is aiming at the creation of a European market of the NASDAQ type. Further experiments should be launched in this rapidly-changing environment (sec paragraph 6 of Annex I), which SPRINT is far from having covered completely 5. Local (and national) policy-makers Regional authorities now play a major role in creating an infrastructure for supporting innovation in SMEs, particularly by: - injecting financial resources into those SMEs and into public or private innovation service organisations; • by organising the interactions between these innovation operators; - by favouring coherence of the actions taken by the various authorities concerned. The regions have therefore become major partners for SMEs. Has SPRINT taken this into account? - SPRINT took action a long time ago at the local policy-maker level through its science park consultancy scheme. Science parks play an important role in technology transfer and they are rapidly increasing in number. SPRINT supported many of them from the outset and allowed a number of science park promoters, in tact the majority of them, to benefit from the experience acquired by their predecessors. Today the feasibility study strand has not been abandoned, but added to by a second phase of evaluation studies of existing science parks with some maturity - Action in support of regional policy-makers has suddenly become highly relevant thanks to the launch of the RTTTS and RTP (piloted by DG XVI) schemes. The ambition here is broader, since RTTTS or RTP tackles the overall regional innovation infrastructure, and analyses and aims to redefine what should be done to improve it. The accent is on the consensus which should prevail amongst the various relevant administrations and on the interaction which should be developed between the various local innovation operators (the various firms and their partners). 22 The very recent nature of these actions can be criticised, together with the lack of qualified personnel within SPRINT to undertake such a task (essentially accomplished by consultants whose competence should be carefully monitored). 6. What SPRINT has overlooked The range of SME partners dealt *. Ui by SPRINT is large. However, the panel considers that there arc two gaps in the programme: - Other firms: experience has shown that other firms have become a major partner for SMEs. For example, high-technology firms are the main technology suppliers for SMEs through hardware, software and materials technologies which are manufactured on demand. More generally the newly-organised industrial pattern multiplies day-to day interactions between firms and makes them inter-dependent. This is particularly- true of the innovation process, in which SMEs integrated into a network succeed better and more quickly than those which are not integrated. According to arrangements to be defined, SPRINT could be expected either to give direct support to the creation of business networks (SME/large firms networks, SME networks, clusters), or to support those attempting to develop such networks. *PRINT programme ••- T SO far neglected this aspect of the problem Even i the TT Days and some EIMS schemes work in that direction, their impact is 7? th f. nom adequate, and there are no real SME/large firm networks. - Interaction amongst SME partners: no serious effort has really been made to bring together all the various SME partners and reinforce their interaction, apart from S PAL, even though one has to acknowledge that such a task would not be easy. D. COHERENCE OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM - ANALYSIS BY OBJECTIVE The various SME partners form a complex entity which SPRINT has succeeded in assessing and targeting, except for a few which have been overlooked. O* er partners will probably come to light, the method which SPRINT applies should enaole them to be identified. But this is not enough. It is necessary to check that the various objectives of a European innovation policy are being fulfilled, at least where the prime target of "standard" SMEs is concerned. A detailed analysis of the SPRINT system by objectives is included in Annex 2. The grid used is that which defines the work programme of the third activity of the fourth RTD FWP, into which it has been decided that SPRINT initiatives will be incorporated. The three objectives of this work programme are the following: 1. Favouring an environment beneficial to innovation and the absorption of technologies 2. Establishment of an area' for the free circulation of technologies in the EU 3. Supply of appropriate technologies to the SME system 23 The links between this work programme and the general objectives of an innovation policy as described are clear: it is therefore natural to refer to them. 1. Helping to create an environment beneficial to innovation in SMEs a. Influencing specialists (section 1. 3 of this report: "to help implement a solid infrastructure for field operators, particularly interface services"). The aim is to increase the individual quality of SME services through the creation and dissemination of basic knowledge and practical know-how. The following approaches are identified in this context: - management tools such as value analysis, design and quality (the documents published under these headings are a genuine asset); - field projects of the MINT type (provided that the right lessons have been learnt from comparing the contractors' methodologies); - to improve the homogeneity of the quality of mini-networks in which less-developed European countries participate; (the Segal Quince evaluation of mini -networks stresses that this improves the general quality of networks); - the experience acquired by RTOs within specific projects. It is regrettable that there has not been enough systematic effort to learn from these various experiences. Some EIMS studies' should be dedicated to them, and enable best practice to be more widely disseminated. In general, the training aspect should be developed in connection with regional and national authorities. b. Influencing tools and policies Repeating what was said earlier in the first part of this report, the problem here is "to disseminate best practices through a policy of demonstration which proposes action models based on reflection, and to establish a common language". SPRINT uses the EIMS experimentation/evaluation system to further that aim, as described above. In this context the following initiatives can be identified: - - TPF, which aims to establish a new mechanism of interaction between banks and the suppliers and users of technology; - specific SPAL projects in which pan-European experiences allow model initiatives to be demonstrated to local or national policy-makers, - the MINT programme, a large-scale management support demonstration scheme; - programmes for assessing the instrumental value of a science park or regional innovation policy/infrastructure. Such schemes have a number of merits: with low cost, they investigated a series of local schemes and are a powerful tool for cUssseminating best practice; 24 with objectives reveals a lack of in raiments aimed at Such a comparison of initiai increasing the absorption calcify of SMEs, by influencing the selecuon or training of their personne! In particular, very little was done to increase human mobility from public research ins ions to companies or between firms. These schemes analysed aim to disseminate widely experiences which have been tested successfully at local level with or without SPRINT support. Here, SPRINT can be criticised mostly at the level of the dissemination of results. Even though macro- and information mini-networks, general conferences, EIMS workshops and the recent campaign on best practices in transnational technology management networks are all instrumental in disseminating lessons learned, there is a major gap: putting together the lessons learned from each experience to enable all local or national innovation policy makers to benefit from them SPRINTs lack of influence on policy-making is noticeable in that action taken under the structural funds is rarely inspired by SPRINT. c Disseminating technologies This is S rllNTs second explicit objective, and a particularly important one. Let us stress once again that there are a number of mechanisms for bringing the necessary technologies to the firm. certain items (software, hardware, etc. ) which incorporate the • The firm may ss, thus requiring a limited learning process. SPRINT aims to desired tecfux promote this process through ax; original financial tool, TPF (see Annex 1, paragraph 6). • A similar approach is to buy licences: in this area, SPRINT supports the mini- networks of "licensing brokers". There may be financial tools which would help such purchases. • In order to tackle an innovation project properly, the firm may call on experts who know the basis of the technology to be integrated and agree to take part in the project as real partners. SPRINT has tried to develop this new type of activity for consultants (specific projects). • The firm may go as far as employing these experts for good. Some national pro. amines exist which favour this type of mobility. SPRINT has recently launched a network of people responsible for these programmes. This is an interesting effort, but is not yet adequate, since the ultimate aim of such an approach is to mcrease the absorptive capacity of SMEs, which requires far more attention. • Lastly, the dissemination of explicit information should not be neglected (explicit knowledge in contrast to the tacit knowledge which is used in the approaches described above). This is the role of databanks and other types of technology-watch tools extensively developed by the CORDIS system (VALUE programme). In all cases, dissemination is a learning process in which the interested firm learns to learn. In the long run it is more efficient for the firm to learn to detect and rapidly master new technologies than to supply it with tailor-made technologies. If the challenge for a 25 dissemination policy is to develop "learning products", it could be said that SPRINT has prepared the ground but that much remains to be done. 2. Europeanising operators in the innovation system Here we have in mind the European networks which SPRINT has set up in a systematic way, as and when new operators arrived on the innovation scene. The way they work is described in more detail in Annexes 1 and 2. They are obviously valuable tools for developing a European reflex amongst operators in the innovation system who work mostly at regional, sometimes national, level. Interaction platforms developed within the context of SPRINT should also be mentioned - investment fora, TT Days, and some specific projects. These networks and platforms are excellent initiatives. As already stated it is regrettable that these initiatives aimed at developing inter-firm networks are so embryonic; it is also regrettable that these networks have not been used sufficeintly for disseminating information, not only top-down information, but information exchanged between two nodes of a network on what is being produced, invented or disseminated in each region. 3. Horizontal schemes The purpose of a horizontal programme such as SPRINT is to provide a catalyst to enable various specific (vertical) projects to support its objectives. SPRINT has relied on a considerable network of field operators and therefore is easily able to detect the various needs of SMEs. This is true of technology, financial resources, information on international markets for products and services, industrial protection, standards, etc. In all these areas SPRINT could speak up for SMEs when dealing with large European programmes and those who establish rules and procedures and to some extent it has already done so. There will be further development of this theme in part 3, paragraph C. 2. For a long time SPRINT had no meaningful collaboration with other services, but has succeeded recently in establishing some significant links such as: - a joint programme with DG XVI on RTP. SPRINTs experience is being widely used by those responsible for the structural funds. This looks very promising. - interaction with DG XVIII and DG XXIII on the problem of venture capital; - making the directorate responsible for telematics aware of the links needed between science parks and technopoles, - co-operation with EUROSTAT on the Community Innovation Survey; - links with DG III on sectoral projects This list is not exhaustive and unfortunately does not include any RTD programmes, nor does it include directorates in charge of intellectual properties and standards. 26 E. CONCLUSION This analysis demonstrates that the SPRINT programme is a coherent system in which the various lines of action of an innovation pohcy involve all those active in the innovation system. The system was built up progressively as new operators and new needs emerged, and has evolved more as a response to demand than as an attempt to create an "attractive" programme. The EIMS system is used as a filter for projects proposed. Since SPRINT is now recognised by innovation operators as their European focal point, more and more projects are being put forward. In saying this we do not wish to conceal the defects of the SPRINT programme, which are listed in Part Three of this report - particularly its inability to describe its overall working procedures accurately although some efforts have been made to remedy that. Each operator sees in SPRINT only what interests him or her, and external observers describe it as unstructured and diffuse (this is very often the impression given by innovation programmes, however). Interaction does take place between the various initiatives, but not always at the right level. These criticisms are moderated by the considerable progress made by SPRINT over the past three years. The general analysis provided by the EIMS programme, the contacts made with other directorates and the increasing implementation of measures in the regions following the evaluation process are all starting to provide SPRINT with the visibility and strategic importance it used to lack. 27 PART THREE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. GENERAL APPRAISAL OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM The segment occupied by SPRINT is both original and essential: the development of SME innovation policy. It has also succeeded in developing appropriate tools to tackle a complex problem. Finally, SPRINT is increasingly often acknowledged by field operators as a preferential meeting-place. For these three reasons, the panel considers that the overall approach and the initiatives implemented by the SPRINT programme should be preserved or even amplified under the Third Activity oftheFourth Framework Programme. SPRINT also has its weaknesses: the panel has identified them and has offered some recommendations, but it is not convinced that they would justify marginalising the SPRINT system within the Framework Programme. SPRINT is indeed a system in which each initiative makes sense only as part of a more general policy. It is this system which the panel has attempted to analyse and evaluate rather than spending too much time assessing the separate lines of action. Let us summarise some of the strengths of SPRINT. Its achievements have been: • to tackle all aspects of the problem of innovation, including finance and management; - to combine reflection and action, experimentation and evaluation, - - to generate a number of "action models" for private and public innovation policy-makers, in particular at regional level; to create real European communities of experts in professional circles in which they did hot previously exisv, thus fostering the cohesion of innovation practice, tools and skills. Some weaknesses which emerged during the evaluation must also be mentioned: - the inability to publicise its general approach, resulting in a low profile for the programme or even a reputation for being diffuse, 28 - poor dissemination of results from specific initiatives such as EIMS studies, thus reducing their impact; - hence an inadequate catalytic effect on regional or national innovation schemes; • too Jittle interact departments, even objectives of a horizontal pohcy. with national governments and other Commission ugh influencing other programmes is one of the major The root of most of these weaknesses is a shortage of qualified staff, only partially offset by the creation of a technical assistance unit The SPRINT programme appears to be suffering fiom implicit Commission rules according to which the number of staff available is proportionate to the budget allocated. Yet SPRINT is an activity programme whose impact derives no less from the expertise of its staff than from its budgetary funds granted. To compensate for its staff shortage, SPRINT relies on a large network of consultants This is useful but not sufficient, because permanent staff are essential for accumulating experience d knowledge of the overall system, for disseminating results and for guiding and controlling consultants. One might ask why so many initiatives were undertaken with so few staff: to have done less would have reduced or undermined the systemic nature of SPRINT, whose overall effect relies precisely on the diversity and compiimentarity of its initiatives B. PROPOSALS FOR THE COMPOSITION OF THE PROGRAMME The strength of SPRINT lies in the importance of the segment it fills and the general approach it has taken. However, it can only be effective if the diversity of its initiatives precisely meets the needs of innovation operators. In Part Two of this report (and in Annexes 1 and 2) the panel attempted to define this relationship, first by analysing the programme in the light of the objectives of the Third Activity, and secondly m the light of what concerns the operators themselves In doing so the committee detected some deficiencies in the overall process and had some doubts concerning particular lines of action, but thi* is not essential The panel identifies the following three mam issues: 1. A programme such as SPRINT must be flexible and evolutionary: The environment changes fast New partners appear, other partners lose their importance or no longer need support The demand from SMEs changes as the need for innovation spreads to new categories of firms SPRINT must be able to hand over the management of certain schemes to other operators rj State) Only then will SPRINT be fully able to play (in the Commission or in a M its role of catalyst and stimu genuine learning process ami gst innovation policy makers. 29 It is therefore essential to have a mechanism for renewing the initiatives. Where exit mechanisms are concerned, it should be possible to: specify the date and the mechanisms for terminating each scheme; include within each project the time and resources for learning lessons according to a transparent methodology which is to be continuously improved. It is important that the follow-up and evaluation process should be extended to a large number of new projects run in certain regions or Member States, i. e. beyond those run as part of the third activity; organise a follow-up mechanism according to rules depending on the European dimension of the scheme; for example: * * * the scheme could be followed up at Community level, either within the third activity (e. g. the micro-network activity, each project of this line of action being limited in time, as it is now), or within other Commission departments. the scheme could be continued using resources provided by its participants (as is true of most SPRINT-initiated macro-networks, EVCÀ, etc. ); the scheme could serve as a model for regional or national policy-makers using the results of SPRINT pilot projects (this should be MINTs future). Another important measure would be to replace one SPRINT initiative by another pilot action along the same lines, using the reflection-action-evaluation-dissemination approach of which the panel so strongly approves For example, innovation financing is currently an important question of universal concern, and one in which a series of tests should be launched to help find answers. These mechanisms already exist to some extent in the SPRINT system, but what we are suggesting is to systematise and throw more light on an overall approach which is largely a mystery to outsiders. The entry mechanism, while remaining quite simple, should also be made more transparent and allow future clients to take on a broader role: • the three main sources of ideas should remain (a) the demand constantly expressed in the field (through TT Day events, the Specific Projects, etc. ), (b) the EIMS initiative, which filters ideas and improves the targeting and definition of projects which are still unclear, and (c) the results of evaluations of specific projects and programmes. - concerning the choice of new initiatives, a committee of independent experts is one solution; an intra-Commission working group bringing together various Commission programmes which would later be likely to take over some of the advanced schemes is another. These proposals also apply to the choice of EIMS themes. 30 By stressing these entry/exit mechanisms. SPRINT to an experimental programme. innovation policy under the third activity should combine: n of the panel is definitely not to reduce -tie contrary, the panel considers that an - an observation, demand assessment, identification and dissemination of best practice and experimentation project, as is exp *cd by future users both in the Commission and in regional and national authorities - long term projects. 2. Should the programme continue to target intermediaries, or shoulo it be directed at SMEs? SMEs are, of course, the ultimate target, and the ultimate criterion for the success of SPRINT is whether or not it considers the specific needs of the various SME categories However, the main approach of SPRINT initiatives at present is to increase the degree of efficiency and europeanisation of SME partners instrumental in the innovation process. This produces a leverage of around 100, permittinc indirect contact with some 100 000 of a total of 300 000 potential SME clients. Ideally one should go beyond this and contact SMEs directly. This could be done in a number of ways: ous a. Maintain SME participation in pil t schemes for testing the efficiency o: modes of partnership with SMEs. It is far from obvious that "intermediaries", the «urrcnt name given to SME partners, exactly meet the demand from SMEs. SMEs are highly diversified and ^ave many different needs, moreover, many intermediaries do business mostly with la-^e firms and are not willing to make the effort to adapt to SME demand, which is often unprofitable. Ther are two positive aspects to SME participation in pilot schemes: - give direct help to SMEs taking part in the scheme (as with MINT, Specific Projects, TTDays, Investment fora, etc. ) - check that the action taken by SME partners really meets the require men of the firms. Test the quality of these partners and recommend ways of improving their professionalism in dealing v. ~< SMEs. A close analysis of observed interactions permits a better grasp of real SME demand However, it is important that these SMEs are a representative sample. For example, the three categories described in the first part of the report ought to be represented, bearing in mind that the main target of innovation policy is the standard SME, i. e. firms which do little or no research. We recommend that a classification of SMEs, based on inn: anon demand, be compiled and kept constantly up to date. Furthermore, it is useful to calculate (by category) the number of SMEs which are clients of intermediaries supported by the programme. It is then possible to avoid over- concentration on service-type firms or institutions, which would aim OILY at small categories of SMEs with relatively low economic weight. 31 b. Use SPRINT as a tool for identifying SME demand and as their ambassador to operational programmes. For example, after selecting about fifteen traditional sectors (textile, footwear, furniture, three or four agri-foodstuffs sectors, structural steelwork etc. ) or "high-tech" sectors a systematic investigation might be carried out, providing a more precise vision of the needs of SMEs in each sector which is both exploratory and practical. This investigation would closely involve representative SMEs and regional authorities (since traditional sectors have strong regional affinities). We shall come to this in the third point of this paragraph, concerning SPRINTs role vis-à-vis the regions. This type of investigation may bring to light as many "horizontal" needs (e. g. the injection of own resources into new technology-based firms) as "vertical" needs (e. g. future technologies for the footwear sector). SPRINT does, in fact, work in that direction with RTO mini-networks, but m a way which is too fragmented to be noticed by SMEs and especially for SPRINTs advice to be taken seriously by other programmes, European or regional. c. Beyond this experimental approach and "programming consultancy'', the third activity might approach SMEs from traditional sectors directly and in large numbers, offering them the type of support which local authorities provide today. Is this type of extensive and direct approach to SMEs conceivable for standard SMEs (those which do little or no research) with schemes close to the market? This is a debatable point; it is certain, however, that SPRINTs already thorough knowledge of the SME system (through its interface networks in particular) would help the third activity to succeed in such an undertaking But the subsidiarity principle (and also the real tendency SMEs have to be suspicious of partners which are too distant) are opposed to this a priori. In any case, one should be wary of the response to subsidiarity which consists of forcing SMEs to work together in international consortia: this may be an interesting formula for the high-tech SME fringe, but it is not necessarily the key to the competitiveness of European SMEs A more realistic approach would be to try to influence the use of the structural funds by regional authorities (or directly through DG XVI), by disseminating best practices which are clearly demonstrated and explained Whilst recommending that intermediaries remain the main target of the SPRINT system, the panel wishes the impact on SMEs to be monitored and regularly reported on. e. g. through pilot schemes carefully devised for the purpose. The panel also feels that there are some opportunities for a direct approach to SMEs, and that these could be met without violating the subsidiarity principle. 32 3. A new dimension: SPRINT as the ct *ct point for regional authorities Historically speaking, while aiming to cover the entire range of innovation operators, the various SPRINT initiatives first concentrated on consultants, then on technological partners, and thereafter on financial partners and proximity advisers (RTACs). But the increasingly important role of regional policies for supporting inn /ion in SMEs tends to create a preferential relationship between those responsible tor these policies and SPRINT. This new dimension of the SPRINT system should be considered a priority, but on the condition that all the implications are assessed. The experience acquired by SPRINT and the double approach of EIMS and experimentation places the third activity in an ideal position for - helping local authorities define the content of their programmes in support of innovation in SMEs {What?). SPRINT has been doing this for years through its activities in the science park consultancy scheme. - The sectoral priorities described above are a special issue. SPRINT could help regions to define new sectoral balances and technology interaction programmes without a great deal of extra input. - advising the regions on the implementation of their programmes in support of innovation in SMEs and/or for technology dissemination (How?). This has already begun under the "strategy" heading of the RITTS and RTP schemes. The heavy response to the RTTTS call for proposals (a quarter of all European regions) also shows bow much the regions seek advice on the various modes of action, the best intervention methods, the new facets of innovation, schemes for fostering a more professional approach, etc. - helping regions to evaluate their projects from the outside, and at the same time to implement permanent self-evaluation mechanisms. This is the basis of the RTTTS and RTP projects. The considerable strength of the SPRINT programme here is its ability to combine reflection, intemationaJ comparison, control over a vast network of experts and its "supranational" position, which gives the evaluations it can "guarantee" a strong credibility. It could even be said that SPRINT could play the same role with regional authorities as the OECD has with national authorities. The panel feels that this support for regional innovation policies deserves encouragement particularly because it is perfectly in line with two principles of all Community programmes: subsidiarity and cohesion G PROPOSALS FOR SPECIFIC ACTION The first recommendation from the panel is that the tools perfected by SPRINT should be fully used and should form the basis for the originality and effectiveness of the third activity. As is pointed out above, however, these tools incorporate some weaknesses that must be dealt with. Targets for improvement can be summarised in three words: transparency 33 (visibility), dissemination and interaction. These key words have already appeared in the proposals for entrance/exit mechanisms. 1. Improve the reflection - experimentation - evaluation - dissemination cycle. The panel considers this global approach to be very effective, and particularly well-suited to the diversified and changing environment of innovation in SMEs. However, the panel recommends some improvements. (a) as already said above, improve the transparency of the choice of EIMS themes by associating it with other Commission services; (b) concerning experimentation, define the methodological objective of each pilot project (expected lessons) more precisely; work out what the evaluation procedure will be; accumulate knowledge on the evaluation methodology. The aim is to be able to provide a description of each experience in order to allow managers (from regional organisations, or RTOs, or SMEs, etc. ) to reproduce it, or at least to be inspired by it, or on the contrary to abandon projects which might have appeared attractive at first. In fact, the innovation area is full of ideas which arc propagated without their field of application being known and which need to be validated It has already been said that the evaluation of, say, specific projects, and of future third activity projects, should be extended to other projects run in the European arena (c) Currently, poor dissemination is probably the greatest weakness of SPRINT. This is connected with the previous point, since it is not possible to disseminate information profitably unless it can be utilised directly,which will usually require elaborate presentation work. There is a strong analogy here with technology dissemination innovation processes are a technology in their own right, and their dissemination follows the rules set out in Part Two. Some of the knowledge acquired through an experimental project (MINT, Specific Projects, etc. ) is still tacit and can only be disseminated by those who took part in the experiment. The permanent staff of SPRINT m charge of these projects can apply to new projects of the 3rd activity a substantial amount of experience accumulated in earlier projects. This is, however,. Besides a rather special case and considering the low level of mtra-European mobility, does not allow for extensive dissemination. Hence there is a need to present what has been learnt, so as to transform this tacit know- how into explicit knowledge able to be widely disseminated in written form. One good example is the recent campaign on "Best practices in managing transnational technology- transfer networks". One effective form of dissemination would be the use of the methods explained for the design and continuous assessment of projects financed by the Commission on the basis of calls for proposals. The Commission would describe the methods in its call for proposals - a ready-made means of dissemination (if anything, calls for proposals are documents properly read). Then, when the project is under way, SPRINT experts (permanent or external) would have a field in which to put the methodology into practice and improve on it. The projects in question would be not only transfer projects (SPAL), but also the innovation policy evaluation exercises (RTTTS and RTP). 34 What must oe disseminated are learning methods (transfer processes, teamwork pre "Goal-Oriented Project Planning"- (GOPP-) groups for managing international pro -s, rnini-network organisation, operation of an RTAC, etc. ). These have a far gru^r multiplier effect than the "top-down" dissemination of each technology in turn This diss- third activity;. nation should cover all the aspects of SPRINT (and in future all those of the published proceedings of the EIMS workshops; • publication of executive summaries of EIMS studies and easy access to the studies themselves; - dissemination of the result f specific projects in a form to be specified. For example: the proceedings of EIMS symposia and studies are not always published. It is crucial that executive summaries be published; the results of the specific projects should remain confidential. 77ie panel suggests that new methods of disseminating what has been learnt by experimentation should be studied and applied within the SPRINT system and more generally within the third activity. 2. Reinforce and systematise the interaction between the SPRINT programme and its potential partners • Interaction with other Commission departments This is a delicate subject However it is worth the effort, because one of the major objectives of an innovation policy is to mobilise all available resources from vertical programmes for new initiatives which are better targeted at new categories of SME. r cooperation between SPRINT and another DG is the joint RTP The best example ^ (see Annex 1, Chapter 1. 8). This cooperation could prove scheme with DC particularly fruir if the resuhs of SPRINT are interesting and well-authenticated, they cc<dd'bc exploitée by structural fund users and be of considerable influence. Furthermore, the panel thinks that lessons should be learnt from this successful case study and that general mechanisms of interacoon between the third activity and other services could be derived from them. DG XXm pursues similar objectives to those of SPRINT, but in a larger political arena. Flexible and regularly-applied mechamsms should therefore be used to link up the two programmes (the same applies to the whole of the third activity and other horizontal programmes of the Commission). Care should be taken concerning interaction between the third activity and the rest of the Framework Programme. Applying the linear model could make the third activity appear to be a mere device for exploiting the results of the first activity. This would be a mistake which the committee already pointed out in the first part of this report. 35 Without neglecting the services it will be required to provide, the third activity should be first and foremost regarded as a consultation and coordination opportunity for initiatives in support of innovative SMEs. It should also inspire and evaluate the various departments responsible for exploiting the "1%" allocated to exploitation in each specific programme of the first activity. The experience that SPRINT has acquired, and its ability to assess SME demand, should also be exploited by all those whose terms of reference include support for innovative SMEs. To summarise, the panel suggests that interaction mechanisms be negotiated between the third activity and each Commission programme likely to contribute to the development of innovation in SMEs. * Interaction with the local and regional authorities responsible for innovation. In paragraph B3 we stressed the appropriateness of such an interaction; it had a head start with the launch of the RITTS and RTP programmes. The panel suggests that this approach be first of all extensively investigated by experimentation and then implemented on a long-term basis, together with any other scheme able to stimulate dialogue between the Commission and 200-300 European partners dealing with innovation policy. Other forms of interaction could be developed in the context of specific projects. Some of these could take the form of "jouit ventures" between the third activity and a regional authority. The use of such a project as a test for a technology transfer mode or for a local innovation policy would enhance its credibility, and it would be far easier to duplicate if it proved successful When the "Council of the Regions" provided for by the Maastricht treaty becomes fully operational, it will be important for the third activity to report to it on its activities. The third activity would find its natural political support there, because today it is the regions which press in each Member State for a redistribution of the funds earmarked for large projects and the far more modest sums allocated to supporting innovation in SMEs. Similar steps should strengthen SPRINT contacts with national policy-makers responsible for innovation in SMEs in the Member States. 3. Increase human resources within the SPRINT programme: As already stated, SPRINT lines of action can achieve their objectives only through the availability of a number of highly-qualified experts. Whether the work entails reflection, evaluation, dissemination, running of networks or mini-communities, etc. , we are faced with a situation in which budgets are relatively modest (except for specific projects), but in which the objective to be ultimately achieved requires substantial staff availabilty. The combined number of Commission officials plus staff in the technical assistance unit is less than 20. The extensive use of a network of consultants is a positive consequence of the shortage of permanent staff. Although we welcome this development, it must be recognised that consultants are no substitute for permanent staff, cannot accumulate 36 relevant experience and general knowledge of innovation problems, and car responsible for dissemination or, of course, for following up their own work. be made The panel therefore strongly recommends that manpower of the SPRINT syster be if increased. A way should be found to implement this recommendation in the 'T current European Commission rules with respect to manpower expenditures. ZX -g experts from regional and/or national organisations is an initiative which couiu oe taken systematically. '~~- D. MISCELLANEOUS During its work, the panel tackled various problems for which there was no time 10 go into details but which might be óf interest to the third activity. These include - the contribution of the third activity to the practice of the "1% rule" (see appendix 3); • provide innovation policy with a broader vision. Besides the main objective, i e industrial competitiveness, consideration could be given to a world dimension, ecological and socio-economic aims, - support fiom the third activity for innovation and technology transfer policies in Central and Eastern Europe. EL CONCLUSION: SUMMARY ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION PUT TO THE PANEL Let us answer in order the three ques; oris put to the Committee in its terms of reference: 1. Has SPRINT pursued the objectives laid down in the Decision of 17 August 1989? These objectives were couched in very ambitious terms: 1) to strengthen the innovative capacity of European firms, 2) to promote the mnovation process and the penetration of new technologies and 3) to improve the efficiency and coherence of innovation and technology transfer policies throughout the Member States and the regions (cohesion objective). The analysis of Part Two and the conclusions of the Part Three provide a generally. positive answer to thi *stion - SPRINTs expend, -al character enabled a large number of solutions to b zsicd in nearly all explorable paths of innovation support. Thanks to EIMS and the trial- ' and-error method enabling the internal aspects of the various lines of action to be specified, the Commission now has in its possession a well-used tool for reflection, experimentation and decision-making. 37 - Operators in the innovation system (including technical organisations) have found in SPRINT the framework for cooperation and interaction which they used to lack. - SPRINT only recently started to focus on the efficiency and coherence of policies at regional or national level. It is therefore too early to assess SPRINTs impact on this third objective One could, of course, raise multiple criticisms of a programme which has by no means achieved all it set out to do, and has succeeded even less in bringing all those involved in the innovation system to a high level of competence and efficiency. But SPRINT had very few resources for performing these tasks. Its cost/benefit ratio is, in fact, very high: the RTO mini-network programme, for example, succeeded in changing the behaviour of many RTOs with very meagre funds per organisation. 2. Are innovation and technological dissemination policies still relevant today? The second question can be answered simply by pointing out that, five years after 1989, strengthening the innovative capacity of SMEs has become a top priority for those responsible tor economic competitiveness Above all, the dissemination of technology to traditional sectors has become more important than the large-scale production of new technologies of sole benefit to the high-tech sector. Furthermore, in a area in which activities are close to the market and earned out by firms with a regional bias, the subsidiarity principle makes direct targeting of standard SMEs very difficult. The policy invented by SPRINT fits these constraints and objectives very well. 3. How should the problems now being dealt with by SPRINT be handled as part of the third activity? Various criticisms and recommendations are put forward throughout Parts Two and Three and Annexes 1 and 2. There is a great deal to be done before SPRINT initiatives can be considered as working totally satisfactorily However, the panel regards SPRINTs overall approach as a very healthy one and recommends that its mam characteristics be retained The coherence of the "SPRINT system" must above all be preserved in the new organisation: the main value of these initiatives lies in the position they occupy within a global pohcy. There is an obvious danger that each scheme and each type of partner might cut itself or himselfTherself off from the rest of the system. This can already happens today where each category of operator remains more or less ignorant of what the other categories are doing. This weakness of the programme ought to be remedied rather than aggravated. The panel deems h essential for a single group within the Third Activity" should be in charge of promoting: - interaction with other Commission programmes and with Third Activity schemes (the horizontal dimension of an mnovation policy); • an overall approach of reflection - evaluation - dissemination applying to the whole of the Third Activity (experimental dimension); 38 initiatives for bringing together the various SME partners (interactive dimension); assessment of the impact that various schemes in support of innovation policy may have on SMEs. 39 ANNEX 1: ANALYSIS OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM BY TYPE OF OPERATOR Comments on the individual schemes As mentioned above, systematic action is the only way to make a real impact on an environment as complex and interactive as the innovation system Is the SPRINT programme a system? Has it an internal logic? To assess its coherence, the panel chose to analyse it through two grids: the innovation operators grid, used in this annex, and the objectives grid, used in Annex 2. In the following pages the evaluations of each line of action of SPRINT are set out according to the following set of criteria: a. terms of the objectives b. background to the scheme and its implementation c. experimental aspect: dissemination effort d. interaction with other programmes (inside and outside SPRINT) e. the panel's assessment f assessment of future prospects The panel's comments take into account the evaluation reports carried out at the request of the Commission for six of the activities One of the main virtues of SPRINT since its beginnings has been its recognition that the innovation process relies on a variety of SME partners and its consequent promotion of emerging innovation services. Whatever the sector of activity, SMEs cannot work without partners with expertise conducive to innovation and complementary to the internal know-how of the firm. To illustrate this diversity, the panel used the so called hexagon diagram (see figure 1). SMEs are in the centre, on each side of the hexagon are the six main types of SME partner: - other firms (SMEs and large firms), - Technology Resource Centres (RTOs, or Research and Technology Organisations); • various types of consultancy (management, marketing, intellectual property); - financial institutions (banks and capital development organisations); and on the last two sides of the hexagon, we have generalists who stimulate the demand and organise the coherence of the various schemes: - field innovation consultants: - regional authorities responsible for innovation policy. 40 1. Schemes aiming at SME technological partners SPRINT grouped the various types of technology supplier under the heading of RTOs. A conference was organised by SPRINT in 1993 which enabled the development of these important SME partners to be assessed. They include: • sectoral technical centres which mostly conduct collective research projects on basic technologies in traditional sectors; - Technological Resource Centres (TRCs), which concentrate on one technology only (laser technology, materials technology etc. ). Small technical teams in close contact with laboratories, and totally dedicated to SMEs (testing, analysis, participation in product or prcccss-based projects etc. ) developed, particularly in France; • CROs, which have a similar work function but are privately owned, and work with SMEs for only a small part of their time MINI RTO (OR RA) NETWORKS Launched in 1987, this line of action includes over 60 individual RTO networks with a total of about 300 members which have been or still are supported by SPRINT. An evaluation of this line of action was conducted by Segal Quince Wicksteed. Published in March s ^94, it is based c« data dating back to 1991 and 1992. Sectoral RTOs are the main target for this action, but universities, CROs (Contract Research Organisations) and engineering consultancies are now also included in that target. These networks usually bring together five to ten RTOs, the task of the ne^vork ranging from a joint tech ,?logy research project to a joint scheme for disseminating a. roven technology or "prenormative (pré-standardisation) analysis". There arr technology oriented networks as well as sectoralry based networks. The scheme is experimental and aims to develop the European technology transfer infrastructure. Its overall impact is considered to be very positive. About one half of all European RTOs have been contacted. 80 % of the networks would not have existed without SPRINT support, and half of them will continue network activities after SPRINT support is ended at a slower pace, however. The most striking changes in the attitude of RTOs involve the increased number of schemes they can conduct and the quality of their action; those RTOs located in the less-favoured regions had the opportunity to acquire competencies in disciplines such as consultancy, testing and participation in innovation projects for SMEs. The impact on dissemination is noticeable but mote difficult to measure. ~ iirect impact on SMEs (SPRINTs ultimate target, it * -Tuid be remembered) can onl'; number oi measured indirectly, through the increasing -vices offeree by RTOs Assessment This mini-network programme demonstrates the value of trans-European collaboration and continues to evolve arJ imcover a rang SME needs which can be met by RTOs. The ,ial issue of adoption of new technologies by " tackling the programme offers ws 41 SMEs, and improves the quality and relevance of RTO services in the Member States. The programme has by no means exhausted all possible paths of action and should be mamtained, taking into account the changes suggested by the SQW evaluation report. NETWORK OF EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF CONTRACT RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS (EACRO) EACRO is an association of contract-research professional organisations (CROs) fiom Community and EFTA Member States. It was launched in 1989 with the help of SPRINT In total, CROs employ some 25 000 highly qualified people in all sectors of RTD. Their turnover is more than ECU 1500 million. Contract Research Organisations are independent R&D institutions which work on a commercial basis by generating and transferring technologies for industrial firms according to the terms of a contract. 2. Actions aiming at RTACs The new function of RTACs (Regional Technology Advisory Centres) developed only recently. It can be described as follows: to explore the SME system, to diagnose its needs, to offer SMEs a wide choice of technological partners, and eventually to help SMEs launch and pilot a project definition phase. Depending on the country, this RTAC function may be attached to that of an RTO, or it may be quite separate. For those in favour of the second approach, RTO representatives tend to suggest their own technologies rather than the best solution. Most often, these centres (sometimes consisting of no more than two or three people) are grouped in regional networks (in France, RDTs or Reseau de Diffusion de la Technologie) whose function is to bring some order to a profession which is still ill-defined. RTAC NETWORKS This network is an association of some 150 regional centres for technology consultancy all over Europe. It aims to disseminate information amongst all its members for the benefit of its clients, particularly SMEs. Annual conferences are organised and sub-groups meet up in order to solve common problems on a European basis. The network has published a Who's Who guide along with a guide to innovation support instruraents in the various Member States. The network is also currently working on topics such as classification of client firms and on measurements and methods of "internal benchmarking" with the aim of improving the working efficiency of RTACs. Since RTACs actively work with SMEs in their own regions, the impact on SMEs of experience shared between RTACs is widespread. 42 y allowing RTAC representatives to meet up, by contributing to travel expc _\JS and noviding adntinistratrve backup, SPRINT triggers a europeanisation effect on RTACs. The anel considers that this action is appropriately managed, that it provides good added value jid that it should be actively pursued. 3. Schemes aiming at science parks ired An innovation policy* must promote interaction between its operators. One of the tools of policy-makers is the creation of interaction "platforms" or science parks, of which there are currently two. types: - - - a traditional science parks (British or US-type) which are usually close to the grow*. university, and where "high-tech" firms decide to take root (sometimes they are generated through ah "incubator" within the park); technopc't, particularlv in France, which aim u emulate and structure local industry, ;ie sector and the location of the firms. Their concentration on service whatevc allowance*», telematics etc. makes them similar to the RTACs described above; in both cases, the "incubator" function has developed extensively in order to help start up ne" technology firms. In practice, policy-makers tend to combine the two functions, particularly since the defects of the linear model have been shown up SCIENCE PARK CONSULTANCY SCHEME (SPCS) - STRAND: FEASIBILITY STUDIES Objectives and background For the regions, science parks and similar structures (technopoles etc. ) are an important tool for promoting innovation and technology transfer. The Science Park Consultancy Scheme had been launched in 1990 as a SPRINT line of action to help promoters improve the design and planning of their initiatives. By subsidising the cost of a panel of foreign expert consultants, the Scheme supports promoters - particularly those in less-developed areas or in regions where there is little history of science parks - to access previous European experience through established maependent experts. In most cases, the study comes at the definition phase and provides the boost essentia] at local levd. So far there have been four calls tor proposals under the sche— in 1990, 1991, 1992 and ived and more than 100 1993. As a result of the calls about 450 applications were contracts were signed Together with the first call for proposals was a call for experts with special knowledge and professional experience related to Science Parks. Around 100 were selected, and the list of experts was updated and expanded in June 1993. 43 Assessment The Science Park Consultancy Scheme has helped consolidate and enlarge the Science Park movement in Europe, though it has to be said that improving the quality rather than the quantity of science parks is the objective. Feasibility studies have also helped create a community of experts on science parks, thus permitting the exchange of best practice. In most cases, the SPCS has provided help with the definition of projects and accelerated some of them. In some cases, the conclusions of the experts have generated a redefinition of the objectives and structure of the science park- Furthermore, the SPRINT "label", i. e. the acknowledgement of the quality* of the programme and its European dimension, has attracted to the park firms with an international standing and increased the interest of external economic operators in the park. Recommendations The panel considers the feasibility study strand of the SPCS programme to be well-targeted and feels that it meets an increasing demand. It suggests, however, that the prospects of synergy with DG I (external relations) and with the PHARE programme be investigated in order to allow experts used in the SPCS programme to work in Central Europe as well. In general, SPRINT has become a benchmark of consultancy support for science park promoters. This strength must be exploited and be enabled to contribute to the development of parks in all EFTA and Central Europe countries. The aim is to be in a position to validate a proposal and give promoters and managers access to the SPRINT list of registered experts. The prestige of the SPRINT label will certainly help promoters to get the necessary funds for the study from regional authorities, for example. Lastly, the panel recommends that a quality-control system be built into the initiative in order to update knowledge of the expertise of a consultant. SCIENCE PARK CONSULTANCY SCHEME - STRAND: SUPPORT FOR EVALUATION OF EXISTING SCIENCE PARKS Objectives The objectives of this strand are to help science park promoters and directors to assess the impact of the schemes they implement and to understand better how their initiative fulfils the objectives that were initially set for the park. The scheme also aims to define or redefine these objectives, formulating a strategy compatible with the economic and technological environment, and providing these parks with a number of tools for monitoring their performance in the future. The scheme is mainly for parks which are at least three years old. 44 Implementation The evaluation strand of the SPCS is a complementary activity to the one described above (feasibility studies), h provides financial support covering the costs of employing a team of two consultants to carry out the evaluation exercise. The Commission provides a list of consultants, but the promoters are fuDy responsible for selecting consultancies and experts from these lists. The work itself is in two stages. The first stage is aimed at defining the objectives of the science park and the relevant evaluation themes. The second stage is concerned with the actual field work needed to collect the required data and to define a new strategy for the park and/or organisational changes. SPRINT has issued a list of themes for the evaluation. SPRINT is also planning to appoint a monitoring committee to monitor the progress of the evaluations and the performance c: the consultants. The scheme is a new experimental activity. Sue proposals have been approved. The first evaluations will be initiated by the end of 1994. Assessment Science parks have become an important part of regional innovation support infrastructures. There are more than 250 science park projects and similar developments in the Community and many new ones are being planned. On the basis of this extensive stock of experience, valuable lessons could be collected through evaluation, to the benefit of both individual parks and the concept as a whole. It is hoped that collaboration between the parks, still relatively undeveloped, will grow. The rationale of the science park evaluation scheme within the SPRINT programme is thererfore sound. On the other hand, it is too early to assess to what extent the scheme will be able to meet these needs. The current approach to evaluation could be slightly modified. In particular, the specifications of the consultancy work pay too little attention to assessing the impact of the park on industrial development in the region. This impact ultimately justifies the existence of the park The establishment of the monitoring committee for the evaluation may provide an ?H*xn*afr» mechanism for controlling the quality of the consultancy work, but will this be sufficient to learn the general lessons from the evaluations and to disseminate this both to future consultancy work and to other parts of the Commission and to regional administrations? Hen again, dissemination of the lessons learned is not properly tackled. In the long term, better collaboration between science parks may provide opportunities for the launch of associations to which the management of these evaluations could be transferred. The development of such networks of science parks could be supported by SPRINT. 45 4. Actions aiming at consultants in general One of the acheivements of SPRINT is to have emphasised the role played by consultants in the innovation process. Have the various categories of consultants also been inflenced? Did the programme have an impact on their overall quality, and on their European dimension9 MANAGING THE INTEGRATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY (MINT) HISTORY AND OBJECTIVES MINT aims to promote the absorption capacity of SMEs through the use of experienced consultants in innovation management. It is a co-ordinated attempt by the Member States and the Community, through a decentralised and experimental scheme, to exchange good practice and share the results of a common approach to create awareness and stimulate use of innovation and technology management techniques in SMEs. MINT was implemented in 1993 in the twelve Member States through the appointment of National Contractors suggested by Member State representatives. The National Contractors then selected teams of consultants. In 1994 MINT was further implemented in five EFTA countries. ASSESSMENT The consultants often specialise in a particular area of innovation management, for example. It must be emphasised that MINT has been managed differently in the various Member States according to national and/or regional tendencies, strengths and requirements. In that respect MINT is a good example of the subsidiarity principle at work. The transnational dimension of the programme is however guaranteed through a number of initiatives: common overall guidelines; common workshops for general policy-making; transnational evaluation, etc. The MINT Guidebook for Business and Technology Diagnostic Tools <£ Methodologies is a successful publication for the dissemination of tools and techniques for technological consultancy throughout the Member States in particular. It should, of course, be constantly updated with material gained fiom the programme itself, as an example of the dissemination pohcy described in Part Three of this report. Denxxistrating thus the differences from one country to another, in this area, MINT has met with difficulties in 'tis implementation in some Member States, while in others all the assignments were completed very rapidly. MINT appears to be a typical example of the experimentation process of SPRINT and a worthwhile experience, particularly as it makes up one of SPRINTs rare direct SME gauge. At present, no in-depth evaluation provides the first conclusions for further assertions. The tact that the programme is running roughly 6 months behind schedule (to date about half of the total number of assignments (1200) are under way or have been completed) is instrumental in explaining this. 46 RECOMMENDATIONS The panel regards the MINT initiative as an important exercise and a key experiment in innovation consultancy; it fits well into thé broader context of a global innovation policy. It should therefore be continued in order to demonstrate fully the usefulness of such schemes in regions or countries in which technological consultancy needs are urgent and not properly tackled. A careful assessment of MINT should provide comparisons between the different methods of consultancy, especially in the definition phase of the innovation process. The transnational dimension must be reinforced through initiatives such as the regular organisation of contractor workshops, transnational participation in SME workshops and transnational consultancy work. This last aspect is fundamental to the creation of a more homogenous European innovation management market. Although a register of tools and methodologies helps to define standards, attention should be given to the criteria for selecting and appointing MINT consultants, so as to guarantee minimum quality standards. VALUE ANALYSIS, DESIGN, QUALITY These three innovation management techniques contribute to the adoption, incorporation and production of innovative technologies or services. Proper application of such management techniques facilitates the revision of companies' organisational structures and strategies often necessitated by the introduction of new technologies. SPRINT has promoted the use of these tools by SMEs and for improving the quality of the services offered by intermediaries and consultants. The degree of exploitation of such techniques is highly variable across Member States and regions. These discrepancies hinder the process of technological integration in the European Union. One of the main objectives of SPRINT is to improve knowledge of the value of these methods in innovation management and most particularly in less-favoured regions. The panel feels that the promotion of value analysis, quality and design is relevant to innovation policy. It enhances modern management skills and contributes very effectively to the training of consultants and improving the quality of their services, particularly in LFRs The working groups should be maintained. A change in their terms of reference might help to achieve the objectives of the promotion programmes, however, the aim is not to select a small number of privileged national organisations solely to promote innovation management techniques, but rather to maximise the dissemination of ideas emanating from a think tank group. 1. Value analysis The promotion of value analysts by SPRINT includes the following activities: - Community reports/surveys and brochures (five have been published in total); - support for European conferences on value analysis and, where appropriate, for national events in less-favoured regions; 47 - harmonisation of Community standards of value analysis; - one RTO network is dedicated to the development of complementary elements of value analysis methodology. The panel feels that more effort should be made to promote value analysis through more systematic awareness campaigns. 2. Quality SPRINTs activities concerning quality are as follows: - a number of RTO networks specialise in developing quality in firms and in quality-related schemes for SMEs;. a hardback book (1994) reviewing quality measures and initiatives taken by Member States of the European Union; - a study of how Contract Research Organisations comply with customers' quality requirements; - lastly, SPRINT supports conferences on the dissemination of quality to firms, particularly SMEs. Again, the emphasis should be on dissemination of work done. In general, communication of activities in terms of value analysis and quality appears to be good, but this best practice lead needs to be preserved though new brochures aimed at the general public and the most common target of SPRINT: the standard SME. 3. Design The European Community Design Prize (ECDP) is a SPRINT initiative that deals directly with SMEs, and as such must be maintained and reinforced. The panel welcomes the redefinition of the scheme in order to reach those SMEs that are not already using design as a technique for improving the quality of their product or services. The European Design Guide is an interesting publication. It should be disseminated properly through appropriate media. 5. Schemes aiming at consultants specialising in licensing The purchase and sale of licences is an important technology dissemination tool. Such transfers are facilitated by specialist consultants, whose activity used to concentrate mainly on large firms. But these can now form independent partnerships, and SMEs have therefore become the main targets for the consultants. They are a more difficult clientele to tackle and there is a still greater need to support the consultant's work by various means. 48 INTER-FIRM MINI NETWORKS (C NETW ORKS) This was one of the earliest lines of action of the SPRINT programme. Launched in 1986, it ogy Licence Brokers, Chambers of has involved more than 350 organisations such as Tec un is to encourage the growth of Commerce, Regional Development Authorities, etc. transnational technology transfer networks to as SMEs in accessing techno-, gy appropriate to their business sector and to raise await. ^ of the impact of technology on competitiveness. An assessment of this line of action, based on February 1992 data, was published in September 1993 (SQW). The programme has helped to improve the expertise of intermediaries and to give the. an international outlook. The best results were obtained in the less-favoured regions. C networks demonstrate how SMEs can benefit from transnational collaboration. /. ment Toe strength of these networks is that they help create a European reflex in those who innovate in the field. The SQW evaluation report has, however, pointed out the need to redesign the scheme in the light of experience and has suggested alternative way's of doing this. A ater concentration on quality, some rethinking of evaluation measures and the delegation of greater responsibility to lead partners in network management are some of the suggestions made to the panel by participants. The considerable time and effort needed to establish networks of this type have created a substantial asset which the panel is convinced sboüd be more widely used for disseminating best practice and assisting in the transfer and dissemination of technology to SMEs. The very recent publication of a best practice guide for managing transnational technology transfer networks at European scale is a valuable resource for similar programs. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER DAYS (TTDAYS) Objectives TTDays are one- or two-day events aiming at promoting transnational technology transfer between selected firms, by presenting firms in a Member State or a region to the technology brokerage community in another region or Member State. The accent is on selection and information to the brokers about the needs and resources of the various firms taking part, well before the actual meeting. About 50 TTDays have been organised in Europe with the support of SPRINT, and some 1000 firms have participated indirectly. Originally, TTDays were a support measure for inter-firm technology transfer networks. They progressively became an efficient tool for transnational technology transfer. It has been demonstrated that with equal outlay, TTDays generated three times more inter-firm contacts or transfer contracts than networks. Assessment TTDays have demonstrated their usefulness and match a clearly identified market direct linking of SME supply and demand in a number of technological sectors. Numerous 49 technology-oriented SMEs have moved closer to European partners and others have either sold or bought technology or know-how through transfer contracts (in whatever legal form). The second achievement of TTDays is to have enhanced the European dimension of the technology broker. Consequently, their ability to tackle business at Member State level and not only at national level has grown. This is precisely in line with the general approach of SPRINT, which aims, amongst other things, to improve the quality of intermediaries and SMEs' regional contacts. The panel regards TTDays as an important and necessary tool of the technology transfer process. The meetings lead to a large number of exchanges. Their open nature sets them apart fiom networks which often are closed entities for network members only. Recommendations The panel recommends that TTDays are preserved, even multiplied, while stressing the difficulty of selecting the right TTDay organisers. First, these must show that they have a large client base. It will therefore always be necessary for the Commission to select the organisations to take responsibility for organising a TTDay. The panel also considers the inter-sectoral dimension of TTDays to be fundamental. Reducing them to events specialising in one technological sector only would be a mistake: the inter-sectoral technology dissemination aspect would disappear, and TTDays would then lose part of their rationale. Only a few sectors producing a large number of generic technologies (such as the electronics and computer science sector or the space sector) could be the subject of "specialist" TTDays, provided that the inter-sectoral nature is preserved as far as demand is concerned. There are some on-going thoughts on financial procedures suited to licensing transactions (fairly similar to TPF). 6. Schemes aiming at the financial system Innovation is an industrial operation which requires not only self-financing and public support, but also substantial funduig from the financial sector. Hence the importance of banks and venture capitalists as partners to the SME. To make banks aware of the specific problems of SMEs, to help venture capitalists to set up throughout Europe and to have access to the same tools as their American colleagues should have been one of the main priorities for a programme such as SPRINT TPF CTECHNOLOCY PERFORMANCE FINANCING) Objectives The Technology Performance Financing Scheme was launched in 1991 with three objectives: 1. to facilitate the acquisition of new technology (e. g. hardware, software and associated services) by firms by making the payment directly dependent on the performance of the technology, therefore reducing the financial risk borne by the buyer; 50 2. to strengthen the conipetrtive position of European suppliers of innovative technology, many of which are New Tecfcv -ogy Based Finns (NTBFs), by providing them with a powerful marketing tool; to provide financial mstitutions with an instrument for project-based financing of 3. innovation as well as an opportunity to improve their ability to deal with such projects. In practical terms Technology Performance Financing is a financing tool by which a finanHal institution provides funds for the acqusrtion of new technologies or services. The financial institution will then receive payments from the acquirer, over a two- to three-year period, according to how the technology has performed against predefined targets. The Commission provides financial and technical support for participating financial institutions. The financial support consists partly of subsidies to cover part of the costs of the technical appraisal of projects and the adnunistration of the scheme and partly of a "safety net" which guarantees, :. nder certain conditions, part of the losses to the financial institution resulting from under-performance of the new technology. In other words, if the technology performs well, the supplier and the bank will share a premium over the list price; if it under-perform$, part of the risk will be covered by the Commission's gur. ae. Operation of the scheme Following a call for proposals, ten European commercial banks were selected at the end of 1991 to tak part in the core group of the scheme. Concluding a contract with these banks took a long since TPF was perceived as a very novel product vs. adaptation of banking regulations. The actual marketing of the scheme begar the first three innovation projects to be subsidised by the scheme were decide 1994. (in some cases up to two years), in certain countries, required an 1993 and i in mid- At the end of 1993, in view of the slow uptake of the instrument, SPRINT commissioned an interim review of the scheme, earned out by IMO(B), which came to the following conclusions: l)There is a clearly identifiable market need for a scheme such as TPF. Suppliers and u. • ai of innovative technologie welcome it. Banks find the idea attractive 2)ln spite of the above, the uptake of the scheme was limited for a number of reasons: - long contract negotiations between the banks and the Commission; • insufficient promotion of the scerne; - the purpose of the scheme as currently designed is not clear (i. e. the pursuit of three objectives at the same time) and rt is perceived as being too risky and complex for ordinary commercial banks - even large ones; - the project guarantee of 75. 000 ECU is consider-- too low for a bank to commit resources to it 51 Following this assessment, the Commission modified the scheme to make it simpler (bilateral instead of triangular relations), more attractive and more flexible, for instance by increasing the guarantee available and opening it up to hanks outside the core group. Since then three banks (Bank of Picardie (F), ING Bank (NL) and Europa Bank (L) have submitted projects to the scheme. Assessment The panel was divided Some think that the slow start of the programme demonstrates how inappropriate it is. Following the panel's recommendations on exit mechanisms, this scheme should be abandoned and replaced by another on a different basis altogether but pursuing the same overall objective. Other members of the panel think the project should be maintained for a further two years (taking into account lessons learned during the first phase and applying the modifications suggested by the evaluator); the slow start of the programme could be explained as much by the lack of enthusiasm of banks for innovation as by the weaknesses of the project, which means long starting periods whatever the type of proposed initiative. I N V E S T M E NT F O RA Objectives Investment fbra are a type of mini-market bringing together entrepreneurs and European investors for a period of one or two days. A large number of financing operations, often for recently-established firms, has emerged from these fora. The set of investment fora is organised with the help of the European Venture Capital Association (EVCA) together with national innovation organisations such as ANVAR, CDU and ENEA. The programme of fora was launched in 1989, and since then, twelve investment fora have been organised, bringing together over 300 firms or entrepreneurs. Assessment The mid-term evaluation does not provide as much information as was hoped for. It does not explain why this line of action was chosen in preference to any other in the context of the promotion of transnational investments in potentially high-growth enterprises. The actual concept of the fora is not analysed. Is it really tailored to the market, and what is the size of the market? What are the possible alternatives? Why is their success uneven? The panel considers that there is a real market for external investment in new firms, but that forums appear to be a somewhat isolated scheme. There should be some initiatives upstream and downstream of this type of activity which would increase the value of the fora and ensure more participants and greater quality'. Complementary schemes upstream might include regional fbra and local activities for heightening public awareness of innovation financing (though the SPRINT award scheme goes in that direction); downstream there could be a NASDAQ type of market which would allow investors to withdraw - an exit mechanism - and possibly re-invest in other firms. 52 Recommendations The panel recommends an in-depth evaluation of the mvestment fora line of action, to enable the relevance of investment fora to venture capital investors to be improved or to ascertain the need for a completely new type of action. Also, it may sometimes be more advantageous to organise specialised fora in one technological sector only, because the objective of these fora is to finance a firm and not to support inter-sectoral technology transfer. The panel considers that relations between national or regional institutions for the promotion of innovation and the EVCA association should be encouraged and reinforced. The ultimate objective is to make venture capitalism more aware of technological investment and the opportunities which SMEs offer. SPRINT initiatives for introducing a market of the NASDAQ type into Europe and developing securitisation techniques should be mentioned, even though it is too early to assess its impact. 7. Schemes aiming at the interaction of SMEs with other SMEs (networks) and/or large firms Experience has shown that other firms have become a major partner for SMEs. For example, high-technology firms are the mam technology suppliers for SMEs through hardware, software and materials technologies which are manufactured on demand. More interactions generally the newly-organised industrial pattern multiplies day-to-day between firms and makes them highly inter-dependent This is particularly true of the innovation process, where experience shows that SMEs integrated into a network succeed better and more quickly than those which are not integrated The SPRINT programme has so tar neglected this aspect of the problem. Even though the TT Days and some EIMS schemes work in that direction, their impact is far from adequate, and there are no real SME/large firm networks. 8. Schemes aimed at regional policies Regional authorities and national governments now play a major role in creating an infrastructure for supporting mnovation in SMEs, particularly by: • injecting financial resources into those SMEs and into public or private innovation service organisations, - by organising the interactions between these innovation operators; • by coordinating the action taken by the various authorities concerned. The regions have therefore become major partners for SMEs. Has SPRINT taken this into account? 53 THE RTTTS INITIATIVE (Regional Innovation and Technology Transfer Strategies and Infrastructures) and REGIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLANS (RTPs). Objectives: The aim of the RTTTS initiative, launched in 1994, is to help regional policy-makers (and/or regional development organisations) who wish to have an assessment of their innovation pohcy. The aim is to examine the regional innovation and technology transfer support infrastructure, to assess its structure, the relevance and the efficiency of organisations and the various public services which build up this infrastructure, and finally to analyse the nature and density of these interactions. The aim is also to elaborate strategies in order to improve this infrastructure, to reinforce its coherence and its relevance to SME needs. Finally, the RTTTS exercise should allow experience acquired though-the application of such policies to be shared. The objectives are tar more than study alone and the aim is to develop as many links as possible between all the various regional actors. The RTTTS programme is close to the RTP programme, which aims to draw up regional technological plans within the framework of the structural funds. RTPs cover all regional RTD resources. The action was launched by DG XVI with SPRINT technical support and deals with objective 1 and 2 regions. Methodologies used in the RTTTS and RTP initiatives are similar because they are based on an analysis of technological demand. However, RTPs have a broader scope than RTTTS, and are intended for regions eligible for structural funds and to encourage regional SMEs to participate in European research programmes financed by the Commission. Furthermore, consultants involved in an RTP exercise may come from the same country, whereas in a RTTTS exercise, there is always an international dimension in the teams involved, which consist of qualified professionals. Implementation RTTTS subsidises the costs of employing a consortium of two firms or individual consultants chosen from the list of firms of registered experts. Substantial preparatory work is required to ensure that the initiative can be implemented successfully. The work itself is divided into three stages' the first seeks to define the current state of the infrastructure and its relevance to SME demand. The purpose of the second stage is reach a consensus on the priorities and measures required to make the infrastructures more responsive to the needs of firms. Finally, the third stage is concerned with establishing follow-up and evaluation mechanisms and implementing the priority schemes. RTTTS is a new scheme launched in 1994 The first 9 studies will be launched in December 1994. The regions differ in terms of both development and industrial structure. Assessment: RTTTS has created links with the RTP initiative within the framework of the structural funds. This linkage is an important example of the horizontal dimension of the SPRINT programme. Interaction with structural funds at both Community and regional level might in theory provide a mechanism for influencing the allocation of structural funds to industrial development and SMEs where needed, and through this process to improve the effectiveness of Community cohesion policy. In these respects the RTTTS is a strategic initiative. 54 RTTTS is a new, experimental activity. In order to exploit its potential fully it is important to organise the studies in such a way that experience and knowledge are accumulated. The accumulation process is also a prerequisite for making RTTTS into a tool for the large-scale dissemination of best practice to policy-makers and other regional actors The other prerequisite is an excellent quality of consultancy work. Continuous ftllow-up and evaluation of the studies are therefore desirable: a committee similar to that described in the Science Parks assessment could be set up. RTTTS itself deserves to be further developed. Sufficient procedural flexibility would help to meet the very diverse requirements and conditions of different regions. In the course of time RTTTS may change from one type of scheme into a set of alternative approaches and procedures. Finally, the interlinkage between RTTTS and the other action lines should be 'ae developed to make the initiative an efficient dissémination tool for all the knr developed by SPRINT. 9. Schemes aiming at the absorptive capacity of SMEs and their interactions with their partners SPECIFIC PROJECT ACTION LINE Objective: Specific Projects, launched in 1989, are large-scale experimental intra-Communrty innovation transfer projects whose aim is to adapt and transfer proven technologies from one region or sector to another. By implementing industrially-relevant projects, the projects aim to demonstrate the • <e process of technology transfer and adoption, and achieve active and widespread dissent, on to other end users. Although the S PAL pr sets may involve many different industrial sectors and technologies, the emphasis is on supporting the modernisation of SMEs and traditional industries through projects with an environmental dimension and projects with strong social benefits. SPAL if an experimental activity whose aim is to improve or understanding of technology transfer and adoption processes and their management and to disseminate this knowledge. At the same time the specific project are an efficient technology transfer tool in itself. Implementation: Over 40 technology transfer projects were funded during the definition phase for producing project plans for a subsequent implementation phase. 21 projects have gone through to implementation. More than two hundred partners have been involved. Altogether ECU 27. 4 million were spent in 1987-1994. SPAL is dominated by catalytic projects with a strong technology push element and active involvement of technology suppliers. User-driven critical demand projects aim to provide appropriate solutions to recognised user needs. A comprehensive evaluation of the Action Line was completed in spring 1994 (Technopolis group). This evaluation provided a sound basis for the assessment by the panel. 55 Assessment SPAL fills a large gap at European and national policy levels. In some countries it complements the national dissemination activities by introducing a European element, and in others it provides a completely new type of initiative. In a Community context, it has extended the focus from R&D to dissemination. As an exploratory scheme, SPAL has been a success. It has provided important lessons for future dissemination schemes. (These are discussed in detail in the evaluation report. ) It has shown that technology dissemination schemes are both feasible and desirable. On the other hand, it has shown that there is no one right model for a dissemination scheme: each project needs to be tailored to the specific requirements of the partners and the context. The experiences achieved have not been sufficiently exploited by the Commission or the national authorities. As an effective technology transfer tool, SPAL's success has been more limited. There is little doubt that participants have benefited from taking part in the SPAL projects. Technology was transferred between them. On the other hand, dissemination of the transferred technology to other companies or research organisations was less impressive than expected. Wider dissemination to industry seems to require additional measures. Transfer between participants is not enough. There seems to be a clear need to tackle the dissemination problems with separate arrangements based on a strategy. Future action It is clear that SPAL should be continued and expanded in the future. The rationale of specific technology transfer projects is well in line with Community policies. SPAL-type schemes focus attention on the utilisation of Community R&D and assists other Community objectives, especially cohesion. It provides a transnational dimension for national transfer schemes. There is, however, room for improvement. Many useful suggestions have been made in the SPAL evaluation report In this context we would just like to make a few remarks : • A major effort is required to improve the exploitation of good practice at both Gxnmunity and national level. Both catalytic and critical demand projects should remain key components of SPAL. Heavy financial and intellectual involvement of at least some of the partners should be an essential element in the SPAL projects. Clustering projects could improve the impact and visibility of SPAL and could also help to disseminate what has been learnt. Applying new technology usually requires some R&D. SPAL projects should sometimes allow R&D. The arrangements for disseminating the technology transferred need development. further 56 10. Evaluation of the action taken under SPRINT (see description in part. II,A) NETWORKS The creation of trans-European networks for innovation and technology transfer has been a fundamental tool and a core acjvity of SPRINT aimed at all three of the programme's objectives: 1. strengthening European innovation cap acity 2. prornoting technology dissemination 3. enhancing cohesion in Europe. In the course of the programn. two braid categories of networks have been promoted and developed: mini- and macro-networks. Tie macro-networks are gatherings of representatives of national organisations which work <«i various aspects of innovation and technology transfer. The mini-networks bring small groups of companies and organisations together to tackle jointly specific problems of partial ar interest to that group. The rationale for creating these networks s the understanding that human contact is the most effective and efficient way of promoting innovation by the SMEs which are the ultimate targets of SPRINT initiatives. It is also expected that these shared activities will promote learning, sharing of experience and devel Dpment and improvement of the quality of service provided by the participants. Macro-networks: implementation and e /aluation RTAC, EACRO, F'CA, EUROTECH <nd TH are some of the macro-networks for which SPRINT was a c^olyst. They create h iks betwe^ representatives of organisations and networks thaï offer support at nation J level -, nnology and shared development -at, intellectual prtyeny and technology transfer etc. They programmes,. -lnce and im~ generally aim to share infbrr „ set s andards, produce directories and guides, orga sc conferences and identify and tackle sharec problems with a European perspective. Assessment By creating an opportunity for represeitatives to meet, assisting with travel costs and providing some logistical support, SPRINT TRIGGERS A Europeanisation effect at the level of these organisations. Support for rtacro-oetworks of this type is only required in the early stages of activity; the networks built I up membersh a, provide membership services and become self-supporting. Their relationshi ) with SPRIN ! then evolves into partnership, this allows the programme to keep up close extracts with all actors in the innovation system, to gain a detailed knowledge of then and to consult them. This would also be very valuable for the third Activity and could be exploited by all Commission services which deal with SMEs. -at The panel regards this actions as webVircctcd and of good value and recommend ntacro-networks should continue to be promoted. As e& - network is representative c jne specific feature of innovation, there is a c se to be made tor the introduction of a "network of networks" share the combined facets of innovation policy can be considered in total. The panel also recommends that greater use be made of such networks by other prograr es aiming to reach through to SMEs. this ro juires SPRINT to devc*e some resources to sc its networking achievements to other pota tial users. 57 THE EUROPEAN INNOVATION MONITORING SYSTEM (EIMS) Objectives The general aims of the EIMS are to collect and disseminate information on innovation and technology transfer and to organise a permanent and interactive system for producing and using this knowledge. More precisely, EIMS aims to: * Monitor innovation in Europe and evaluate support measures * Strengthen the exchange of experience between die Member States and the Commission in the field of innovation policy and technology transfer * Provide all interested parties with information, analysis and research on the factors shaping, promoting and inhibiting innovation at the company level across Europe * Reflect the increasing need for reliable information as a foundation for formulating innovation policy in the light of the major changes in the innovation environment and especially the characteristics and different types of innovation within SMEs. Implementation EIMS activities are organised in six main areas: 1. Evaluation 2. Innovation in firms 3. Innovation and technology transfer support infrastructures 4. Regional aspects of innovation (capabilities, infrastructures and strategies) 5. Innovation financing 6. Innovation pohcy. After a preliminary phase devoted to the establishment of the network and the work procedures, EIMS has been fully operational since 1993. Interfaces EIMS has the capacity for developing its role as a focal point of best practice in innovation and technology transfer within the Community. Basically, the knowledge produced by EIMS could be used especially by the Commission departments responsible for regional policy, industrial pohcy and SME policy, and also by the Member States. Up to now it seems that specialised EIMS knowledge is not used sufficiently. As well as fiicilitating the evolution of a more effective SPRINT Programme (and of the future Third Activity") and to identify new tasks, EIMS also offers the prospect of assisting other programmes at Community level, at Member State and regional level, and in other areas, for example those covered by PHARE and the EFTA countries. 58 Assessment The panel considered that EIMS is very important to the SPRINT Programme, it provides a basis for the development of knowledge of both the innovation process in SMEs and of pohcy measures for fostering innovation. It provides mechanisms for disseminating this knowledge and adopting best practices. Nevertheless, the interfaces and the use made of the knowledge by ^. ^r DGs and Member States are so far inadequate. The panel would have appreciated more work on the ultimate SPRINT clientele -SMEs-, on the various prerequisites for innovation and on the different types of cluster etc. Because of the experimental, catalytic and multi-disciplinary (technology, management financing) character of SPRINT, the panel considered EIMS a very important element of self-reflection, critical reviews of existing programmes and a basis for developing new concepts of innovation policy. Internal self-analysis of an innovation-promoting programme is perceived as a unique characteristic of SPRINT which should be used within other Commission R&D programmes as well. 59 ANNEX 2: ANALYSIS OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM BY OBJECTIVE As mentioned above, systematic action is the only way to make a real impact on an environment as complex and interactive as the innovation system. Is the SPRINT programme a system, which means does it have an internal logic? To assess its coherence, the panel chose to analyse it through two grids: the innovation actors grid (see Annex 1) and the objectives grid, used in this annex. For the panel, the best grid of objectives is the one defined recently by the work programme of the third activity, into which SPRINT will be incorporated. The three objectives of this work programme are as follows: J. 2. 3. An environment beneficial to innovation and the absorption of technologies Establishment of an area for the free circulation of technologies in the EU Supply of appropriate technologies to the SME system Links with the innovation policy described in part 1 of the report as a reference basis for this evaluation are clear: • - through the idea of innovation environment, the first of these three objectives is associated with the overall aims of a local innovation policy; the second stresses the European dimension and aims to remove existing barriers inside Europe and to build on the wealth of experimentation brought about through European diversity; - the third is a difficult yet important aspect of technology dissemination The following plan was selected for analysing the SPRINT system using this grid: - for each objective, continue the Part One analysis by assessing what, in the panel's opinion, constitutes the rationale and logic of the propsed initiatives (and therefore a possible basis for the work of the third activity); - assess the extent to which the SPRINT initiatives fit the objectives (point A of each box); - finally, identify what SPRINT is unable to achieve, either because it disregards the objective concerned, or because of a lack of resources, or because the initiative is better suited to another programme such as VALUE (point B of each box). 60 1. First objective: creation of an environment bt; ficial to innovation and the absorption of technologies Rationale: An S ME's i upetitiveness depends primarily on its own capacities. But it also depends on its environment; available resources vary extensively from one region to another and not only in nature but also in quality and quantity. Uulike natural resources in the past this comparative advantage is not acquired; it is buildt up in a joint effort between firms and public authorities. •• To s#rrre this advantage, the mat obvious step is to promote the emergence of vices. Whatever their activity sector, SMEs cannot get along without partners innovation who com. jnt their internal know-how with the expertise required for innovation. To illustrate t; diversity, the panel has used a hexagon diagram (see Figure 1 ): SMEs are m the of the sides are the six main types of partners: other firms (SMEs and large centre; on i. igy resource centres (or Research and Technology Organisations -RTOs); the firms); tecr various tyv of consultants (managerlent, marketing, intellectual property); financial institutions wanks and capital development), and on the last side, field agents who stimulate the various ;ictions: proximity advisers for innovation and demand and coordir mnovation policy, both sometimes grouped under RTACs. departments response An SME must therefore exist within a hi iy interactive system where it is both provider and recipient, and both client and supplier. Li this system, interfaces (intermediaries), locations for meetings and negotiations and mechanisms for distributing information and other resources all play an essential role. The build-up of this infrastructure is ihe outcome of a number of private and public initiatives The result will depend largely on their coherence. •• A second prerequisite of success for the SME is a strong absorption capacity. A whole range of functions can be identified which allow SMEs to make the most of the resources of their environment, particularly m the technological sector. Where they exist, R&D teams play the main role. Otherwise, and most freq lently, the firm recruits engineers and technicians who know the R&D world in particular, and innovation partners in general Schemes designed to engender a favourable environment Schemes designed to engender a favourable and accessible environment can be grouped in four objectives: la. lb. If Id to help local innovation poliae. (regional or national) to improve the targeting and organisation of their initiatives. to improve the quality (through training, publication of the learning module, etc. ) of technological and managenc I partners of SMEs; to assist financial partners for the innovative SME\ to change SMEs ' attitudes to int tovanon. 61 la. To help local innovation policies (regional or national) to improve the targeting and organisation of their initiatives: Local innovation policies can play a key role in making a variety of initiatives, all apparently quite different, implemented by the various private or public SME partners, into a coherent whole. It is therefore a priority to support those responsible for the policies, while increasing European cohesion by msseminating best practices. A- Those responsible for regional policies (at least most of them) arc still feeling their way and looking to find successful models from other regions. The following SPRINT initiatives include this as a rationale: - - the RTAC network and its specialised working group the RITTS and RTP projects which put forward to the regions a project for an evaluation and a re-definition of their strategy - the science park consultancy scheme that helps local policy makers to create a science park (technopole) and then to evaluate it (part of the RTTTS) B- Except for this last scheme, SPRINTs activity here is only recent; it is therefore difficult to assess to what extent existing needs are tackled Clearly, it is still exceptional for the management of structural funds to be inspired by SPRINTs experience and this programme is far from providing a complete set of models for action to regional policy makers. lb. Improve the quality (through training, publication of the learning module, etc) of technological and managerial partners of SMEs: The jobs of SME partners are relatively new and it seems necessary to improve the professional standard of those practitioners, to disseminate advances m methodology and to launch pilot projects in which various interaction mechanisms between SMEs and their partners are tested. A -And therefore: • the value analysis, design and quality programmes make the most of European experiences so as to offer professionals some training modules; - the MINT programme pilots subsidised management consultancy and includes various consultation methods and tools. • Specific Projects (SPAL) enables the collaboration between RTOs and users (SMEs but also public authorities) to be assessed. The nature of the service RTOs render to SMEs is, in fact, undergoing radical change, but by no means everyone is affected. For example, a number of sectoral resource centres have kept the system of collectively-funded research. It is therefore very useful to compare, through pilot schemes, the value of services rendered by the various intermediaries to the various categories of firms; 62 - the PRISM/FEICRO sub-programme and two recent conferences could become the basis for an evaluation of RTO performance. In spite of this apparent wealth of initiatives, SPRINT is a long way from filling all the B- gaps in the system; for example, nothing is done to improve market analysis or to adapt industrial property practices to the needs of an SME wisning to sell products throughout the European market or to work in a European consortium, (others are working on this, but is this with the aim of promoting innovation ir, standard SMEs?) 1c Financial partners for the innovative SME A- SPRINT was the first to tackle this vtry difficult problem. -Transnational investment fora which bring together investors and entrepreneurs once in a year; -TPFpilot experiment (Technology Peiformance Financing) -EIMS workshops and studies on the import from the USA of mechanisms considered there to be particularly useful to private investment for innovation: NASDAQ type of market, securitization, etc. B- Because of a lack of terms of reference and resources, SPRINTs action here has remained at the reflection and experimentation level. This might actually be considered sufficient for a horizontal (strategic) programme, provided that mechanisms are found for tackling detected needs for which SPRINT has ready-tested solutions to put forward. DG XVIII is therefore taking on the responsibility of sporting the market for growth companies (EUROSD* •?) encouraged by the ÉVCA network; another example is DG XXIII, which implemented a programme in support of "seed capital" firms. However, support for financial intermediaries clearly remains very modest and we hope that a more ambitious and systematic action mil develop within the third activity (or elsewhere). Innovation in SMEs is handicapped more by the lack of financial partners than by European technology lagging behind. It is known already, notably thanks to the EIMS, what could be done intelligently with public money (for example increased guarantees for "small businesses"» support for the launch of seed capital, mcrease of private funds, etc. ). The third activity could therefore be the framework for new initiatives in support of European venture capital firms and experimentation m terms of private financing for innovation. id To change SMEs'attitudes to innovation: Most European SMEs are still quite shy af innovation, and most of all of letting a number of partners h» a hand in a process which is the nucleus of their strategy. This obsession with secrecy, this reluctance to make their capital available and the inability to find partners and to make the most of them often lead to failure. 63 Indeed, the mere fact of being involved in innovation leads an SME to: change its internal organisation, e. g. by deploying most of its active workforce in a single project; open itself up to external partners and establish itself both upstream and downstream of production within an intensely interactive network of companies (small and large); go international; develop a strong capacity for absorption in general, which could well be the necessary and adequate prerequisite for creating jobs. A- The SPRINT programme has tackled this very important aspect of innovation only recently, and furthermore in a modest way: through the development of the RTAC network, in its "multi-purpose innovation consultant" component, whose main ask is to heighten SME awareness of the resources in their environment; by networking national or regional programmes for mobilising innovation specialists (EUNET mobility initiative, recently launched). Only those SMEs which have created an internal innovation and interface "unit" are m a position to dialogue with their environment. through some aspects of the A/7/VT mitiative B- Yet these schemes are still recent and modestly funded. Analysis of the specific projects followed by experimentation would enable the various aspects of the problem of human resources in SMEs to be tackled more directly, and that of their absorption capacity. 2. Second objective: establishment of an area for the free circulation of technologies in the EU (and for applications for innovative products); Rationale: To ensure that, during its innovation process, each SME has all the necessary technologies at its disposal. That is the objective, if not the dream, of all programmes oriented towards dissemination, exploitation and technology transfer. The problem is intrinsically difficult, as is the case whenever a very specialised supply has to match a very personalised demand This is also why a number of interface services developed in the first place, the improvement of which was the goal of the first objective. This problem already exists in any homogeneous economic space, e. g. in the US or Alsace, but it is much more acute in the European market because of the national barriers: cultural 64 differences, different languages, laws, et ~ arc so many obstacles to the free circulation of technological knowledge. Similarly, the segmentation of the European market remains a serious obstacle to the dissemination of products. If these products "incorporate" technology (tools, software, materials etc. ), an extra-difficulty is added to technology dissemination But more generally, the innovation process embraces successful commercialisation, and nowadays, this means etablishing oneself in a vast market; but surveys concerning radically new products show that getting established in another European country is just as difficult as in the US. The States remain the ideal market for the international expansion of a product, which is a serious handicap for European SMEs. Possible initiatives: To combat these various (obstacles, to get closer to the free circulation of technologies and to contribute to the creatie of a real single market of innovative products, a number of initiatives should aim at 2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. irious partners of SMEs by creating networks: Européanise thi Européanise injor motion supplied to SMEs by their various partners; Create interaction areas in well defined segments; Fight regulatory barriers. 2a. Européanise the various innovation partners of SMEs by creating networks A • SPRINT supports macro-networks having established a European community' amongst most SME partners; the EACRO network (for contract research organisations); the RTAC network (for national policy-makers m support of innovation); the EVCA network (for venture capitalists) and the EUROTECH network are now independent. Other partners (consultants, technology brokers, AR1ST. etc ) are now grouped in Til's network which is now no longer officially linked to SPRINT The activity of these networks ts modest, but they guarantee a minimum of reciprocal knowledge and keep alive the idea of a European community (e. g. through regular conferences); they sustain a "European reflex" Their efficiency is assessed in Part Three. Mini-networks as described in Annes 1 arc more active. B - Besides networks of intermediaries, networks of firms seem to become increasingly a topic, whatever their nature (SMEs only. larp firms and SMEs, etc. ). SPRINT has prepared the field through initiatives such as TTDay: or some EIMS workshops and studies; but nothing really important was launched. There could be an important slot here for the third activity to fill and one which could benefit from the experience not only of SPRINT, but also of EUREKA, CRAFT, etc 65 2b. Européanise information supplied to SMEs by their various partners A - SPRINT has only indirectly dealt with this important problem, which is the prime target of other programmes such as VALUE. - However, the newly-emerging RTAC network may, in the future, bring an important contribution: it may encourage, under certain conditions to be defined by the network, the various proximity partners of SMEs to make all or parts of their databases generally available. It should be noted that some SPRINT networks (notably ORT networks) publish newsletter. B -As the successor to the VALUE programme, the third activity' may find considerable scope for action here. 2c Create interaction areas in precise slots: A - This is what mini-networks do; they are alliances grouping a small number of partners for co-operative activities: - mini RTO networks in the technological sector - mi>i/ inter-firm networks (transfer of licence) - the "technology transfer day" initiative comes under both this objective and the first one (2a. ) since each organiser assigns a particular objective to the TTDay which corresponds to the local SME demand. A large number of firms seem to have found correspondents and European scope for their initiatives. - the new SPNET project • transnational investment fora - finally, the Specific Projects are demonstration activities to determine optimum conditions for trans-regional technology transfer, already developed to some extent. B - SPRINT pulled out of "thematic networks" which were active in the 1980s. The idea was taken on by the BRTTE-EURAM programme, from which h received substantial funding. Specific third activity projects provide a tool for experimentation and action in a wide-open field. 66 2d. Combat regulatory barriers: A - Only abortive attempts can be reported on, e. g. an attempt to solve the problem of intellectual property. B - Considering SPRINTs knowledge of the pattern of innovative SMEs, the programme could have become their legitimate spokesman (with DG XXQT and DG XVI) and drawn attention to the barriers they still face, unknown to large firms with diversified human resources. For example, multinationals (including US and Japanese ones) can cope fairly successfully with the segmented European market, whereas SMEs still regard the US market as more accessible beciuse it is more homogeneous. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, no thought is given to a licensing policy for SMEs. A further example: the third activity could continue the comemplation started by EIMS of a generalised standards system based on performance and its outcome, i. e. "rxnrwrmative" research to be developed in RTOs. These are just a few general examples of areas in which SPRINT, as a horizontal programme, could act as a beacon and come up with proposals for vertical national or European programmes 3. Third objective: supply SMEs with appropriate technologies Rationale: The title for this third objective may lead to confusion. It is not a question of developing v new technological knowledge, whether in SPRINT or in the third activity'; that is a ra the specific RTD programmes (first activity) The time-consuming and difficult goal jo here is to adapt knowledge developed m a laboratory to the requirements of an innovative SME project. The knowledge may also have been tested already by incorporation into a commercialised product or pre; ess, but in a completely different range of products or sector. When these adaptation tasks are conducted collectively, for a range of products or a sector, integration time and effort for an SME can be greatly reduced. Such tasks are central to the work of various technical centres (RTOs, CRTs, CROs), whether their activity is centred on Dividual projects or joint ventures A - Without insisting too much on this third objective, SPRINT has accumulated some experience in this area tlumks to: some mini RTO networks, but financia* support is modest and can only cover the extra costs incurred through cooperation; some Specific Projects. 67 B - This is merely a fraction of a task which will be growing in importance under the third activity. For example, in some countries it will be important to guarantee the launch of Technology Resource Centres (TRCs) with specific targets, during the difficult years before the SME clientele becomes established. More generally, there is a need to redefine completely the services to be provided bt TRCs. this could be based on a TRC auditing system. 68 ANNEX 3: NOTE ON THE 1%-RULE INTERACTION WITH THE PROGRAMMES OF THE FIRST ACTIVITY In accordance with the Decision of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 April 1994 on the Fourth Framework Programme, the activities in the field of dissemination and exploitation are also to be implemented by the specific programmes of the first activity. A sum representing an average of 1 % of the total budget of the Fourth Framework Programme is allocated to the dissemination and exploitation of results of the research programmes. The research programmes implement activities in the field of dissemination and exploitation relating to their respective fields of research, in close collaboration with the Third Activity. This decision opens up a new field of activity for SPRINT-type initiatives The panel perceives this opportunity as highly important m two respects: - - strengthening the luik between RTD and demand/use as an important precondition for efficient dissemination and technology transfer and the improvement of links between SPRINT initiatives and the specific research programmes. Indeed the application of the 1%-ruleby the specific programmes should allow at an early stage of the projects involvement of all possible users (SMEs, large firms, consumers,. financing institutions, standardisation) The specific contribution of SPRINT would be to emphasize the diffusion of technologies and of know-how towards SMEs and to emphasize the needs of these firms in the process of planning R&D programmes. Specific contributions of SPRINT-type initiatives might be: - use of existing network infrastructure of the third activity by the research programmes, - exchanges of experience of approaches, methods, new tools of dissemination and exploitation and in the design of mnovation-fhendly research programmes; - pilot projects for testing, demonstrating and learning new ways of improving dissemination in the fields of: * the transferability and adaptability of technologies or research results from one sector to another or from one technology sector to another (spillover and tnmsfer effects); 69 * new ways of involving future users and institutions potentially crucial to the innovation phase well upstream of the innovation process (financing and/or regulatory bodies, etc. ); * developmerr iemand, new social needs and technic. ni scientific developments as an aid to oesigning targeted research programmes. new tools for long-term forecasting The mam functions of the third activity in the use of the "1%" should be:. coordination, pilot exrvrments and, more generally, its expertise and its relations with innovation » The in-depth knowledge of the needs of various types of SMEs that uifrastTL SPRIN1 gained following its industry-oriented activities should allow for improved planning 01 R&D prograr:-nes. The panel stresses the importance of careful design of the coordination mechanism necessary for the role of the third activity to be accepted. • * # • •• 70 ANNEX 4 SPRINT EVALUATION PANEL List of members: 1. Robert CHABBAL (F), President Adviser to the General Director for research and technology at the Department of Research and Higher Education Former CNRS General Director Former NATO Research Director Former OECD Director for Science, Technology and Industry 2. George ARGYROPOULOS (GR) General secretary of the Federation of Greek industries Member of the CRAFT think tank group 3. Paul BRADSTOCK (UK) Director of the Oxford Trust responsible for innovation and new technologies in - Oxfordshire, Director of the Oxford mnovation. Previously, has held responsiblities m the management of various hi-tech SMEs 4. Luis CRESPO (E) General Director of the Extremadura Development Agency Former General Secretary of the Spanish Association for new technologies" Former CDTI Director Member of the VALUE panel and of the SPRINT mdi-term evaluation panel 5. Frieder MEYER KRAMMER (D) Director of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research in Karlsruhe. Co-ordinator of the SPEAR network on evaluation of socio-economic effects of R&D. 6. Erkki ORMALA (SF) Secretary of the Science and technology Policy Council of Finland Chairman of the group of experts for the evaluation of EUREKA Vice-president of the OECD working group on innovation policy Secretary's office: Darnel ROUTIER Ricardo Hitec Ltd SPRINT Technical Assistance Unit 71 ANNEX 5 MANDATE FOR THE SPRINT FINAL REVIEW PANEL 1. The panel is composed of persons who are appointed by the Director General, DG XIII, and will serve in their personal capacity. Their views therefore in no way commit or should be influenced oy their employing organisations. 2. The panel is invited: a) to assess the extent to which SPRINT has fulfilled its initial objectives, and its impact with attention to the cost-effectiveness of the actions; b) to appraise the continued relevance of its rationale and main activities in the present Community context having regard to current and prospective needs and taking into account the evolving policy context, in particular the subsidiarity principle; c) to formulate suggestions for possible adjustments and/or modifications that could be introduced in order to improve the effectiveness of future Community activities in the area presently covered by SPRINT, in the light of the above assessments. 3. The panel members have access to all relevant information necessary to perform their task. The secretariat of the panel will be provided by one of its members with the logistic support of the Commission services. 4. Subject to the prior approval of the Commission, the panel members may travel within the Community to interview persons about the programme and to see work in progress. 72 ANNEX 6: List of acronyms/Liste des acronymes CRO CRAFT CRT EACRO EIMS EUNET Contract Research Organisations Organisation de Recherche sous Contrat Cooperative Research Action for Technology Action co-opérative pour la Recherche technologique Centre Régionaux pour la Technologie Regional Technological Centres European Association of Contract Research Organisations Association Européenne d'Agences de Recherche sous Contrat European Innovation Monitoring System European fellowship Network Réseau pour des bourses Européennes EUROSDAQ European Organisation of Securities Dealers and Quotations EVCA FEICRO FWP FTP JET LFR European Venture Capital Association Association Européenne de Capital à Risque Federation of European Industrial Cooperation Research Organisations Fédération Européenne d'Organisations de Recherche pour b Coopération Industrielle Framework Programme Programme ( adre Technology Performance Financing Scheme Plan de Financement de b Technologie selon sa Performance Jeunes Entreprises Technologiques New Technology Based Firms Less Favoured Regions Régions moins Favorisées MINT Managing the Integration of New Technologies 73 Gérer l'Intégration des Nouvelles Technologies NASDAQ National Association of Securities Dealers and Quotations NTBF OCDE ORT PME R&D RTD RTTTS RTAC RTO RTP SME SPAL SPCS SPNET New Tt. inology Based Firms Jeunes Entreprises Technologiques Organisation pour b Coopération et le Developement Economique Organisation for Economie Co-operation and Developement (OECD) Orgarv-irions de recherche et de technologie Rest and Technology Organisations Petites et Moyennes Entreprises Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Research and Development Recherche et Développement Research and Technology Development Recherche et Developement des Technologies (RDT) Regional Innovation and Technology Transfer Strategies and Infrastructures Infrastructures et Strategies Régionale ie Transfert de Technologies et de Soutien à l'Innovation Regional Technology Advisory Centres Centres régionaux de Conseil en technologie R-search and Technology Organisations C Kanisations de Recherche et de Technologie Regional Technology Plans Plans régionaux Technologique Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Petites et Moyennes Entreprises Specific Projects Action Line Ligne d'action des Projets Spécifiques Science Park Consultancy Scheme Programme d'aide au conseil en matière de parcs scientifiques Science Park Networking Réseaux de Parcs Scientifiques 74 SPRINT SQW TPF TRC TT TTDays VALUE. Strategic Programme for //^novation and Technology transfer Programme Stratégique pour l'innovation et le Tranfert de Technologie Segal Quince Wicksteed (UK consultancy firm) Technology Performance Financing Scheme Plan de Financement de b Technologie selon sa Performance Technology Resource Centre Centre de Ressources technologiques Technology Transfer Transfert de Technologie Technology Transfer Days Journées des Transfert de Technologie Valorisation et Utilisation pour l'Europe Valorisation and Utilisation for Europe TABLE 1 Innovation needs of various categories of SMEs NEEDS COMPANIES RTAC (Definition Phase) TECHNO LOGICAL PARTNERS (RTO, CRT. ) MANAGEMENT HELP FINANCIAL RESOURCES R/D SUBSIDIES (SBIR type. ) a. JET (NTBF) Strong potential for growth b. Research Intensive Companies (R. I. C) c. Standard SMEs XX XX (See list of acronyms, annex 6) X XX XX XXX (+ NASDAQ) X X X -* TABLE 2 Operators in Innovation and types of initiative under SPRINT Category of operator T y p ed Initiative Study Experiment Evaluation Networks Interaction areas CONSULTANTS RTOs RTACs SCIENCE PARKS FINANCING SYSTEM REGIONS SMEs Value analysis Design Quality MINT SPAL EIMS EIMS EIMS NASDAQ EIMS EIMS (Clusters, NTBF) SPAL SPNET (?) TPF SPAL SPAL Evaluation of specific projects RITTS park RTTTS RTP Til TT Days Mini' networks RTAC networks SPNET (?) EVCA Fora TTDays (See Annex 6: list of acronyms) TABLE 3 Objectives of the SrRINT Programme and types of initiative Objective INFLUENCING SPECIALIST OPERATORS INFLUENCING INSTRUMENTS AND POLICY-MAKERS Type of initiative Study VA. D. Q EIMS DISSEMINATION F' r EANISATION Eiperiment Evaluation MINT SPAL SPNET (?) RTACs TPF SPAL regional R1TTS TPF(?) ~U Networks Interaction areas RTO mini-networks RTAC mini-networks EVCA -> NASDAQ Mini-networks of brokers RTO mini-networks RTAC rks Î iJays TII (See Annex 6: list of acronyms) EIMS SPAL RTTTS TT Days All networks OPERATORS OBJECTIVES Influencing specialist operators Influencing Instruments and policy makers Horizontal schemes TABLE 4 Programme objectives and Innovation operators CONSULTANTS FINANCING SYSTEM RTOs RTACs SCIENCE PARKS REGION S MINT Mini-networks V A. D -Q EASD Mini-networks SPAL RTACs Feasibility RTACs SMEs Absorption capacity (?) SPAL MINT TPF SPAL DGXII RITTS park RITTS RTPs SPAL DGXVI DGXVI DGXXI1I FAPRO R T A ft «sPKTPT (•>) EuroSDAQ (DG XVIII. XXIII etc ) EVCA For* Cx5 Europe anisation TII Technology dissemination Mini-networks TPF(?) Mini-networks RTACs (?) TTDays (See Annex 6: list of acronyms) TTDays TTDays SME PARTNERS INNOVATION POLICY PUBLIC FINANCIAL SUPPORT CONSULTANTS t SME TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTRES RTO FINANCIAL SYS; M ADVISERS IN TECH? _OGICM, INNOVATION OTHER SMEs Bijlage B Lijst van evaluatierapporten over SPRINT-activiteiten Tussentijdse evaluatie van SPRINT Evaluatie van netwerken van intermediairs Evaluatie van netwerken van onderzoek- en technologieorganisaties (RTO's) Evaluatie van specifieke projecten (fase I en II) 1992 1992-93 1994 1993-94 Evaluatie van het MINT-project (beheer van de integratie van nieuwe technologie) 1994-95 Evaluatie van het project inzake science parks 1994-95 Evaluatie van de communautaire innovatie-enquête (CIS) - fase I 1994 Evaluatie van de regeling inzake technologiefinanciering met rendementsafhankelijke terugbetaling (TPF) 1994-95 • • • • • • 2D ISSN 0254-1513 COM(96) 130 def. DOCUMENTEN NL 15 Catalogusnummer : CB-CO-96-137-NL-C ISBN 92-78-01900-3 Bureau voor officiële pubiikaües der Europese Gemeenschappen L-2985 Luxemburg gi