Non Technological Factors for Innovation Policy...Industrial Technologies Conference 2012 Non...

Industrial Technologies Conference 2012

Non Technological Factors for Innovation . Policy Advice Framework at EC, National and Regional levels

Professor Svetan Ratchev

NanoCom Project Coordinator

University of Nottingham


Overview

!   Introduction to NanoCom

!   Policy Advice Framework Development

!   Policy Advice Topics

!   Initial Recommendations

!   Timeline


NanoCom Vision

!   ....contribute to bridging the gap between lab

based and industrial applications in

nanotechnology by creating a European

wide approach and mechanisms for

lowering the barriers and spreading best

open innovation practices for rapid

commercialisation and investment in

innovative nanotechnology driven products...

!   NanoCom CSA is funded by the European

Commission under the FP7 NMP Programme.

Theme: NMP-2009-1.2-5

Grant Agreement: 247967

Start Date: 01 Dec 2009

Duration: 36 months

Project Co-ordinator: University of Nottingham, UK


NanoCom Approach – Final Output

⑤  Publication of a Strategic Roadmap, Policy Guidelines and Commercialisation Strategy to support the EU and national governments in increasing successful commercialisation of nanotechnology research.

Based upon the delivery of five key breakthroughs:


Policy Advice Purpose

!   Draw upon analysis of: –  barriers to and

–  best practices for commercialisation of nanotechnology.

!   Develop set of policy planning materials with specific advice covering: –  future investment strategies,

–  mechanisms for engagement with key industrial sectors,

–  new measures for efficient technology and knowledge transfer in to commercially successful applications.

!   Go beyond state-of-the-art and current opinions.

!   Provide both insightful and leading recommendations at EC, member states and regional levels.

!   Embedded involvement of key stakeholders to ensure validity.


Policy Scope

!   Development of recommendations based on identified policy areas.

!   Spheres of influence: –  Europe

•  EU funded - invested in results

•  Actions as a result of recommendations

•  ‘Top down’ policy

–  National •  Relevance of specific recommendations

•  ‘Top down’ and ‘bottom up’ policies

–  Regional •  Where nanotechnology is a priority

•  Recognition of support from clusters

•  ‘Local level’ policy


Policy Framework

!   Challenge led agenda focussed on the analysis of barriers and best practices.

!   Three phased iterative process:

1) Policy Evidence Gathering

2) Formulation, Agreement &

Implementation 3) Output Measurement &

Review


Policy Card Format

Field Description Policy Card Title: Title of the policy card.

e.g. Funding rates for development activities Community affected: Distinct communities who at the effect of the barrier

e.g. SME's Commercialisation barrier: This is the specific barrier as identified by NanoCom interviews and surveys.

e.g. SME's find it hard to get grants at good reimbursement rates for 'development' projects relative to 'research' activities so find it difficult to justify getting involved in the former

References: The identified source of information and also references to other reports which have identified similar barriers. e.g. EC High Level Group report and NanoCom internviews. Also Communication by EC on Horizon 2020 (MEMO/11/848)

Formulated Solution: This is the general solution that is been formulated by the consortium e.g.Reducing the funding gap between 'research' activities and development activities might encourage companies to participate more in

more 'development' projects Existing Funding Scheme or Initiative A listing of existing schemes that already address the specific barrier or control the barrier.

e.g. Eurostars, UK SMART Awards of upto 75% for certain activities. WTO trade agreements cover subsidies and exceptions to research activities.

Who needs to be influenced To affect a change who do you need to influence? e.g. All partners, the respective national contact points, MEP’s and the European Commission DG Research. How to influence the merger between ZIR and FP7

Topics for discuss and timescale What would need to be discussed and with whom at various timescales? e.g. Short Term (Project officers) Is there a chance to change funding strategies. MidTerm Influencing things on political level

Key overall Recommendation: The formalized recommendation summarizing the key points in one sentence. e.g. That the EC and Member states jointly prepare for the introduction of new instruments with smaller budgets (<€200k) shorter delivery

times (< 9 Months) and smaller consortia (<3 partners) to support commercialisation of nanotechnologies within larger discussions to the successor to Framework 7 and that these are brought within the NMP Thematic area (NEW INSTRUMENTS)

Timing: Timing of any changes made. Short term – within 18 months (within the lifetime of current RTD projects) Medium term – 1-3 years (over a duration of a couple of proposal calls) Long term – 3-10 years(e.g. within a full EC programme implementation cycle))

Expected Impact: What are the likely outcomes of these measures? e.g. Expect SME to be more attracted towards schemes if rates were more generous and


Policy Inputs

Stakeholder interviews

Statistical analysis

Policy maker Interviews

Constructive Creative thinking

On-line Surveys

Open forum discussions

Identified barriers & best practices

Cultural background

Current legislation/regulation

Societal & Environmental needs

Natural resources and skills base

Economic priorities


Identified Policy Areas by Domain

• Efficiency • Cost Manufacturing

• Reproducibility • Reliability & Durability Technological

• Regulations & Standards • Market Opportunities

Marketing & Strategy

• Return on Investment • Innovation Infrastructure

Investment & Organisational

2 policy topics

6 policy topics

5 policy topics

3 policy topics


Policy Topics Manufacturing Domain !   16 key barriers identified across the four domains.

!   Manufacturing

1.  Lack of available access to adapted equipment necessary for pre-production development

2.  Lack of investment in full production capability (€1-5M)


Policy Topic Manufacturing Example

!   Lack of available access to adapted equipment necessary for pre-production development

!   Commercialisation Barriers

–  New business applications of MNT can require specialised or enhanced equipment for production that is either immature or need to be adapted.

–  MNT are Key enabling technologies and are often required at an early stage in the product development chain.

–  Capital equipment for manufacturing products is expensive, and time consuming to establish, and often requires highly specialised personnel.

–  SME's have difficulty in raising the money or want to start production quickly.


Policy Topic Manufacturing Example

!   Lack of available access to adapted equipment necessary for pre-production development

!   Key Recommendations –  Promote exploitation of suitable existing open access or

commercially available pilot plant facilities through the creation of an ‘European Directory’ of such capabilities.

–  Identify and fill gaps in the above provision by promoting strategic publically funded open access facilities delivering key enabling pilot plant capabilities e.g. nanomaterials & dispersions, MEMS, Thin Films.

–  Propose amendments to existing funding mechanisms:

•  Increase flexibility for SME’s to further participation e.g. FP Capacities programme or ERDF.

•  Target and support the development of manufacturing infrastructures suitable for full scale production of proven nanomaterials or nano-enabled products.


Policy Topics Technological Domain !   Technological

1.  Lack of investment in technical process control and development

2.  Lack of resources for, and awareness of, up-scaling technologies

3.  High cost of testing of new nano-enabled products for the market


Policy Topic Technological Example

!   Lack of investment in technical process control and development


–  Fundamental physical production processes are not well characterised and understood, especially at the nanoscale.

–  (Offline-metrology) Measurement and characterisation equipment and testing facilities are expensive to buy and to use for SMEs. A wide array of techniques are needed to best develop and define new products.

–  Complexity of measurement issues precludes easy translation into on-line measurement. Integrated process control parameters cannot be easily employed so lengthening development cycles.


Policy Topic Technological Example

!   Lack of investment in technical process control and development

!   Key Recommendations –  Integrate thought leadership from European participation in enabling nano

standards development into process/production metrology development.

–  Ensure development of metrology, standards, modelling tools and the coordination of existing innovators are supported and driven by application need, not just high-end instrument development.

–  Promote the development of skilled technician workforce capable of using sophisticated metrology and implementing advanced manufacturing techniques.

–  Disseminate developments widely via training programmes, trade associations, ETPs, ...


Policy Topics Marketing & Strategy Domain !   Marketing & Strategy

1.  Lack of agreement between regulatory environment, consumer organisations and technical community

2.  Lack of standard definitions, test methods and guidance documents for industry

3.  Lack of specific applications and new markets for nanotechnologies

4.  Cautious public attitudes and perceptions for nano-enabled products

5.  Lack of commercialisation expertise with nano community


Policy Topic Marketing & Strategy Example

!   Lack of commercialisation expertise within the nano community


–  A general lack of entrepreneurial awareness in the EU.

–  Technologists with the best know-how and access to new technologies lack sufficient business skills to successfully commercialise.

–  SME's have enabling technologies with a lot of different applications and markets, but lack business focus.

–  Technologies presented by academics or SME's are unproven or too risky to adopt or invest in (lack of understanding of customer needs)

–  Customers usually interested in performance gains as opposed to completely new innovation (incremental innovation vs radical).


Policy Topic Marketing & Strategy Example

!   Lack of commercialisation expertise within the nano community

!   Key Recommendations –  Assistance in the training of entrepreneurs to effectively develop

business models and pitch to investors and potential customers.

–  Assistance in identification and utilisation of potential public piloting environments to fund proof of concept work and show rooms (e.g. nano room in a hospital).

–  Support for improving business skills:

•  Basic innovation related know-how for graduating academics; new European academic civilization

•  Continuous flow of business skills courses –  Support for mentoring programs:

•  Serial entrepreneurs and starting entrepreneurs •  Corporate directors and/or SMEs


Policy Topics Investment & Organisational Domain

!   Investment & Organisational

1.  Lack of coverage, readiness level continuity and timeliness of funding schemes

2.  Lack of suitable protection and exploitation of intellectual property

3.  Difficulty in attracting enough private investment funding for nanotechnologies

4.  Lack of high quality collaborations by SMEs

5.  Lack of good technology transfer mechanisms and incentives

6.  Lack of workforce training and readiness


Policy Topic Investment & Organisational Example

!   Lack of coverage, readiness level continuity and timeliness of funding schemes


–  Funding schemes do not cover complete commercialisation readiness scale.

–  Geographical discrepancy, diversity and complexity of public support measures decrease their efficiency at EU level

–  Exploitation of research has limited time slot for SME’s, funding calls deemed to be lacking and perception of public support as complicated by SMEs.

–  Individual organisations satisfied with relatively small amounts of finance (<€50,000) to cover market feasibility studies/proof of concept - these funds cannot be raised easily.


Policy Topic Investment & Organisational Example

!   Lack of coverage, readiness level continuity and timeliness of funding schemes

!   Key Recommendations –  Promotion and increase in adaptive and flexible funding mechanisms,

based on a continuous open mode, for the specific commercialisation of nanotechnologies (provision of schemes which are attractive for SMEs).

–  Review sources of funding for TRL 6+ during the Horizon 2020 formulation. Development of new strategies and funding models to overcome significant barriers (e.g. tax breaks and incentives, regional funds (ERDF), private investment funds).

–  Prepare for the introduction of new funding mechanisms with smaller budgets (<€200k) shorter delivery times (<9 Months) and smaller consortia (<3 partners) to support commercialisation of nanotechnologies, especially for SMEs.


Timeline

November 2012

1) Briefing Note 2) Complete Policy Card Pack

September 2012

Presentation at EC Workshop Implementing Innovation

August 2012

Policy advice revision following review cycle

June 2012

Draft policy advice recommendations to be sent for review


Any Questions?

Professor Svetan Ratchev The University of Nottingham

[email protected]

Theme: NMP-2009-1.2-5

Grant Agreement: 247967

Start Date: 01 Dec 2009

Duration: 36 months

Project Co-ordinator: University of Nottingham, UK

Non Technological Factors for Innovation Policy...Industrial Technologies Conference 2012 Non...

Documents

Transcript of Non Technological Factors for Innovation Policy...Industrial Technologies Conference 2012 Non...