RTO Studie

1
Contribution of RTD to Developing Sustainable
Knowledge-Based Economies in Central and South
East Europe, 22-23 May 2009, Dubrovnik
Governance and Benchmarking of RTOs Manfred
Spiesberger Centre for Social Innovation (ZSI),
Austria
2
Comparative Study of Governance Models of RTOs

• Study of Governance Models comparative analysis
  of 8 RTOs commissioned by Austrian Federal
  Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology
  (BMVIT)
• Project Consortium- Society for Research
  (GFF)- Austrian Research Centers (ARC)-
  Centre for Social Innovation (ZSI)
• Time frame of study implementation spring-autumn
  2008 approved by Ministry in February 2009
• Methodological approach - document study/desk
  research, - interviews with representatives of
  supervising authorities/decision makers/funding
  bodies with representatives of RTOs, -
  analysis and compilation of study in ppp format

3
Scope of Analysis

• Corporate Public Governance of RTOs
• Legal status, supervisory authorities/decision
  makers ownership, supervisory bodies (e.g.
  boards), legal status
• Management, controlling, planning, evaluation
  internal and external decision making processes
• Role of RTO in respective National Innovation
  System (NIS) links to other actors
  universities, business, commercialisation and
  spin-off strategies
• Activity fields of RTOs
• Funding profiles of RTOs basic versus
  competitive funding

4
Sample of national Research and Technology
Organisations (RTOs)
Criteria for choosing the RTOs
ARC Austrian Research Centers,Austria
FhG Fraunhofer Gesellschaft,Germany
IJS Jožef Stefan Institute,Slovenia
KIT Karlsruhe Institute for Technology, Germany
PSI Paul Scherrer Institute,Switzerland
SINTEF SINTEF,Norway
TNO TNO,Netherlands
VTT VTT,Finland

• Relevance of RTO in national context
• Interaction with public decision makers
• Identification of Good-Practice-Models for
  improving of performance
• Comparability with previous studies

ZSI analysed ARC, IJS, PSI, SINTEF
5
Main features of RTOs (I)
Research and Technology Organisation (RTO) Year of Establishment Legal status Decision Maker/ Supervising Authority 2) Links to Universities
FhG 19491) Association Ministry - BMBF M 3)
TNO 1930, Public Research Organisation Ministry - MBKW M 3)
VTT 1942, Public Research Organisation Ministry TEM -
ARC 1956 Limited liability company Ministry - BMVIT, main shareholder -
SINTEF 1950/85 Foundation RCN M 3)
PSI 1955/91 Institute of the Swiss Federation ETH M 3)
IJS 1949/92 Public Research Organisation Ministry - MEST M 3)
KIT 2008, planned Public Research Organisation Ministry - BMBF/State of Baden-Württemberg M 3)
1) established on the basis of a specific
law 2) e.g. Ministry, etc. 3) M Management
involved in University RCN Research Council of
Norway BMBF Federal Ministry for Education and
Research
MBKW Ministry of Education, Culture and
Science TEM Ministry of Employment and the
Economy BMVIT Federal Ministry for Transport,
Innovation and Technology MEST Ministry of Higher
Education, Science and TechnologyETH ETH Board
(for ETH Domain)
6
Main features of RTOs (II)
RTOs Personnel (2007) Personnel Trend 2) Locations University links Subsidiaries Spin Offs5)
FhG 13.630 ì 40, 20 offices int. offices 56 heads of Institute are Univ. Professors 17 Subsidiaries, Venture Group, 4 Cluster 65 Spin Offs, 4 sold off
TNO 4.634 è 10 in NL, 27 overall n.a. 50 majority shareholdings, 36 minority shareholdings 6 Spin Offs
VTT 2.740 è 14, 6 local offices Project related 4 Profit Centers 13 Spin Offs
ARC 976 ì 10 Lecturers 4 Subsidiaries 3 Spin Offs
SINTEF 2.041 ì 2 main,10 nat.int. offices 500 collaborators 4 Research companies SINTEF-Holding (5 Sharholdings) 12 Spin Offs
PSI ca. 1.300 3) è 1 70 Lecturers Competence Center CCEM 1 Spin Off
IJS 854 ì 2 54 Professors 8 Ass. 101 Prof. part time 33 Ass. 2 Subsidiaries 1 Shareholding (Uni) 4),2 Spin Offs without shareholding
KIT 7.959 1) è 2 266 Univ.-Prof., 63 FZK Prof. For the moment only networks outsourcing
1) Operational as of January 2009 2) Growth
ofver past 5 years3) 2006 4) currently
because of legal limitations not possible 5) for
respective reference year
7
Thematic fields1) of RTOs
1) Activities compiled into broad fields
8
Income profiles of RTOs 2007 (I) indicative
percentages
RTOs Basic funding Project/Programme revenue Contract research Income
FhG 30,0 32,0 1) 38,0 2) 1.320 Mio.
TNO 13,1 20,7 66,2 3) 579 Mio.
VTT 33,0 23 44,0 4) 232 Mio.
ARC 35,3 18,3 46,4 5) 126,3 Mio.
SINTEF 2,8 19,2 6) 78,0 7) 291 Mio.
PSI 85,0 4,0 11,0 9) 174,4 Mio.
IJS 14,9 29,2 55,9 8) 41 Mio.
KIT 73,0 10) - 27,0 707 Mio.
1) FhG federal/regional and EU income2) FhG
national international 3) TNO 16,6 public
contracts EU funding4) VTT incl. 14
international5) ARC national international
contracts 8,7 other income
6) SINTEF Other income calculated to programme
income 7) SINTEF national contracts de facto
around 50 programme income 8) IJS including 27
public contracts9) PSI Incl. other income10)
KIT federal/regional partly programme funding
9
External decision making structures
External decision making body Members Competence
SINTEF SINTEF Board 9 members 4 from industry, 2 from University of Trondheim, 3 SINTEF Strategy, budget, group economy
PSI ETH Board 11 members 4 from ETH domain, 7 from industry science Strategic guidance, budget, performance agreement control of its implementation
IJS Board of Governors 9 members 5 ministry, 2 IJS, 2 nominated by director - industry IJS statute, annual business plan, institute director
ARC Supervisory Board 17 members 3 ministry, 5 industry, 6 ARC, 3 public bodies Strategy, group policy structure, management, important investments
Competences of Boards overlap. But qualitatively,
the influence and relevance of boards differs
importantly. Besides boards, owners, national RD
funding bodies, etc. have influence.
10
Planning and control structures
Targets, Planning Time horizon Evaluation
SINTEF Targets set by Group President, top-down bottom-up planning Annual planning External evaluations occasionally Monthly audits by group management
PSI Performance agreement with ETH Board (4 years), top-down bottom-up 4 year planning (annual reporting) Annual evaluation by ETH. Annual reporting, self evaluations, international evaluation panels every 6 years
IJS Business Plan Top-down planning Annual planning Annual evaluation by scientific council and directorate, self evaluations
ARC Targets set by Group Management Bottom-up top-down planning, in future performance agreement Annual planning (in future 4 year planning) Monthly and quarterly reporting (in future external evaluation)
11
Main results of study I

• Policy making RTOs are important actors in their
  respective National Innovation System (NIS) as
  well as in the European Research Area (ERA) RTOs
  are used as instruments for RD policy making and
  RD policy implementation.
• Legal Status different forms exist most RTOs
  are Public Research Organisations, but also
  association, foundation or company.
• Interaction RTO-decision maker/supervising
  authority different patterns can be met from
  rather independent to more dependent on
  supervising authority.E.g.More independent for
  SINTEF (foundation, RCN renounced on seat in
  SINTEF board) and PSI (clear regulation via
  performance agreement, ETH board as buffer
  towards federal authorities). Less independent
  ARC and IJS, more important influence of policy
  makers in boards are also stronger in number in
  boards for IJS majority has been moved to
  ministries in board.
• Performance agreements gain more and more
  importance they are used for clarifying the
  scope of activities of the RTO between the RTO
  and the decision makers/supervising authority.

12
Main results of study II

• Evaluations important feature for all RTOs some
  kind of evaluation is undertaken in every RTO.
  Different forms exist self evaluation, internal
  external evaluations, reporting, audits,
  controlling, etc.For some RTOs, the board is
  more implicated in evaluation (e.g. SINTEF
  board meets at institutes and the heads of
  institute report to board)
• Funding basic grants/basic funding/block funding
  is on average 30. Relatively low for SINTEF
  relatively high for PSI but this is an
  important research infrastructure, funds are
  allocated to little extent based on performance
  funding allocation based on performance within
  ETH domain multi-annual budget planning (4 year
  planning cycles) provide planning security.
  Balance basic- versus competitive funding in NO
  trend to increase basic funding, in SI trend to
  increase competitive funding allocation via calls
  for project proposals.
• Strategy of RTOs is influenced by decision
  maker/supervising authority via basic funding or
  programme funding respectively.
• Links to universities some kind of links to
  universities exist for all RTOs (personnel,
  joint labs, etc.), but important differences in
  relevance. Good practice SINTEF innovation
  chain university-RTO-business, same campus with
  university, university representatives in board,
  personnel exchange, joint laboratories IJS
  co-founded University of Nova Gorica. Links
  facilitate personnel recruiting, acquiring of
  know-how, etc.

13
Main results of study III

• Links to business/commercialisation is a hot
  topic for most RTOs and is approached more and
  more strategically. E.g. via contract research,
  via establishing of commercialisation holdings
  (e.g. SINTEF Holding), via establishing of
  Technology Transfer Offices (e.g. PSI)
  shareholding in Technology Park (IJS)Spin-off
  strategies systematic and strategic approach in
  several RTOs (e.g. SINTEF, PSI, IJS)
• Balance basic versus applied research/technology
  development is an important point basic research
  oriented RTOs such as IJS or PSI move towards
  applied, while applied oriented such as SINTEF
  move more towards basic research.
• Public policy advice is performed by and relevant
  for several RTOs, e.g. for specific technologies
  (environment, testing, etc.) or via specialized
  social science units (e.g. ARC, VTT).
• Regionalisation has to be seen in context of
  federal structures of the respective country, or
  with getting closer to customers, etc. Is
  important e.g. for FhG, TNO und VTT.
• Internationalisation is for all RTOs an important
  topic, especially regarding participation in the
  EU Framework Programme for RTD. For some RTOs it
  is also relevant in an expansionary and growth
  sense, via establishing offices or institutes
  abroad (e.g SINTEF, FhG)