MAPPING OF EXCELLENCE IN THE NEW MEMBER STATES THE LESSONS LEARNT IN THE RECORD PROJECT

1
MAPPING OF EXCELLENCEIN THE NEW MEMBER
STATESTHE LESSONS LEARNTIN THE RECORD PROJECT
Benchmarking RTDI Organisations in Central and
Southeast European Countries. Sofia, 19 November
2004

• Balázs BORSI
• research manager
• GKI Economic Research Co.

2

• Introducing the RECORD Map
• Stairways of excellence in RECORD
• RTDI specialisation and spatial characteristics
• Case study experience

3
Introducing the RECORD Map
4
What is the RECORD Map?

• A tool to map and draw conclusions from best
  practice RTD organisations the organisational
  level of interpretation of the quantitative and
  qualitative benchmarks
• A geographical interpretation of RTD
  organisations acceding the European Research Area
  (ERA)

5
Why is it experimental?

• RECORD (2002-2004) was a methodological network
  with small research budget
• The focus was on the international Centres of
  Excellence that can integrate in the ERA
• Regional case studies was not our task
• However, some experience at the national level
  can also be shown

6
Reasons for mapping

• The European Paradox
• The lack of science-industry relationships
• The curiosity for knowing how RTDI is spread
  across the CEECs
• The dissemination of an effective learning tool

7
Stairways of excellence
8
Creative and innovative team(see the internal
factors)
9
Links with users(see the negotiated factors)
10
Advanced stage of transition(see the external
factors)
11
Finding excellence

• Pilot survey simple questions and simplified
  metrics
• Case studies in-depth survey of selected RTDI
  institutions (running the full RECORD methodology
  as much as it was possible)

12
RTDI specialisation and spatial
characteristics(the survey results)
13
The number of researchers
Source Ljubljana Proceedings
14
Strong ST fields
in the Ljubljana proceedings only 25 Czech
institutions were processed
Source the RECORD Experimental Map
15
Knowledge generation benchmarks(mapped by field
of science)
Source Ljubljana Proceedings
16
Knowledge utilisation benchmarks(mapped by field
of science)
Source Ljubljana Proceedings
17
Knowledge diffusion benchmarks(mapped by field
of science)
Source Ljubljana Proceedings
18
Assessment of excellenceat two levels

• Potential International CoEs gt 50 of budget
  earned on a competitive basis AND at least one
  important innovation in the past 3 years
• Potential National CoEs gt 50 of budget earned
  on a competitive basis

19
Was there innovation in the last 3 years?(number
of respondents)
Source Ljubljana Proceedings
20
Location of potential International CoEs
21
Location of potential National CoEs
22
Blue banana and boomerang in Europe
Source Brunet 1989 and Gorzelak 1996
23
The number of potential CoEs mapped
based upon the survey results network remarks
24
Spatial economy conclusions

• in some cases (e.g. Poland, Slovenia) the
  distribution of important RTD units does not
  coincide with the traditional industrial
  concentration
• the task is to link the eastern boomerang and the
  western blue banana
• out of the 37 NUTS-2 regions, only the Prague,
  Central Hungary, Malta and Mazowieckie (Warsaw)
  regions have at least 2-3 international CoEs -
  this is NOT enough!

25
Case study experience
26
The cases by countries

• Czech Republic Department of Cybernetics (Czech
  Technical University), Centre for Molecular and
  Genetic Biotechnology (CAS)
• Hungary ComGenex Inc., Cereal Research
  Non-Profit Research Co.
• Poland Faculty of Material Science and
  Engineering (WUT), Institute of Fundamental
  Technological Research (IPPT)
• Slovakia Institute of Electrical Engineering
  (SAS), Department of Nuclear Chemistry (Comenius
  University)
• Slovenia National Institute of Chemistry,
  National Building and Civil Engineering Institute

27
Type of RTD organisation
broad categories adopted from Glaser 2000
28
Establishment the time horizon

• The oldest traditions Cereal Research Non-profit
  Co. (1914)
• After WWII Institute of Electrical Engineering
  (1963), Department of Nuclear Chemistry (1963),
  Department of Cybernetics (80s), Institute of
  Fundamental Technological Research (1953),
  National Building and Civil Engineering Institute
  (1949), National Institute of Chemistry (1946) ?
  also sector-dependent
• New champions ComGenex Inc. (1990), Faculty of
  Materials Science and Engineering (1991), Centre
  for Molecular and Genetic Biotechnology (2000)

29
Stairways in the cases

• International CoEs Faculty of Materials Science
  and Engineering (PL), ComGenex Inc. (HU),
  Department of Cybernetics (CZ), VIGO System Ltd.
  (PL)
• National CoEs Cereal Research Non-profit Co.
  (HU), Centre for Molecular and Genetic
  Biotechnology (CZ)
• Small CoE Department of Nuclear Chemistry (SK)
• Transition stage might be international CoE
  National Building and Civil Engineering
  Institute, National Institute of Chemistry (both
  SI)
• Transition stage might be national CoE
  Institute of Electrical Engineering (SK),
  Institute of Fundamental Technological Research
  (PL)

30
Creative and innovative team(the benchmarks
mapped)
31
Links with users(the benchmarks mapped)
32
Advanced stage of transition(the benchmarks
mapped)
33
The benchmarks mappedin the case studies

• All knowledge processes (KG/KU/KD) are affected
  by history, clear-cut objectives, industry
  relationships, networking
• KG all physical and human factors within the
  critical mass benchmark group, many progressive
  management benchmarks, project work
  publications, user relations, mobility, balanced
  financing
• KU innovation, patents, project management,
  technical competence, ALL the negotiated factors,
  favourable sectoral conditions
• KD ICT infrastructure, hosting foreign
  researchers

34
we must climb...
35
www.record-network.net
36
Thank you for your attention!