POLICIES KNOWLEDGE-INTENSIVE COLLABORATIVE NETWORKS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – POLICIES KNOWLEDGE-INTENSIVE COLLABORATIVE NETWORKS PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 12b6be-YjBlY



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

POLICIES KNOWLEDGE-INTENSIVE COLLABORATIVE NETWORKS

Description:

More broadly, partnerships have such virtues as flexibility, speed, informality, and economy. ... quite probable that informal partnering through networks and ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:50
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 105
Provided by: dreliasgc
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: POLICIES KNOWLEDGE-INTENSIVE COLLABORATIVE NETWORKS


1
POLICIESKNOWLEDGE-INTENSIVE COLLABORATIVE
NETWORKS
  • Nicholas S. VonortasCenter for International
    Science and Technology Policy Department of
    EconomicsThe George Washington University

2
PART IINTRODUCINGBUSINESS PARTNERSHIPSDefinit
ions - Rationale
3
INTRODUCINGSTRATEGIC BUSINESS PARTNERSHIPS
  • During the past 3 decades, collaborative
    strategies in international business have gained
    popularity.
  • Particularly in high technology industries,
    leading firms have increasingly used joint
    ventures, joint RD, technology exchange
    agreements, direct minority investments, and
    sourcing relationships.

4
INTRODUCINGSTRATEGIC BUSINESS PARTNERSHIPS
  • All these inter-firm relationships are short of
    complete merger, but deeper than arms-length
    market exchanges.
  • Such relationships involve mutual dependence and
    shared decision-making between two or more
    independent firms. When RD is a focus of the
    partnership, universities and other research
    institutes may also participate.
  • They are characterized here as strategic business
    partnerships (or alliances).

5
INTRODUCINGSTRATEGIC BUSINESS PARTNERSHIPS
  • Several databases tracking strategic partnerships
    show that the rate of formation of such
    partnerships has accelerated dramatically since
    the late 1970s.
  • This dramatic increase reflects non-equity
    agreements by and large. In contrast, equity
    based partnerships have kept a fairly low
    profile.
  • Current conditions in the global economy make
    these alliances advantageous, perhaps necessary,
    for firm competitiveness in many industries.

6
INTERNATIONALSTRATEGIC BUSINESS PARTNERSHIPS
  • Three major and inter-related factors have been
    driving the surge of international partnering.
  • Globalization
  • Multinational companies have relentlessly pushed
    into new geographical and product markets.
  • Technological Change
  • The pace of technological advance has
    accelerated, partly as a result of increasing
    competition through globalization.
  • The notion of core competency
  • Increasing international competition and rapid
    technological advance have robbed firms of their
    ability to be self-sufficient in everything they
    do. The idea now is, do internally what you do
    best and outsource the rest through partnerships

7
DEFINITION JOINT VENTURES
  • In the mid-1980s, OECD defined joint ventures as
    activities in which the operations of two or
    more firms are partially, but not totally,
    functionally integrated in order to carry out
    activities in one or more of the following areas
  • buying or selling operations
  • natural resource exploration, development and/or
    production operations
  • research and development operations
  • engineering and construction operations

8
DEFINITION JOINT VENTURES
  • In general, the motives for setting up a joint
    venture were understood to include
  • using complementary technology or research
    techniques
  • raising capital
  • spreading the risks associated with establishing
    an enterprise in a new product or geographical
    area
  • achieving economies of scale
  • overcoming entry barriers to domestic and
    international markets and,
  • acquiring market power.

9
HISTORY OF JOINT VENTURES
  • Up until the late 1970s, inter-firm cooperation
    was dominated by equity partnerships
  • There were few exceptions, involving research
    consortia organized under government auspices in
    industrialized countries such as the Engineering
    Research Associations in Japan and several
    research consortia organized in the United States
    in the 1970s to tackle energy problems

10
HISTORY OF JOINT VENTURES
  • Two important changes have taken place since the
    early 1980s in terms of inter-firm cooperation
  • First, the extent of cooperation has increased
    very much resulting in big numbers of national
    and international partnerships
  • Second, the organizational structure of
    cooperation has changed dramatically, reflecting
    the increasing importance of organizational
    flexibility. Non-equity partnerships are
    currently dominating the landscape

11
HISTORY OF JOINT VENTURES
  • Consequently, the joint venture definition shown
    previously (requiring the establishment of a new
    entity separate from the parents) proved too
    rigid to be able to accommodate the rapidly
    growing variety of institutional mechanisms to
    transfer organizational and technological
    knowledge
  • The need for a better definition was met with a
    broader concept the concept of a strategic
    partnership (alliance)

12
DEFINITIONSTRATEGIC BUSINESS PARTNERSHIPS
  • A strategic alliance (partnership) was defined by
    David Teece as a web of agreements whereby two or
    more partners share the commitment to reach a
    common goal by pooling their resources together
    and coordinating their activities.
  • A strategic partnership denotes some degree of
    strategic and operational coordination and may
    include things such as joint research and
    development (RD), technology exchanges,
    exclusionary market and manufacturing rights, and
    co-marketing agreements. Partnerships may, or may
    not, involve equity investments.

13
PRIVATE SECTORINCENTIVES TO PARTNER
  • Access product and financial markets
  • Share costs of large investments such as as RD
  • Share risk, reduce uncertainty
  • Access complementary resources and skills of
    partners, such as finance, complementary
    technologies
  • Benefit from research synergies
  • Accelerate return on investments through more
    rapid diffusion of assets

14
PRIVATE SECTORINCENTIVES TO PARTNER
  • Deploy resources efficiently to create economies
    of scale, specialisation and/or rationalisation
  • Increase strategic flexibility through the
    creation and optimal exploitation of new
    investment options
  • Unbundle the firms portfolio of intangible
    assets, and selectively transfer components of
    this portfolio
  • Co-opt competition
  • Attain legal and political advantages in host
    countries.

15
PRIVATE SECTORINCENTIVES TO PARTNER
  • More broadly, partnerships have such virtues as
    flexibility, speed, informality, and economy.
  • They can be put together in little time and be
    folded up just as quickly.
  • They can involve little paperwork. In comparison
    to market internalisation through mergers and
    acquisitions, a close analogy of partnerships
    would be love affairs instead of marriages.

16
(No Transcript)
17
STRATEGIC TRADE-OFF OF COLLABORATION
  • Regardless of the strategic goal, collaboration
    with another firm always implies a trade-off
    between
  • greater access - to markets, finance, other
    resources, capabilities and
  • lesser control - of strategic decision making,
    day to day management, technological and other
    kinds of knowledge.

18
PART IIPOLICY FORRESEARCH PARTNERSHIPS
19
Intervention Rationale
  • The basic justification for government action was
    market failure.
  • In RD partnerships, the arguments initially
    revolved around the inability and unwillingness
    of the private sector to undertake research that
    is risky and imperfectly appropriable.
  • Hence the call for supporting collaborative
    pre-competitive research.
  • This of course agreed with the political
    constraints of the Commission.

20
Intervention Rationale
  • Later the justification expanded to arguments for
    systemic failure.
  • Some issues were said to be bigger than any
    individual organization - or small groups of
    organizations - to tackle. An example is the
    transition into new generations of technology.
  • Such arguments have underlined the ideas of
    European Technology Platforms and their
    programmatic implementation into Joint Technology
    Initiatives in FP7.

21
Policy for RPs
  • ST is one area with relatively little to show in
    terms of harmonization and cohesion between the
    policies of EU member states.
  • The NIS of EU member states remain rather
    dissimilar due to historical, cultural, and other
    factors related to the development stage and
    consequent needs and capabilities.
  • The STEP-TO-RJVs project demonstrated the same
    phenomenon in one specific area of ST policy
    cooperation in RD. Such diversity is
    increasingly viewed as a strength of the European
    system.

22
Policy for RPs
  • Still, the ERA concept presupposes a certain
    degree of cohesiveness and basic goal
    harmonization across member states.
  • One way the Commission has tried to narrow the
    gaps (e.g., national RD funding) and address the
    discrepancies (e.g., areas of focus and specific
    policy tools) has been the establishment of the
    Framework programme.
  • Among others, the 6th FWP and the current 7th FWP
    envisioned a genuine partnership between the EU
    and its member states and with other European
    scientific cooperation organizations.

23
Policy for RPs
  • The project ST Policies Towards RJVs was
    launched in the late 1990s with teams
    representing France, Greece, Ireland, Italy,
    Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. That is an
    amalgam of three kinds of member states,
    including large RD-spending states, developed
    smaller states, and cohesion states.
  • As a necessary first step was to summarize the
    ST policies related to RJVs of these countries
    plus Japan and the US. In addition, partners also
    reviewed competition policies and IPR policies
    that affect RJVs.

24
Policy for RPs
  • The support of international consortia has been
    the main funding mechanism of FWPs since
    inception.
  • Awareness and support of cooperative RD has also
    increased at the national level
  • Cohesion states without an extensive
    tradition of sophisticated industrial and ST
    policies have made significant steps in that
    direction.
  • Most of the rest seem genuinely trying to do
    more than before.
  • The UK sometimes appeared to consider FWP
    programmes as substitutes of its own, but
    continued to promote collaboration and networks
    in various, largely non-monetary ways.

25
Policies for RPs
  • Extensive differences between member states were
    reported
  • Policy approaches have ranged from complete
    indifference to the issue until recently
    (Ireland), to lukewarm policies (Greece, Italy),
    to decreasing attention (UK), to established
    network systems (Sweden), to highly determined
    programmes to support collaborative RD (France,
    Spain).
  • The level and type of support have varied widely
    as have the specific policies and programmes,
    their technological focus, and the numbers and
    kinds of participating economic agents.
  • Amidst this variation, the European Commissions
    policies have played a boosting and cohesive role.

26
Policies for RPs
  • The policies of Japan and of the US have also
    been quite different from those in Europe
    reflecting, at least in part, the general ST
    outlook in these countries
  • In Japan, the emphasis on cooperative RD
    continues. Government sponsored RJVs, however,
    seem to have made the transition since the 1980s
    from primarily mechanisms assisting whole sectors
    to catch up with world practice to mechanisms
    creating a richer and more effective
    technological superstructure for a high group of
    high technology sectors.

27
Policies for RPs
  • In retrospect, the US can be argued to have
    followed a rational approach to accommodating
    rising levels of RD cooperation. It first
    changed its institutional structure and relevant
    legal system. It then moved forward to put in
    place specific programmes to actively promote
    cooperative RD.
  • The EU approach appears to have been the reverse
    of the US approach, but no less rational in the
    face of the specific situation of the region.

28
Several landmark policy initiatives between the
early 1980s and the mid-1990s paved the way to a
new policy approach to innovation and the
emerging economy
Domestic Policy Review of Industrial Innovation
1978 Stevenson-Wydler Technology
Innovation Act 1980 Bayh-Dole
University and Small Business Patent Act 1980
Research and Experimentation (RE) Tax
Credits 1981 Small Business
Innovation Development Act 1982
Merger Guidelines 1982 Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals for IP 1982
Presidents Commission on Industrial
Competitiveness 1983 Engineering
Research Centers Industry-University Cooperative
Research Centers 1983
National Cooperative Research Act 1984
Federal Technology Transfer Act
1986 Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act 1988 National
Cooperative Research and Production Act 1993
29
Policy for RPs
  • Confronted with a large collection of
    significantly variable national ST policies, the
    Commission first moved to put in place its own
    supra-national programmes for cooperative RD
    before trying to harmonize policies across member
    states.
  • Harmonization and cohesion continue but the
    process has been a slow one.
  • Almost 30 years later, the 6th and 7th FWP and
    ERA try to bridge the national ST programmes and
    form a coherent whole.

30
Basic Lessons
  • EU policies have become a force well reckoned by
    member state governments. EU policies have very
    much influenced policies at the national level
    and, in certain cases, shaped them to the extent
    of straightforward translation (cohesion
    countries).
  • Policy-decision makers across countries have
    placed important value on cooperative RD but
    there is extensive variability in policy
    approaches.
  • The ERA is supposed to be the cohesive force that
    recognizes and accepts variability.

31
PART IIIPARTNERSHIPS NETWORKING IN ST FOR
DEVELOPMENT
32
Partnerships for Development
  • The proliferation of partnerships during the past
    couple of decades has raised expectations of
    accelerated growth through faster access to
    markets and technologies and greater learning
    possibilities.
  • There is evidence that inter-firm partnerships
    can be an extremely useful tool to assist
    developing country firms (and poorer regions) in
    their efforts to catch up.
  • Partnerships can accordingly assist countries
    speed up the process of establishing competitive
    indigenous industries. Partnerships can also play
    a major role in mobilizing the necessary
    resources and technological expertise to upgrade
    lagging infrastructure.

33
Partnerships for Development
  • The evidence is, however, still concentrated in
    certain geographical areas and sectors. This has
    been interpreted to imply that the expectations
    of widespread catch-up opportunities through
    partnerships have not yet materialized.
  • However, intensive international inter-firm
    collaboration is a relatively new phenomenon
    where, with few exceptions, developing countries
    have made their presence felt only very recently.
    In other words, it is simply too early to tell.

34
Partnerships for Development
  • It is also possible that analysts have tried to
    extrapolate too much too fast from the experience
    of developed countries, in the process missing
    important flags.
  • The available empirical information has
    overwhelmingly been on formal partnerships. In
    contrast, we have a lot of anecdotal but little
    systematic information on informal partnerships.
  • Available anecdotal evidence strongly indicates
    that informal partnering probably accounts for
    apparently the largest share of partnering
    activity in industry. It involves firms and all
    other kinds of organizations, but it involves
    especially SMEs in proximate geographical areas.

35
Partnerships for Development
  • We have developed various terms to capture
    aspects of more informal modes of interaction. We
    talk about clusters. We talk about districts. We
    also talk about networks.
  • Each term means something different, but they
    also share considerable ground the willingness
    and ability to interact closely with the
    surrounding environment, with peers, with buyers
    and suppliers by and large on an informal
    basis. An expanding literature has, in the past
    few years, tried to amass evidence of such
    interaction and of policies that promote it in
    developed and developing countries

36
Partnerships for Development
  • Formal and informal partnering should be seen as
    a continuum.
  • Then, the question is not anymore whether
    partnering helps developing country/region firms
    to grow competitive. The question rather becomes
    which kind of partnering may be more appropriate
    or more prevalent at different stages of
    development and in different sectors.

37
Partnerships for Development
  • Formal partnerships require strategy formulation
    and partner contribution, whether in financial
    resources, intangible assets, market familiarity,
    market access, etc. Frequently, the required
    level of strategy sophistication and resource
    commitment is considerable.
  • It is, thus, quite possible that these
    requirements raise the bar too high for the mass
    of (mainly small and unsophisticated) firms in
    the majority of developing countries. Hence, it
    could be argued, the relatively slow trickling
    down of partnering to the majority of developing
    countries.

38
Partnerships for Development
  • Still, this leaves many other interactions for
    these agents to pursue. It seems quite probable
    that informal partnering through networks and
    clusters is a way for many relatively
    disadvantaged developing country firms to become
    stronger, more competitive, and to meet the
    minimum capability prerequisites in order to
    graduate to formal partnerships.
  • Governments may be wise to try addressing most
    developing country SME problems related to size
    and competitive position through networks (often
    more vertical, supplier-buyer relationships) and
    clusters (regional, more horizontal,
    agglomerations).

39
PART IV COLLABORATE TO COLLUDE? Multimarket and
Multiproject Contact in RD
40
Collaborate
Policy for Industrial RD Cooperation since 1980s
  • Competitiveness Challenge Market Failures
  • National Cooperative Research Act (1984)
  • Research Joint Venture (RJV)
  • Organizations or contractual agreements
    involving
  • at least two entities with the primary
    purpose to
  • engage in RD.

Alleged Advantages
Potential Drawbacks
  • Restore private incentives
  • Acquire complementary
  • resources
  • Exploit economies of scope
  • Create new investment
  • options
  • Restrict parallel approaches
  • Moral Hazard
  • Lessen competition
  • Decrease social surplus

41
Collaborate
New RJV Announcements between 1985 - 1999
Total 796
42
Collude
Multi-Market Contact Arguments
43
Question
Is Multi-Project Contact through RJVs a Cause of
Concern?
YES
NO
Safeguards against anti-competitive behavior
MPC MMC
  • Multi-Project Contact
  • Multi-Market Contact
  • Foreign Participation
  • Technological Market
  • Uncertainty
  • Porous Constellation

44
Data
NCRA RJVs (1985 1999)
  • Registered with DOJ FTC
  • under NCRA (1984) NCRPA (1993)

Database Structure
45
Data
Cooperative Activities of All Identified Entities
46
Multi-Project Contacts in NCRA RJVs ATT
47
MPC MMC in NCRA RJVs
48
Foreign Participation
Identified Entities by Country
49
Technological Market Uncertainty
Primary Technical Areas of RJVs
50
Porous Constellation
RJV Membership Changes
51
Collaborate to Collude?
Mixed Evidence
  • Multi-Project Contact
  • Multi-Market Contact
  • Foreign Participation
  • Technological Market
  • Uncertainty
  • Porous Constellation

Policy Implications
  • Alert to enhanced possibility of market
    concentration
  • Focus on intersection of MMC MPC
  • Counterbalance between
  • - Advantages of Collaboration in Industrial
    RD and
  • - Danger of Anti-Competitive Behavior

52
PART V USING SOCIAL NETWORKSTO EVALUATE RD
PROGRAMS
53
PRIOR RESULTS ON IST-RTD NETWORKS
54
Prior Results European IST RTD Networks
  • The network of research collaborations has
  • A self-organizing structure, dominated by hubs,
    which are also key nodes in National research
    networks
  • A scale-free architecture at the thematic levels

55
Prior ResultsEuropean IST RTD Networks
  • European research is characterized by small
    world connectivity
  • Strong tendency of scientists to cluster around
    national communities
  • Strong tendency to cluster with research
    disciplines and within industrial sectors
  • The funding structure has a strong influence on
    research co-operations

56
Prior ResultsEuropean IST RTD Networks
  • As a result of the new Integrated Projects and
    Networks of Excellence
  • The density of links is higher
  • The share of participants in the principal
    component is higher
  • The average path length is lower
  • Large firms and research institutes are more
    dominant as gate-keepers of collaboration
  • Small companies are crowded out relative to FP5

57
Prior ResultsEuropean IST RTD Networks
  • The IST RTD network as a whole has small world
    characteristics - but this is not true for each
    and every one of its programmes
  • FP6 more likely than other research collaboration
    frameworks to
  • Connect universities and industry
  • Connect different research themes
  • Include new Member States
  • Include key patent-holders
  • Include SMEs

58
THIS STUDY ON IST-RTD NETWORKS
59
Towards an ERA for ISTOverall Objectives
  • Develop and apply a quantitative analytical
    framework for the assessment of the
    characteristics and performance of networks
    supported by IST RTD in FP5 and FP6.
  • Analyze knowledge and partnership networks in
    selected IST RTD domains, concentrating on
    network nature, topology, time evolution and
    effectiveness.
  • Supplement quantitative information with some
    qualitative information, and inter-organizational
    networks with inter-personal networks

60
Towards an ERA for ISTEvaluation Questions
  • How do the characteristics of the IST-RTD
    partnership and knowledge networks compare with
    the characteristics of the global partnership and
    knowledge networks of IST-RTD companies and with
    the characteristics of the related global
    networks?
  • How well are the companies participating in IST
    RTD programs positioned in the global partnership
    and knowledge networks?

61
Towards an ERA for ISTEvaluation Questions
  • How effective are IST-RTD networks as mechanisms
    for transmitting knowledge?
  • Are the Integrated Projects (IPs) and the
    Networks of Excellence (NoEs) creating leading
    knowledge hubs?
  • What makes these knowledge hubs effective?

62
Towards an ERA for ISTEvaluation Questions
  • To what extent does the prominent network status
    of certain IST RTD companies of clusters match
    the EU technological leadership in certain areas?
  • Are the global networks of selected hub
    companies with extensive ICT supply chains
    represented in the FP6 IST RTD?
  • Are the perceived national IST knowledge hubs
    well integrated into the FP6 network?

63
(No Transcript)
64
Towards an ERA for ISTNetwork Types
  • IST-RTD partnership network
  • IST-RTD knowledge network
  • Global partnership network of IST-RTD project
    participants
  • Global knowledge network of IST-RTD project
    participants
  • Global partnership network akin to the E
    technology units
  • Global knowledge network akin to the E technology
    units

65
Towards an ERA for ISTExamined Programs
66
TA 1-2-3 FP6
Projects
67
TA 1-2-3 FP6
Participants
Participants counted once for every project they
have participated in
68
TA 1-2-3 FP6
By instrument (projects)
CA Coordination Action IP Integrated
Project NoE Network of Excellence
SSA Specific Support Project STREP Specific
Targeted Research Project
69
TA 1-2-3 FP6
Organization Type
HE Higher Education IND industry
REC Research OTH Other
70
TA 1-2-3 FP6
SMEs and Large Enterprises
71
Indicative Analysis 3 subjects
72
Subject 1 Identifying HUBs and
their relative roles
73
Hub definition
  • An organization is a hub in a specific network
    if it has many links and/or if it connects the
    otherwise unconnected parts of the network
  • The above translates into high degree centrality
    and/or high betweeness centrality

74
STYLIZED 3A PARTNERSHIP NETWORK
This is a stylized model of Network 3a (Alliances)
Give intuition behind the concept of a
Partnership Hub
A Hub is defined as a node exhibiting high value
of betweenness and degree
The node labelled HUB 3a is the designated Hub
for this network.
75
STYLIZED 3A PARTNERSHIP NETWORK
Yellow nodes indicate organizations
participanting in Framework Programme.
76
STYLIZED 1A PARTNERSHIP NETWORK
This is a stylized model of Network 1a (FP
Participants)
The blue node is the 3a network relevant Hub
The yellow node represents the relevant Hub in
the stylized 1a partnership network
77
Links Between 1a Hubs and 3a Hubs
Blue nodes are the 3a network Hubs
Yellow nodes represent the 1a network Hubs
1a Hubs are strongly inter-connected and they are
also connected with 3a Hubs
3a Hubs are NOT hubs in network 1a, BUT are
gateways that connect FP organizations to the
global network
78
1A FP6 (TA1) PARTNERSHIP NETWORK
Blue nodes are the 3a network Hubs
Red nodes are other 3a network participants
within distance 1 from 3a Hubs
Yellow nodes represent 1a network Hubs
79
1A FP6 (TA1) PARTNERSHIP NETWORK (no IP)
This is the TA1 Network without the links related
to IP
The network is substantially different, with many
isolated nodes and diminished complexity
80
Subject 2 Effectiveness of
KNOWLEDGE HUBs
81
Effectiveness of Knowledge Hubs
Hubs as knowledge depositories
  • Number of Patents
  • Number of Citations Received
  • Number of Highly Cited Patents

Hubs at the cross-road of information and ideas
  • Degree Centrality
  • Betweeness Centrality

82
Effectiveness of Knowledge Hubs Hypothetical
Example
83
Effectiveness of Knowledge HubsHypothetical
Example
  • closely matches that of global KHs in terms of
    three variables (number of patents, network
    centralities)
  • lags seriously behind in terms of the remaining
    two variables that approximate the quality and
    the importance of their patent portfolios

the FP KHs seem to perform better in diffusing
knowledge through their centrality roles in the
networks than in creating powerful and
influential portfolios of new ideas.
84
Subject 3 Leadership
85
Leadership
Two different definitions of Leadership
  • Technology Leadership the role played by each
    organisation in the innovative process
  • Market leadership the share of revenues in ICT
    among EU25

86
Technology Leadership
Technology leadership is defined in terms of two
concepts
  • Niche overlap concerns the crowdedness of the
    technological area explored by organisations. Its
    measure is based on similarity of technological
    antecedents (i.e. co-citation).
  • Prestige deriving from the direct technological
    ties between actors (i.e. direct patent citations)

87
Technology Leadership
Four different kinds of actors
  • Technology Leaders a key source of knowledge
    spillovers for many other organizations in the
    industry. Their research activity is focused on
    the exploitation of opportunities in relatively
    mature and therefore highly crowded fields
  • Technology Brokers sources of knowledge in
    relatively new and unexplored fields

88
Technology Leadership
  • Technology Followers they do not contribute
    significant spillovers to other organizations and
    engage into relatively mature and crowded
    technological subfields
  • Isolate Organisations they do not receive
    direct citations from many other organizations
    and are exploring relatively untapped
    technological subfields.

89
Technology Leadership Hypothetical Example
90
Technology Leadership Hypothetical Example
This analysis might suggest
  • The number of identified leaders and brokers
    that
  • participate in the Framework Programme
  • The number (and identity) of those who not only
  • participate but they can also be
    characterized as
  • Partnership HUBs in the Framework Programme.

91
PART VI NETWORKS OF INNOVATION IN INFORMATION
SOCIETY DEVEKOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT IN EUROPE
92
Objectives
  • The core objectives of the evaluation study were
  • To assess the effectiveness of network
    collaboration and knowledge transfers between
    RTD, innovation and deployment activities related
    to IST
  • To suggest ways of strengthening the links
    between IST-RTD, innovation and deployment at the
    EU and regional levels

93
Evaluation Questions (1)
1. Do IST-RTD networks play an important role in
creating new, innovative ICT products/processes
and how? 2. What are the network characteristics
of the organizations that are effective
innovators? 3. Do IST-RTD networks influence ICT
deployment? Do they speed up the diffusion
process? Do they affect the geographical
distribution of deployment? Do they have a
structuring effect on ICT take-up in specific
geographical areas? 4. Do IST deployment
networks (eTen, eContent) play an important role
in deploying new, innovative ICT
products/processes and how? 5. How do IST-RTD
and IST deployment networks complement each
other? Where are the strong and the weak links?
Is there a significant overlap between the two
kinds of networks? Are there common nodes, common
hubs?
94
Evaluation Questions (2)
6. Are there opportunities for greater linkages
between IST-RTD and IST deployment networks and
how could they increase the impact of current and
future innovation and deployment activities? 7.
What are the best institutional contexts to
promote ICT take-up through innovation
networks? 8. Do national/regional IST networks
supported by EU structural funds play an
important role in introducing and in deploying
new, innovative ICT products/processes and
how? 9. How do the above networks (supported by
structural funds) compare with networks supported
only with national/regional funds in terms of
both innovation and deployment? these questions
cannot be answered through network analysis
alone, they can be answered by understanding the
value of the network to the participants
95
Analytical Steps
  • The methodology involved the following steps
  • Select a thematic area of IST research and
    deployment Applied IST research addressing
    major societal and economic challenges
  • Investigate innovation and deployment activities
    at the EU level in the selected thematic area and
    define network topology at the European level
    through network and data analysis
  • Select regions and undertake quantitative and
    qualitative analysis of deployment in selected
    regions
  • Conduct interviews with key organizations
  • Analyse patterns and relationships of networks
  • Derive lessons learned and policy recommendations.

96
Data Analysis for Selected Regions
  • Quantitative analysis data on the
    characteristics of research and deployment
    projects (EU, national, regional). Main
    analytical objectives
  • Analyze IST networks in terms of position and
    role of regional organizations
  • Analyze RTD networks and innovation
  • Analyze RTD networks and deployment
  • Qualitative analysis 66 interviews with actors
    in deployment networks at the regional level.

97
Data and Networks Construction
98
Question 2 What are the Network
Characteristics? Network Structure
Both networks are highly connected and display
Small World properties low average distance and
high clustering coefficient as compared to a
random network.
99
Question 2 What are the Network
Characteristics? Network hubs
  • As compared to the Research network, in the
    Deployment network
  • Other organizations (e.g. City Council) play a
    role
  • Private companies have a more important role

100
Question 2 What are the Network
Characteristics? Gatekeepers Bridging Research
and Deployment Networks
  • There are 277 gatekeeper organizations
  • 1/3 of the links in each of the two networks are
    bridging links

101
Gatekeepers by organisational type
SMEs seem to play a relevant role 45 gatekeepers
are SMEs (16.7 of the total).
102
Lessons Learned
  • IST RTD networks have an integrating effect
    across sectors
  • Networks create opportunity for knowledge sharing
    about new product, processes, and markets
  • The research networks are denser and more
    interconnected than the deployment networks
  • Key institutions-Gatekeepers-integrate these two
    networks
  • Knowledge flows bilaterally within the network,
    but the information shared by different nodes
    reflects their institutional role
  • The EU requirement for geographic integration
    bring smaller institutions together with large
    multinationals in ways that would not happen
    otherwise

103
Policy Recommendations
  • Continue efforts to strengthen ERA. Research
    networks could involve more organizations that
    are critical local players in deployment. The
    latter are often different than the research
    intensive organizations.
  • Supplement the concept of ERA with a concept that
    extends to deployment, and to the linkages
    between research and deployment, following the
    higher emphasis on innovation and demand side
    effects in Europe today.
  • Develop a local/regional deployment strategy as
    part of IST-RTD projects, when program objectives
    include dissemination and application, since the
    deployment efforts, capabilities and skills are
    to a significant extent different than those
    relating to research.

104
Policy Recommendations (2)
  • Understand better the organizations that link
    knowledge hubs with local economies. FP
    knowledge hubs are often international
    universities and research institutes,
    traditionally weak in local economies of Europe.
    Programs will depend on other, often smaller
    players from the local private sector to deploy.
    The linkages between the two types of players are
    of critical importance.
  • Create an on-line information center/directory of
    regional deployment assistance to help improve
    access to information.
  • Streamline the application process to
    regional/national/European activities for small
    business and research institutes.
  • Create virtual technology transfer centers that
    focus on creating feedback loops at the local
    level.
About PowerShow.com