IST capabilities in Europe Findings of the FISTERA project

1. IST capabilities in Europe Findings of the FISTERA project Matthias Weber, Bernhard Dachs & Georg Zahradnik ARC systems research A-2444 Seibersdorf Austria Joint ITSTAR and FISTERA Workshop Prague, 22 October 2004

2. Trajectories of research centres in Europe European specialisation in IST in terms of patenting Overview

3. Research centres in IST in Europe

4. Public research organisations (PROs): Longer-term perspective on research topics Ahead of industrial applications Seek close ties to industry (researcher mobility, co-operation, addressing industry needs) A main instruments of national RTD policy Key questions: To what extent are the expected future technology trajectories already reflected in current research agendas? Where are the “blind spots” as compared to the emerging technology trajectories of TILab? Background

5. Criteria for selection: Most active PROs in FWP5 (4 out of the 10 most active) Geographical coverage: small countries represented – VTT, FORTH, NMRC Existence of an explicit and transparent research strategy Coverage: Sample represents about 4% of total ICT research expenditures or corresponds to about 20% of public IST research expenditure in Europe (~ 9000 permanent staff and est. budget of almost 1 Bn €/a) Data: Publicly available information is rather patchy and differs in quality among PROs Personnel and expenditures as main indicators of specialisation Sources: annual reports and web-data Are being further complemented by targeted inquiries Selection of sample

6. List of PROs selected

7. Mission: ”mastering critical micro and nanotechnologies several years ahead of market requirements” Permanent Staff: 820, 130 industrial partners Six fields of research activities: Microsystems Optical components and multimedia Data transmission systems and telecommunications Systems for biology and healthcare Systems design Priorities are Microsystems, Microelectonics and Telecommunications Highlighted project: Nanotech 300 (45nm and 32 nm CMOS technology) Selected centres: LETI (F)

8. Mission „focused on strategic applied research, which a strong emphasis on supporting industry“ Staff: 260 (permanent + Post-Docs) four fields of research activities Microelectronics Photonics Nanotechnology ICT / Bio research Priorities (according to size of research groups): systems integration and photonics Selected centres: NMRC (IL)

9. Mission: ”scientific research that runs 3 to 10 years ahead of industrial needs” Permanent Staff: 890, 380 guest researchers Five fields of research activities CMOS/Nanotechnolgies Communications Body-worn sensors networks Efficient Power Photovoltaics Priorities are CMOS/Nanoelectronics, Communications Highlighted projects: deep-submicron CMOS and applications that make up the intelligent environment Selected centres: IMEC (B)

10. IMEC derived its priorities from a number of identified strategic drivers of future developments in IST: roadmaps of CMOS/nanotech => CMOS research scenarios of intelligent environment => ubiquitous comp. scenarios of strongly miniaturized, interactive and autonomous sensors => body-worn networks derived future energy demands = > efficient power and solar cells A similarly transparent and explicit scenario- and roadmap-based approach for defining priorities has not been found in any other PRO Research strategy development: the example of IMEC

11. Comparing TILAB`s technology classification with the priorities of the PROs, we find: R&D Priorities are defined at the level of technologies, not at the ambients or services level (exception: IMEC) There is a clear focus on microelectronics, systems integration and telecommunication Device technologies (PDAs, PCs) hardly covered = > too near to market? Software only in specialized PRO, no PRO that develops both hard- and software (although important in systems integration) Quite a lot data processing technologies (!) – a success of RTD policy of the 90ies? Research trajectories

12. Focus on longer-term research themes (4-10 years ahead) ... …but only little work being done on „visionary“ technologies as identified by TILab, esp. where IST meets biotech Convergence is only an issue in the context of specific application areas (medical devices and diagnostics). Molecular computing, bio-printers or wetware seem to be too far ahead. Little evidence of explicit strategic orientation of research (priorities seem rather historically bound and mirror today’s specialisation) We observe a different degree of concentration: small PROs like NMRC and IMEC have to focus on a limited range of topics, while Fraunhofer covers nearly all fields. Conclusions I

13. Technological specialisation

14. Triadic patents of the OECD by applications Allows well-balanced international comparison by world regions Possibility to look at specific technologies as defined IPC Analysis in terms of time series of shares and revealed technological advantage (RTA) Differentiation by applications and inventors Background

15. Annual patent applications in Information Society Technologies, 1984-1998 Source: OECD, Triadic Patent Families Database, own calculations

16. Europe’s specialisation in IST patents; RTA 1996-98

17. Development of RTA, 1984-1998

18. Europe’s patent portfolio: share of different technologies on all Europ. patents, 1996-98

19. Difference between applications and inventions of patents in IST, 1984-1998

20. Location of inventors of patents applied for by Europe’s leading IST enterprises

21. Europe‘s technological position in IST is to a large extent determined by Long-standing historical specialisation patterns The overall growth of IST Catching-up process can be observed in aggregate terms as well as in some technological areas The research base (i.e. inventors) is still performing significantly better than commercialisation (i.e. applications) IST companies are diversifying their research locations, thus opening up opportunities for NMS „Visionary“ developments and opportunities are not the focus of leading research institutions and represent a long-term opportunity for „newcomers“… … but requires a systematic approach to research strategy development Conclusions II

22. Further refinement of patent analysis at the level of individual technologies Targeted inquiries in selected countries and research organisations on human resources, research actors and technological strengths Strategy development in PROs Questionnaire on the current developments in the NMS Next steps