Technology transfer to SME

1. Technology transfer to SME Russian experience

2. Years 1990 - 2003 • No serious need for technology transfer (TT) because of: - poor financing of science - weak and resource based economy - tough environment for SME - science is not most prestigious anymore • Various instruments of TT are tested • Main instrument – transfer by brains • Not clear situation with IPR

3. Years 2004 - 2008 • Good federal and regional money started to come to science and education • Large industries started to look for technological innovation in products and services • FDI and R&D centres of large international corporations in Russia started to play important role • Large money came to venture funds – more than 2,0 Bln. Euro (50% state/50% private) • Much better political environment for SME, especially innovative • A plenty of business incubators are under construction

4. Tested TT Instruments • Technology brokers • TT and consulting centers • Facilities for technology development • Information services • Special programs

5. Technology brokers • Dozens through Russia • Not quite popular and trusted • Mostly operate for foreign companies • Some effective are from abroad, like “Imprimatur Capital” (UK) • Brokers’ overall efficiency – dozens of TTs • “Selftransfer” is much more effective

6. TT and consulting centers • TT Centers (Offices) – about 100, mostly special parts of Universities and Research Institutes; some private, 2 Russian-French TTC • Consulting and couching centers – about 20 public: - where and how to be educated and trained for business, - where and how to get financing, - how not to make wrong steps • Patent offices – more than 500, private

7. TTO as a part of BRHE program (CRDF)

8. FACILITIES FOR TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT Business-Incubators - As a part of Technoparks within Universities (64) - Regional (MED + regional resources), 112 under creation, 39 are open (11 of them are for innovative enterprises) - As elements of Special Economic Zones Technoparks (64) - Created by Universities during USSR period – to incubate and commercialize R&R results, relied on support by Government Innovative Technological Centers (77) - Self-sustaining facilities, latest stages of breeding, partially incubating

9. Information services • Knowledge and data bases (RFBR, FASIE, Universities’ and RAS’) • Information resources –www.miiris.ru(public)www.innovbusiness.ru(private),www.rttn.ru(public) • Russian-French technological networkwww.rfr.ru • Britain-Russian Innovation Network (BRIN), (8 UK IRCs and 16 RTTN members), TO/TR data base – 440 profiles,www.brin-net.ru • Russian consortium of information networks RUITC+RTTN+RA(90 BIC, ITC,TTC, TP)

10. ANVAR – FASIE, RFR - RTTN • More than 100 technological audits, nore than 50 TR and TO, 20 projects • 10 seminars “How to make technological partnership with French SME” • 3 brokers’ meetings with French IRC(South-West, Ile-de-France, Rohne-Alphe) and Russian TTC • More than 60 members through Russia • Training courses “How to make technological audit”, “How TT networks operate”www.ras-stc.ru • Innovative Enterprise Initiative by French Ministry of Foreign Affairs

11. Special programs • UMNIK (SMART) – to support young innovator (up to 28 years), 1000 per year • START – seed financing of spin-offs from Universities • PUSC – Transfer of technology and team through Partnership of University and Small Company • TEMP – assistance in licensing of technology from Universities to SME

12. PUSCProgramme - Partnership of Universities and Small Companies • Joint Programme with Rosnauka • To assist rather matured Enterprises when they need “package” - new technology and highly trained personnel for it’s commercialization • Rosnauka finances University for training • FASIE assists technology commercialization by SIE

15. PROBLEMS with BI: • not to many clients (Some participants of STARTand UMNIK programs became clients) - still weak management teams and not enough methodological materials – “How to run business-incubator successfully” ” - limited instruments for support with TP: - no support by Government with ITC: - still few well developed examples

16. PROBLEMS with consulting - Public – not quite qualified - Private – quite expensive for seed-and-breed stage with information services - Not well known - Not quite trusted - Too much “noise” when it comes to scientific and technological proposals As a result - Nurturing and prototyping now is the weakest element of innovation chain

17. Problems of TT Environment • There are no economical stimulus for large corporations to become technologically innovative • Quite a large portion of scientific reservoir is old (personnel, results, instruments) • Scientists are not used to “sell” their knowledge to industry, GOSPLAN was the only TT Office • The scale of use of all instruments is still too small to influence national economy • Universities are still considered mostly as places for education not for science and innovation

18. Some Hopes • The very strong political impulses for innovative economy • Mutual understanding between MED and MES about innovation policy • Large national programs and projects started – Nanotechnology, ITNR, Glonass, SuperJet, Space, etc. • Development of new infrastructure – SEZ, High-Tech Parks, • EC – Russia project for TT networks started within CIP (“Gate2RuBIN”)

19. Gate2RuBIN project (Russia) • Gate to Russian Business and Innovation Networks (Gate2RuBIN) is the Russian proposal for EEN • Submitted by a consortium: • Union of Innovation Technology Centers of Russia (RUITC) • Russian Technology Transfer Network (RTTN) • Russian Agency for SME Support (RA) • Gate to • SMEs (~ 4000) • Universities and research centers (~450) • Innovation centers (~ 100), viaRussian networks

20. Performance Indicators

21. Contacts Tel: Fax: Email: Web: +7 (495) 231-19-01 +7 (495) 231-19-02 info@fasie.net www.fasie.ru