International Collaboration of CRCs Interim Report- COMPERA Ljubljana

1. International Collaboration of CRCsInterim Report- COMPERA Ljubljana Patries Boekholt Erik Arnold Jon van Til 16 september 2009

2. This presentation • Overview of what we have done so far • Main results from literature review, survey and interviews • Summary of conclusions • Our proposal for six case studies at CRC level

3. Preparation & Kick-off Generic study Desktop study and telephone interviews Questionnaire to CRCs Interim Report & Meeting 2 Case Studies Synthesis, Final Report & Meeting 3 Overview of our approach and planning May June-August September September/ October November/December

4. Method • Survey • 191 Invitations to CRC managers in the COMPERA programmes. • Response: n=42; response rate: 22%. • Response rate low in Slovenia (0%), Germany (8%), and Northern-Ireland (10%) • For the other countries, generally a good response rate • Interviews • Interviews with programme managers • We were not able to contact all managers.

5. Attention to different levels of actors Country A Country X, Y, Z National & Regional Funding Agencies National & Regional Funding Agencies CRC programmes CRC programmes Competence Research Centres Competence Research Centres Public sector participants Private sector participants Public sector participants Private sector participants

6. Trends in internationalisation of S&T policy • Spurred by discussions of the Lisbon agenda and particularly ERA • EU Commission is pleading for better coordination in S&T policy: • Debate on Joint Programming • Debate on ‘Opening-Up’ of national programmes • Via ERA-type measures such as ERA-NETs, but also Joint Technology Initiatives • Political support more clear for basic research and ‘societal challenges’ than for industrially oriented research and public-private CRC type centres • It is not a European development alone • Non-European CRC programmes starting to include foreign partners • BRICS are active in setting up more S&T collaborations

7. External drivers for increased policy attention • The emergence of the BRIC countries and particularly China as a country with a large research and technological development capacity that is becoming recognised for meeting high international quality standards • The increased political debate and urgency of global challenges such as climate change, health issues and sustainable energy resources • The globalisation of R&D, which is not a new phenomenon, but it is becoming more visible particularly in industrial research and also in the world wide mobility of researchers • Particularly in Europe, general demographic developments and the decreasing share of graduates in science and engineering have made the shortage of research talent very urgent; STI collaboration can be used to attract talent from partner countries • The ERA type debates in Europe

8. Internationalisation of CRC programmes

9. Internationalisation in COMPERA countries • In all but one case (Germany) no explicit and codified S&T internationalisation strategy • Austria, Estonia and Sweden allow foreign participants (including funding), Flanders through subcontracting only, Germany allows membership without funding, for others it is not allowed • Still political resistance against funding flows going abroad • Internationalisation a secondary role, partly because many programmes are very young

10. Barriers at programme level • Absence of policy (and political) incentives to co-operate internationally • Lack of funding • Fear of losing competitiveness advantage • Different national framework conditions (incl. IPR) • Practical issues

11. However, CRC-managers feel supported….

12. International collaboration at CRC-level

13. Modes of collaboration

14. Drivers for international collaboration

15. Desired collaboration partners

16. For who is collaboration important?

17. Planned cooperation modes in next 5 years

18. Selection criteria for partners

19. Geographical direction of collaboration

20. Barriers to international cooperation for CRC-managers

21. Main conclusions • International collaboration not yet common across CRC (programmes) • At programme level: lack of political support main barrier • At CRC level: funding/time, finding partners, IPR • Mostly using international research programmes as mode to overcome the funding barrier • Foreign research institutions most popular as partner • CRC-CRC cooperation not very high on the agenda

22. We used a set of criteria for the selection of case studies: • The number of international co-operations; • The visibility of the co-operations to the programme managers; • Good geographical spread; • Mix of virtual and physical CRCs; • Mix of regional and national CRCs; • Mix of different instruments • Mix of EU co-operations and co-operations with third countries (i.e. extra-EU co-operation) • The extent to which CRCs are internationalised.

23. Suggested case studies • K2 Mobility Centre in Austria (Automotive) • VIB in Flanders (Life Sciences) • ELIKO in Estonia (ICT) • AIDICO in Valencia (Construction) • Sweden GigaHerz Centre • BalticNet Plasmatec in Germanny (Plasma Technology)

24. Thank you Technopolis Group has offices in Amsterdam, Ankara, Brighton, Brussels, Paris, Stockholm, Tallinn and Vienna.