Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation. New Impulse for the Space Sector

Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

New Impulse for the Space Sector

Report 24 July 2010

Christina Giannopapa

Short title: ESPI Report 24 ISSN: 2076-6688 Published in July 2010 Price: €11

Editor and publisher: European Space Policy Institute, ESPI Schwarzenbergplatz 6 • 1030 Vienna • Austria http://www.espi.or.at Tel. +43 1 7181118-0; Fax -99

Rights reserved – No part of this report may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or for any purpose without permission from ESPI. Citations and extracts to be published by other means are subject to mentioning “Source: ESPI Report 24; July 2010. All rights reserved” and sample transmission to ESPI before publishing.

Design: Panthera.cc

ESPI Report 24 2 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 5 Analysis and Findings 5 Recommendations 6

1. Introduction 9

2. Science, Technology and Innovation 10 2.1 Terminological and Conceptual Foundations 10 2.1.1 Science and Technology 10 2.1.2 Innovation 12 2.2 The Technology-Push and Need-Pull Model 14 2.3 Science-Pull 15 2.4 Technology-Push 16 2.5 Key Enabling Technologies 17

3. Innovation in Different Sectors 20 3.1 The Space Sector and ESA 20 3.2 The Construction Sector 24 3.3 The Energy Sector 27 3.4 The Transportation Sector 28 3.5 The Aeronautics Sector 30 3.6 The Pharmaceutical Sector 33 3.7 The Biotechnology Sector 35 3.8 The ICT Sector 37

4. Partnerships and Institutions at the European Level 41 4.1 European Perspective 41 4.2 The European Research Council (ERC) 46 4.3 The European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) 47 4.4 European Technology Platforms (ETP) 48

5. Conclusions and Recommendations 50 5.1 Findings and Conclusions 50 5.2 Recommendations 52

References 55

Annex 1 – Definitions 58 A1.1 Sectoral Innovation Watch 58 A1.2 Technology Categories 58

ESPI Report 24 3 July 2010

Annex 2 – European Technology Platforms 59 A2.1 Space 59 A2.2 Photonics 60 A2.3 Advanced Materials 60 A2.4 Micro- and Nano-electronics 61 A2.5 Nanotechnology 61 A2.6 Biotechnology 62 A2.7 Information and Communication Technologies 64

Annex 3 – Selected Countries 68 A3.1 Finland 68 A3.2 United Kingdom 71 A3.3 The Netherlands 78 A3.4 France 81

Acknowledgements 84

ESPI Report 24 4 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

Executive Summary

services etc. or, 2) breakthrough by making a complete change from existing practices. Analysis and Findings Based on this, they are classified into two categories: “conservative” or “fast moving” sectors. Examples of conservative sectors Science, Technology and Innovation that were studied are space, aeronautics, transport, energy, pharmaceuticals, while Terminological and conceptual foundations examples of fast sectors are ICT and biotech- with respect to science, technology and inno- nology. The construction sector is one of the vation, and their relationship, were given. most conservative sectors when it comes to The words science and technology were de- innovation. The main problem in innovation is fined. Science and technology are mostly that new technologies are developed separate used side by side. There is an overlap and from those that can implement them and common territory between the two, and when thus, they are not aware of them. A Technol- boundaries are drawn they are often arbi- ogy Watch company is suggested as a solu- trary. Scientific and technological advance- tion. Analysis of the energy sector and the ments are often pursued simultaneously by transport sector concentrated on policies as the same person, group, or institution, and facilitators for innovation. The aeronautics through the use of the same means. In ESA sector analysis concentrated on the fact that terminology “Science and technology” are breakthrough innovations were experienced clearly differentiated and are used in a differ- during the initial emergence of the sector, ent way than by others. The term ‘science’ whereas in recent years, an incremental ap- refers to what is widely known as pure or proach to innovation has been taking place. fundamental science, for space and earth Innovation in this sector is expected to occur observation. On the other hand, when the through technology advancements in other word ‘technology’ is used, it also covers the areas such as ICT. Stagnation in innovation pure or applied science that leads to knowl- in the pharmaceutical sector is mainly attrib- edge which can be translated into technologi- uted to strict regulations. The biomedical cal developments. Regarding innovation, engineering sector experiences acceleration various definitions of innovation were pre- of innovation mainly through advancements sented as described by the OECD and the in automation. Innovation in the ICT sector is Enterprise and Industry DG of the European very much dominated by technology push. Commission. Different models for innovation When new innovative technologies do not and science and technology were described. make it up to their full potential, the reason The two models were ‘closed innovation’ and can be attributed to the inability to properly ‘open innovation’. In order to describe the capture user needs, and the inability to prop- science and technology relationship, the erly explain the potential of the new technol- push-pull model was used. General examples ogy to the user. At the same time, user of science pull and technology push in various needs are constantly changing in this sector, fields were presented. Certain technologies thus traditional marketing tools fail. Bad can be used as a core for different scientific marketing decisions fail to capture user and industrial developments, but it is only needs and deliver to the user the wrong mes- recently that these have been identified as sage about the technology at hand. Key Enabling Technologies (KET), which are: nanotechnologies, micro and nanoelectronics, advanced materials and biotechnology. Defi- Partnerships and Institutions at the European nitions and descriptions of the different key Level enabling technologies were given. An overview of the European perspective was given for the EU 27. It showed, in particular, Innovation in Different Sectors the areas of specialisation in Europe with Different sectors perceive innovation in dif- respect to the key enabling technologies. The ferent ways and implement it at different steps of Europe with regard to the 2020 vi- levels around two main components: 1) in- sion were highlighted and the new initiatives cremental by improving existing products, that have recently emerged, such as joint

ESPI Report 24 5 July 2010

programming and international science and discoveries and inventions in other sec- technology cooperation, were listed. There is tors, stemming from the space sector a multitude of institutions in Europe from (spin out), to create economic and social which the following, due to their European benefits. Innovation also consists of sci- perspective and their purpose of bridging entific, technological, organisational, fi- gaps, were identified: European Research nancial and commercial steps, which are Council (created to bridge the gap between intended to, or actually, lead to the im- national funding bodies for fundamental re- plementation of innovations by space- search and to provide a European perspec- non-space partnerships (spin together).” tive), European Institute of Technology (cre- Innovation is characterised by three ated to bring together the knowledge triangle stages: a) incremental, b) breakthrough of research, innovation and education and to and c) utilisation. bring R&D to the market), European Technol- • The basic mechanisms in the ESA science ogy Platforms (aiming at developing coordi- and technology relationship can be de- nated scientific research agendas of key scribed by the “technology push” and stakeholders in various areas). “need (science) pull” model. In this model, science (in the ESA terminology) Innovation Technology Projects in Europe asks scientific questions which drive the technology to develop, whereas in tech- Projects in Europe were listed and catego- nology push, technological advancements rised under the relevant Key Enabling Tech- allow science to utilise them as means nologies. These projects were financed under for its advancement. Nevertheless, it is the European Commission’s Framework Pro- recognised that in practice this model is gramme and were conducted by European simplistic and more complicated models consortia with academic and industrial part- might be needed to fully describe the re- ners. The projects listed were selected in lationship. order to indicate the European activities in the KET fields and were not, at this stage, • The time scale from the moment the examined for their suitability in the space “need pull” is identified (a mission is ap- sector. proved) which “pushes” the technology to develop, to the time all technologies need to be integrated, is very short. Therefore, it is essential that technolo- Recommendations gies are also developed independently before the “need” is identified. This inde- The recommendations from this study are pendent development (“technology categorised below into concepts, partnerships push”) should be based on “potential fu- and mechanisms: ture user needs”. • The Key Enabling Technologies (KET), Concepts identified by the EC as being nanotechnologies, micro- and nanoelectronics, • A clear distinction should be made when advanced materials and biotechnology, the terms ‘science’ and ‘technology’ are should be considered comprehensively by used since, in the ESA context, there is a ESA’s research and development pro- clear distinction between the two terms, grammes. In this regard, Information in contrast to others who mostly use ‘sci- and Communication Technologies (ICT) ence and technology’ side by side. In the should also be considered, creating the ESA, the term ‘science’ refers to what is “ESA Enabling Technologies” concept. widely known as pure or fundamental These categories are essentially very science, for space and earth observation. broad and specific subcategories should On the other hand, when the word tech- be identified, in consultation with space nology is used, it covers the pure or ap- and non-space experts in these fields, in plied science (space and non-space) that order to identify the ones most relevant leads to knowledge that can be trans- for the space sectors to be able to de- lated into technological developments for velop coherent roadmaps. space. • At low Technology Readiness Levels • The following definition of ‘space innova- (TRL), such new technologies do not tion’ should be used in the space sector need to be developed exclusively by and by ESA: “Innovation is the use of space funding schemes. This may allow new, or existing, ideas, discoveries and the utilisation of funding from the non- inventions in the space sector, stemming space sector by jointly investing in KET’s from other sectors (spin in), and vice building blocks. versa, the use of new, or existing, ideas,

ESPI Report 24 6 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

Cooperation Mechanisms • Public and private partnerships should be • The space sector and ESA invest in re- set up for co-financing research and de- search that leads to technological devel- velopment in Key Enabling Technologies, opments needed for future missions but since they require large investments that they also need to continue and ESA alone would not be able to afford. strengthen investment in basic and applied research underlying generic and • ESA already works together with the disruptive technologies that are not di- European Commission in the Framework rectly related today to future missions. Programme particularly under the Space New mechanisms should be developed component. This cooperation should be that allow “technology push” develop- expanded to other components of the ment of enabling technologies based on Framework Programme, in particular “potential future user needs”. Adequate those related to investments in KETs. mechanisms involving the ESA science This can be done either by co-financing community should be developed to cap- together with the Commission or simply ture these “potential future user needs”. coordinating programmatically. o Effective mechanisms should be de- • ESA should consider creating new, or veloped for: a) monitoring “potential strengthening existing, partnerships with future user needs” and b) informing the European Commission and in particu- the user of potential benefits of new lar with DG Research, DG Enterprise and technologies under development. In Industry, the Joint Research Centre this process both the ESA science (JRC), as well as the European Research community and the non-space science Council (ERC). The basis for this coop- community should be involved. Tech- eration should be to bring together and nology push fails when the potential align funding means, time scales as well of a technology is not understood by as programmatic content, by jointly de- the user and when his needs are not fining roadmaps. properly captured at all times. There- • ESA is currently actively involved in two fore, it is necessary to develop ade- space European Technology Platforms quate marketing strategies to be able (ETP) and should continue and expand to assess these needs in a double this coordination with other platforms, mirror push-pull innovation model, so especially those involved within the the- that the push technologies capture matic areas of KETs. the needed features and functional- ities, and the potential of the new • ESA should consider partnering with technologies is properly communi- other sectors for the development of cated to the user at an early stage. KETs. Examples of these sectors are: En- ergy, Automotive, Aerospace, Health- o Workshop organisation with potential care, and Telecommunications. The users during the course of the devel- European Technology Platforms can be a opment of technology push under e.g good platform to find common ground in TRP and GSTP could be a way of cap- the various scientific research agendas. turing various user needs at an early stage and informing them about the • Space science research, in the ESA ter- potential of new technologies. minology, is still mostly handled at a national level, with some coordination at • ESA should proceed to apply for partici- the European level. National space re- pation in research and technology devel- search programmes for science and opment under the non-space compo- technology should open up and coordi- nents of the Frameworks Programme. nate with each other. Programmatic This participation, by performing re- partnerships should be created between search and development in ESA laborato- ERC, ESA and national programmes. This ries, should be enhanced. would allow frontier research at a pan- • Two scenarios are foreseen for co- European level in space research. financing under the Framework Pro- • The knowledge triangle (education, re- gramme non-space component. One op- search, innovation) has become an es- tion is to use ESA existing funding tools sential component for modernisation to and make a funding co-alignment. The reflect today’s demands. ESA should other option is to create new specific partner with Knowledge Innovation funding programmes for this specific Communities (KICs) of the European In- purpose. stitute of Innovation and Technology (EIT).

ESPI Report 24 7 July 2010

o The first scenario would be to use ex- to be able to identify new and disruptive isting programmes like TRP, GSTP technologies early enough; a “Techno- funding in combination with FP fund- watch” that can facilitate spin-in, spin- ing for key enabling technologies at out and spin-together. ESA does cur- low TRL levels in order to balance the rently have mechanisms which are used high expenditures needed for these as observatories for following science technologies that can be used for that is likely to produce technology. This technology push. This scenario al- could be institutionalised with clear tar- ready partially exists, firstly, by the gets and responsibilities in a more inte- Agency’s participation in FP pro- grated model. The possibility of having a grammes (non-space), and secondly, Technowatch independent from ESA or by contractors of TRP, GSTP etc in jointly with other technology watch insti- their individual strategies, but in an tutions should also be considered. It is uncoordinated manner. Thus there is suggested that a Technowatch should be the need to develop a coherent coor- an independent body as these are seen dination mechanism. as more credible when they are not governmental agencies or those that conduct The second scenario would be to de- o the research. velop new funding programmes in order to be able to co-finance frontier • The use of the open innovation model research where basic and applied sci- that the space sector inevitably needs to ence lead to technological break- utilise efficiently to achieve technological throughs that are not necessarily re- breakthroughs and scientific innovations lated to an ESA mission at present. A needs flexible and modern models of new Science and Technology Research dealing with IPRs. The current IPR Programme can be envisaged where mechanisms of ESA and other funding roadmaps are created together with and developing bodies need to be exam- other funding bodies, like DG Re- ined closely as IPR treatment is one of search, for the key enabling technolo- the most essential components of the gies, in which industrial, research in- success or failure of an open innovations stitutes and universities partnerships system. The current ESA IPR system are fostered. In such a programme, where the IPR stays with the agency for non-terrestrial partnerships should be space use does provide the basis for another essential component. open innovation in technology development with non-space sectors as they can • An effective technology watch “Techno- essentially use the IPR in other markets. watch” mechanism is necessary in order

ESPI Report 24 8 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

1. Introduction

The space sector has recently received sig- identifying the associated technology devel- nificant attention from and commitment by opment; (ii) considering forecasts for tech- political decision-makers as space science, nologies that would enable the achievement technology, applications and services are of these scientific objectives; (iii) identifying recognised to be a significant contributor in partnership schemes (space and non-space); creating jobs. Innovation in all sectors is be- and (iv) facilitating the spin-in of top non- coming a central focus of governments, com- space technologies. panies, universities, research institutes and The present study was adopted from work society as a whole. On 5 March 2010, the conducted for ESF. The ESPI study was per- Commissioner for Research, Innovation and formed by using a stepwise approach where, Science, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn created the initially, the terms science, technology, and term ‘era of i-conomy’ at the Innovation innovation, and their accompanying interrela- Summit of the Lisbon Council. Europe’s 2020 tionship, were described, defined and ana- vision is: to be a union of innovation. In the lysed. Different sectors were studied and western world and in developing countries, exhibited different approaches to these con- the relationship between science, technology cepts. These sectors were divided into: a) and innovation and the bringing of new prod- conservative sectors and b) dynamic sectors. ucts onto the market is considered to be an Partnerships and institutions at national and important factor, for creating competitive European levels for science, technology and advantage and improving quality of life. innovation were further studied. European The European Space Agency has a long his- projects in key technology domains were tory in pushing the borders of knowledge listed. further through scientific missions that are In this study, Section 2 provided the termino- backboned by technological excellence. In logical and conceptual foundations for the order to remain at the forefront of scientific study. The terms science, technology and progress, technological breakthroughs are innovation were examined and the relation- necessary. The space sector is experiencing a ship between them was analysed. The multi- slow-down in breakthrough innovations and dimensional façades of science and technol- more incremental innovation, but it is not the ogy and how they are perceived by different only sector. Breakthrough technology innova- actors, how they are perceived in the space tions may occur in areas other than the space sector and, particularly, in ESA terminology sector and can have tremendous impact on were examined. Furthermore, innovation was the space sector. Adaptation requires time, defined, by different entities, and its devel- and the lag between the invention and full- opment over the years was analysed. A defi- scale adaptation in the space sector is one of nition of innovation in the space sector was the most frustrating unknowns. Cooperation derived. The technology push-need pull using multidisciplinary, cross- and inter- model was chosen to exemplify the basic sectorial, and inter-governmental approaches characteristics of the science and technology enable innovation. In order to stimulate inno- relationship. Key enabling technologies were vation it is important to identify the basic identified and described. In Section 3 innova- reasons behind stagnation and to identify the tion in different sectors was analysed. The types of cooperation that are needed. It is sectors studied were: construction, energy, also important to identify technologies that transportation, aeronautics, pharmaceutical, are important to be built in partnerships, the biotechnology and ICT. In Section 4, partner- institutions to cooperate with, and the ships and institutions, at European level, mechanisms to put in place to achieve inno- were studied. Some European institutes in- vation. volved in innovation were identified and de- The present ESPI report is based on work scribed, as well as some European Technol- performed for the European Science Founda- ogy Platforms. In Section 5 the findings, con- tion (ESF) in the framework of a Forward clusions and recommendations of the study Look. It will address the following on the ba- were given. sis of breakthrough scientific objectives: (i)

ESPI Report 24 9 July 2010

2. Science, Technology and Innovation

science1 (• noun) 1) the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic 2.1 Terminological and Con- study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observa- ceptual Foundations tion and experiment. 2) a systematically or- ganized body of knowledge on any subject. The terms science, technology, research, — ORIGIN Latin scientia, from scire ‘know’. development and innovation are currently used as essential drivers in the western world At this point we should make a distinction and developing countries. Public and private between fundamental or pure science and sectors associate them with growth, prosper- applied science. Fundamental or pure science ity and quality of life, and develop policies, is the part of science that describes the most regulations and strategies for effective facili- basic knowledge that it develops and which is tation. The system has become so complex typically studied without regard to the practi- that questions arise as to whether one is cal applications of this knowledge. On the talking about the same things and how these other hand, applied science deals with apply- words are perceived or used in a high level ing scientific knowledge to practical prob- abstract way and how it is possible to give lems. meaning to these terms in applying them to technology2 (• noun, pl. technologies) 1) the specific problems or sectors. As a first step, application of scientific knowledge for practi- therefore, the complexity of these words will cal purposes. 2) the branch of knowledge be shown and they will be broken down into concerned with applied sciences. — some meanings that will be useful for this DERIVATIVES technological adjective, tech- study. nologically adverb, technologist noun. — ORIGIN Greek tekhnologia’ –‘τεχνολογία’ — 2.1.1 Science and Technology ‘techne’, ‘τέχνη’ (‘craft’) and ‘logia’, ‘λογία’ (‘saying’). Science and technology are nowadays mostly used side by side. Historically, their definition It should further be added that technology is and their relationship have been of interest to a consequence of applied science and engi- many groups ranging from: philosophers to neering, although several technological ad- sociologists and historians whose primary vances predate the two concepts. Technology interests are theoretical; to engineers and is a broader concept dealing with the usage scientists who have a direct personal interest and knowledge of tools and crafts used to in this relationship; to policy makers whose adapt and control an environment. views are based upon specific theories and In this struggle to define science and tech- who are interested in determining policies nology, the terms are treated as two distinct and practices at an international, national, entities that can be clearly separated and regional, or local level, which can help facili- their relationship is typically hierarchical. On tate science and technology to create com- one side of the spectrum is science and on petitive advantage; and the general public the other technology. Traditionally, physics is that is generally affected by this relationship. regarded as science whereas the manufactur- The exact distinction between science and ing of engines is regarded as technology. technology and their relationship is a matter Other models recognise the overlap and of debate [12, 28, 39, 42]. Therefore, nowa- common territory between the two. When- days the terms ‘science’ and ‘technology’ are ever boundaries are drawn between science often used side by side. Nevertheless, for the and technology, they are often arbitrary. purpose of this study the Oxford dictionary It can be argued that one distinction that can [7] definitions are applied. be used to define the boundaries is that of aim, purpose and motivation. Using these

1 Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English, Oxford University Press, Third edition revised, 2008 2 Ibid.

ESPI Report 24 10 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

criteria, science can be seen as trying to un- phenomena on various levels. They refer to derstand the world that surrounds us, bodies and activities of knowledge that form whereas technology can be seen as trying to educational, industrial and governmental solve problems that occur around us. Often institutions. scientific and technological advancements are Science and technology advancements result pursued simultaneously and in many cases in numerous journal publications and patents. by the same person, group, or institution, The number of these publications and patents using the same means. This is another rea- is often used as an indicator for measuring son why ‘science’ and ‘technology’ are mostly the effectiveness of public policies in S&T. used side by side. The time between journal publication and The relationship between science and tech- patent citation or other scientific article cita- nology is very complex and it varies consid- tion is closely looked at as an indicator of erably in the particular field concerned [14, science and technology drive. 16, 39, 42]. According to Brooks [16] science In the classical classification of research there contributes to technology in at least six is a clear distinction between ‘basic’ and ‘ap- ways: plied’. Basic research is focused on answering 1. new knowledge which serves as a direct fundamental questions of sciences, whereas source of ideas for new technological applied research can use the acquired knowl- possibilities; edge to transfer it back to technology, as a necessary step for the creation of innovation. 2. source of tools and techniques for more However, nowadays the distinction often efficient engineering design and a loses relevance as emerging science and knowledge base for evaluation of feasi- technology frequently embrace an element of bility of designs; both. Therefore, the term ‘frontier research’ 3. research instrumentation, laboratory rather than ‘basic’ is used to reflect this real- techniques and analytical methods used ity. in research that eventually find their At this point we should also differentiate how way into design or industrial practices, the terms science and technology are used in often through intermediate disciplines; the space sector and in particular in ESA. In 4. practice of research as a source for de- the ESA terminology there is a clear distinc- velopment and assimilation of new hu- tion when the terms science and technology man skills and capabilities eventually are used. The term science mostly refers to useful for technology; pure or fundamental science related to space and earth observation. This type of pure or 5. creation of a knowledge base that be- fundamental scientific question becomes the comes increasingly important in the as- main driver for scientific missions. On the sessment of technology in terms of its other hand, in ESA wording, technology is wider social and environmental impacts; defined as “the practical application of knowl- 6. knowledge base that enables more effi- edge so that something entirely new can be cient strategies of applied research, de- done or so that something can be done in a velopment, and refinement of new tech- new way”. The underlying science needed to nologies. develop technologies that can be used for space is not addressed when the word ‘sci- The contributions of science to technology are ence’ is used. Nevertheless, applied scientific widely understood and acknowledged by sci- research and development are needed for entists and engineers. Correspondingly, tech- developing technologies for space and is pur- nology contributes to science: sued by ESA mainly under the Technical and 1. through providing a fertile source of Quality Management Directorate of ESA, novel scientific questions and thereby where about 8% of the ESA budget is spent also helping to justify the allocation of on direct research and development. The resources needed to address these technology development research activities of questions in an efficient and timely ESA are mainly related to science missions of manner, extending the agenda of sci- space (e.g. space science, astronomy), from ence; space (e.g. earth science) and in space (e.g. life and physical science); and utilisation (e.g. 2. as a source of otherwise unavailable in- meteorology, GMES, telecommunications, strumentation and techniques needed to navigation, integrated applications promo- address novel and more difficult scien- tion). Thus, in ESA terminology ‘science’ re- tific questions more efficiently. fers to pure or fundamental science related to The terms ‘science’ and ‘technology’ have a space, and ‘technology’ encompasses the multidimensional relationship and refer to classical definition of space technology and

ESPI Report 24 11 July 2010

space-non-space applied sciences for creating or service), or process, a new marketing space technology. method, or a new organisational method in business practices, workplace organisation or external relation. The minimum requirement 2.1.2 Innovation for an innovation is that the product, process, In the last couple of decades it has been well marketing method or organisational method understood that R&D is an important strate- must be new (or significantly improved) to gic asset in all sectors around the world. In the firm.” the last ten years the word ‘innovation’ has The European Union’s official journal, when become an essential component in strategic publishing regulation EC No. 294/2008 estab- discussions and it does not appear without lishing the new European Institute of Innova- mentioning the work of Chesbrough [18, 19] tion and Technology (EIT) gave the following who made a distinction between open and definition of innovation: “Innovation means closed innovation. The first step would be to the process, including its outcome, by which look at the definition of innovation as a whole new ideas respond to societal or economic and then make the distinction between open demand and generate new products, services and closed innovation. or business and organisational models that There are various definitions of innovation are successful introduced into and existing that can be found and that are used. The market or that are able to create new mar- most accepted and most complete is the kets”. OECD definition: “Innovation activities are all Communities focusing on products and ser- scientific, technological, organisational, finan- vices capture these components in the OECD cial and commercial steps which actually, or definition by defining innovation as “Innova- are intended to, lead to the implementation tion refers to new or better products and of innovations. Some innovation activities are (intangible) services as well as new or better themselves innovative, others are not novel ways of producing these products or ser- activities but are necessary for the imple- vices”3 [26]. mentation of innovations. Innovation activities also include R&D that is not directly re- Below is an attempt to define the term 'space lated to the development of a specific innova- innovation', where innovation to and from tion.” space are essential components. The shortest definition of Innovation is “a "Innovation is the use of new, or existing, new way of doing something or new stuff that ideas, discoveries and inventions in the space is made useful” [40]. sector, stemming from other sectors (spin- in), and vice versa, the use of new, or exist- The DG Enterprise of the European Commis- ing, ideas, discoveries and inventions in other sion is using the following definition of inno- sectors, stemming from the space sector vation: (spin-out), to create economic and social “An innovation is the implementation of a benefits. Innovation also consists of scientific, new or significantly improved product (good technological, organisational, financial and commercial steps, which are intended to, or

Figure 1: Chesbroughs’ open and closed innovation model of companies’ R&D [18]

3 p. 182

ESPI Report 24 12 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

actually, lead to the implementation of inno- changed that led to the need for new models. vations by space-non-space partnerships An important factor was related to the in- (spin-together).” crease of mobility of workers which meant that knowledge could no longer be necessar- Next the concepts of open and closed innova- ily kept within the company. Another factor tion as defined by Chesbrough will be de- was related to the increase of private venture scribed as well as the concept of clusters of capital that enabled the creation of new com- innovation and an attempt will be made to panies based on novel ideas outside the cor- describe how open innovation could be repre- porate R&D labs. These meant that the sented in the space sector. boundaries between companies’ own labora- The classification Chesbrough makes between tories and the surrounding environment be- ‘closed’ and ‘open’ innovation was initially came porous enabling innovation to and from developed by looking at the way various the boundaries of a firm. commercial companies performed R&D to Thus a company can commercialise both its approach the market. Figure 1 shows the own ideas and ideas coming from outside as closed and open innovation models in firms’ well as trying to bring ideas developed inside R&D. to other markets by exploiting pathways out- According to Chesbrough “a company gener- side its own business. This model of Ches- ates, develops and commercialises its own brough became known as “Open Innovation”. ideas.” In leading industrial corporations of Open innovation has required a different way the 20th century, R&D departments were of thinking and dealing with Intellectual Prop- based on the philosophy of “self reliance” and erty Rights. This is essential and needs more the mind frame that “if you want to do some- attention but is outside the scope of this thing right you better do it yourself”. This study. model is known as “Closed Innovation”. In a competitive format the basic principles of This model worked well until the end of the open and closed innovation as conceived by 20th century. After that many factors Chesbrough [18] were:

Closed Innovation Open Innovation The smart people in our field work for us. Not all of the smart people work for us so we must find a tap into the knowledge and expertise of bright individuals outside our company. To profit from R&D, we must discover, de- External R&D can create significant value; internal velop and ship it ourselves. R&D is needed to claim some portion of the value. If we discover it ourselves, we will get it to We don’t have to originate the research in order to market first. profit from it. If we are the first to commercialise the inno- Building a better business model is better than vation, we will win. getting to market first. If we create most of the best ideas in the If we make the best use of internal and external industry, we will win. ideas, we will win. We should control our intellectual property We should profit from others’ use of our IP, and we (IP) so that our competitors don’t profit from should buy the IP of others whenever it advances our ideas. our own business model.

Table 1: Contrasting Principles of Closed and Open Innovation [18]

The last decade has witnessed the agglom- It is important to describe what innovation is eration of forces bringing together knowledge in ESA terminology. ESA missions require centres to create clusters and networks of innovation drivers. In ESA innovation is de- innovation. These clusters consist of small- scribed by three components: “a) incre- medium size enterprises in technology-based mental: improving a product, customising or high technology industries working to- adding functionality, utilising in a new envi- gether with large industries, research insti- ronment; b) breakthrough: a step change tutes and universities. These work together and c) utilisation: e.g. integrated applica- under the open innovation model setting up tions”. The concept of open innovation is also science parks and technopoles in various endorsed by ESA and the space sector in regions and further establishing links be- general where it is recognised that in many tween regions. domains technology advances faster in terrestrial than in space applications requiring the notion of ‘spin-in’. On the other hand,

ESPI Report 24 13 July 2010

Figure 2: Science and Technology Open Innovation Model for the Space Sector

space technology has attractive features for Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) is an impor- demands in terrestrial applications requiring tant issue that needs to be considered in such ‘spin-out’ to other sectors. At the same time a model. In the case of ESA, when technol- there are various common quests with other ogy is developed ESA has the right to use the sectors like aeronautics, automotive and ICT IPR for space but is not restricted from using which enable spin-in, spin-out and even pro- these IPRs in other sectors. This is a good ceeding in joint actions. NASA also endorses enabler for cooperation in spinning together the ‘spin-in’ and ‘spin-out’ terminology in projects with other sectors. communication about innovative research. For pure and applied research, in particular, for science and technology development 2.2 The Technology-Push based on Chesbroughs’ school of thought the model for open innovation for the space sec- and Need-Pull Model tor can be described by Figure 2. In early literature innovation behaviour often In the science and technology open innova- occurs when it is recognised that there is a tion model for the space sector, as shown in demand or a new technology [51]. The ‘tech- Figure 2, the conventional definition of sci- nology-push’ and ‘need-pull’ model is often ence and technology is used. Research and used to describe the driving forces behind development projects can exit or enter the innovation. The ‘push’ concept regards tech- space sector domain at any time. A technol- nology as being the driving force that acts as ogy watch mechanism acts as a filter of ideas a facilitator behind scientific innovation going to and from the space sector area. If a whereas the ‘pull’ concept regards scientific project has potential interest for space, it can needs as the driver for technological ad- enter at any stage of research and develop- vancement. ment (spin in) and, vice versa, it can exit the research and development space sector do- In order to tailor the need pull and technol- main to enter other sectors (spin-out). At the ogy push model to the ESA terminology, the same time, if these R&D projects result in assumption made is that the scientist is not enabling technologies, they can be developed the technology developer. According to this, together with other sectors (spin-together). it is the availability of new inventions and

ESPI Report 24 14 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

discoveries that facilitates scientific progress. ing to the ESA terminology. Therefore, when the ESA terminology for Nevertheless, it should be kept in mind that science and technology is used, the push and when the conventional definitions of science pull model can be described as follows: and technology are used, in most cases, the Need Pull: Scientific requirements – the need push-pull model is very difficult to apply as – translated into technical requirements the scientist is part of the technology de- ‘pulls’ the technology to develop. ployment cycle (as a developer himself). • What do scientists want? o What is required to perform certain science and how can technology be 2.3 Science-Pull developed for it? Scientific questions cannot always immedi- Technology Push: Technological develop- ately be answered if technological means are ments ‘push’ science to conduct certain scien- lagging behind. Thus, the need to answer tific experiments and answer scientific ques- certain questions triggers the need for tech- tions that were not possible before. nological developments to facilitate answering these questions. There are various exam- • What do technology developers have? ples of this process and here only a few are o What technology is available and how mentioned. to use it for science? In the fundamental process of understanding Using the assumption that the scientist is not the structure of matter, physicists needed a the technology developer but the user of the tool enabling them to address the problem of technology, a parallelism can be drawn be- identifying increasingly smaller objects. The tween the scientist (fundamental science: limit of optical measures was quickly reached biologist, geologist, space, etc) and the con- and as the atomic model advanced further, sumer in different markets (energy, construc- the need to be able to fission atoms safely, in tion, etc.) as shown in Figure 3. It is assumed order to investigate their internal structure, that both scientist and consumer are not became a very important topic for the ad- involved in technology development. In this vancement of knowledge on the structure of way, theories about capturing user needs and matter. Particle accelerators (including the developing effective technology pushes may complicated electromagnetic lens systems, be seen in a generic way. This will be useful vacuum chambers and vacuum pump), elec- when different sectors will be analysed via tronic and computational methods were de- the push-pull model, and conclusions will be signed to meet the scientists’ demands. drawn that will have relevance to the tech- CERN, for example, was initiated as a re- nology-pull and science-push process accord- sponse to particle and theoretical physics

Figure 3: Technology push-need pull model

ESPI Report 24 15 July 2010

reaching a new level, predicting the existence ture and tools for sharing their common in- of certain particles (e.g. Higgs Boson, …), formation left much to be desired, the re- which can only be created in collision proc- searcher Tim Berners-Lee developed the fun- esses at very high energies, to be able to damentals and initial prototypes of the World verify or falsify important concepts and theo- Wide Web. The system was immediately ries in modern theoretical physics. adopted by a number of universities and research laboratories inducing its release to the As knowledge about the universe is advanc- public domain in 1992, marking the begin- ing, our models of stellar evolution have ning of its subsequent explosive growth. reached a stage where simple earth based observations cannot deliver any more an- The invention of laser technology in 1958 swers. At an early stage of the birth of a star, revolutionised various aspects of science in thick clouds of dust (interstellar material) life and physical sciences, leading to applica- obscure the view of one of the most spec- tions in a very wide array of fields such as tacular and complicated processes scientists medicine, electronics, information technol- are interested in. Entire galaxies are hidden ogy, military applications and industry. Laser from view, as their light is blotted out by technology revolutionised data storage with thick clouds of dust making observation very the advent of optical storage devices, such as difficult. To see through interstellar dust CD and DVD drives, where a semiconductor clouds, or to peer far into our own stellar laser is used to scan the surface of the discs. system to understand more about the origins Barcode scanners, laser printers and laser of our own solar system, observations in the pointers became an essential part of every- infrared light spectrum are necessary. Very day life and essential components of scientific cold bodies, such as planetoids or comets, or instruments. Industrial and military demands stars hidden in dust clouds, are visible in pushed the boundaries of laser technology infrared light. Observations from the surface even further, giving rise to highly advanced of the Earth are impossible, as our atmos- technologies such as laser cutting of materi- phere blocks most of the infrared radiation als, 3D scanning and modelling, high preci- from space. Thus the Herschel observatory sion distance measurements and many more, was designed, orbiting millions of kilometers using modern, very high energy laser sys- away from earth around a Langrangian Point tems. of the Earth-Sun system to be protected from In the area of nanoelectronics the technology our own infrared radiation, using its specially push initiated in 1959 with Jack Kibly’s patent designed instruments to observe stellar evo- submission of ‘Miniaturised Electronic Circuits’ lution and the bodies within our own solar for the making of resistors and capacitors system. together with transistors in one and the same silicon substrate, which today is known as an integrated circuit or silicon chip. The number 2.4 Technology-Push of devices that use it today for scientific research in all fields is vast. Technology advancements have played a Another example of technology ‘push’ was very important role in scientific break- the development of fissionable materials for throughs, in particular, through the develop- the atomic bomb. In order to develop this ment of new instruments, sensors and meas- technology the United States used the push urement techniques. method to fund five different ways to achieve Technological development has fuelled scien- the objective, and succeeded. tific research through the development of Scientific breakthrough has also occurred by radical inventions such as the transistor, the technological push in the area of post- laser, the computer, nuclear fusion power, genomic biology. At the European Molecular and the World Wide Web, where most of the Biology Laboratory (EMBL) technological ad- breakthrough science in various fields has vancements through the combination of two followed rather than preceded the technologi- techniques made EMBL a leading centre for cal advancement. Such inventions have proteomics. A set of novel mass spectrometry opened up new horizons in various basic re- techniques combined with a biochemical search fields and produced unforeseen by- technique using specific tags for rapid, non- products beneficial to society. invasive purification of macromolecular en- The ‘push’ of the World Wide Web came abled the overcoming of major challenges of about as the particle physics community at post-genomic biology. This helps to under- the European Laboratory for Particle Physics stand how genetic information results in the (CERN) was constructing the Large Electron- concentrated action of gene products in time Positron Collider (LEP) and conducting related and space to generate biological functions. experiments in the late 1980s. As the struc-

ESPI Report 24 16 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

In the space sector the role of space technol- and service innovation and are typically asso- ogy has played a very important role and ciated with high R&D intensity, rapid innova- revolutionized astrophysics and cosmology by tion cycles, high capital expenditure and making available to scientists a much wider highly-skilled employment. According to COM range of the electromagnetic spectrum acces- (2009) and SEC (2009) the following tech- sible to measurements than was possible nologies have been identified as key enabling when observation was limited by the lack of technologies: transparency of the atmosphere to X-rays, g- Nanotechnology originates from the Greek rays and the far ultraviolet and some parts of word ‘nano’ meaning ‘dwarf’ and in science the infra-red. Recently, the availability of a and technology the prefix ‘nano’ signifies 10- new generation of atomic clock technology in 9. It refers to science and technology at the space will allow scientists to accurately test nanoscale of atoms and molecules as well as Einstein’s theory of general relativity4. to the scientific principles and new properties Nevertheless, the relationship between sci- that can be understood and used when oper- ence and technology described by the ‘push- ating in this scale. It holds the promise of pull’ model only outlines the basic principles. leading to the development of smart nano The idea that science and technology co- and micro devices and systems and to radical evolve and interact in a more complex way is breakthroughs in vital fields such as health- well accepted and affects the design of public care, energy, environment and manufactur- policies. Many governments around the world ing; are looking for ways to stimulate technology Micro- and nanoelectronics, including semi- transfer from one sector to another and from conductors, are essential for all goods and academia to industry. Breschi [14] traces the services that need intelligent control in sec- links between science and technology and tors as diverse as automotive and transporta- provides an explanatory analysis of scientist tion, aeronautics and space. Smart industrial and inventor networks. control systems permit more efficient management of electricity generation, storage, transport and consumption through intelligent 2.5 Key Enabling Technolo- electrical grids and devices. gies

For many years it has been realised that certain technologies can be used as a core for different scientific and industrial developments without a clear identification of these technologies and, therefore, without coherent strategy as to how these technologies can be brought in for development at the European level. In 2009, the European Commission published a communication [9] in which it stated that certain technologies named as Key Enabling Technologies (KETs) are expected to be the driving forces behind future developments, and pointed out that these technologies are of great strategic importance to the EU. The objective of the European Commission in COM (2009) 512 and SEC (2009) 1257 was to show how these technologies can be better brought to industrial deployment. Neverthe- less, these technologies can also be brought Figure 2: Micro & Nano-Electronics application sectors. back in for scientific research and progress. According to the description in COM (2009) Photonics as defined in 1967 by Pierre Ai- 512 and SEC (2009) 1257, “Key Enabling grain, “is the science of the harnessing of Technologies (KETs) are technologies that are light. Photonics encompasses the generation multidisciplinary, cutting cross many technol- of light, the detection of light, the manage- ogy areas with a trend towards convergence ment of light through guidance, manipulation, and integration”. They enable process, goods and amplification, and most importantly, its utilisation for the benefit of mankind.“. It is a 4 http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMRDI9K73G_index_0.html multidisciplinary domain dealing with light, http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/faqs/gpa_vessot.html encompassing its generation, detection and

ESPI Report 24 17 July 2010

Figure 5: Photonics application sectors

management. Photonics encompasses multi- and plays an increasing role in a large num- ple applications including information, com- ber of industries including pharmaceuticals, munication, imaging, lighting, displays, agri-food, industrial processing, materials, manufacturing, energy, life sciences and chemical, paper and pulp, textiles, energy, health care, and safety and security. fuels. In the future, biotechnology is expected to allow replacement of non- Among other things it provides the techno- renewable materials, which are used in vari- logical basis for the economical conversion of ous industries, with renewable resources. sunlight to electricity which is important for Nevertheless, the use of biotechnology and the production of renewable energy, as well its broad spectrum of applications is still as a variety of electronic components and largely unexploited. equipment such as photodiodes, LEDs and lasers. Although in the Key Enabling Technologies the Information and Communication Tech- Advanced materials can be categorised as nologies (ICT) are explicitly part of the group, hybrid and multi-materials, materials for ex- the authors believe that ICT should be con- treme conditions and multi-functional materi- sidered as part of ESA’s KETs. als. They offer major improvements in a wide variety of different fields, e.g. in aerospace, According to science and technology reports, transport, building and health care. They countries like China, Japan and US are also facilitate recycling, lowering the carbon foot- focusing on enabling technologies, and in print and energy demand as well as limiting particular on biotechnology, ICT and the need for raw materials that are scarce in nanotechnology. Europe. It is understood that these categories are Biotechnology is defined by the OECD as “the very broad and that sub technologies within application of science and technology to living the KET’s should be further studied in order organisms as well as parts, products and to identify those that are relevant for the models thereof, to alter living or non-living space sector and ESA. This is, however, be- materials for the production of knowledge, yond the scope of this study and should be goods and services”. It is a fast growing area considered further in the future.

ESPI Report 24 18 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

Figure 3: European Photonics Production by Sector, 20055.

Figure 7: Advanced materials application sectors

Figure 8: Biotechnology materials application sectors

5 Photonics in Europe, Economic Impact, Photonics, Opteck Consulting, European Technology Platform Photocincs 21, Decem- ber 2007, p.10.

ESPI Report 24 19 July 2010

3. Innovation in Different Sectors

The way innovation is perceived and the level sion makers. For the large part, the space at which it is implemented in different sectors sector is ‘user driven’ and many space pro- varies significantly. This is related to various grammes materialise when the users – the factors that are assimilated to the character- scientific community, governments, and the istics of the sector. Even though different public – produce a demand or display a politi- sectors have different characteristics one can cal will to advance certain required develop- group them into those that have a more con- ments. Space technology is recognised in servative approach to innovation, in this Europe as a significant contributor to eco- study called the ‘conservative sectors’, and nomic growth and to the creation of jobs. those that promptly adapt to innovation, The space sector planning process can be which here are call the ‘fast moving sectors’. seen in Figure 10. The conservative sectors typically use a more Science and operational missions are driven incremental approach to innovation, whereas by the need of the user, categorised as op- the fast moving sectors are more prone to erational users (e.g. telecommunication, employ a more breakthrough approach. The navigation) or science users which are the space sector can be described as a conserva- smaller portion of the community. Figure 9 tive sector together with sectors like energy, shows the main actors in Europe related to transport, aeronautics, pharmaceutical, with scientific missions. On one side are the scien- the construction sector probably being the tists who define the objectives of the scien- most conservative one. On the other hand, tific mission and on the other side is Euro- sectors like ICT and biotechnology are fast pean industry that eventually develops the growing and are quick in putting innovative hardware platform for the mission. The na- products on the market. In the following sec- tional bodies and ESA are involved in the tions these sectors and their relationship with realisation of a mission and oversee the de- innovation is analyzed. velopment of the mission platform and scientific payload. The term scientist here is used in the ESA 3.1 The Space Sector and terminology related to science missions of ESA space (e.g. space science), from space (e.g. earth science) and in space (e.g. life sci- In the course of the past year, the space ence). It does not include the scientist in- sector has received increased attention and volved in technology development, for exam- commitment on the part of policy and deci- ple the materials scientist needed to develop

Figure 9: Science mission actors in Europe

ESPI Report 24 20 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

Figure 10: Space sector planning process

materials technology. The scientific community proposes concepts for scientific missions. They describe the objectives of the mission and establish the scientific strategy. Scientists backed by industry and in interaction with ESA respond to the challenges of the mission concepts. Their proposals are peer review evaluated and are chosen or rejected. Once a mission is selected the objectives and scientific challenges are translated into scientific requirements and these in turn are translated into technical requirements. Scientists and engineers are involved in this process. Technological excellence and maturity are essential components for mission success and essential in risk reduction in the space sector. The maturity of technologies and correlated risks are measured with the Technology Readiness Level (TRL). In the space sector the TRL does not refer to the maturity of a technology in the terrestrial sectors but is used, in particular, to describe how mature a technology is in its use for space. In addition the TRL level of technology maturity in one mission might not be the same in another mission. This can be seen in Figure 11 and is

described for different levels as6: Figure 11: Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and risk associated with it

6 NASA description

ESPI Report 24 21 July 2010

TRL1 Basic principles observed and re- hardware developers for different S&T the- ported matic areas can be demonstrated by a trian- gular relationship (Figure 13). Three distinct TRL2 Technology concept and/or applica- interfaces can be assumed between a funding tion formulated body such as a space agency and the outside TRL3 Analytical and experimental critical scientific community, space industry and function and/or characteristic proof-of- technology developers such as universities, concept research institutes, industries and SMEs with strong R&D. In the ‘user driven’ context the TRL4 Component and/or breadboard vali- ‘scientific coordinator’ interfaces with the dation in laboratory environment scientists and is responsible for the coordina- TRL5 Component and/or breadboard vali- tion of the scientific communities that are dation in relevant environment proposing the scientific activities they wish to undertake. The “flight hardware coordinator” TRL6 System/subsystem model or proto- interfaces with the space industries for flight type demonstration in a relevant environment hardware development. The technology de- (ground or space) velopment coordinators interface with univer- TRL7 System prototype demonstration in a sities, research institutes, industries and space environment SMEs with strong R&D to develop the necessary technologies ‘pulled’ by the scientists’ TRL8 Actual system completed and "flight needs. qualified" through test and demonstration (ground or space) The Technology Programmes of ESA in relation to the TRL level can be seen in Figure TRL9 Actual system “flight proven” through 12. The applied scientific research and devel- 7 successful mission operations opment needed for developing technologies The relationship between the science (user) for space is evaluated by ESA mainly under community, technology developers and space the Technical and Quality Management Direc-

Figure 12: ESA technology programmes and EC community programmes and TRL levels7

7 European Space Technology Master Plan, European Space Agency, 2007, Issue 4, p.34 modified for the purpose of this study.

ESPI Report 24 22 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

Figure 13: Scientific Programmes, Technology and Hardware development in the Space Sector

torate of ESA, where about 8% of the ESA result of the inherent nature of space. Space budget is spent on direct research and devel- is a sector like many other sectors that can- opment. The technology development re- not afford to use technologies that are not search activities of ESA are mainly related to mature enough when needed due to the as- science missions of space (e.g. space science, sociated high risks. astronomy), from space (e.g. earth science), Therefore, scientific progress is restricted by and in space (e.g. life and physical science); the lack of maturity of related technologies and utilisation (e.g. meteorology, GMES, that are needed to make a significant impact telecommunications, navigation, integrated on science. Some reasons for this could be: applications promotion. • Development times from the time of the Technical requirements are used as a guide- identification of the ‘need pull’ to the line to develop flight hardware and are used time the technologies must be integrated as guidelines for pulling technologies to de- in the missions is too short for new tech- velop new instruments, sensors, materials, nologies to reach maturity and technolo- techniques, etc. at higher maturity levels so gies are not developed enough outside that they can be picked up by the projects at the mission development path. a later stage. Technical constraints and specific demands related to the projects provide • Even though the space sector invests the technical constraints for possible future significantly in technology development integration in the flight hardware. At lower directly related to a mission, it does not TRL level the necessity of in-depth space invest enough in basic research underly- sector knowledge is not a prerequisite as ing technology and in science likely to most of the novel technologies are developed produce technology that will be needed outside the space sector. Nevertheless, cur- for future missions, before the need has rently the participation of space-associated been identified. institutions dominates such developments with the idea of ‘spinning-in’ terrestrial tech- • Insufficient mechanisms to develop ‘push nologies in space. technologies’ based on ‘projected user needs’ (before they are identified). In practice the ‘need pull’-‘technology push’ relationship in this triangle exhibits difficulties • Lack of sufficient correlation of push- in the effectiveness of implementation as a technologies that can be available to scientists for future missions.

ESPI Report 24 23 July 2010

• Insufficient or not sufficiently appropriate some simple conclusions that can be directly mechanisms for pushing or pulling tech- drawn, on how to better facilitate their devel- nologies within the timeframe in which opment. At low TRL new technologies do not they are needed. need to be developed exclusively via space funding schemes. Partnerships can be cre- • Technological breakthroughs in the ated with other terrestrial sectors for the ‘push’-context are often developed by development of key enabling technologies other sectors and the space sector often that are associated with high investments. develops in isolation without being aware These partnerships can utilise various na- of these other technologies. tional funding schemes, as well as EC frame- • Even when these technologies are identi- work programmes for non-space applications. fied and efforts are made for ‘spin-in’ in Figure 14 shows the funding possibilities in a the space sector the time needed to relationship between the space sector and bring them to the safety standards re- other terrestrial sectors with respect to space quired for space is too long. These tech- TRL. Figure 12 shows how EC Framework nologies in many cases require complete programmes and ERC could be used in a adaptation and/or full qualification for speculative TRL. In this way the space con- space, which significantly prolongs the straints can be implemented at an early stage start-to-finish development time. in the design of new technologies, which will help shorten the space qualification time at • Implementing push-technologies like the later stages. A technology watch is essential key enabling technologies requires high to systematically identify new emerging tech- levels of investment to achieve the technologies and possible associated partnerships nological threshold needed to make an for the space sector. In Table 2 a first at- impact. tempt is made to put together the push-pull • The space sector has many ‘one-off- model envisaged based on this outlook. The projects’ which differ significantly from scientist who is producing knowledge leading one another. This implies that lessons to technology is also included. learned are difficult to follow and might not facilitate future improvements. • Possibly embarking on missions that are 3.2 The Construction Sector too ambitious even scientifically. The construction sector is the biggest sectoral employer and a major contributor to gross Outlook capital formation in Europe. It typically con- In order to create technological break- sists of the following areas: infrastructure, throughs for scientific progress, there are repair and maintenance; public and private housing; non-residential public property;

Figure 14: Funding schemes for space and terrestrial application in relation to TRL.

ESPI Report 24 24 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

Table 2: Push-pull projected overview utilising ESA programmes and other programmes and mechanisms

industrial and commercial construction. When translation [35]. The use of published results it comes to innovation this sector can be de- is as low as 2% and knowledge of existing scribed as a sector … research is only about 10% [21]. • with a very low investment in innovation; The question that arises is: How can the gap between research and application be bridged? • where research is usually performed, if Research in Canada [44] suggests that role ever, by entities who are not actively in- models or “innovation gatekeepers”, namely volved in construction, such as universi- companies that have successfully adopted an ties or research groups; innovation, are more credible examples than • which is rarely high-tech; governmental agencies or those who in fact conducted the research. Using this concept as • where innovation is usually constrained its foundation, the concept of technology by prescriptive contracts. The mode of watch by Davidson [21], implies a better, operation is to move from project to pro- more profound understanding of the section, ject, working on tight schedules and thus to serve as a complement to the current and due to prescriptive contracts and strong intuitive approach to innovation and decision- competition, there is barely any time for making [21, 31] . companies to consider topics like R&D or refine existing procedures; In order to introduce R&D innovation in the development of new ideas and concepts in • where company sizes are usually re- the construction sector, the term “technology stricted (such as SMEs), with the excep- watch” was conceived. This is a process term, tion of a few civil engineering contractors very much like innovation itself, describing and materials manufacturers. the process of introducing innovative proce- It is thus easy to understand the difficulties dures into construction companies. that have to be faced in terms of R&D for the construction sector. The key problem is the Technology Watch processing of information and transforming it into knowledge which is applicable to SMEs The process which the term technology watch [21, 34]. stands for is considered to be natural for large companies. However, the question The innovation process and its problems are arises whether there can be something like a deeply rooted in the social environment of watch function for SMEs? Generally, even if the industrial sector and thus do not always the concept of innovation and the importance follow the usual, logically predictable path of R&D is understood by decision makers of from invention to production. This is manifest SMEs, they cannot be applied if the risks and in e.g. the denial of information scarcity, the stakes are high, or the R&D can only be provided by research institutions, as this considered in to the context of specific pro- research is frequently incomprehensible to jects (e.g. mega constructions like The Palm those people, e.g. the workers, and needs

ESPI Report 24 25 July 2010

Jumeirah, Dubai, or very tall buildings) or It is therefore the duty of these relay stations recurring problems in construction. to carefully select the information to be transmitted, to identify the key participants The notion of “relay stations” was proposed affected by innovation and to carefully trans- [21], in forms of networks or local and late the appropriate information to those key shared platforms that provide (confidential) participants. answers to specific questions on demand (pull situation), or promote new applicable As an example, the Government of Quebec concepts (push situation). set up CeVeC – Centre de Veille de la Con- struction (Construction watch centre), being In case of the pull-situation, the relay station conscious of the importance of SMEs to the has to … construction business. This company adopted 1. understand the methods and the struc- a policy for addressing opportunities with its ture of the local domain it is operating clients, including a technology watch as a in; follow up activity. By the time of initial contact with a client, their needs and problems 2. be able to provide information as pre- are already identified, making it possible to cise and as specific as possible; add follow-up information specifically tailored 3. express research based information in a to their needs. (For more information please language that can be understood by refer to [21]). Figure 15 visualizes the duties SMEs. of technology watch companies. The push situation requires other capabilities, but usually the demand for additional, new information is just vaguely perceived. Thus, as proposed by Davidson [21], these relay stations have to generate a demand for their offerings, creating a push-pull situation. In this case, the priorities of the relay stations are similar to those mentioned above, with the following additions: 4. The relay station has to identify procedures that inhibit innovation in their clients’ companies; 5. appreciation and thorough understanding of what constitutes R&D for various categories of companies with which they are interacting.

Technology Watch Companies Suitable operational modes for such relay stations can have many forms, such as a professional or a trade association [21], which should mainly depend on the factors of proximity to the clients’ requirements and on the attitude of the members towards the competition. A neutral organisation might also carry out the same tasks, as long as it does not appear as a governmental tool. It should not be associated with university institutions unless they are given visible autonomy. In construction, there are two competing tendencies in the area of innovation: • Improving current practice at all stages, ranging form design to construction, by means of modifying procedures. Figure 15: Construction Sector: Communication links in the • Breaking away from those traditional technology transfer process. A, B represent large corpora- methods in favour of newly conceived tions; C, D represent small firms; A and C show no technol- technologies. ogy watch; B and D are with technology watch [21]

ESPI Report 24 26 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

3.3 The Energy Sector Secondly, the positive potential of innovation in the energy sector, when it is considered at all, is rarely fully taken into account and gen- Current situation of Innovation: new, sus- erally underestimated, usually depending on tainable energy technologies in the innova- respective company standards. These position trap tive external effects may be, e.g. lower CO2 Steger’s book [48] defines the energy sector emissions, monetary cost savings through as energy production and energy distribution more efficient technologies, sustainable pro- infrastructure. The claim is also made that duction methods and many more. These despite the fact that this sector has seen benefits are difficult to perceive as such, if much investment lately, the legal and social energy is subsidized (e.g. agriculture, air standards imposed by policies (CO2 reduc- transport, …) or if emission limits can also be tion, …) are pushing innovation towards the met using conventional technologies. The development of sustainable energy solutions. advantages of innovation are thus distorted This change in direction is further empha- in favour of conventional technologies and sised by the fact that conventional resources innovation is only advancing slowly. are limited and long time energy policy can- Thirdly, new technologies have not under- not fail to include developing sustainable gone the decades of continuous improvement energy generation and distribution systems. processes that conventional technologies The terms ‘sustainable development’ and have. The lack of technological maturity ‘sustainability’ are also differentiated: while causes initial high costs for small production sustainability is described as the initiator of a quantities in comparison to older methods. A learning process leading to concrete results, good example for this would be the relatively sustainable development can be understood inefficient engine in cars, which despite hav- as a guide for action. ing large disadvantages in terms of emission and consumption, has undergone decades of In the energy sector, specific technologies development and no other alternative could are frequently found in a situation described yet replace it. An alternative, such as the as an “innovation trap” by Steger [48] that hydrogen engine, required a large investment slows new, innovative and sustainable tech- in R&D and has already reached market nologies from quickly advancing onto the readiness. Yet, due to the lack of hydrogen market. This “trap” situation can arise from a fuel processes and no distribution infrastruc- number of points, which are comprehensively ture for hydrogen as fuel, this new technol- discussed in [48], summarised below. ogy has not succeeded in being a viable al- Thus it seems valid to use the arguments ternative to the conventional engine. New, brought forward to promote sustainable de- immature technologies can be considered to velopment in the energy sector, as the term be at the summit of a learning curve with a ‘sustainable development’ can also include steep curve towards cost efficiency, with high the adaption of (and thus innovation in) con- costs, technological improvements and exter- ventional methods and procedures and does nal effects (e.g. infrastructure for using hy- not exclude the conventional parts of the drogen as fuel), that have to be faced at the energy sector. beginning of a newly developed system, while conventional technologies are approaching a First of all, the interest to reduce costs by stable minimum on that same curve, being promoting new and more efficient technologi- efficient, well understood and cost effective cal changes in the energy sector is not very at the same time. This learning curve is es- high. There are only a few heavy industry pecially fatal for the energy sectors since sectors that spend up to 10% of their produc- R&D, despite large investments, has not yet tion cost on energy, while the vast majority taken new technologies to the same cost of industrial sectors only spend around 1% of efficiency level as conventional systems. their production costs on energy. This ratio also applies to other sectors, such as the The fourth point is that innovations in this service sector and agricultural sector. Even sector are usually technologies that have to for households, energy expenditures typically be integrated in conventional systems or only amount to a small percentage of the production chains, such as power grids or total costs, and have been stable in terms of power lines. A high level of compatibility with adjusted wages, due to inflation, over the conventional systems is required and high past decades. Thus, decisions in the energy industrial standards present very narrowly sector are not usually driven by the will to defined margins for operational parameters reduce costs by investing in R&D, and the of new technologies. Further, support struc- value of these investments is not really per- tures, which are present for conventional ceived as an important factor in decision- systems, are largely absent for modern and making. innovative technologies.

ESPI Report 24 27 July 2010

Finally, there is a problem referred to as • Introducing “green pricing” and informa- “sunk” costs, a particularly important factor tional campaigns to trigger more public in the capital intensive energy sector. Once a awareness of ever-rising power con- facility, e.g. a nuclear power plant, has been sumption and the problems associated built and brought into service, the capital with it. The poor success of former at- raised in the process is “sunk”, or bound, tempts at labelling “green” technologies, presenting strong competition to the new according to [48], can be found in too R&D of new technologies. In the case of a extensive labelling efforts flooding the nuclear power plant, e.g. built 17 years ago customers with information and thus un- with a remaining service life of typically 35 dermining all efforts to educate and form years, it is very difficult for decision makers public opinion. to invest in R&D. • In the process of social and organisa- The same phenomenon can also explain why tional innovations the creation of supply unprofitable facilities are maintained over structures, partnered by public institu- long periods of time in capital intensive in- tions and enterprises, enabling them to dustries. be cut free from the pressure of selling more and thus spending more time on developing and offering profitable ser- Outlook vices for the efficient use of energy. Many possible ideas and strategies to meet • It is not enough to look into innovating the problems above are suggested include certain components of the entire energy many ideas and are the topic of large parts in sector while neglecting other parts of it [48]. The most relevant ones are summa- that are essential to the success of an rised in the following. innovation. For example, it does not • Creating custom made support measures make sense to create huge wind farms in for different stages of development can rural areas while neglecting the local help to accelerate innovation. As a new electrical distribution network and con- technology becomes ready for the mar- ventional electricity generation, because ket, it is expensive and difficult to handle wind farms may cover the entire demand at first. This is due to many factors, such of a region on windy days, while on av- as the need to educate staff, create pub- erage days they can only cover a few lic awareness of new technologies and percent of the electricity use. The wind the slow process of maturing technolo- farm needs to be included into the local gies, create knowledge and new proce- supply chain in an intelligent and flexible dures. Technologies in their early phase way, such that it can cover the peaks of of introduction need a different policy power demand on windy days or simply approach than well established ones, add power to the general demand on such as like start up financing and other other days. Conventional energy supply similar subsidies. These policy measures chains cannot act so flexibly and need to need to be specific enough to take into be improved together with the new inno- account the current realities of innova- vations. By doing so, the surplus energy tions, e.g. windpower being far closer to generated by new technologies (including profitability than voltaic energy genera- photovoltaic elements, wind farms, …) tion methods, and yet flexible enough to can be effectively redistributed and inno- meet the requirements of a dynamic vation benefits the entire region, making market. it more competitive and making them more mature. • It has been shown that new, sustainable or otherwise innovative technologies do not exceed the costs of old technologies in the long run. This kind of awareness 3.4 The Transportation Sec- has to be created. tor • Policies, such as national procurement programmes, can be used as a means to Transportation is a very important part of our create demand for new technologies. lives and is present everywhere: from the massive transport of goods to urban trans- • Governments should extend and focus portation and personal transportation. Soci- more clearly on basic research (such as ety strongly depends on transportation, al- nuclear or fusion, …) and include the though it has many negative effects such as topic of energy in their educational agen- pollution, noise, waste, unsustainability and das. not always safe traffic. The paper of Zuylen

ESPI Report 24 28 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

and Weber [53] provides a comprehensive 1. many actors and competing technolo- overview of this field. gies, Innovation in transportation can be used to: 2. multilevel and multi-domain decision making, • Overcome problems such as pollution and thus facilitate transport with as little 3. the problem that transport is embedded negative impact as possible. The catalytic in our social and economic environment conversion of exhaust gases is a good and example of technology being used to re- 4. the distribution of “labour” among the alize policy goals (lower emissions) and Union Member States. of a technology having an impact on a sector; dynamic traffic control manage- Aside from these factors, organisational ment is another example of how techno- changes might be necessary if technologies logical advances can improve an entire are being integrated into present services or sector. transport concepts. It is also difficult to assess if a new technology is indeed a suitable • Technology can also be a tool to imple- replacement for an existing system. This ment policies, such as the catalytic con- implies that policies have to be conceived to version mentioned above. Another ex- deal with possible failure and prevent the ample could be the support of law en- gains of an innovation being lost through forcement bodies provided by new tech- increased transport demand or changes in nologies in speed limitation enforcement, customer behaviour. such as improved radar systems or intelligent speed adapters capable of auto- matically reducing the speed of cars en- Project FANTASIE tering a certain area. The Fourth Framework Project FANTASIE • Technology from other sectors can have described in [53] analyzed innovation in a direct or indirect impact on transporta- transportation and came up with a series of tion systems, such as the emerging conclusions concerning current issues in the eCommerce currently starting to show sector and policy decisions to stimulate inno- secondary effects, both good and bad, on vation. First, the barriers of innovation identi- traffic patterns and transport procedures. fied in this report will be described. Although subsidized R&D is the tool of choice • Slow innovation: Due to the strong link- to push innovation in this sector, there are a ages of transportation (mentioned number of reasons that make success difficult above), innovations usually are not lim- to estimate and make innovation proceed ited to single aspects but rather to many very slowly. According to van Zuylen [53] components of the sector, slowing down this might lie in the nature of the sector: as innovation significantly. The long lifetime many actors are involved and thus require of infrastructure and transportation is cumbersome coordination of innovative proc- another reason for the inertia of the sec- esses. Further, the “spontaneous” nature of tor. innovations is often difficult to integrate into meeting goals set by policy. Regional or na- • Many actors involved: Each actor in- tional problems can additionally stall the involved has his/her own agenda and co- novation process. Thus a normative policy operation or at least co-ordination has to approach can help to find the best mix of be realised – which takes a long time, policy measures to ensure full benefit from additionally slowing down the entire innovations. process. The problems that have to be overcome are • Further barriers to innovation were iden- rooted in the strong mutual link of different tified by an investigation conducted by layers of the public sector; e.g. cities often the European Commission in 1999: lack the power to stimulate innovation involv- o Lack of awareness of available infor- ing industry while national governments have mation. only little power to impose new applications onto local authorities [53]. National govern- o Legal and regulatory barriers in the ments are limited by regulations imposed by form of institutional barriers, liability the European Union, since the Union would issues, administrative and organisa- not allow national regulations to restrict the tional issues and protection of intel- open market and free competition. lectual property. Policies for technological innovations in the o Technical problems in the form of a transport sector are confronted with a very lack in standardisation, certification complex situation. They must deal with:

ESPI Report 24 29 July 2010

and problems with interoperability duction. Standardisation at a too early and interconnectivity. stage however might prevent future op- tions from being established. o Financial and commercial issues due to insufficient innovative financial • Cultural measures: Creating awareness mechanisms, lack of incentive to in- among the public is important and has novate, market related issues and the already been partially initiated by the lack of competition within a certain Green and White papers of the past market. years. o Social issues related to the lack of • Institutional measures: Facilitating the qualified manpower in certain fields of emergence of new systems. Lessons transport and insufficient acceptance learned from the past show that it is of certain innovations. sometimes important to create networks and new organisations to make coopera- Decision making barriers because of o tion between many carriers easier. This the fragmented levels of decisions and process can be aided or initiated be the the lack of comprehensive and co- Union itself. ordinated action towards the resolu- tion of the mobility problem. • Role of the European Union: An important point elaborated by [53] is to con- The report on Project FANTASIE also sug- sider whether new technologies require gests a number of policy action items that particular policy attention. The issue of will be briefly described in the following. whether policies are better implemented • Facilitating the innovation process: The on the European or national level is im- project showed that promising technolo- portant, since there needs to be consid- gies would benefit from a combination of eration of whether policies can actually measures, but these have to be imple- really aid innovation. The effectiveness of mented either at national or European policies seems to be connected to the level, depending on the technology itself. development stage of a new technology, A fine balance has to be found to suc- as well as to the kind of innovation, the cessfully provide incentives for innova- speed of the innovation process and the tion. competence of governments or national entities, in the special field of that tech- • Legal and regulatory measures: These nology. Also, the role of a government are usually implemented at the European has to be reconsidered as the innovation level and need to be harmonised to some process advances; industries are often extent, taking care to avoid heavy ad- dissatisfied by changes in funding when ministrative and financial burdens that they reach a more mature stage of tech- slow innovation. nology or are about to enter the market. • Technological measures involving Re- A policy change might change the level search and Development: While some of funding or be shifted from subsidies to technologies can benefit from being im- regulations, with the Union adopting the plemented on a regional or national level role of a neutral agent, or an innovation first, several technologies need a bigger agent, or a regulator or, in specific cases, scope where international research ac- even the role of a developer. Roles have tivities have to be considered to success- to be chosen with the objective of being fully develop a new product (as is the as effective as possible within the frame case with propulsion technologies or in and limitations of the European Union. It the aeronautics sector). Furthermore, in seems that in the case of a common the innovation process during the ex- transportation policy these are the roles perimental stages of development, pilot of regulator and research agent. projects funded by the European Union For an in depth view and a more detailed have been shown to be useful in identify- analysis of the FANTASIE project Chapter ing application conditions. However a Five of the FANTASIE report is recommended. balance between protection of experimental technologies and fostering competition is essential to keep the innovation process running effectively. 3.5 The Aeronautics Sector • Compatibility measures: The standardi- The aeronautics sector started with human sation of transport solutions is not only aviation and is now a little over a century old. important to ensure compatibility within In 1890, Otto von Lilienthal created the first the European Union but also in creating successful glider and was followed by the essential weight for global market intro- Wright brothers a mere ten years later with

ESPI Report 24 30 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

the first powered flight. The first fifty years of posed in the study were in a) interpersonal aeronautics experienced tremendous and relationships, because they are important in frequent innovations that changed our every- partner motivation; b) rules and agreements, day life. In this period better understanding that are important for the commitment to of the underlying physics phenomena was engage in development; and c) meetings, achieved and daring new concepts and crea- which are important in establishing interper- tive solutions emerged, which for example sonal relationships and which served as op- finally led to the first Boeing 367-80 707 pro- portunities to share knowledge. totype [36]. After that, in the next fifty years In the long run, conservatism in innovation of aeronautics it appears that no dramatic may prove to be detrimental for a sector. revolutions took place but rather the focus Thus, insufficiency or absence of future de- was on fine tuning existing technologies. An velopments can ultimately lead to the de- aircraft essentially has not changed much in struction of the aeronautics industry. Accord- shape or design. The work of Kroo [36] gives ing to [36], the solution to this lies in two an overview of developments and challenges factors: in the aeronautics sector. • the need for significant changes in air Overall there are various opinions as to the transportation will create an incentive for reasons for this apparent stagnation. Many innovation; environmental requirements consider that the apparent lack on innovation and new regulations will create the need in aeronautics is a sign of a mature sector. to innovate. While some state that all necessary innovations in the sector occurred in the first fifty • the introduction of new technologies in years, for example aircraft design reached an other fields, related or unrelated to aero- almost perfect level in 1954, others argue nautics, may create a push for technolo- that the tremendous costs and risks involved gies that revolutionize this sector. with a new technology in this sector make it a difficult case for innovation. Thus, only when new ideas are well-proven, can they be Technology Areas That May Drive Innovation taken up in a low risk incremental innovation The work of Kroo [36] looks at the history of approach. aeronautical innovation and identifies three The case study of Elco van Burg [52] looks at areas that may drive the future of aeronau- knowledge networks for introducing the new tics innovation. These areas are: technology of Clare material in aeronautics, • Exploiting computational advances for which took more than 30 years of develop- high-fidelity simulation and improved de- ment and testing before it was used in the sign; Airbus A380 and, in common with other authors, attributes the long development path • A paradigm shift from having to create to a) the extensive material qualifications an aircraft around pilots and passengers that are necessary before a new material can to more advanced solutions; be applied to any aircraft structure; b) the • Designing the system rather than the fact that aerospace manufacturers will gener- vehicle, thus creating collectives and sys- ally only make an investment in a new mate- tems of systems. rial when they design a completely new type of aircraft. In this study the path of knowl- Aside from these points, a survey by eBusi- edge management in the entire development ness watch [54] suggests an additional im- was followed and innovation networks were portant point: studied. The formal/informal links between • ICT innovation as innovation push. information, knowledge and people were analysed. The Glair network changed in the course of the 30 years but always included a Simulation and Design university, a research institute, a government funding body and industrial partners. It could Modern computational capabilities have ad- be characterised as decentralised, interna- vanced considerably in the past decades, tional, and continuously focusing on a single allowing academia and NASA since the 70’s innovation. The study showed the importance and 80’s to create powerful algorithms for of informal mechanisms and showed the solving nonlinear equations of fluid flow and problems related to personnel change and structural mechanics already. This led to a personal disputes. Another important point more profound understanding of complicated was the value distribution that can also limit airflow that provides the lift for an aircraft knowledge sharing because industrial part- and allowed constructors to save time by ners wanted to protect the knowledge. Ac- using computers to simulate wind channels cording to van Burg [52] the solutions pro- instead of building expensive, time consum- ing down-scaled models of concept craft. As

ESPI Report 24 31 July 2010

mentioned in [36], many areas of aeronautics to assemble many of them into a fleet. As the are just beginning to fully exploit the poten- number of aircraft increases a collective of tial that computational methods have and aircrafts can be managed to perform certain this still holds. tasks as e.g. transportation or air freight. As the numbers increase, the complexity of DARPA´s Shaped-Supersonic Boom Demon- managing these collectives increases as well. stration [29, 43] is a good example of exten- But due to recent theories of collective be- sive use of simulations providing substantial haviour and new, powerful computing op- cost savings, since the testing and modifica- tions, new approaches to these multi agent tion of an existing supersonic design is gen- system designs can be taken. erally very expensive. Over the last couple of years significant com- Another interesting example is provided in a petence has been built through development case study in [54], describing the importance of swarm management software tools for of ICT innovation in aeronautics: the Dassault robots from which aeronautics may benefit. Aviation Group used a “virtual office” to con- These technologies are still in a very early struct its newest business jet. In 2002 the stage of development but the potential for Group linked all collaborating companies in a future applications is already being recog- single, virtual workspace in which they nised and the first promising results are shared a common, configured, constantly available [55]. updated digital mock-up of their new product, the Falcon 7X. This solution allowed cooperation between all companies beginning at the ICT Innovation conceptual design level, the sharing of knowledge and of tools and databases. All A key issue in many of the approaches men- 40,000 parts of the aircraft were predesigned tioned above lies in ICT standards. The use of in 3D precision, accelerating the assembly of internal networks (LAN) and remote access the first jet substantially – it took only seven capabilities can be essential to successful months to assemble the new aircraft, instead innovation for large companies. However, of the usual 16 months. 3D CAD designs en- SMEs usually slowly develop their ICT infra- abled the constructors to learn assembly of structures and thus have increasing difficul- the aircraft on the screen prior to doing it for ties in meeting customer demands or cooper- the first time. ating with other SMEs [54]. In fact, there is no smooth data exchange possible between Continued advances in computation and elec- these companies. Sending data to another tronics are enabling automatic systems to company using different applications requires slowly replace pilots in an increasing number translation, which in practice usually means of platforms. While this might bring a reduc- that an employee has to manually insert tion of operating costs in the future, the po- datasets (and thus increases the factor of tential for redefining the role of an aircraft human error and means a significant increase has to be considered. The extensive use of in costs). This means that knowledge gained Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in the past anywhere within the production chain re- years for surveillance and reconnaissance mains isolated and difficult to access. This missions, such as the RQ-4 Global Hawk [1] problem would be overcome if certain com- and the Rheinmetall KZO [2], have made mon industrial standards in terms of software more extreme applications of UAVs seem use, data exchange and interfaces/com- more probable, such as Aerial Regional-scale patibility were introduced. At the same time, Environmental Survey (ARES) aircraft for forcing these standards would also create Martian exploration [30]. immense problems for SMEs as innovating New, very small aircraft or micro-air vehicles internal ICT standards requires long time designed by aerospace companies, govern- planning, allocation of resources and usually ments and universities are another inexpen- results in very complex and massive changes sive approach to test new concepts and are of internal procedures [54]. exemplary for possible design changes that A prominent example of this standardisation might change aircraft concepts in the future. process was the initiative to develop and introduce electronic data interchange (EDI), a Swarm Systems uniform framework for data exchange. EDI- based applications have been extensively Another incentive for innovation in this sector adopted by companies in the past two dec- is the fact that until now, aircraft were usu- ades, especially by manufacturing industries ally built as individual vehicles as aircraft with complex and broad value chains such as always needed human pilots. Since UAVs do the automotive industry. not need humans on board, it is possible to move away from single individual aircraft and

ESPI Report 24 32 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

Outlook pass through clinical development and testing prior to reaching a mature state where they This sector still has to see the global chal- can reach the market. In 2004, R&D slowly lenges that may trigger transformation. increased in the US while showing the first These most profound challenges are envi- signs of regression in Europe as mentioned ronmental protection regulations; safety and above. other regulations; comfort of passengers; air transport system capacity; affordability and competitiveness of the sector; and technol- Factors Stalling Innovation ogy advancements in other sectors. The technology push and transfer from other sec- According to [10], there are three major tors will be essential. In particular, openness processes that slow R&D in the pharmaceuti- and efficient knowledge management and cal sector: innovation networks will play an important • Cost of developing new drugs: there is role in the next era of i-economy that we are evidence that the general costs for R&D entering. have risen in the past decade, even though large companies stopped investing in drugs that were unlikely to make it 3.6 The Pharmaceutical Sec- to the market. These costs vary significantly from one product to the other. tor Furthermore, the mean costs of under- taking clinical trials rise with the com- Research and development in this sector is a plexity of the researched product. The long and strongly regulated process. New number of trials needed to get approval products can be designed by isolating the for a new product has risen in past dec- active ingredients in plants or traditional ade as well, thus raising costs further. remedies, or by understanding metabolic Interestingly there is no clear evidence pathways of diseases and pathogens and that regulatory requirements associated thus designing a drug with the tools of bio- with the approval of new products have technology and molecular biology. The devel- contributed to the increase of develop- opment stage can generally be split into early ment costs. stages, involving in vitro studies, and trial • Expected returns from iInnovation: stages with in vivo and clinical trials. Price regulation and parallel trade: In Once these pre-approval stages are passed, a o the first years of the decade all major company that develops a new product for the European countries introduced cost European Union (EU) may submit a single containment measures that led to application to the European Medicines Agency tougher price regulations and lower for a marketing authorisation, or a licence, profits, hence these are likely to have that is valid simultaneously in all EU Member reduced incentives for innovation. States, plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Nor- way. This is called the ‘centralised (or ’Com- o Generics: With the increasing impor- munity’) authorisation procedure’, and is tance of generic drugs and a recent mandatory for certain types of medicines and shift of governmental policies towards optional for others, according to Regulation encouraging generic competition, ex- EC No. 726/2004 [3]. pected revenues quickly drop after a patent has expired. This has a long According to the European Commission’s term effect by increasing the impor- Study on the Pharmaceutical Sector [10] this tance of the branded period, thus sector has seen a recession in innovation. providing an incentive to channel R&D This has been measured by comparing the resources into products likely to be number of successful applications for market- approved quickly for the market. An- ing licenses compared to those that were other effect of that might be a shift to effectively granted in the decade before incremental innovations in order to 2004. The reasons for this recession are not extend market exclusivity. well understood and are probably not simple to understand. The following analysis will o Research Location: Given that cost largely follow the EC study [10]. containment measures are increasing in Europe, companies in countries Even though in 2004 a number of new tech- where expected returns of innovation nologies such as gene therapy were already are higher have a marketing advan- in the process of being developed, their po- tage for research. tential to contribute significantly to market applications or authorisations were consid- o Cost effectiveness measures: Studies ered fairly low. New technologies have to on cost effectiveness increase the cost

ESPI Report 24 33 July 2010

of development and thus reduce the order to stimulate the development of incentive to invest in innovations. new products and increase the revenue However, cost-effective products that from marketing these. are truly beneficial for society need • Streamlining and simplifying the regula- incentives in order to increase the in- tion process and shifting the focus of vestment in R&D. If these incentives EMAE to the provision of scientific advice are provided, this process can lead to and support to the industry. Thus the increased efficiency in innovation danger of fragmenting the European processes. regulatory system is lowered. o Therapeutic reference pricing: This • Raise the level of certainty of the market recently introduced policy in a number exclusivity of a product by introducing a of European countries regulates the harmonised ten-year data exclusivity pe- premium pricing that first products of riod, while allowing generic products to a new category used to enjoy, thus be developed before a product loses ex- leading to lower incentives to invest in clusivity. This represents a call for con- new technologies. At the same time it sistency and transparency and may in- is expected to improve general R&D crease the incentive to innovate. processes and ultimately lead to truly innovative products in the long run. Aside from these key issues that are already being partially addressed by other, more o Data protection and market exclusiv- general EC policy proposals on innovation, ity: In order to increase incentives for the attractiveness of Europe as a location for companies to innovate, extended data R&D needs to be increased: protection and market exclusivity have to be provided. • A first step would be to identify industrial capacity in Europe, with special emphasis • Industry Restructuring: Mergers and ac- on understanding the specific problems quisitions within the pharmaceutical sec- of innovation in this sector. It has to be tor seem to negatively stimulate innova- determined whether current investment tion in the short term. However it is diffi- policy is appropriate to help the Euro- cult to estimate the long-run effects of pean pharmaceutical industry. these processes on innovation: while merging or acquiring other companies • The returns on innovation have to be in- can improve the productivity of innova- creased by changing the current struc- tive activities and increase the probability ture of pricing. Encouraging the devel- of patenting a new product by reducing opment of generics while at the same competition, the loss of the same by time regulating the prices of prime prod- gaining a significant headway relative to ucts or even forcing them to be lowered remaining rivals can lead to a lower in- will reduce the readiness to invest in new centive for those rival companies to in- developments. This measure might also vest in innovation. The reduction of inde- be used to make pricing more flexible: pendent lines of research by eliminating the possibility of achieving a price pre- or taking over competitive companies will mium for a particularly valuable product also result in higher costs for R&D. Ob- on the market could be used to stimulate servation of large mergers in the sector further research. This is also strongly showed that these processes always correlated to the policy of extending the went along with divestitures or other period of protection for new products. measures to address the potentially negative effects on customers. • Stimulating better cooperation between public and private research organisations has already been recognised as poten- Improving Innovation tially beneficial, but careful follow up will have great influence in increasing What factors stimulate innovation in this sec- Europe´s attractiveness to companies. tor? The low level of market licences in 2002/04 described in [10] was understood as Finally, the work of Charles River Associates indicators that did not imply a real crisis in [10] suggests the following key steps to en- pharmaceutical companies but were rather courage innovation in the pharmaceutical taken as motivation to devise long-term sector. First of all, gaining a more profound remedies and strategies to help R&D. understanding of how technical innovation can improve the later stages of development The following issues have to be addressed: processes is deemed to be of great impor- • Faster market access for products offer- tance. This process involves improved coming a significant therapeutic benefit in munication between regulators and the industry during the key phases of developing a

ESPI Report 24 34 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

new product, thus addressing fundamental proteins or other biological agents, etc.) and problems of the production process to pre- a transducer to provide an indication or signal vent future bottlenecks in the long develop- in the presence of a specific substance in the ment phases and thus increasing industrial environment. This transducer can operate on capacity. On the topic of pricing, Charles electrochemical, piezoelectrical or optical River Associates [10] suggest that using modes to detect the reaction of the bio- branded prices may increase incentives to component to an analyte. Ideally, these sen- innovate while stimulating greater generic sors must be designed to be able to detect a competition. Also, greater pricing flexibility few molecules of significance and thus be and improved public-private communications able to provide quick and reliable information can provide incentives for innovation. on pathogens, toxic compounds and other potentially dangerous or otherwise interesting substances. 3.7 The Biotechnology Sector An example of such a sensor is the glucose pen by Medisense that uses the enzyme glu- Biotechnology has been recognized as a fast cose oxidase to break blood glucose down growing area with high potential for busi- that then oxidizes the glucose in the blood nesses and policy makers [5, 23, 24]. It has sample. The reaction triggers a change in the also been recognized as one of the key ena- electrochemical environment of the sub- bling technologies as described in Section stances involved, thus resulting in a current 2.5. that can be used as a measure of the concentration of glucose. In this case, an electrode This field encompasses a very wide variety of is the transducer and the enzyme is the bio- topics, ranging from biology and medicine to logically active component. This device also electrochemistry and nanotechnology and is illustrates the importance of small, handheld thus difficult to define precisely. According to and quick biosensors: this simple and reliable the United Nations Convention on Biological design significantly improved the standard of Diversity [50] it can be defined as “Any tech- life of insulin-deficient patients and replaced nological application that uses biological sys- lengthy manual work in a lab. tems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or proc- In the wake of recent incidents of contami- esses for specific use”. In Europe, biotechnol- nated food and the fear of biological hazards ogy often uses colour coded classifications since 11 September 2001, creating accurate with the most known the red (pharmaceutical environmental sensors has become an impor- and medical), blue (marine), green (agricul- tant issue and thus has been reflected in a ture and environmental) and white (indus- significant increase in funding of biosensor trial). research. In the years from 1984 to 1990, about 3000 scientific publications dealt with Discussing the procedures in biotechnology is biosensors and about 200 patents on biosen- a difficult task since all emerging branches of sors were issued; in the years from 1998 to biotechnological applications will naturally 2004 the number of publications doubled to face slightly different problems. For example 6000 and 1100 patents were issued or were a device identifying genetic markers in bio- pending. logical samples will have to meet different requirements than detectors for biological Despite this impressive and indicative in- weapons or systems that directly interact crease in scientific output, commercialisation with humans. In order to provide a general lags significantly behind. The reasons for this, overview, we will try to describe innovation in according to Luong [37], might be related to biotechnology using two interesting and some technical barriers that have to be met, promising technologies: biosensors and mi- like stability, sensor sensitivity and reliability. croarrays. These issues are also related to cost consid- erations. Specific Technologies Specific Innovation Issues A. Biosensors Innovation in this field is increasingly associ- The paper [37] provides a very comprehen- ated with automation and system integration sive overview of biosensor technology and with high throughput. These are very chal- this section outlines the main findings of this lenging requirements as biosensors are usu- paper. ally designed to detect a single or a few tar- get analytes. The reason for this lies in the A biosensor is by definition a device that in- biological component that is tailored to detect corporates a living organism or a product traces of certain analytes and is usually derived from living systems (like enzymes, highly selective. A further problem addressed

ESPI Report 24 35 July 2010

above as “stability” is also connected with the Outlook detection mechanism – some reactants and bio agents used for triggering the detector Development to meet market needs requires are spent in the process of measuring, which significant upfront investment for R&D. Cur- results in a drop in efficiency over time and rently the sector is slowly increasing with low often renders the sensor not usable after a success rates. This is understandable since given number of measurements. huge volume markets are generally missing and the push of these new technologies has Another key issue that has to be met in the yet to create a market. Future trends need to case of biosensors is the validation of the further include miniaturisatisation, integration sensor by established procedures. This tech- of leading edge integrated circuits and wire- nology is usually highly sensitive to matrix less technology. effects or subtle changes in the environment and thus prone to fail in measuring “real- Feasibility studies and a careful analysis of world” samples. Biosensors have to prove the user demand are essential to decision that they are the inevitable choice as cost- makers prior to investment and have to be effective analytical tools. understood as very essential task to be performed in this sector. In particular, market viability of a biosensor depends on the following points: B. Microarrays • A sensor must function continuously over a long time, at least a month long. This A microarray is a revolutionary technology is a very important requirement and is and could briefly be described as part of “lab currently barely met by any sensor. on a chip” technology. It was initially developed in laboratories in order to research gene • A short analysis time is essential, and expression of model organisms and has has to be around a few minutes. Nowa- nowadays evolved to allow diagnosis of dis- days many sensors need only 4–5 min to ease disposition in humans, identification of a few hours to deliver an accurate meas- specific viruses, and protein analysis [13, 15, urement. 20]. • Establishing comparability of sensor per- A microarray works on the principle that on a formance with already established meth- solid substrate, such as glass or a silicate ods and protocols in order to get ap- wafer, a 2D array of cells is arranged. Each proval from regulatory agencies (as in cell contains a certain reactant, check- the case of medical applications) and to ing/testing for a specific analyte respectively. deliver proofs that a new product can in- A large number of tests can be performed at deed work in real world conditions. The the same time, checking for several thousand financial and technological risks of this analytes simultaneously. If the analyte is process can be very high and are very detected by the respective cell, it is indicated difficult to predict. by a change of the cell properties e.g. a • The environmental and food industries change of transparency, colour or other easily are potentially emerging markets for bio- observable parameters. Additional informa- sensors, since recent events triggered a tion about the concentration can be typically reasonable investment in these sectors obtained by illumination. (e.g. recent problems with food poison- This allows weeks of manual laboratory work ing, pandemic outbreaks of H1N1, H5N1 performed in the past to be replaced by a and SARS, …) and biosensors can satisfy short test, measured in minutes (up to one the high demands of these markets. hour) instead of days. This system has revo- • The defence and military industries have lutionised analytical procedures, enabling invested considerably in biosensors to quick, reliable and simple investigations. Al- rapidly detect bio-warfare agents and po- though these microarrays are difficult to pro- tentially dangerous substances. How- duce, their advantage lies in being very cost ever, the near future of biosensors in this effective (using only the smallest amount of sector is unclear, since absolute reliabil- chemicals, saving equipment and specialists ity is an extremely important issue for working in a fully equipped laboratory) and homeland security and defence applica- saving considerable amounts of time. For an tions. overview of the first microarrays developed ten years ago, see [15]. • For an overview of current investment in this sector the reader is further referred According to Brewster et al. [15], it is clear to the work of Luong [37]. that the development of array-based technologies represents a fundamental shift in the way scientists study living organisms. An

ESPI Report 24 36 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

array is more than just a new experimental have been thoroughly investigated. The pa- technique; microarrays change the way sci- per by De Marez Lieven and Verleye Gino entists can deal with the massive amount of [22] presents a very good overview of the data involved in any kind of genetic research. lessons learned from the first decade of inno- This technology provides a first glimpse into vation in ICT. how researchers will utilize genome data in The current trend of innovation in ICT accord- coming years. ing to [22] started about a decade ago and has been associated with many terms by a Prospects of Microarray Technology number of authors: Having realized the importance of this tech- • Evolution from “Industrialism” to “Post- nology, educators globally are beginning to industrialism” by Lyon, 1995 [38] and teach genomics, proteomics, and bioinfor- Burgelman, 1993 [17]. matics in undergraduate biology and computer science courses to ensure the basic • “Technological Revolution” by Sheth in principles are understood. Microarrays has 1994 [47]; also created a link to ICT innovation, since • “Information Revolution” by Jankowski many arrays are now being analysed auto- and Van Selm in 2001 [33]; matically and the future scientist has to be able to understand ICT processes to some • “Information Society” by Toffler in 1980 extent, which is new. Thus Brewster et al. [49], Servaes in 2000 [45] and Servaes [15] refer to this technology as a new age of and Heindercykx in 2002 [46] biology for the next generation of scientists. These terms usually associate a wider field A key issue for future applications is data than ICT alone, nevertheless we still live in a processing and networking of genome pro- society that has changed rapidly in the past jects. According to Ambrosio et al. [20] the years which makes it necessary to re- following points still have to be overcome: evaluate traditional assumptions as both the demand and the supply side of the sector • Accessibility to microarrays at the begin- have changed. ning was limited because of the still high costs of instrumentation and consum- From the suppliers side, a strong technology ables. Prices have dropped dramatically push has resulted in the emergence of many in the last couple of years, but can still new products (WAP, digital TV, X-Box, GPRS, be improved. New and cheaper develop- UMTS, …) and confronted us with a number ment methods have to be created to re- of new innovations. However not all new solve this cost issue. technologies have lived up to their potential. The digital television which experienced slow • Data management: to fully exploit the acceptance and WAP which mostly failed are results of an array “essay” a large num- such examples. ber of scientists needs to be able to access recent results and coordinate with other groups globally. Companies have Barriers for Innovative Products to be able to protect their products and results at the same time – which clearly The authors in [22] have tried to identify contradicts the proper and correct data possible reasons for failed market introduc- management that would push R&D fur- tions of certain products and have drawn a ther. number of conclusions that are summarized below. • Further problems lie in unresolved legal and ethical questions regarding patient • The most important reason is that many confidentiality, communication of impor- suppliers seem to lack insight into the tant information to patients and their customer’s adoption potential, the needs families, health insurance issues, missing of customers and how they perceive a or incomplete regulatory national or in- product beforehand. The main argument ternational frameworks and intellectual of suppliers when confronted with unsuc- property rights. cessful innovations implies that introduction and marketing strategies have failed and that the strategies lacked vital 3.8 The ICT Sector knowledge to work effectively. These “badly judged marketing decisions” Innovation in the Information and Communi- are also quoted by many other authors cation Technology (ICT) sector has been ana- and seem to be the cause of innovation lysed by a number of entities. In the past 15 failure in the ICT sector. A possible ex- years innovation and innovation strategies planation for this is changes on the de-

ESPI Report 24 37 July 2010

mands side [22]. In contrast to the for- innovations” by Everett M. Rogers, formu- mer perception of the customer, the lated in 1962. This theory has been debated, socio-demographic, economic, and life- criticised and cited, yet, despite being over style profiles have changed to such an 50 years old, certain concepts are still being extent that the typical user is no longer considered to be valid. However, Lieven’s necessarily male, higher educated, paper [22] leaves no doubt that the basic young, self employed, … and the classic idea of this theory can still be seen in practice marketing approach is not effective today. The full scope of discussing the “diffu- enough. The rapidly growing market sion theories” and their many critics is be- might also contribute to the failure of yond the possibilities of this paper and the previous marketing strategies, which un- interested reader is referred to chapter two derstood owning many technologies in and three of the paper being described here the ICT segment as an asset to success- [22]. fully innovate any product, since competi- A short description of the “diffusion” theory is tion has reached such levels that users given in the following graph: the market is are overwhelmed with new technologies. split up into five different sections under a The bottom line is that companies rely bell shaped curve, with the x-axes depicting too heavily on these traditional strategies the risk aversion of companies/suppliers (in and thus fail in targeting the right people effect proceeding to the far right means the or deliver the wrong message to their readiness to risk investing decreases signifi- customers. cantly while those to the left are ready to risk • Another tendency seems to be associated investment) and the y-axes indicating the with an overly strong technology push by degree of “innovativeness” (where higher the suppliers: being overly confident with values of y, approaching the maximum of the a new product can lead to mismanage- curve, mean an increase in complexity, scale ment and failure. Although this approach and maturity of the innovation). At this point seemed to be very effective in former it is again emphasised that this is just a times, the current environment has rough sketch of a widely discussed, quite changed and customers have become complex topic, and it is thus not easy to sim- more exacting and are confronted with a ply define all terms involved. The graph in really broad market. Thus it is naïve to Figure 16 illustrates the curve (innovative- stick to the “field-of-dreams-approach” ness vs. risk aversion) and an adaptation of [11] or supply-side concept reasoning the same with some examples of innovations [32]. placed on the graph. This model suggests that the diffusion of Traditional and Recent Models of ICT Innovation innovation to the market is a linear process involving the entire market and, reading the The study of innovation processes sooner or graph in Figure 16 from left to right, almost later brings up the theory of “diffusion of seems like the temporal evolution of that

Figure 16: Adoption-curve in theory by [22] describing the process of how innovations are slowly adopted by the market

ESPI Report 24 38 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

process – however this has been widely dis- the entire market, not necessarily the entire cussed and criticised, as mentioned above, market as before, and thus enables rescaling and does not fully account for why some the 5 traditional segments and the minimum technologies fail and other succeed. to reflect the market more precisely. A technology might pass from hype to full mar- The authors in [22] take a new approach. ket/market segment penetration in the tradi- They adapt the curve to modern insights on tional smooth and direct way (indicated by the ICT market, the changed situation as the dotted lines; this was the case for 2 and already described above, and then adapt it to 3G), or it could recede into the ravine (which their own observations. To explain the some- can be very deep, as in the case of WAP), as times surprising failure of innovative tech- the minima between the two peaks is vari- nologies they use the concept of “The able. The x-axis can now be understood as a Chasm” [41], which describes a critical stage rough timeline, with arbitrary time units. somewhere between early adopters and early majority that can be understood as a conse- The first hype leading to the quick adoption quence of the first hype of a technology pass- of innovation is spurred by the strong push of ing. This is part of the so-called “Hype Cycle” innovators and developers, as innovators and model by Fenn et al. [27] that tries to model early adapters do not really care much about the sometimes very rapid adoption of new how a product is introduced since they will technologies by customers (hype), reaching a adapt anyway (push), while the diffusion maximum and saturation, followed by a rapid through the barrier, or “funnel” (label F in descent, or ravine (chasm) triggered by Figure 17), can only be partially achieved by heightened customer expectations that ex- technology push. Here it is more important to ceed the maturity of the product. This understand the pull of the market, implying “chasm” has to be overcome in order to that understanding the needs of the majority reach the large bulk of the market or the of customers grows in significance in the later technology fails in diffusing into the market. stages of the market introduction. Marketing A good example of this behaviour is WAP, strategies have to take this into account and which never made it out of that stage. have to react flexibly and quickly to more customers and a wider market. As an exam- This behaviour is understood by [22] as a ple, strategy forecasts for the introduction of second peak in the traditional bell shaped a new product predict that changes in com- model, resulting in the slightly modified munication strategy can be made in five graph seen in Figure 17. The local minimum months; the right marketing strategy should between the two peaks depicts the barrier continuously verify if that timeframe is valid posed to innovations, while the new group since changes in innovation strategy or mar- “ID”, Innovation Dislikers, indicates those keting strategy at a wrong time could stall who refuse to innovate. Thus it is possible the diffusion process to the market. If the that the graph covers only a certain aspect of

Figure 17: Effective adoption curve by [22]; the five segments of the original theory remain (INN= Innovators, EA= Early Adapters, EM= Early Majority, LM= Late Majority and LAGG= Laggards) and are completed with Innovation Dislikers

ESPI Report 24 39 July 2010

“hype” has reached its climax after three To apply this theory and create an effective months, strategy changes two months later marketing strategy, research tools are are far too late and would not result in the needed that are capable of being used before desired effects; on the other hand starting to the launch of a new product and can deliver change strategy before that climax would accurate and reliable forecasts for specific lead to a situation where innovation is pre- products and specific market segments. sented to customers who are not ready for it These are further discussed in the paper by yet. This bottom line of needing to communi- Lieven [22] and are beyond the scope of this cate with customers effectively to ensure survey. increasing product adoption rates is shared by a number of authors.

ESPI Report 24 40 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

4. Partnerships and Institutions at the European Level

institutions, disciplines, sectors and countries; 4.1 European Perspective • World-class research infrastructures, integrated, networked and accessible to Since its March 2000 Lisbon meeting, the research teams from across Europe and European Council has endorsed the objective the world, notably thanks to new genera- of creating a European Research Area (ERA). tions of electronic communication infra- According to the Commission’s Green Paper structures; “The European Research Area: New Perspec- tives” [4] the ERA concept combines: a Euro- • Excellent research institutions engaged in pean “internal market” for research, where effective public-private cooperation and researchers, technology and knowledge circu- partnerships, forming the core of re- late freely; an effective European-level coor- search and innovation ‘clusters’ including dination of national and regional research ‘virtual research communities’, mostly activities, programmes and policies; and ini- specialised in interdisciplinary areas and tiatives implemented and funded at the Euro- attracting a critical mass of human and pean level. The ERA has become the key financial resources; reference for research policy in Europe. The • Effective knowledge-sharing notably be- six axes that ERA should have, as described tween public research and industry, as in the Green Paper, are: well as with the public at large; • An adequate flow of competent research- • Well-coordinated research programmes ers with high levels of mobility between and priorities, including a significant vol-

Figure 18: European Union system for a union of innovation8

8 Figure based on schematic provided by Clément Goossens, Eindhoven University of Technology, Govern- ment Affairs.

ESPI Report 24 41 July 2010

ume of jointly-programmed public re- ogy and Competiveness key features report search investment at European level in- 2009/2009” [8] examines progress on the volving common priorities, coordinated ERA in the six areas. It initially looks at re- implementation and joint evaluation; and search institutions, research programme funding and research infrastructures, and • A wide opening of the European Research subsequently looks at the mobility of re- Area to the world with special emphasis searchers, transnational knowledge flows and on neighbouring countries and a strong internationalisation of R&D. commitment to addressing global challenges with Europe's partners. In the search for an effective ERA, the role of funding instruments, as well as policies and Progress on the various axes has been made institutional reforms, are important in the over the last decade, with focus on reducing global world of science and technology. In fragmentation of programmes and policies at Figure 18 the European Union’s system of a European and at a national level. knowledge and innovation can be seen. The European Commission’s document “A According to the study, “the universities in more research-intensive and integrated Europe are undergoing reforms to improve European Research Area: Science, Technol- performance while they increasingly link up

Figure 19: EU-27 and US – Scientific specialisations based on scientific publications, 2004-20068

9 European Commission, A more research-intensive and integrated European Research Area. Science and Tech- nology Competiveness key figures report 2008/2009, pp.65.

ESPI Report 24 42 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

to transnational networks”. Universities in index can be computed on the basis of the Europe have developed links between them- ratio between the share of a scientific field in selves based on FP research collaborations the total number of publications of a country with the centre in Central and Northern and the share of this field in the total number Europe. Other universities have more periph- of publications in the world. This specialisa- eral roles with large countries like France, tion index is constructed so that it is centred Italy and Spain playing a more central role. on zero and stays within a range of +100 to - 100. A positive value for a given field in a Since 2005, with the implementation of ERA- particular country points to the fact that the oriented instruments for coordinating re- field has a higher weight in the portfolio of search like ERA-NET and ERA-NET plus, the this country than its weight in the world”. It coordinated level of research at European is pointed out that only in astronomy does level has increased. Furthermore, at national the EU-27 have a significantly higher share in levels, research programmes are increasingly the total world publications. Figure 20 shows open to non-resident researchers. Also nota- the EU specialisations in high-growth scien- ble is the progress made in Europe since tific disciplines. 2003 towards large scale pan-European research infrastructures. Regarding patent applications, United States and Japanese inventions are concentrated in In order to ascertain the scientific and tech- enabling technologies (biotechnology, ICT nological outputs of R&D activities and the and nanotechnology) to a higher degree than high tech outcomes related to them, bibli- in the EU-27. At the same time Asian coun- ometric indicators and patents were used in tries are continuously increasing their share the Commission’s document. of ICT patents. Biotechnology, ICT and In Figure 19 scientific specialisations based nanotechnology were considered to be tech- on scientific publications for the period 2004– nologies that work as enablers for inventions 2006 for EU-27 and US are shown10. Accord- in other industries and have therefore re- ing to the report “a scientific specialisation ceived much attention.

Figure 20: EU Specialisations in high-growth scientific disciplines, 2004-2006; in brackets: growth rate (%) of the number of scientific publications between the periods 2002-2004 and 2004-200611

10 European Commission, A more research-intensive and integrated European Research Area. Science and Tech- nology Competiveness key figures report 2008/2009, p. 65. 11 Ibid.

ESPI Report 24 43 July 2010

Figure 21 shows the technology specialisa- Of the key enabling technologies, the techno- tions in the EU-27, the US and Japan and logical specialisation in the EU-27 in biotech- Figure 22 shows the technological specialisa- nology and ICT can be seen in Figure 23 and

tions in different regions in the EU-27. Figure 24 respectively. 1

Figure 21: EU technology specialisations (2004–2005)12

Figure 23: EU-27 Technology specialisations Figure 24: EU-27 technology specialisations in biotechnology, 2001–200313 in ICT, 2001–200314

12 European Commission, A more research-intensive and integrated European Research Area. Science and Tech- nology Competiveness key figures report 2008/2009, p. 13 Ibid. p. 74 65. 14 Ibid. p. 75

ESPI Report 24 44 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

Figure 22: EU-27 technology specialisations with highest numbers of EPO patent specialisations, 2001–200315

15 European Commission, A more research-intensive and integrated European Research Area. Science and Tech- nology Competiveness key figures report 2008/2009, pp.73.

ESPI Report 24 45 July 2010

The next steps in Europe are mainly focused As a result new initiatives have emerged: on the overall governance of the European researchers aiming to create a European Research Area. This enhanced governance is Partnership for Researchers; research infra- called the “Ljubljana Process” according to structures aiming at providing a legal frame- which the enhanced governance is based on work for Member States to develop and fund a shared European Research Area vision for pan-European research infrastructures; 2020. The “knowledge triangle” of research, knowledge sharing targeting the manage- innovation and higher education is a centre ment of intellectual property rights; joint for making Europe a leading knowledge programming aimed at eliminating the ineffi- economy. In this vision, the “Fifth Freedom” ciency of research efforts due to the frag- is highlighted across Europe as comprising mentation created by the dependent imple- free circulation for researchers, knowledge mentation of national and regional pro- and technology. The modernization of re- grammes in Member States; international search, education and innovation is essential S&T cooperation aimed at bringing forward a and requires that relevant policies and pro- policy framework for Europe at a national and grammes are jointly designed amongst public European levels to foster and facilitate inter- authorities with the involvement of relevant national cooperation for S&T activities. stakeholders. The ERA should provide coordinated support to researchers and institutions engaged in excellent research. 4.2 The European Research Favourable conditions for all actors in research are essential for achieving S&T capac- Council (ERC) ity building and for having access to world- class research infrastructures in a pan- The European Research Council was estab- European setting as well as being able to lished on 7 February 2007, by Decision participate in open and well coordinated re- 2007/134/EC of the European Commission. search programmes across sectors and bor- This was done in accordance with Decision ders. This includes a bottom-up approach in 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament research funding via the ERC and national and the Council of 18 December 2006, and in funding organisations open to European indi- accordance with Decision 2006/972/EC of vidual scientists and teams across national the Council of 19 December 2006 concerning borders. Furthermore, it is essential to the Specific Programme: ‘Ideas’, for the im- strengthen links for coordinated cooperation plementation of the Seventh Framework Pro- in a globalised world outside the ERA. gramme from 2007–2013.

Figure 25: Number of nanotechnology patents in Europe until 200516

16 OECD data, DSTI/DOC (2009) 7, Nanotechnology: An Overview Based On Indicators And Statistics, STI WORKING PAPER 2009/7 Statistical Analysis of Science, Technology and Industry

ESPI Report 24 46 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

It is expected to provide a pan-European omy (X-rays, cosmic rays, gamma rays, neu- approach and mechanism with a clear differ- trinos). entiation from national activities. This is essential in selecting and supporting the best frontier researchers – scientists, engineers and other researchers – who through their 4.3 The European Institute of curiosity and thirst for knowledge will make Innovation and Technology new discoveries and be at the frontier of technological and scientific breakthroughs. (EIT)

The ERC will have to face various challenges, The European Institute of Innovation and particularly in emerging and fast-growing Technology was established on 11 March fields in which science and technology are 2008, by Regulation (EC) No. 294/2008 of often closely interlinked. Exploiting new fields the European Parliament and of the Council, of technology closely linked to scientific to foster the integration of research, innova- knowledge in creating innovation is still weak tion and higher education (also known as the in Europe and the ERC will help to strengthen ‘knowledge triangle’). Its main objective is to Europe’s position. At the same time, it will contribute to ‘innovation capacity’17 by facili- have to stay at the forefront of a global sys- tating and improving networking in the inno- tem where there is scientific and technologi- vation process while addressing relevant cal competition from Asian countries. long-term challenges for innovation in Europe The ERC is the first European funding body to as well as being a key driver of sustainable support a bottom-up research mechanism, growth and competitiveness. which ensures the channelling of funds into The institute has a governing board (top- innovative areas of research with more flexi- down operation), which steers its activities as bility. Its aim is to stimulate scientific excel- well as selects and evaluates partnerships, lence by complementing other funding initia- designated as Knowledge and Innovation tives in Europe, while being a chief compo- Communities (KICs). The relation of the KICs nent of the ‘Ideas’ and ‘FP7’ programmes. Its and the institute operates through contrac- vision is to substantially strengthen and tual agreements. The governing board desig- structure the European research system, in nated the first three KICs on 16 December the long term. 2009 in Budapest: The ERC consists of a Scientific Council, • Climate change mitigation and adapta- which defines its activities, and a Dedicated tion: Climate-KIC Implementation Structure (fully operational since 15 July 2009), which implements the • Sustainable energy: KIC InnoEnergy activities. • Future information and communication There are two kinds of instruments in the society: EIT ICT Labs ERC, both of which operate from a bottom-up These are the instruments of the institute, mechanism, and which are awarded on a which operate on a bottom-up basis. They competitive basis: are funded by national/regional grants, com- • ERC Starting Independent Research munity grants, participant’s resources and an Grants (max. €2 million for five years) annual EIT grant. To help launch the EIT and the KICs the European Union has contributed • ERC Advanced Investigator Grants €308.7 million for the four year period of (max. €3.5 million for five years) 2009-2013. The ERC structure has 25 panels for the According to the European Commission evaluation of grant proposals covering all “EUROPE 2020” [6] the EIT is expected over fields of science and engineering assigned to the next ten years to promote partnerships three main domains: Social Sciences and between education, business and innovation. Humanities (six panels), Physical Sciences and Engineering (ten panels) and Life Sci- ences (nine panels). In particular, it has panel PE9 for Universe Sciences, which covers the following topics: astrophysics/chemistry/biology, solar and inter- planetary physics, planetary systems sciences, interstellar medium, formation of stars and planets, stars and stellar systems, the galaxy, formation and evolution of galaxies, 17 “The EIT’s objective is to contribute to sustainable Euro- clusters of galaxies and large scale struc- pean economic growth and competitiveness by reinforcing tures, and high energy and particles astron- the innovation capacity” Regulation (EC) No. 294/2008

ESPI Report 24 47 July 2010

4.4 European Technology • reduced fragmentation of research and Platforms (ETP) development efforts; • mobilisation of public and private funding sources. The European Technology platforms are based on a bottom-up approach led by indus- Currently there are more than thirty estab- try. They bring together various stakeholders lished technology platforms. For space, two with common thematic interests to define dedicated platforms exist: the European medium to long-term objectives for research Space Technology Platform (ESTP) and the and technological development, as well as Integral Satcom Initiative Technology Plat- roadmaps on how to achieve them. The tech- form (ISI). Platforms concerned with the Key nology platforms address these challenges Enabling Technologies (KETs) are listed in through: Table 3 and a short description and contact details of the platform as well as the commis- • shared vision of stakeholders; sions responsible can be found in Annex A2 • positive impact on a wide range of poli- [25]. cies;

Acronym Name Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) priorities Space ESTP European Space Technology • non-dependence; Platform • multiple-use and spin-in; • enabling technologies; ISI Satcom Initiative Technology • new technologies, with lower costs and faster deployment, Platform • innovative services and integrated applications, within both commercial and institutional domains, • design of flexible satellite missions, • interfacing with terrestrial networks, with urban and in- building coverage, • Internet protocol-based approach, • open standards with worldwide promotion, • dual-use technologies, • satcom support to Galileo and GMES, • harmonising spectrum availability across European and internationally, • exploiting higher frequency bands, • harmonising the regulatory framework. Photonics Photonics21 Photonics21 • information and communication; • industrial production and manufacturing and quality; • life sciences and health; • lighting and displays; • security, metrology and sensors. Additionally two cross-cutting topics have also been defined: • design and manufacturing of photonic components and systems, and • photonics education, training and research infrastructure. Advanced Materials EuMat Advanced Engineering Materials • multifunctional engineering materials with gradient proper- and Technologies ties; • engineering materials for challenging application conditions; • multi-material (hybrid) systems where advanced materials are combined with more conventional/structural materials; • related production technologies; and • multi-scale modelling. Micro- and Nano-electronics ENIAC European Nanoelectronics Initia- • health and wellness; tive Advisory Council • mobility and transport; • security and safety; • energy and the environment; • communications, and e-society.

ESPI Report 24 48 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

Nanotechnology Nanomedice Nanotechnologies for Medical • nanotechnology-based diagnostics including imaging; Applications • targeted drug delivery and release; • regenerative medicine. ENIAC European Nanoelectronics Initia- See under Micro- and Nano-electronics tive Advisory Council Photonics21 Photonics21 See under Photonics FTC Photonics, Future Textiles and See under Biotechnology Clothing Biotechnology White Biotechnology SusChem European Technology Platform • industrial biotechnologies; for Sustainable Chemistry • materials technology; • reaction and process design; • horizontal issues. FTC Future Textiles and Clothing • ‘From commodities towards specialties’; • ‘New textile applications’; • ‘Towards customisation’. Green Biotechnology Food Food for Life • delivering a healthier diet; • developing quality food products; • assuring safe foods that consumers can trust; • achieving sustainable food production; • managing the food chain. PLANTS Plants for the Future • healthy, safe and sufficient food and feed; • plant-based products, chemicals and energy; • sustainable agriculture, forestry and landscape; • impact; boosting biodiversity; and enhancing the aesthetical value and sustainability of the landscape; • vibrant and competitive basic research; • competitiveness, consumer choice and governance; Red Biotechnology Nanomedice Nanotechnologies for Medical See under Nanotechnology Applications Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) eMobility Mobile and Wireless Communica- • strengthening research and development in telecommuni- tions Technology Platform cations systems. EPoSS European Platform on Smart • shared view of research needs of the smart systems inte- Systems Integration gration sector. • smart system applications are: automotive, information and telecommunications, medical technologies, RFID, safety and security, cross-cutting issues. NEM Networked and Electronic Media • bringing together broadcasters, telecom operators, manufacturers of professional equipment, manufacturers of consumer electronics, academia and standardisation bodies. • cover existing and new technologies, including broadband, mobile and new media across all ICT sectors, to create advanced personalised services. NESSI Networked European Software • develop a strategy for software and services driven by a and Services Initiative common European Research Agenda. ARTEMIS Advanced Research and Tech- • industrial systems; large, complex and safety-critical sys- nology for Embedded Intelli- tems, which embraces automotive, aerospace, manufactur- gence and Systems ing, and growth areas such as biomedical; • nomadic environments; • private spaces; • public infrastructure;

Table 3: European Technology Platforms related to Space, KETs and ICT

ESPI Report 24 49 July 2010

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

tive sectors and b) dynamic sectors. Partner- ships and institutions at national and Euro- 5.1 Findings and Conclusions pean levels for science, technology and innovation were further studied. From these Over more than a decade, society has been analyses the following conclusions can be transformed by concepts such as the “knowl- drawn: edge based society”, “Era of Openness” and “i-conomy”18. These concepts, in the world of globalisation and networked intelligence, Science Technology and Innovation have transformed the way governments, • “Science and technology”, nowadays, are educational and research institutions, compa- mostly used side by side. It is recognised nies and societies function. Innovation is a that there is an overlap and common ter- key component at the heart of this new mo- ritory between the two, and when mentum. The “Europe 2020” proposal of the boundaries between science and technol- President of Commission refers to smart ogy are drawn they are often arbitrary. growth with a view to have an “Innovation Scientific and technological advance- Union”. In this context collaboration and vir- ments are also often pursued simultane- tual networks are essential ingredients to ously by the same person, group, or in- enable functionality. Without innovation, stitution, and through the use of the companies, sectors and societies may die same means. out. To achieve innovation, approaches like multidisciplinary, cross- and inter-sectoral, • “Science and technology” are clearly dif- and intergovernmental have transgressed the ferentiated in ESA terminology and are once well defined borders of traditional think- used in a different way than by others. ing. Approaches have to adapt to the com- The term science refers to what is widely plexity of the science and technology rela- known as pure or fundamental science, tionship and be able to model, in a simplified for space and earth observation. On the way, this relationship. In the space sector, other hand, when the word technology is state-of-the art technologies are essential for used, it also covers the pure or applied successful science missions and innovation is science that leads to knowledge that can a fundamental enabling factor. In order to be translated into technological devel- benefit from innovation and to further stimu- opments. late it, it is necessary to think and answer • Various definitions of Innovation exist questions like: how do you choose which and are used by different entities and di- technologies, which people to bring together, rectorates of the European Commission. which institutions to collaborate with, and Nevertheless the notion of open innova- with which mechanisms? tion models is widely accepted. This study uses a stepwise approach where, • The science and technology relationship initially, the terms science, technology, and is multidimensional but can be described innovation, and their accompanying interrela- by the simplified “push-pull” model. The tionship are described, defined and analysed. “technology push” and “need pull” model Different sectors were studied and exhibited is often used to describe the driving different approaches to these concepts. forces behind innovation. The “push” These sectors where split into: a) conserva- component regards technology as being the driving force that acts as a facilitator behind scientific innovation, whereas the 18 ”i-conomy” is a new term introduced by Máir Geog- hegan-Quinn, Commissioner for Research, Innovation and “pull” component regards scientific needs Science in her speech delivering the 2010 Guglielmo to be the driver for technological ad- Marconi lecture at the Lisbon Council’s innovation summit, vancements. The main characteristics of th Innovation Summit of the Lisbon Council Brussels, 5 the ESA science – technology relationship March 2010, SPEECH/10/68 where she mentioned: can be captured by the “technology “My job, in short, is to work with the Member States, business and other stakeholders to transform Europe into a push” and “science pull” model. really vibrant innovation economy, what I call as ‘i- conomy’”

ESPI Report 24 50 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

• For many years, it has been known that through innovation advancements in certain technologies can be used as a other areas such as ICT. core for different scientific and industrial • The main characteristic of the pharma- developments, but it is only recently that ceutical sector is that it is highly regu- these have been identified as ‘key ena- lated. The pharmaceutical sector in the bling technologies’, which are: nanotech- last couple of years has seen a recession nologies, micro and nanoelectronics, ad- in innovation. The factors causing the vanced materials and biotechnology. Ac- stall in innovation were given, as well as cording to science and technology re- issues that could improve the innovation ports, countries like China, Japan and US drive. are also focusing on enabling technologies, and in particular on biotechnology, • Fast growth of innovation in the biotech- ICT and nanotechnology. nology sector is attributed, from a technological perspective, to automation and system integration, and in particular, to Innovation in Different Sectors advancements in sensory technology as • Different sectors perceive innovation in well as ‘lab on a chip’ principles. different ways and implement it at differ- • The ICT sector is a very fast growing ent levels around two main components: sector that has changed our way of life in 1) incremental by improving existing the last 15 years. This sector is very products, services etc. or, 2) break- much dominated by technology push. through by making a complete change When new innovative technologies do not from existing practices. Based on this, make it up to their full potential, the rea- they are classified into two categories: son can be attributed to the inability to conservative or fast sectors. Examples of properly capture user needs, and the in- conservative sectors are space, aeronau- ability to properly explain to the user the tics, transport, energy, pharmaceutical, potential of the new technology. At the while examples of fast sectors are ICT same time user needs are constantly and biotechnology. changing in this sector, thus traditional • The construction sector is one of the marketing tools fail. Bad marketing deci- most conservative sectors when it comes sions fail to capture user needs and de- to innovation. The main problem there is liver the wrong message to the user that research leading to innovation is about the technology at hand. In this done outside those actively involved in case, it is essential to use the push pull construction and the resulting benefits model as a double mirror of innovation cannot be easily translated to the lan- where user need can always be reflected guage of those that would use it. This in the new technologies developed. There means that the sector is not aware of is thus a necessity for an efficient mar- these technologies. An interesting sug- keting strategy as well as tailored re- gested solution to this problem has been search tools. the creation of Technology Watch com- • From this analysis we can conclude that panies. It was also suggested that these conservative sectors that are usually ma- companies are seen as more credible if ture and well established sectors have a they are not governmental agencies or more incremental approach to innova- those that conduct the research. tion. In these sectors innovation comes • The energy sector has seen large in- by breakthroughs in other sectors and vestments over the past years and the adaptation, or by change in policies. On legal and social standards imposed by the other hand, fast sectors are typically policies are driving factors pushing inno- young sectors recently established that vation in this sector. have a more breakthrough approach to innovation, as the conservative sectors • Transport sector analysis is also concen- once had at the early stages of their es- trated around the policy aspect as a fa- tablishment. cilitator for innovation. • The analysis of the aeronautics sector is Partnerships and Institutions at the European performed by looking at the sector from Level a historical perspective where, in the first years of its creation, it experienced • The European Commission and, in par- breakthrough innovation, whereas in ticular, DG Research and DG Enterprise subsequent years it is solely experiencing and Industry have been the main actors incremental innovation. Future innova- in the way “technology policy” in Europe tion in this sector is expected to occur has evolved. Concepts such as the

ESPI Report 24 51 July 2010

“European Research Area (ERA)” and 5.2 Recommendations “knowledge based society” have shaped today’s funding instruments as well as policies and institutional reforms, and are Concepts important in the global world of science and technology. • A clear distinction should be made when the terms ‘science’ and ‘technology’ are • An overview of the European perspective used since, in the ESA context, there is a was given for the EU 27 showing, in par- clear distinction between the two terms, ticular, the areas of specialisation in in contrast to others who mostly use ‘sci- Europe with respect to the key enabling ence and technology’ side by side. In technologies. The steps of Europe with ESA the term ‘science’ refers to what is regard to the 2020 vision were high- widely known as pure or fundamental lighted and new initiatives that have re- science, for space and earth observation. cently emerged, like joint programming On the other hand, when the word tech- and international Science and Technology nology is used, it covers the pure or ap- cooperation, were listed. plied science (space and non-space) that • European Universities have traditionally leads to knowledge that can be trans- been institutions involved primarily in lated into technological developments for higher education. Their role has changed space. and they are more and more engaged in • The following definition of space innova- innovation and becoming part of the tion should be used in the space sector knowledge triangle (education, research, and by ESA: “Innovation is the use of innovation). They are also becoming part new, or existing, ideas, discoveries and of high-tech valleys working close with inventions in the space sector, stemming large industries and SMEs to bring new from other sectors (spin in), and vice technologies on the market. versa, the use of new, or existing, ideas, • There is a multitude of institutions in discoveries and inventions in other sec- Europe from which the following were tors, stemming from the space sector identified due to their European perspec- (spin out), to create economic and social tive and creation to bridge gaps: the benefits. Innovation also consists of sci- European Research Council (created to entific, technological, organisational, fi- bridge the gap between national funding nancial and commercial steps, which are bodies for fundamental research and intended to, or actually, lead to the im- bring a European perspective), the Euro- plementation of innovations by space- pean Institute of Technology (created to non-space partnerships (spin together).” bring together research, innovation and Innovation is characterised by three education and bring R&D to the market), stages: a) incremental, b) breakthrough European Technology Platforms (aimed and c) utilisation. at developing coordinated scientific re- • The basic mechanisms in the ESA science search agendas of key stakeholders in and technology relationship can be de- various areas). scribed by the “technology push” and • The European Institute of Technology “need (science) pull” model. In this was created in order to foster the knowl- model, science (in the ESA terminology) edge triangle (education, research and asks scientific questions, which drive the innovation) and is expected over the technology to develop, whereas in tech- next ten years to promote partnerships nology push technological advancements between education, business and innova- allow science to use them as means for tion. its advancement. Nevertheless, it is recognised that in practice this model is • Currently over thirty European Technol- simplistic and more complicated models ogy Platforms exist that bring together might be needed to fully describe the re- leading industries, public authorities, lationship. academic communities, consortia from EU projects, the financial community and • The time scale from the moment the the civil community, including users and “need pull” is identified (a mission is ap- consumers. European Technology Plat- proved) which “pushes” the technology forms focusing on KET’s involve stake- to develop, to the time all technologies holders from different disciplines in es- need to be integrated, is very short. tablishing R&D needs and priorities in Therefore, it is essential that technolo- these areas. gies are also developed independently before the need is identified. This independent development (“technology

ESPI Report 24 52 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

push”) should be based on “potential fu- especially those involved within the the- ture user needs”. matic areas of KET’s. • The Key Enabling Technologies (KET) • ESA should consider partnering with identified, by the EC, as nanotechnolo- other sectors for the development of gies, micro- and nanoelectronics, ad- KETs. Examples of these sectors are En- vanced materials and biotechnology, ergy, Automotive, Aerospace, Health- should be considered comprehensively by care, and Telecommunications. The ESA’s research and development pro- European Technology Platforms can be a grammes. In this regard, the Information good platform to find common ground in and Communication Technologies (ICT) the various scientific research agendas. should also be considered, creating the • Space science research, in the ESA ter- ESA Enabling Technologies concept. minology, is still mostly handled at a na- These categories are essentially very tional level, with some coordination at broad and specific subcategories should the European level. National space re- be identified in consultation with space search programmes for science and and non-space experts in these fields in technology should open up and coordi- order to identify those most relevant for nate with each other. Programmatic the space sector to develop coherent partnerships should be created between roadmaps. ERC, ESA and national programs. This • At low Technology Readiness Levels would allow frontier research at a pan- (TRL), such new technologies do not European level in space research. need to be developed exclusively by • The knowledge triangle (education, re- space funding schemes. This may allow search, innovation) has become an es- the utilisation of funding from the non- sential component for modernisation to space sector by jointly investing in KET’s reflect today’s demands. ESA should building blocks. partner with the Knowledge Innovation Communities (KICs) of the European In- Cooperation stitute of Innovation and Technology (EIT). • Public and private partnerships should be set up for co-financing research and development in Key Enabling Technologies, Mechanisms since they require large investments that • The space sector and ESA invest in re- ESA alone would not be able to afford. search that leads to technological devel- • ESA already works together with the opments needed for future missions but European Commission in the Framework they also need to continue and Programme, in particular under the strengthen investing more on basic and Space component. This cooperation applied research underlying generic and should be expanded to other components disruptive technologies that are not to- of the Framework Programme particu- day directly related to future missions. larly in relation to investments in KETs. New mechanisms should be developed This can be done either by co-financing that allow “technology push” develop- together with the Commission or simply ment of enabling technologies, based on coordinating programmatically. “potential future user needs”. Adequate mechanisms involving the ESA science • ESA should consider creating new, or community should be developed to cap- strengthening existing, partnerships with ture these “potential future user needs”. the European Commission and in particular with DG Research, DG Enterprise and o Effective mechanisms should be de- Industry, the Joint Research Centre veloped for: a) monitoring “potential (JRC), as well as the European Research future user needs” and b) informing Council (ERC). The basis for this coop- the user of potential benefits of new eration should be to bring together and technologies under development. In align funding means, time scales as well this process the ESA science commu- as programmatic content, by jointly de- nity should be involved, as well as the fining roadmaps. non-space science community. Tech- nology push fails when the potential • ESA is currently actively involved in two of a technology is not understood by space European Technology Platforms the user and when his needs are not (ETP) and should continue and expand properly captured at all times. There- this coordination with other platforms, fore, it is necessary to develop adequate marketing strategies to be able

ESPI Report 24 53 July 2010

to assess these needs in a double throughs that are not necessarily re- mirror push-pull innovation model, so lated to an ESA mission at present. A that the push technologies capture new Science and Technology Research the needed features and functional- Programme can be envisaged where ities and the potential of the new roadmaps are created together with technologies is properly communi- other funding bodies, like DG Re- cated to the user at an early stage. search for the key enabling technologies, where industrial, research insti- Workshop organisation with potential o tutes and universities partnerships are users during the course of the devel- fostered. In such a programme, non- opment of technology push under e.g. terrestrial partnerships should be an- TRP and GSTP could be a way of cap- other essential component. turing various user needs at an early stage and informing them about the • An effective technology watch ‘Techno- potential of new technologies. watch’ construction is necessary in order to be able to identify new and disruptive • ESA should proceed to apply for partici- technologies early enough – a ‘Techno- pation in research and technology devel- watch’ that can facilitate spin-in, spin-out opment under the non-space compo- and spin-together. ESA does currently nents of the Frameworks Programme. have mechanisms that are used as ob- This participation, by performing re- servatories for following science that is search and development in ESA laborato- likely to produce technology. This could ries, should be enhanced. be institutionalised with clear targets and • Two scenarios are foreseen for co- responsibilities in a more integrated financing under the Framework Pro- model. The possibility of having a Tech- gramme non-space component. One op- nowatch, independent from ESA or tion is to use ESA existing funding tools jointly with other technology watch insti- and make a funding co-alignment. The tutions, should also be considered. It is other option is to create new specific suggested that a Technowatch should be funding programmes for this specific an independent body as these are seen purpose. as more credible when they are not governmental agencies or those that conduct o The first scenario would be to use ex- the research. isting programmes like TRP, GSTP funding in combination with FP fund- • The use of the open innovation model, ing for key enabling technologies at which the space sector inevitably needs low TRL levels in order to balance the to utilise efficiently to achieve techno- high expenditures needed for these logical breakthroughs and scientific inno- technologies, which and can be used vations, needs flexible and modern mod- for technology push. This scenario al- els of dealing with IPRs. The current IPR ready partially exists, firstly, by the mechanisms of ESA and other funding Agency’s participation in FP pro- and developing bodies need to be exam- grammes (non-space), and secondly, ined closely as IPR treatment is one of by contractors of TRP, GSTP etc. in the most essential components of the their individual strategies, but in an success or failure of an open innovations uncoordinated manner. Thus there is system. The current ESA IPR system the need to develop a coherent coor- where the IPR stays with the agency for dination mechanism. space use does provide the basis for open innovation in technology develop- o The second scenario would be to de- ment with non-space sectors as they can velop new funding programmes in or- essentially use the IPR in other markets. der to be able to co-finance frontier research where basic and applied science lead to technological break-

ESPI Report 24 54 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

References

1. “Global Hawk RQ-4A-B High Altitude Long Endurance UAV.” Accessed: 1 Mar. 2010. . 2. “Rheinmetall KZO: The German Army´s KZO system.” . 3. European Parliament. Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency. Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of 31 March 2004. Brussels: European Union. 4. European Commission. GREEN PAPER- The European Research Area: New Perspectives. SEC(2007) 412. COM(2007) 161 final of 4 April 2007. Brussels: European Union. 5. European Commission. Life sciences and biotechnology – a key sector for Europe's competitiveness and sustainability. MEMO/07/130. Brussels: European Union. 6. European Commission. 2020 Vision for the European Research Area. 02 December 2008. European Union. 7. ‘Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English’. Third revised ed. (Oxford University Press, 2008). 8. European Commission. “A more research-intensive and integrated European Research Area: Science, Technology and Competitiveness key figures report 2008/2009.” (10.2777/27864, 2008). 9. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Re- gions: "Preparing for our future: Developing a common strategy for key enabling technologies in the EU". COM(2009) 512 final of 30 September 2009. European Union. 10. “Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Sector.” (ENTR/03/28, 2004). 11. Baldwin, T.F., et al. Convergence. Integrating Media, Information & Communication. Thou- sand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1996. 12. Barnes, Barry. “The Science-Technology Relationship: A Model and a Query ” Social Studies of Science 12.1 (1982): 166-172. 13. Blagoev, Blagoy and Akhilesh Pandey. “Microarrays go live - new prospects for proteomics.” Trends in Biochemical Sciences 26.11 (2001): 639-641. 14. Breschi, Stefano and Christian Catalini. “Tracing the links between science and technology: An exploratory analysis of scientists’ and inventors’ networks.” Research Policy 39 (2010): 14-26. 15. Brewster, Jay L., et al. “The microarray revolution: Perspectives from educators.” Biochemis- try and Molecular Biology Education 32.4 (2004): 217-227. 16. Brooks, Harvey. “The relationship between science and technology.” Research Policy 23 (1994): 477-486. 17. Burgelman, J.-C. “Het digitale alternatief. Van massacommunicatie naar nieuwe infor- matiepatronen.” Communicatie. Eds. Bardoel, J. and J. Bierhof. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993. 63-82. 18. Chesbrough, H.W. “The era of open innovation.” MIT Sloan Management Review 44.3 (2003): 35-41. 19. Chesbrough, Henry and Adrienne Kardon Crowther. “Beyond high tech: early adopters of open innovation in other industries.” R&D Management 36.3 (2006).

ESPI Report 24 55 July 2010

20. D'Ambrosio, C., et al. “The future of microarray technology: networking the genome search.” Allergy 60 (2005): 1219-1226. 21. Davidson, Colin H. “Technology watch in the construction sector: why and how?” Building Research & Information 29.3 (2001): 233-241. 22. De Marez Lieven, S. B. and B. M. Verleye Gino. “ICT-innovations today: making traditional diffusion patterns obsolete, and preliminary insight of increased importance.” Telematics and Informatics 21.3 (2004): 235-260. 23. Communication from the Commission to the council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the mid term review of the Strategy on Life Sciences and Biotechnology. COM(2007)175 final of 10 April 2007. Brussels: European Union. 24. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: on the mid term review of the Strategy on Life Sciences and Biotechnology. COM(2007) 175 final of 10 April 2007. Brussels: European Union. 25. European Commission, Communications Unit. Fourth Status Report on European Technology Platforms: Harvesting the Potential. Brussels: European Union. 26. Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2005. 27. Fenn, J., et al. “Hype cycle for emerging technologies.” Gartner Group Monthly Research Review (2000). 28. Gardner, Paul L. “The relationship between technology and science: Some historical and phi- losophical reflections. Part II.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 5.1 (1995). 29. Graham, David H., ‘Quiet Supersonic Platform, Shaped Sonic Boom Demonstrator (SSBD) Programm’, in FAA Civil Supersonic Aircraft Workshop, (2003). 30. Guynn, Mark D., et al., ‘Evolution of a Mars Airplane Concept for the ARES Mars Scout Mis- sion ’, in 2nd AIAA "Unmanned Unlimited" Systems, Technologies and Operations, (San Diego, 2003). 31. Jakobiak, Francois. Pratique de la veille technologique. Paris: Les éditions d'organisation, 1990. 32. Jankowski, G.F. and D.C. Fuchs. Television. Today and Tomorrow. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. 33. Jankowski, N. and M. Van Selm. “ICT en samenleving. Vier terreinen voor empirisch onderzoek.” Communicatie in de informatiesamenleving. Ed. Bouwman, H. Utrecht: Lemma, 2001. 217-249. 34. Kahaner, L. Competitive intelligence: how to gather, analyze and use information to move your business to the top. New York: Touchstone, 1997. 35. King, J., ‘Research in practise: generation, use and communication’, in Architectural Re- search, Environmental Design Series 6, ed. Snyder, J. (New York: VanNostrand Reinhold, 1984). 36. Kroo, I. Proceedings of the 42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV. 37. Luong, John H. T., et al. “Biosensor technology: Technology push versus market pull.” Bio- technology Advances 26.5 (2008): 492-500. 38. Lyon, D. “The Roots of the Information Society Idea.” Information Technology and Society. Eds. Heap, N., R. Thomas, G. Einon, R. Mason and H. Mackay. London: Sage Publications, 1995. 54-73. 39. Mayr, O. “The Science-Technology Relationship as a Historiographic Problem.” Technology and Culture 17.4 (1976): 663-673. 40. McKeown, M. The Truth About Innovation. London: Prentice Hall, 2008. 41. Moore, G.A. Crossing the Chasm, second ed. Oxford: Capstone, 1999.

ESPI Report 24 56 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

42. Narin, Francis and Dominic Olivastro. “Status report: Linkage between technology and science.” Research Policy 21 (1992): 237-249. 43. Pawlowski, Joseph W. , et al. “Origins and Overview of the Shaped Sonic Boom Demonstra- tion Program.” American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (2005). 44. Rostenne, J. Canada Housing and Mortgage Cooperation. Technological Transfer and Innova- tion in the Canadian Residential Construction Industry. Final Report and Executive Summary. Ottawa: 1989. 45. Servaes, Jan and Jean-Claude Burgelman. “In search of a European model for the Informa- tion Society.” Telematics and Informatics 17.1-2 (2000): 1-7. 46. Servaes, Jan and F. Heindercykx. “The 'new' ICTs environment in Europe: closing of widen- ing the gaps.” Telematics and Informatics 19 (2002): 91-115. 47. Sheth, J.N. “Strategic importance of information technology.” Advances in Telecommunica- tions Management. Strategic Perspective on the Marketing of Information Technologies. Eds. Sheth, J.N., G.L. Frazier and R.R. Dholakia. Greenwich, London: Jai Press Inc., 1994. 3-16. 48. Steger, Ulrich, et al. Sustainable Development and Innovation in the Energy Sector. Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2002. 49. Toffler, A. The Third Wave. London: Pan, 1980. 50. The Convention on Biological Diversity (Article 2. Use of Terms) European Union. 51. Utterback, James M. and William J. Abernathy. “A dynamic model of process and product innovation.” Omega 3.6 (1975): 639-656. 52. van Burg, E., et al. “Creating university spin-offs: a science-based design perspective.” Jour- nal of Product Innovation Management Vol. 25.2 (2008). 53. van Zuylen, Henk J. and K. Matthias Weber. “Strategies for European innovation policy in the transport field.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 69.9 (2002): 929-951. 54. European Commission Enterprise and Industry Directorate General. “ICT and Electronic Busi- ness in the Aeronautics Business.” in Sector Report No.07. (2005). 55. Wolpert, D. H., et al. “Collective intelligence for control of distributed dynamical systems.” EPL (Europhysics Letters) 49.6 (2000): 708-714.

ESPI Report 24 57 July 2010

Annex 1 – Definitions

metallic mineral products (26), basic metals (27), fabricated metal products A1.1 Sectoral Innovation except machinery and equipment (28), building and repairing of ships and boats Watch (35.1).

(SIW)19 is a tool for monitoring and analysing 4. Low-tech: food products and beverages innovation performance in different sectors of (15), tobacco products (16), textiles activity. It provides policy makers and stake- (17), wearing apparel, dressing and holders with a better understanding of sec- dyeing of fur (18), tanning and dressing toral drivers, barriers and challenges for in- of leather, manufacture of luggage, novation across the EU. Such insights are handbags, saddlery and harness (19), essential for effective innovation policies at wood and products of wood and cork, regional, national and European level. except furniture (20), pulp, paper and paper products (21), publishing, printing The Sectoral Innovation Watch is financed by and reproduction of recorded media the Commission in the framework of its 20 (22), furniture and other manufacturing Europe INNOVA initiative . (36), recycling (37). A1.2 Technology Categories21

Definition: The four manufacturing industry technology categories are defined as follows (NACE codes are given in brackets): 1. High-tech: office machinery and computers (30), radio, television and communication equipment and apparatus (32), medical, precision and optical instruments, watches and clocks (33), aircraft and spacecraft (35.3), pharmaceuticals, medicinal chemicals and botanical products (24.4). 2. Medium-high-tech: machinery and equipment (29), electrical machinery and apparatus (31), motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers (34), other transport equipment (35), chemicals and chemical products excluding pharmaceuticals, medicinal chemicals and botanical products (24, excluding 24.4). 3. Medium-low-tech: coke, refined petro- leum products and nuclear fuel (23), rubber and plastic products (25), non-

19 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/facts- figures-analysis/sectoral-innovation-watch/index_en.htm 20 http://www.europe- in- nova.eu/web/guest;jsessionid=737E6711B0B8E3BDBCCB 4443F1B082A7 21 European Commission, A more research-intensive and integrated European Research Area. Science and Tech- nology Competiveness key figures report 2008/2009, p. 157.

ESPI Report 24 58 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

Annex 2 – European Technology Platforms

H2 — Space policy and coordination [email protected] A2.1 Space Tel. +32 22987793

There are two ETP’s directly related to space, the European Space Technology Platform Integral Satcom Initiative Technology Platform (ESTP) and the Integral Satcom Initiative (ISI) Technology Platform (ISI). The Integral Satcom Initiative Technology Platform (ISI) ETP was launched in 2006. The European Space Technology Platform (ESTP) strategic research agenda focuses on identifying challenges of the community related to The European Space Technology Platform technical and regulatory barriers, standardi- (ESTP) was launched in 2005 and the objec- sation and market condition. These will be tives of the platform are to be achieved via tackled by developing activities on: three strategic pillars: • new technologies, with lower costs and • non-dependence; development of strate- faster deployment, gic space technologies needed for • innovative services and integrated appli- Europe’s non-dependence; cations, within both commercial and in- • multiple-use and spin-in; synergic ac- stitutional domains, tions with the non-space sector in areas • design of flexible satellite missions, of mutual interest (e.g. embedded systems, photovoltaics, fuel cells, nanotech- • interfacing with terrestrial networks, with nologies and robotics); urban and in-building coverage, • enabling technologies; support the im- • Internet protocol-based approach, plementation of EU policies by developing needed technology (e.g. in the area • open standards with worldwide promo- of security/defence). tion, The ESTP has undertaken contacts with other • dual-use technologies, ETPs such as Robotics, EuMat, Hydrogen, • satcom support to Galileo and GMES, Photovoltaics. In particular ESTP collaborates with the ISI ETP. • harmonising spectrum availability across Europea and internationally, Website • exploiting higher frequency bands, http://www.estp-space.eu • harmonising the regulatory framework. Communications Website Strategic research agenda (2006): http://www.isi-initiative.org http://estp.esa.int/upload/ESTP_SRA_1.0- July2006.pdf Communications European Technology Platform Contact 1. ISI European Satcom flagship Harald Ernst, European Space Agency, 2. ISI research programme and challenges Noordwijk, the Netherlands 3. ISI strategic research agenda [email protected] Tel. +31 715656816 These documents can be found in http://www.isi-initiative.org Contact Person at the European Commission European Technology Platform Contact Pierre-André Gleize, Enterprise and Industry DG Vincenzo Fogliati, ISI Chairman Christine Leurquin, ISI Vice-Chairperson

ESPI Report 24 59 July 2010

Julian Sesena, ISI Vice-Chairperson European Technology Platform Contact [email protected] Markus Wilkens, Secretariat Contact Person at the European Commission [email protected] Pertti Jauhiainen, Information Society and Contact Person at the European Commission Media DG D1 — Networks of the future Ronan Burgess, Information Society and Me- [email protected] dia DG Tel. +32 22967545 G5 — Photonics [email protected] Tel. +32 22954445 A2.2 Photonics

The Photonics21 ETP was established in 2005 A2.3 Advanced Materials to foster cooperation and a common identity in its industry. The platform brings together The Advanced Engineering Materials and the leading photonics industries and R&D Technologies (EuMat) ETP was established in stakeholders. Its objective is to establish 2006 to bring together industry and impor- development and deployment of photonics in tant stakeholders in the process of establish- five key industrial areas: ICT, lighting and ing R&D needs and priorities in this area. It display, manufacturing, life sciences and se- brings together participants form different curity. These are grouped into five application disciplines, industry, public authorities, aca- sectors: demic community, consortia from EU projects, the financial community and the civil • information and communication; community, including users and consumers. EuMat focuses on five priority research areas: • industrial production and manufacturing and quality; • multifunctional engineering materials with gradient properties; • life sciences and health; • engineering materials for challenging ap- • lighting and displays; plication conditions; • security, metrology and sensors. • multi-material (hybrid) systems where Additionally two cross-cutting topics have advanced materials are combined with also been defined: more conventional/structural materials; • design and manufacturing of photonic • related production technologies; and components and systems, and • multi-scale modelling. • photonics education, training and research infrastructure. Website Website http://www.eumat.org http://www.photonics21.org Communications Communications 1. Vision document (2006): ”Roadmap of the European Technology Platform for 1. Vision document (2004): “Photonics for Advanced Engineering Materials and the 21st century” Technologies” http://www.photonics21.org/pdf/visionp http://www.eumat.org aperPh21.pdf 2. Strategic research agenda (2006) Part 2 2. Strategic research agenda (2008): “To- of the “EuMaT roadmap” wards a bright future for Europe” http://www.eumat.org http://www.photonics21.org/pdf/sra_ap ril.pdf European Technology Platform Contact 3. Photonics in Europe: Economic Impact Coordinator: Marco Falzetti, CSM Italy http://www.photonics21.org/pdf/Brosch [email protected] _Photonics_Europe.pdf Secretariat: Michal Basista, KMM-VIN AISBL [email protected]

ESPI Report 24 60 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

Contact Person at the European Commission Tel. +33 177350710 [email protected] Achilleas Stalios, Research DG Tel . +33 1 40 64 45 80 G3 — Value-added materials [email protected] Contact Person at the European Commission Tel. +32 22995303 Michel Hordies, Information Society and Me- dia DG G1 — Nanoelectronics A2.4 Micro- and Nano- [email protected] electronics Tel. +32 22965718

The European Nanoelectronics Initiative Advi- sory Council (ENIAC) ETP was established in 2004 to bring together industry, research A2.5 Nanotechnology centres, universities, financial organisations, There is no single ETP that deals exclusively regional and Member State authorities, and with nanotechnology. ENIAC, Photonics, Fu- the EU. It aims at developing jointly a vision- ture Textiles and Clothing (FTC) and ary programme and foster collaboration for Nanotechnologies for Medical Applications the next-generation production processes. (Nanomedicine) mention aspects of ENIAC focuses on six main application do- nanotechnology in their targets. mains: In particular the Nanotechnologies for Medical • health and wellness; Applications (Nanomedice) ETP was estab- • mobility and transport; lished in 2005 to prevent the lack of coordination between industry and academia – • security and safety; together with the EC- in this fast growing • energy and the environment; field. Nanomedicine addresses the development and innovation needs in nanotechnol- • communications; and ogy for health. It aims to strengthen the • e-society. competitive, scientific and industrial position of Europe in the area of nanomedicine. The The operational costs of the platform (secre- strategic research agenda identifies three tariat) are currently financed by AENEAS, an main areas for research: industrial association established in 2006, which is progressively taking over the activi- • nanotechnology-based diagnostics in- ties of ENIAC including the implementation of cluding imaging; the strategic research agenda. ENIAC coordi- • targeted drug delivery and release; nates with other platforms, and especially with ARTEMIS, in the field of design automa- • regenerative medicine. tion, and with EPOSS, to better coordinate Nanomedicine is in close contact with other the development of critical nanoelectronics ETPs, and in particular, the platform cooper- technologies required for subsystem integra- ates with the Innovative Medicines Joint Un- tion. dertaking (IMI), Photonics (Photonics 21), Smart System Integration TP (EpoSS) and Website Sustainable Chemistry (SusChem). http://www.eniac.eu Website Communications http://www.etp-nanomedicine.eu 1. Vision document (2004): “Vision 2020 — Nanoelectronics at the centre of Communications change” 1. Vision document (2005): “Vision paper http://www.eniac.eu/web/SRA/e-vision- and basis for a strategic research 2020.pdf agenda for nanomedicine” 2. Strategic research agenda (2007) http://www.etp- nanomedicine.eu/public/press- http://www.eniac.eu/web/downloads/SR documents/publications/etp- A2007.pdf nanomedicine- European Technology Platform Contact visionpaper/at_download/file [email protected]

ESPI Report 24 61 July 2010

2. Strategic research agenda (2006): the role of nanoscience, and the related “Nanomedicine: nanotechnology for nanotechnologies; health” • reaction and process design, focusing on http://www.etp- the identification, design and develop- nanomedicine.eu/public/press- ment of appropriate products and proc- documents/publications/strategic- esses that will help in achieving them; researchagenda/at_download/file • horizontal issues, focusing on ensuring that EU citizens benefit from the devel- European Technology Platform Contact opment and use of innovations based on Paul Smit, Senior Vice-President, Strategy the SusChem SRA by addressing envi- and Business Development, Philips Health- ronmental, health and societal concerns care associated with new products and processes; and stimulating support for inno- ETP Office vation. Sebastian Lange, VDI/VDE Innovation + Technik GmbH Website [email protected] http://www.suschem.org Contact Persons at the European Commission Communications Heico Frima, Research DG 1. Vision document (2005): “The vision for G4 — Nano and converging sciences and 2025 and beyond” technologies [email protected] http://www.suschem.org/content.php?_ Tel. +32 22964970 document[ID]=2049&pageId=3599 Marton Harazti, Research DG 2. Strategic research agenda (2005) G4 — Nano and converging sciences and http://www.suschem.org/content.php?_ technologies document[ID]=2049&pageId=3599 [email protected] Tel. +32 22962604 3. Implementation action plan (2006) http://www.suschem.org/content.php?_ A2.6 Biotechnology document[ID]=2049&pageId=3599 European Technology Platform Contact The ETPs that mention biotechnology as part of their focus are: Future Textiles and Cloth- Ger Spork ing (FTC), European Biofuels Technology Plat- [email protected] form (EBTP), Food for Life (Food), Nanotech- nologies for Medical Applications (Nanomedi- Contact Person at the European Commission cine), Plants for the Future (PLANTS), Euro- Andrea Tilche, Research DG pean Technology Platform for Sustainable I3 — Environmental technology, pollution Chemistry (SusChem). prevention [email protected] White Biotechnology Tel. +32 22996342 • The European Technology Platform for The European Biofuels Technology Platform Sustainable Chemistry (SusChem) was (EBTP) was created in 2006. The main areas established in 2004. Its strategic re- of technology development cover three main search agenda focuses on four sections: areas: biomass production and supply, con- industrial biotechnologies, focusing on version processes and end use, fuel/engine the development and production of optimisation. It aims at building on synergies novel, innovative products and processes with other ETPs including Plants for the Fu- in a cost and eco-efficient manner, and ture, SusChem and European Rail Research the discovery and optimisation of strains Advisory Counsil (ETRAC). and biocatalysts; Website • materials technology, focusing on materials for mankind’s future surroundings, http://www.biofuelstp.eu which will be designed to enhance the quality of life, with special attention to

ESPI Report 24 62 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

Communications Communications 1. Vision document (2006): “Biofuels in the 1. Vision document (2004): European Union: a vision for 2030 and http://textile-platform.eu/textile- beyond” plat- http://www.biofuelstp.eu/downloads/bio form/?block%5B47%5D%5Bsubdir%5D fuels_vision_2030_en.pdf =Keydocuments&page_name=Download s 2. Strategic research agenda and strategy deployment document (2008) 2. Strategic research agenda (2006): “The future is … textiles” http://www.biofuelstp.eu/srasdd/08011 1_sra_sdd_web_res.pdf http://textile-platform.eu/textile- plat- European Technology Platform Contact form/?block%5B47%5D%5Bsubdir%5D =Keydocuments&page_name=Download EBTP Secretariat: s Gustav Krantz, Swedish Energy Agency (STEM) European Technology Platform Contact Tel. +46 165442187; [email protected] Lutz Walter [email protected] Christina Strasser, Birger Kerckow, Tel. +32 22820353 Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR) Tel. +49 38436930161 Contact Persons at the European Commission [email protected] Eva Patricia Hualde Grasa, Enterprise and Industry DG Contact Person at the European Commission G4 — Textiles, fashion and forest-based industries José Ruiz-Espi, Research DG [email protected] K3 — New and renewable energy sources Tel. +32 22966225 [email protected] Tel. +32 22963905 John Cleuren, Research DG G2 — New-generation products The Future Textiles and Clothing (FTC) ETP [email protected] was established in 2004 and its strategic Tel. +32 22967314 research agenda focuses on three major areas: • “From commodities towards specialties”, Green Biotechnology for which the key research priorities The Food for Life (Food) ETP was established identified include new speciality fibres in 2005 and its strategic research agenda is and fibre-composites for innovative tex- defined across six interacting areas: tile products, functionalisation of textile materials and related processes and bio- • ensuring that the healthy choice is the based materials, biotechnologies, and easy choice for consumers; delivering a environmentally friendly textile process- healthier diet; ing; • developing quality food products; • “New textile applications”, for which the • assuring safe foods that consumers can research priorities include new textile trust; products for improved human performance, new textile products for innovative • achieving sustainable food production; technical applications, and smart textiles • managing the food chain. and clothing. • “Towards customisation”, which should Website focus on mass customisation for clothing http://etp.ciaa.eu and fashion, new design and product development concepts and technologies, and integrated quality and life cycle Communications management concepts. 1. Vision document (2005): “European Technology Platform on Food for Life — Website The vision for 2020 and beyond” http://textile-platform.eu

ESPI Report 24 63 July 2010

http://etp.ciaa.eu/documents/BAT%20B ogy and modelling; and basic plant proc- rochure%20ETP.pdf esses; 2. Strategic research agenda (2007): • competitiveness, consumer choice and “European Technology Platform on Food governance; with a focus on public con- for Life — Strategic research agenda sumer involvement; ethical issues; 2007–20” safety and legal issues; and the financial environment. http://etp.ciaa.eu/documents/CIAA- ETP%20broch_LR.pdf Website 3. Implementation action plan (2008) http://www.plantetp.org http://etp.ciaa.eu/documents/Broch%2 0ETP_IAPlan_1.pdf Communications 4. Layman’s version of vision and SRA, 1. Vision document (2004): “Plants for the May 2008 future: 2025. A European vision for http://etp.ciaa.eu/documents/CIAA_Boo plant genomics and biotechnologies” klet%20ETP_fi nal.pdf http://www.epsoweb.org/Catalog/TP/Pla nts %20for %20the %20future- European Technology Platform Contact Dec04.pdf Beate Kettlitz 2. Strategic research agenda (2007) [email protected] Tel. +32 25141111 http://www.epsoweb.org/Catalog/TP/La unch_25June07/TP_SRA_Summary.pdf Contact Person at the European Commission 3. Detailed SRA and first action plan (2007) Jürgen Lucas, Research DG E3 — Food, health, well-being http://www.epsoweb.org/Catalog/TP/La [email protected] unch_25June07/TP_SRA_PART_II+III.p Tel. +32 22964152 df The Plants for the Future (PLANTS) ETP was established in 2004 and its strategic research European Technology Platform Contact agenda identifies five challenges: Silvia Travella, ETP Coordinator • healthy, safe and sufficient food and [email protected] feed; with a focus on developing and Tel. +32 27432865 producing safe and high quality food; Fax +32 27432869 creating food products targeted at specific consumer groups and needs; and Contact Person at the European Commission producing safe, high quality, sufficient Tomasz Calikowski, Research DG and sustainable feed; E2 — Biotechnologies • plant-based products, chemicals and en- [email protected] ergy; with a focus on enabling research; Tel. +32 22969920 biochemicals; industrial feedstocks and biopolymers; and bio-energy; Red Biotechnology • sustainable agriculture, forestry and The Nanotechnologies for Medical Applica- landscape; with a focus on improving tions (Nanomedicine) mentioned under the plant productivity and quality; optimising section nanotechnology covers the red bio- agriculture to further reduce its environ- technology. mental • impact; boosting biodiversity; and enhancing the aesthetical value and sustainability of the landscape; A2.7 Information and Com- • vibrant and competitive basic research; munication Technologies with a focus on advanced genome resources and plant breeding; novel uses The ETPs mainly dealing with the ICT’s are: of genomic diversity; improved GM tech- Mobile and Wireless Communications Tech- nologies; multilevel precision phenotyp- nology Platform (eMobility), European Plat- ing, systems biology; computational biol- form on Smart Systems Integration (EPoSS), Networked and Electronic Media (NEM), Net- worked European Software and Services Ini-

ESPI Report 24 64 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

tiative (NESSI). Other platforms closely re- Communications lated with ICT’s are Advanced Research and Technology for Embedded Intelligence and 1. Vision document (2006): “Towards a Systems (ARTEMIS) and the European Tech- vision of innovative smart systems inte- nology Platform on Robotics (EUROP). gration” http://www.smart-systems- Mobile and Wireless Communications Technol- integration.org/public/documents/ eposs_publications/060516_Vision_Pape ogy Platform (eMobility) r_fi nal_mit Deckblatt.pdf The Mobile and Wireless Communications 2. Strategic research agenda (2007): “Im- Technology Platform (eMobility) was estab- plementing the European research area lished in 2004 and aims at strengthening for smart systems technologies” research and development in telecommunications systems. http://www.smart-systems- integration.org/public/documents/ Website eposs_publications/EPoSS_SRA_1_3 http://www.emobility.eu.org 3. Strategic Research Agenda (2009) http://www.smart-systems- Communications integration.org/public/documents/publications/ 1. Strategic Research Agenda, Revision 7 EPoSS%20Strategic%20Research%20A (2008) genda%202009.pdf http://www.emobility.eu.org/SRA/eMobi lity_SRA_07_090115.pdf European Technology Platform Contact 2. Strategic Applications Research Agenda, Klaus Schymanietz (Chairman) EADS Version 1 (2008) Wolfgang Gessner (Head of the EPoSS Offi http://www.emobility.eu.org/SAA/Strate ce) VDI/VDE-IT gic_Applications_Agenda_v1-0.pdf [email protected] European Technology Platform Contact Contact Person at the European Commission Fiona Williams Francisco Ibanez Gallardo, Information Soci- [email protected] ety and Media DG G2 — Microsystems Contact Person at the European Commission [email protected] Tel. +32 22968659 Andrew Houghton, Information Society and Media DG D1 — Future networks Networked and Electronic Media (NEM) [email protected] The Networked and Electronic Media (NEM) Tel. +32 22964324 ETP was established in 2005 to bringing together various stakeholders, including broad- European Platform on Smart Systems Integra- casters, telecom operators, manufacturers of professional equipment, manufacturers of tion (EPoSS) consumer electronics, academia and stan- The European Platform on Smart Systems dardisation bodies. It aims to cover existing Integration (EPoSS) was established in 2006 and new technologies, including broadband, and the strategic research agenda of the ETP mobile and new media across all ICT sectors, formulates a shared view of research needs to create a new and exciting era of advanced of the smart systems integration sector. The personalised services. sectors identified as most relevant for smart system applications are: automotive, infor- Website mation and telecommunications, medical http://www.nem-initiative.org technologies, RFID, safety and security, cross-cutting issues. Communications Website 1. Vision document (2007): “NEM vision 2020” http://www.smart-systems-integration.org http://www.nem- initiative.org/Documents/NEM-V-002.pdf

ESPI Report 24 65 July 2010

2. Strategic research agenda (2007) Contact Person at the European Commission http://www.nem- Jorge Gasós, Information Society and Media initiative.org/Documents/NEM-SRA- DG 050.pdf D3 — Software and service architecture and infrastructures 3. NEM strategic research agenda coverage [email protected] by FP7 — Call 1 Tel. +32 22956979 http://www.nem- initiative.org/Documents/NEM-SRA- Advanced Research and Technology for Em- 051.pdf bedded Intelligence and Systems (ARTEMIS) European Technology Platform Contact The Advanced Research and Technology for Jean-Dominique Meunier (Executive Director) Embedded Intelligence and Systems [email protected] (ARTEMIS) ETP was established in 2004 and the strategic research agenda focuses on four Contact Person at the European Commission application contexts: • industrial systems; large, complex and Bartolomé Arroyo Fernandez, Information safety-critical systems, which embraces Society and Media DG automotive, aerospace, manufacturing, D2 — Networked media systems and growth areas such as biomedical; [email protected] Tel. +32 22963592 • nomadic environments; enabling port- able devices and on-body systems to of- Networked European Software and Services Ini- fer users access to information and ser- tiative (NESSI) vices while on the move; • private spaces; such as homes, cars and The Networked European Software and Ser- offices, offering systems and solutions vices Initiative (NESSI) ETP was established for improved enjoyment, comfort, well- in 2005 and aims at developing a strategy for being and safety; software and services driven by a common European Research Agenda. • public infrastructure; major infrastructure such as airports, cities and highways Website that embrace large-scale deployment of systems and services that benefit the http://www.nessi-europe.eu citizen. Communications Website 1. Vision document (2005) http://www.artemisia-association.eu http://www.nessi- europe.eu/Nessi/Portals/0/Nessi- Communications Reposito- Strategic research agenda (2006), ry/Publications/Flyers/2005_09_Vision_ http://www.artemis-etp.eu V2.pdf 2. Strategic research agenda European Technology Platform Contact Vol. 1: Framing the service economy Jan Lohstroh, Secretary-General, ARTEMISIA (2006) Association [email protected] Vol. 2: A strategy to build NESSI (2008) Tel. +31 651208212/+31 880036188 Vol. 3: The short-, medium- and long- term roadmaps (2008) Contact Person at the European Commission http://www.nessi- Konstantinos Glinos, Information Society and europe.eu/Nessi/Publications/NESSIDoc Media DG uments/tabid /590/Default.aspx G3 — Embedded systems and control [email protected] European Technology Platform Contact Tel. +32 22969577 Bruno François-Marsal [email protected] [email protected] Tel. +32 27620082

ESPI Report 24 66 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

European Technology Platform on Robotics 2. Strategic research agenda (2009) (EUROP) http://www.robotics- The European Technology Platform on Robot- platform.eu/cms/index.php?idcat=8 ics (EUROP) ETP was established in 2005 and its strategic research agenda identifies six European Technology Platform Contact application scenarios: manipulation robots, Rainer Bischoff, c/o CARE Project Office robotic co-workers, logistics robots, security [email protected] robots, robots used for exploration or inspec- Tel. +49 8217973244 tion, and edutainment. Secretariat of the European Technology Plat- Website form: [email protected] http://www.robotics-platform.eu Communications Contact Person at the European Commission Libor Král, Information Society and Media DG 1. Vision document EUROP, the European E5 — Cognitive systems, interaction, robotics Robotics Platform — Glossy Brochure [email protected] (2005) Tel. +32 22935878 http://www.robotics- platform.eu/documents.htm

ESPI Report 24 67 July 2010

Annex 3 – Selected Countries

cation. Its mission is to promote excellence in scientific research through long-term funding A3.1 Finland based on reliable evaluation, expertise and international cooperation. It consists of an Finland is often regarded as a global precur- Academy Board, an Administrative Office and sor in the area of innovation policy. It has four research councils: Biosciences and Envi- strongly developed cooperation between ronment, Culture and Society, Health, and many different actors and also sees its larg- Natural Sciences and Engineering. est funding bodies cooperating (TEKES the The Finnish Funding Agency of Technology Finnish Funding Agency of Technology and and Innovation (TEKES) is an application- Innovation, SITRA and the Academy of and innovation-oriented funding institution, Finland, and VTT the leading governmental under the Ministry of Science and Technol- research and innovation institution). ogy, and the key actor in Finnish policy for One of the key elements in Finnish science science and innovation. It funds mainly ap- and innovation policy is its high visibility in plied research intended for challenging and the political arena. The Prime Minister and innovative projects, where half of its funding the Parliament hold key roles. The Prime is dedicated to research within specific stra- Minister chairs the Science and Technology tegic areas, in which TEKES has programmes, Policy Council, which is responsible for the with the goal that some may lead to global innovation system as a whole, and devises success stories. national policies on innovation, technology The Finnish National Fund for R&D (SITRA) is and science. The Parliament has the Commit- also an application- and innovation-oriented tee for the Future as one of its 15 standing funding institution, which is an independent committees, which keeps an active dialogue public foundation under the Finnish Parlia- with the Government about future challenges ment. It has the task to promote economic and possible solutions, and has a role in fu- growth and future success of the nation ture policy-making with emphasis on re- through competitiveness and the develop- search. ment of international cooperation. Its opera- The Finnish Parliament has held technology tions are divided into two different kinds: assessments, typically containing foresight research and education collaboration, and elements, on such topics as: regional innova- venture-capital funding. tion environments, social capital, challenges Across the Nordic countries, some common of global information society, gene-therapy topics in the field of foresight studies for the technology, nuclear energy technology, and period 2002–2006, which emerged from the more. Recently the Academy of Finland and Nordic Foresight Forum questionnaire survey, TEKES joined efforts in the Finnsight2015 were22: (http://www.finnsight2015.fi) exercise to support the priority setting of basic and ap- • information and communication technol- plied research. In parallel with this foresight ogy (ICT) cluster activity, SITRA started its own national fore- • ICT and networking sights network in late 2005, to recognise the changing trends and key challenges to which • nanotechnology decision-makers should already be paying attention. The Finland Futures Research Cen- • hydrogen foresight, energy foresight tre, the Technical Research Centre of Finland studies (VTT), the Systems Analysis Laboratory of • biotechnology Helsinki University of Technology, Lappeen- ranta Technical University and other univer- • science and technology prioritizing re- sity research groups as well as private con- search sultants have also carried out a number of • the FinnSight2015 science and technol- sectoral and regional foresight studies. ogy study The Academy of Finland is a science-oriented funding institution, under the Ministry of Edu- 22 “Foresight in Nordic Innovation Systems” p. 22

ESPI Report 24 68 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

The same survey also enquired about future Nordic Energy Research is an independent topics in foresight studies for the period application- and innovation-oriented funding 2006–2015. These were, amongst others: institution which aims to further support and develop markets for the Nordic energy sec- • energy and climate change tor. It specifically strives to contribute to the • health care and ageing population maintenance of high levels of energy efficiency and sustainability in the Nordic system • nanotechnology as well as maintaining the region’s leading • participative foresight status in terms of renewable energy technology R&D. In terms of Nordic foresight cooperation, there are three main institutions, under the The only one of these three Nordic research Nordic Council of Ministers, for managing and innovation institutes that is a science- Nordic research and innovation: oriented funding institution is NordForsk24, operating under the Nordic Council of Minis- • Nordic Innovation Centre (NICe) ters for Education and Research. It is an in- • Nordic Energy Research dependent institution responsible for cooperation within research and research training, • NordForsk with the aim to promote research of supreme The Nordic Innovation Centre (NICe)23, which international quality. is an application- and innovation-oriented Finland distinguishes itself from its Nordic funding institution and instrument of the partners through the tight coordination that Nordic Council of Ministers, was funding three exists between actors in its innovation sys- Nordic-level foresight studies by 2006: the tem. In particular, the coordination between Nordic Hydrogen Energy Foresight, the Nordic TEKES and SITRA makes Finland a leader in Biomedical Sensor Foresight, and the Nordic the field of innovation policy. ICT Foresight. The aim of the institution is to promote an innovative and knowledge- intensive Nordic business sector.

23 Since its establishment in 2004, NICe can be seen as 24 Established in 2005, replaces the Nordic Science Policy the successor of the previous Nordic Industrial Fund. Council and Nordic Academy for Advanced Study (NorFA).

ESPI Report 24 69 July 2010

ESPI Report 24 70 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

• Arts and Humanities Research Council – AHRC A3.2 United Kingdom • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council – BBSRC The United Kingdom Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (established on 5 June • Economic and Social Research Council – 2009, from the merging of the Department ESRC for Innovation, Universities and Skills, DIUS, • Engineering and Physical Sciences Re- with the Department for Business, Enterprise search Council – EPSRC & Regulatory Reform, BERR) is responsible for the allocation of the Science Budget via • Medical Research Council – MRC the seven Research Councils, which in turn support research and development in Higher • Natural Environment Research Council – Education Institutes (HEIs), and through their NERC own instruments and research centres. The • Science and Technology Facilities Council overall coordination of research council policy – STFC is the responsibility of RCUK (Research Coun- cils UK), established as an equal and strate- The information was collected from ERA gic partnership between the seven Research WATCH and relevant government websites Councils. and was processed by ESPI, It is included in the tables below. The seven Research Councils are:

ESPI Report 24 71 July 2010

ESPI Report 24 72 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

ESPI Report 24 73 July 2010

ESPI Report 24 74 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

ESPI Report 24 75 July 2010

ESPI Report 24 76 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

ESPI Report 24 77 July 2010

A3.3 The Netherlands sation of results to third parties, by operating as an independent part of NWO. The Netherlands has four main funding bod- ZonMW is the national organisation for health ies for research and development, which fall research and development, appointed by the under two ministries, the Ministry of Educa- Ministry of Health and NOW and acts as an tion, Culture and Science (OCW), and the intermediary organisation (coordinating and Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ), with, re- granting) for both. spectively, nearly 90% of the government’s total R&D expenditures in 2008, amounting Agentschap is a very recently established (in to nearly €5 billion25. 2010) organisation under the Ministry of Eco- nomic Affairs, EZ, ensuing from the merging The four main funding bodies are: of SenterNovem, EVD and Octrooicentrum Nederland. Its mission is to export excellence • NWO – The Netherlands Organisation for in international, innovation and sustainability Scientific Research administration. It works closely with Syntens, • STW – Technology Foundation STW the national innovation network for entrepre- neurs. • ZonMW – The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research & Development • Agentschap – SenterNovem, EVD and Octrooicentrum Nederland merged The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), the national research council, was established in 1950 and acts as a funding agency for OCW. Its aim is to ensure that results of scientific research get prompt exposure and gain presence in society as new expertise or practical applications. The Technology Foundation STW supports and finances research and promotes the utili-

25 ERAWATCH: Policy Mix Report 2009: The Netherlands. P25

ESPI Report 24 78 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

ESPI Report 24 79 July 2010

Sectorial Innovation Watch 1. the need for further development of human capital, The Sectorial Innovation Watch (SIW) is a mechanism for the monitoring and analysing 2. the need for improved support for of innovation performance in different sec- knowledge creation, diffusion and tech- tors. Its aim is to provide policy makers and nology transfer, stakeholders with a better understanding of 3. the need for overcoming financial con- the sectorial drivers, barriers and challenges straints. that surround innovation across the EU. This is an essential premise to the making of ef- In its second two year phase from 2008- fective innovation policies at regional, na- 2010, SIW will continue its sectoral analyses, tional and European levels. with more emphasis on: During its first two year phase from 2006- • services sectors 2008, SIW analysed a large number of fac- • wholesale tors that can drive or hinder innovation in 11 industrial sectors, which, amongst others, • retail trade included: • construction • financial constraints, • eco-innovation • human resources and skills, • fast-growing SMEs • knowledge creation and diffusion, • organisational innovation • cooperation between firms and informal networks, • lead markets and national specialisation • demand factors, • greening industries • competition, It will also takes into consideration important linkages between sectors through the appli- • innovation culture, cation of a cross-sectoral approach. • aspects of regulation and taxes. SIW is implemented by a consortium comprising 11 partners -TNO (NL), Joanneum They identified three major challenges span- Research (A), KITeS (I), AIT (A), VTT (F), ning across all of the industrial sectors, IWW (D), BTU (D), PRAXIS (EST), Institute namely:

ESPI Report 24 80 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

for Economic Research (SLO), University of The Holst Centre is one of the initiatives lo- Alcalá (E), Dialogic (NL) – from 8 different cated at the campus. Its aim is to be interna- Member States and these are described tionally recognised and a leading R&D centre briefly below. It is coordinated by the Nether- in the fields of wireless autonomous trans- lands Organization for Applied Scientific Re- ducer solutions, system-in-foil, with strong search (TNO): industrial participation. The planned structure of the centre is an open one: other partici- Dr. Carlos Montalvo, P.O. Box 49, 2600AA pants will be sought out and welcomed in a Delft, The Netherlands, Tel. +31 15 269 54 healthy balance of an industry and a knowl- 90, Fax + 31 15 262 43 41, edge institution. The available research infra- http://www.tno.nl/ structure at the campus (i.e. MiPlaza clean rooms and associated facilities) is very at- High Tech Campus Eindhoven in the Nether- tractive for the programme lines envisaged lands by the Holst Centrer, which will work inten- sively with innovative SMEs. The High Tech Campus Eindhoven has become the embodiment of the open innovation philosophy. Over 90 companies and institutes have already established themselves at the A3.4 France site, all in a dynamic mix of multinational companies, small and medium-sized busi- France possesses two main funding bodies for nesses and technology start-up companies. research and development, under the Minis- The centre houses thousands of engineers tries of, Higher Education and Research, and and advanced facilities. of Economy, Industry and Employment, which were established recently (ANR, the High Tech Campus Eindhoven facilitates open National Agency for Research, and OSEO innovation. Campus residents share knowl- innovation were responsible for funding SME edge, experience, open laboratories and R&D). technical infrastructure, enabling better, faster and more cost efficient innovation. It The National Agency for Research, estab- provides an open environment that fuels op- lished in 2005, has as its mission the funding portunities for valuable R&D, for successful of exploratory research projects under the business partnerships, and a great place to thematic priorities defined by the Govern- work. ment. The agency’s call for proposals is struc- tured around seven themes, through which It focuses on crucial technological areas such the majority of its funding is distributed. as microsystems, infotainment, thigh technology systems, embedded systems, life The OSEO group was formed in 2005 by the technology and nanotechnology. With ‘Open merging of ANVAR (French innovation Innovation’ as its motto, technological break- agency) and BDPME (SME development bank) throughs are facilitated by the emphasis on with a mission of general interest to support sharing equipment, services and knowledge. regional and national policies. It has three Technologically advanced companies are lo- instruments: cated there including Philips Research, IBM, • OSEO Innovation Atos Origin, FluXXion, ASML, Cytocentrics, NXP, Handshake Solutions, and Dalsa. Other • OSEO Finance companies are nearby like FEI Company and • OSEO Guarantee TNO Industrial Technology as well as the Eindhoven University of Technology, one of OSEO innovation is the programme con- Europe’s leading universities in science, engi- cerned with research and development, and neering and technology, as well as other uni- contains the dissolved (in 2008) Agency for versities like Leuven and Aachen that are also Industrial Innovation (AII) from which an very close by. The campus has a dynamic industrial strategic innovation instrument environment and attracts new high-tech ensued in early 2008: Strategic Industrial companies and excellent research groups. It Innovation (ISI), which had a total funding has been recognised as one of Europe’s tech- allocation of €300 million for partnership- nology and innovation incubators where in- based projects in 2008. dustry and research institutes/universities meet to work on the future.

ESPI Report 24 81 July 2010

ESPI Report 24 82 July 2010 Key Enabling Technologies and Open Innovation

ESPI Report 24 83 July 2010

Acknowledgements

In the framework of this study, desktop research was conducted and complemented by interviews of experts from industry, academia and European organisations. Special thanks to Dr. J.C. van Burg from the Department of Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology, C.L. Goosens, Innovation Lab project office, Gov- ernment Relations, Eindhoven University of Technology and Dr. Shima Barakat, Centre for Enter- preneurial Learning, Cambridge University for their valuable advice and guidance for this study. The author thanks ESPI Director Prof. Kai-Uwe Schrogl for his advice, conceptual guidance and support throughout the project duration. The author would also like to highlight the support of interns Cecile Desnos and Christopher Vasko in working on the compilation of this report.

ESPI Report 24 84 June 2010

Mission Statement of ESPI

The mission of the European Space Policy Institute (ESPI) is to provide decision-makers with an independent view and analysis on mid- to long-term issues relevant to the use of space.

Through its activities, ESPI contributes to facilitate the decision-making process, increases awareness of space technologies and applications with the user communities, opinion leaders and the public at large, and supports researchers and students in their space-related work.

To fulfil these objectives, the Institute supports a network of experts and centres of excellence working with ESPI in-house analysts.