Technology Platforms As Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Instruments: Learnings from Industrial Technology Platforms

STI Policy Review_Vol. 6, No 1 technology Platforms as Science, technology and Innovation Policy Instruments: learnings from Industrial technology Platforms liliana Proskuryuakova*, Dirk Meissner**, & Pavel rudnik***

Abstract

The paper discusses technology platforms as an instrument of science, technology and innovation policy in light of their use in industrial R&D. The authors assert that the technology platforms approach as a policy concept refects special organizational and institutional features learned from industrial technology platforms. The characteristics of industrial technology platforms are reviewed, and their impact on the organization of research, development and innovation activities in companies is explored. Second, the industrial technology platform is examined in the context of European Technology Platforms and the recent initiative for technology platforms in Russia. Finally, the technology platform concept implications for the STI policy context are discussed.

Keywords technology platforms, science, technology and innovation policy, STI policy, knowledge and technology transfer, public private partnerships

The article was prepared in the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of economics (HSe) and supported in the framework of the subsidy granted to the HSe by the Government of the Russian Federation for the implementation of the Global Competitiveness Program. * Associate Professor, Institute for Statistical Studies and economics of Knowledge/Department of educational Programmes, National Research University, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia, [email protected] ** c orresponding author, Professor, Research laboratory for Science and Technology Studies, National Research University, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia, [email protected] *** Deputy director, Russian Ministry for Economic Development, Moscow, Russia, [email protected]

70 1. IntroDuCtIon

During the last 15 years, Technology Platforms (TPs) have evolved into a science, technology and innovation (STI) policy concept, which hasn’t yet received much attention in scientific and politi- cal discussion. The origin of TPs can be traced back to the restructuring of industrial research and development (R&D) activities in the 1990s and early 2000s. These years witnessed a major shift in the organization of industrial R&D (including engineering), which was increasingly challenged to serve multiple business applications. Industrial R&D companies were pressed to generate revenue from internal resources on a more competitive basis than before. This eventually caused a paradigm shift from pursuing multiple new R&D projects to fnding multiple applications of a single project’s results. To this end, technologies were disassembled and the core features were used for various more sophisticated solutions. Eventually, Industrial Technology Platforms (ITPs) emerged and remain the core of industrial research.

ITPs can be broadly defned as clusters of technologies and competencies that can be developed and applied to a large variety of products, processes and service applications. The required competencies are demanding and may be developed relatively slowly, although they represent a tremendous competitive advantage for an organization that can deploy them. Competencies can include scien- tifc skills, as well as application competency, systems familiarity and a vision of how the platform will evolve and open up new opportunities in the future (Vishnevskiy, Karasev, & Meissner, 2015). consequently, the ITP concept came to be seen as a tool for developing innovation roadmaps and involving innovation actors from different spheres. To support this, methodologies to define and implement ITPs have been developed and successfully applied. These platforms are considered to be a strategic asset of the organizations that possess them.

TPs, like ITPs, aim at developing a strategic focus and the joint identification of multiple applications for research outcomes by a variety of stakeholders at the very early stages of research and innovation. This leads to the development of roadmaps which depend upon the competences of different actors. Baldwin and Woodcard (2009) fnd that TPs exist in three separate, but interrelated fields: product development, technology strategy and industrial economics. All of them share the same common approach of developing or reusing existing core components to generate multiple applications. This process has two major benefits: first, it brings economies of scale for research, development and innovation and also results in cost reduction by leveraging synergies in the development of complimentary components. Following the widespread adoption of ITPs for industrial innovation strategies, the underlying concept received increasing attention from public authorities responsible for priority-setting in research and innovation funding in particular, due to their man- date to strengthen the links between research and innovation. The latter is frequently discussed as technology transfer and industry-science linkages, and various policy measures were developed to support these linkages (see Caloghirou, Ioannides, & Vonortas, 2004; Protogerou, caloghirou, & Siokas, 2012; Thune & Gulbrandsen, 2014). The development of these targeted STI policy measures led to the adaptation of the ITP concept as a STI policy instrument. Its inclusion in the STI policy discussion furnishes a venue for joint discussion and R&D priority-setting for a variety of stakeholders: companies, research organizations, NGOs and government agencies.

71 STI Policy Review_Vol. 6, No 1

Previous research analyzed TPs in the context of innovation, in particular focusing on strategies for opening up platforms (Boudreau, 2010) and marketing high-technology products (Mohr, Sengupta, & Slater, 2010). Several in-depth studies have provided a comprehensive overview of platforms, outlining issues of governance, management, design and knowledge (Gawer, 2009). However de- fning and implementing TPs beyond the company level is challenging.

This paper looks at platforms from the industrial economics perspective - as products, services, firms and institutions that mediate transactions between two or more groups of agents. The paper highlights the following research questions:

• What are current trends in company R&D? • How are TPs as policy instruments characterized? • What can be learned from ITPs to inform the design of TPs as an STI policy instrument?

The paper shows how the ITP concept has emerged and how it can be tailored to the purpose of regional and national STI and economic development. It reviews the case study of Russian TPs and outlines their main features. The concluding section reviews the main characteristics of ITPs and develops recommendations for the design and implementation of TPs as a STI policy instrument.

The paper is based in part on a working paper by Proskuryakova, Meissner, and Rudnik (2014).

2. fEAturES of ItPS

Although R&D remains an extremely important ingredient to company innovation activities with significant impact on company’s long term sustainable economic development, innovation cur- rently goes far beyond R&D (Kotsemir & Meissner 2013). The success of innovation projects is determined by numerous factors unrelated to pure R&D, such as, capital availability and requirements, shareholder thinking in ever shortening time horizons, fiscal and legal policy and societal attitudes. In some industries, bureaucracy is a prominent framework which necessarily has impact on innovation activities. Increasingly, interdisciplinarity and the diminishing divisions between research types (e.g. between basic research, applied research and experimental development) cause a constantly growing pressure on industrial research to be open to cooperation, regardless of the type of potential research partner, as well as being receptive to customer wishes. With the growing cost of research and rising uncertainty due to larger numbers of actors in certain areas, push innovation is no longer the standard in most industries while pull innovation initiated by customers and suppli- ers has become the norm. These developments have led to a changing paradigm and reframing of the innovation process towards the open innovation approach by companies. The reasons for companies to switch from a traditional R&D project centered focus towards a broader understanding of R&D and innovation are numerous and signifcant.

First, companies aim at getting insight in areas outside their core competencies and are seeking opportunities in pre-competitive research. Moreover, while exploring longer term potentials may

72 not provide satisfying risk/return when done alone, it is strategic for companies to build platforms which can be used for value added development with intellectual property (IP) protection and to maximize idea sources. Also, by implementing open innovation processes companies get access to leading players in industry and academia, who may have expertise in complementary fields to the company’s own competencies. Furthermore, this improves access to public funding (which is in most cases complementary funding) and also infuences policy directions and opportunities for participation in standard setting.

Increasing complexity and the interdisciplinary nature of innovation undertakings have signifcant impact on the associated cost and resource requirements for developing successful innovation. companies are continuously searching for ways to meet the challenge of ensuring access and availability of different resources on demand but at the same time keep a balance between investment in resources and economic impact. Accordingly, there is an associated limit to companies’ ability to build and maintain internal resources for a wide range of science and technology felds which isn’t clearly and completely attributable to economic impacts. This directs the challenge of resource allocation to dedicated competence fields within the applicable company unit or department. R&D projects are increasingly challenged by company management to prove their potential for multiple applications, e.g. the potential for integration in systems and solutions which are beyond the initial intention.

From these developments it follows that company approaches to R&D and innovation have changed considerably with the goal of increasing effectiveness and effciency. This affects both the organization of R&D and the scope of R&D projects. The companies’ focus is increasingly on businesses where technology is a differentiator and offers the opportunity to become a global market leader for the companies. Thus, R&D is mainly organized in decentralized structures built around these. In order to serve the decentralized units’ needs for technology, centralized R&D devotes itself to technologies with broader application potential and related interfaces to other solutions. As a result, several paths of R&D emerged, as follows.

R&D with the clear aim of business applications focuses on internal resources with accompanying programs related to joint developments with customers and/or other external partners. Increasingly, the number of joint developments is considered one of the key performance indicators in R&D. work under this umbrella has clear common technical objectives and is commonly characterized by involving multiple partners who have achieved agreement on confidentiality and commercial targets. It is common practice that joint development partners accept a limitation of exclusivity up to several months in order to allow for higher investment on the leading partner side. Also, these undertakings beneft from a pool of common resources including fnancial and personnel. Quite often, the project manager is from the customer and the lead company will provide a dedicated front offce engineer to ensure process moderation and supply complementary skills to build critical mass and the reputation of the partner. The overall objective is to create a “virtual circle” of long-term relationship and joint development. Regardless of companies’ experience in joint developments, it is important to create excitement for the customer, perhaps by proposing ideas of breakthrough innovations in the starting phase. If projects are started with modest expectations, on the other hand,

73 STI Policy Review_Vol. 6, No 1 over-delivery can cement long term relationships. Typically, medium term framework agreements are concluded within 5 to7 years. Under such frameworks, agreements specify the overarching goals and modes of cooperation for joint projects. To assure the strategic alignment and the operational implementation of strategic plans, the partners usually hold annual or biannual strategic meetings. The more operational dimension is dealt with by R&D directors (Chief Technology Off- cers or equivalent) who meet twice or more each year to refne the collaboration program. In results, development time shows a reduction potential by 50% and 70% of projects exceed performance objectives. For all parties involved, the value is substantially increased due to shared savings, risks and benefts.

Another path is R&D with the ambition to generate radical innovation which is internally driven by a company’s central R&D with limited external involvement. Usually, these R&D works are based on bottom up or top down approaches. In a bottom-up approach, the ideation process has a clear business orientation but is communal, involving all business units (divisions) and relevant corporate functions with one central coordinator. Top-down approaches stress “Blue Sky” thinking to defne topics around the business vision. Dedicated teams screen outside competencies and seek creative solutions around product targets and process alternatives, which are defined by management. eventually, there is a tendency for companies to establish incubators or similar institutions to con- duct R&D. Incubators usually aim at building and strengthening network relations. Often, incubators are accompanied by graduate studies programs (PhD or Master’s level) which are designed to attract qualifed human resources in the long run. The key success factor of incubators is the dedica- tion of team members. These people will ensure the implementation of research results stemming from incubator activities and maintain the existence of relations even when they leave R&D at a later stage. Results from the incubator are seldom directly measurable but help indirectly in longer term innovation success.

Assessed against the overall R&D portfolio of companies, the three types of R&D activities have different weights. R&D with a clear aim of business applications usually accounts for the largest share of total around (typically around 80-85%) while R&D with the ambition to generate sub- stantial innovation (radical) accounts for 10%, and incubators for the remaining 5-10% of the total R&D budget. This distribution of R&D budgets, however, requires new organizational approaches. Increasingly, pure R&D or technology councils are being replaced by councils with a wider reach which are often called Technology and Innovation councils, Innovation councils or Innovation Committees. These councils defne core technologies and coordinate activities across the divisions of corporate research and innovation centers including the defnition of growth platforms and new technology platforms. They also defne and review external partnering strategies including partnering strategies with academics and public research organizations as well as other companies. They screen surrounding technologies, intellectual property rights and businesses systematically. Coun- cils are often comprised of people from central R&D (intellectual property, new business development and innovation/knowledge management) and representatives from different divisions. In addition councils oversee numerous activities which act as incubators creating and nurturing new

74 business/technology fields with the potential to eventually become an independent business unit. To feed such incubators, relevant start-ups are constantly screened based on inputs from the companies’ national organizations. Other sources are start-up competitions and university networks which provide access to spin offs. To make these undertakings successful, the established incubators act on a regional level, but are still are coordinated by central functions.

Companies are increasingly employing ITPs as an instrument. Broadly viewed, ITPs are platforms which combine different technologies by integrating diverse domains of knowledge into one common and shared knowledge base. Figure 1 shows the components and dimensions which are incor- porated and enhanced in a technology platform. The special feature about ITPs is not the ambition of developing a technology which can serve all possible applications, but instead elaborating potential application fields for a dedicated base technology which is enhanced with special features for different applications. Hence, the main characteristic of ITPs is the interconnectivity of the base technology to different applications and the original design of different interfaces which are essential to operate a targeted application.

FIGURE 1. Composition of a Technology Platform

Application ﬁeld AF 1 AF 2 AF 3 AF n

Technology platfom Knowledge base

existing new Knowledge origin

codiﬁed tacit tacit codiﬁed

Source: Proskuryakova, Meissner, & Rudnik (2014)

The early identification of applications for the ITP includes a detailed analysis and documenta- tion of the requirements of the application towards the ITP (terms of reference, specifcation lists). From these specifications the project specifications for the actual ITP development activities is drawn. One special feature of ITPs is that the existing knowledge base from prior R&D activities is scanned and assessed towards the applicability of existing solutions and knowledge for the intended ITP. Scanning the existing knowledge base includes reviewing existing codifed knowledge as well as surveying knowledge holders to attempt to access their tacit knowledge. After the initial review, the existing knowledge base is evaluated against the accessibility, e.g. in terms of the legal position

75 STI Policy Review_Vol. 6, No 1 and the efforts connected with adjusting and incorporating the solutions in the ITP. For existing knowledge, one easily might argue that only limited efforts and investments are needed for companies to recycle existing solutions. This is only partially true, because ITPs are more complex and involve a signifcant number of dedicated knowledge and technology solutions which are usually not obvious at first sight and which require fully developed competencies to be detected, understood and integrated. Accordingly, basic engineering skills need to be augmented by engineers’ integration competences.

In fulfilment, the ITP concept is an interdisciplinary concept which is considered an essential innovation in R&D for companies and is interwoven into companies’ operations. There is sensitivity related to internal communication about companies’ stock of information, knowledge and competences which requires the involvement of multiple stakeholders. Given the broader nature of TPs in STI and economic development policy this communication has to be extended beyond a company’s boundaries, which requires careful screening of information that will be disclosed. There should be a common technology interest to unify the different actors involved. In addition, companies need to be clear about the potential of TPs they are willing to join, as well as transparent in their relations with external partners. It is possible that differences in the strategic intentions of companies engaged in a TP could cause a conflict of interest, and this may pose additional challenges for TP management.

3. tEChnoloGy PlAtforMS AS A StI PolICy ConCEPt

3.1. technology Platforms

In structural terms, TPs are closely affiliated with knowledge infrastructures. Hirschman (1958) approached the respective infrastructure as ‘social overhead capital’ nearly ffty years ago. The concept of ‘technology infrastructure’, more recently put forward by researchers (Justman & Teubal, 1995; Tassey, 1991), was narrowed down and related to producers that primarily input scientific and technological knowledge in their production processes. Tassey (1991) defnes technology infrastructure as “science, engineering, and technical knowledge available to private industry” (p. 347). The development of these infrastructures is suggested at the local (o’Dubhchair, Scott K, & John- son, 2001) and the regional (Goldstein, 2005) level.

A TP is a knowledge base combining knowledge and competences from different sources with the requirements of different applications felds (Proskuryakova, Meissner, & Rudnik, 2015). Strategic considerations of how to best access knowledge underlie this knowledge base. TPs may be looked at, then, as a tool that matches requirements for technologies induced by the applications with the knowledge base (Proskuryakova et al., 2014). TPs focus on establishing, maintaining, and leveraging a knowledge base that serves multiple application fields. The knowledge base incorporates both explicit and tacit knowledge that is developed through competencies with the technology infrastructure. TPs allow for a gap analysis whereby knowledge and competence gaps essential for

76 meeting the requirements of previously defned application felds are systematically identifed and documented.

In addition, considering the respective weight and importance of technologies for different application fields, policy-makers may identify STI policy measures which go beyond the initial focus of a TP. Thus, TPs are not limited to being a direct STI policy instrument but rather are a concept suitable for formulating and describing needs for technology generation, i.e., either through new knowledge generation or a mixed approach. Given the involvement of public and private actors and the long-term nature of technology platforms, they may be shaped as public-private partnerships (PPPs), which have become a cornerstone of STI policies in developed countries.

Third, TPs may also be understood as a tool for structuring research needs arising from large scale challenges (European Commission, 2004). In this context, it becomes obvious that the involvement of numerous stakeholders with a variety of backgrounds, ambitions, expectations, experiences and competences is required for designing TPs. These stakeholders involve private sector organizations, embracing the whole production and supply chain, as well as public sector organizations including policy-makers, funding agencies, promoters and consumers of technology and knowledge and technology generators (research institutes and the academic community). In addition, TPs involve the fnancial community (e.g. private banks, public banks, venture capital companies) and civil society, including users and consumers (European Commission, 2004; Meissner, Roud, & Cervantes, 2013). Thus, the creation of a TP at national and international level is an ambitious and challenging undertaking considering the diverging interests of the parties involved in the design process and the complexity of underlying procedures (Cervantes & Meissner, 2014; Kutsenko & Meissner, 2014).

In most cases, TPs are organized around an economic challenge, aiming to fnd technological solutions that will have multiple applications in companies’ products at the market. At the same time, societal challenges may also be addressed through TPs (European Commission, 2004). TPs as an STI policy tool has implications for research policy, industrial policy, regional development policy, environmental policy and societal benefts and sustainability (European Commission, 2004; Gack- statter, Kotsemir, & Meissner, 2014; Meissner 2014). Since TPs and their respective strategic research agendas involve numerous actors from different felds and different locations, they become measures of active research and innovation cluster stimulation within and across regions (see, for example, European Commission, 2010а; European Commission, 2007). However, the sustainability of such clusters strongly depends on the structure and the location of actors and the research agenda in the respective innovation system. The closer a TP research agenda is to the market application, the less likely a sustainable cluster effect seems. The Directorate General for Research of the european commission, in its evaluation of 36 european Technology Platforms (eTPs) in early 2009 proposed that in future, all eTPs should be directed towards cluster organizations which have the flexibility to respond to key societal challenges facing Europe. More specifically, “the clusters should involve all relevant stakeholders, work across all aspects of the knowledge triangle, and be responsible for implementing potential solutions. ETPs will be able to contribute more to focused research programmes towards the challenges faced by european society and also to bring the results of that research to the global marketplace” (European Commission, 2010b).

77 STI Policy Review_Vol. 6, No 1

3.2. tPs in russia

TPs established in Russia are viewed as one STI policy measure among others but their origin can be traced back to a structured approach of foresight for STI policy priority setting. Foresight analy- ses potential STI developments as well related applications, and proposes STI policy measures which are thought to be suitable to respond to the potential developments (Figure 2).

FIGURE 2. STI Policy Measures in the Context of the Russian Technology Foresight System

Source: Chulok (2015)

In April 2011, a number of TPs were created in Russia when the governmental commission on High Technology and Innovation approved a list of 22 TPs and placed seven more in a pipeline for merger and further engineering. The platforms formed a pipeline of projects, which amounts to RUB 362,2bln in funding volume from 2013 to 2017. By the end of 2011, 17 TPs had provided the three required documents to MeD (their strategic research program, the report for 2011 and an action plan for 2012). By 2013, there were 34 established TPs with a few still in pipeline. As of De- cember 2013, 26 of these had developed strategic research programs. Eleven programs were judged as high quality, 9 programs were average and 6 programs required further attention. An additional 7 platforms had developed roadmaps for the implementation of their research programs. The overall number of participants in the Russian TPs is over 3000, with 18% universities, 21% research organizations and 38% industrial enterprises and state owned enterprises (2-3 on average in each TP).

The established TPs received initial financial support from the Russian Ministry for economic Development (MED) to set up their roadmaps and strategic research programs. Each TP agreed on

78 long-term development perspectives for selected S&T areas, established a system for prioritizing projects, established a system of sector expert assessment (i.e. performed at the request of various government agencies) and launched a number of large joint projects at the pre-competitive stage of R&D (Proskuryakova, 2014).

The TPs share a number of common features which include a strategic research focus that matches government priorities, long-term business or social requirements; the development of educational programs and advancement of educational standards; consideration of a variety of alternative technological solutions; attracting co-funding from different sources; transparent rules for participation and openness of entry for new members, and lastly clear disclosure of research results (Proskuryakova, 2014).The TPs in Russia keep negotiating cooperation agreements with other platforms that develop similar or complimentary technologies, various government bodies, and end users (e.g. companies and enterprises) (Proskuryakova, 2014).

The newly established Russian platforms broadly follow the european Technology Platforms (eTP) model. Russian TPs and the Russian Ministry of Economic Development responsible for their creation and development considered the formal evaluations of eTPs, which outline quite a few defi- ciencies of this instrument. It is notable that Russia is already integrated in the European Research Area due to its active participation in the european Framework Programs for Research and Tech- nological Development as well as other european and eU-Russia research and innovation related initiatives. Consequently, Russian TPs frequently initiate ad-hoc meetings with their European counterparts.

There is a directly relevant project, “BILAT-RUS-Advanced”, which aims to support partnerships between Russian and European platforms. This includes the following areas of initiative:

• Exchanging experience in TP organization and management; • Joint research in the sphere of long-term technology forecasting and foresight; • Identifying opportunities for joint project funding; • Sharing infrastructure and equipment; • Exchanging information and developing mechanisms to facilitate this (e.g. joint databases, communication systems and portals); • Organizing joint events; • Inviting experts to participate in TP meetings; • Joint R&D project work; • Developing recommendations for regulatory and legal frameworks in science, technology and innovation, inter alia, with respect to international standards, technology transfer management and international technology cooperation.

Perhaps, the most important lessons that national TPs may learn from the european experience are found in ETPs evaluation reports. The ETP evaluators suggest that in future platforms should work in flexible clusters which focus on key societal challenges and involve all relevant stakeholders. Following the evaluation, it became clear that some re-adjustment of the TP policy support mix

79 STI Policy Review_Vol. 6, No 1 in Russia was necessary, inter alia, to speed up the implementation of research plans, boost the research performance and open up platforms and their outcomes to the public. The earlier evidence on the inter link between a TP research agenda (namely, how close its research is to the application) and its capacity to impact the creation of a sustainable cluster was not given sufficient attention in the process of innovation clusters creation in Russia.

There are two issues in ETPs that are worthy of attention. First of all, ETPs offer a space for dialogue that is suitable for various actors and stakeholders in the innovation process. However, this may require some adjustment in order for the potential to be reached; not only do scientists and businessmen often face difficulties finding common ground, but business competitors will be required to cooperate to advance mutual research interests. Despite the challenges, active contribu- tion of a variety of stakeholders is necessary for the success of this policy tool, as underlined by oecD:

The government should… establish stakeholder forums to achieve greater coherence and to draw upon the wide range of knowledge distributed across the innovation system. These should draw together the relevant ministries and agencies, the state owned enterprises (Soes) and state corporations, the academies and HeIs, and, of course, the private sector, in order to formulate strategic goals and action plans. Without full and meaningful involvement of the main actors from across the distributed landscape of the national innovation system, top-down plans and strategies risk being ignored, even in a relatively centralised governance system like Russia’s. In this regard, the recent announcement to launch a number of technology platforms, inspired by european Union experience, would seem to be a move in the right direction. (OECD, 2011, p. 23)

Secondly, european enterprises, driven by both short-term and long-term business interests, usually initiate or play a leading role in the creation of TPs. This can be a diffcult business decision if an initiative conflicts with competitors’ business ambitions, or prevents an actor from investing in other, larger research initiatives.

Although significant in the european context, both of these features are less applicable to Russian TPs. First, business councils and chambers and sectoral business associations serve as either ad hoc dialogue platforms or make a minor impact on the Russian decision-making process. Second, Rus- sian companies rarely pursue long-term planning. A typical Russian company has a planning horizon that does not exceed two or three years (BDo, Russian Managers Association, 20131). More- over, it was the government, not Russian companies, that began the process of establishing TPs by designing and fne-tuning this STI policy tool. This process is still ongoing, as the fnancial means to support the Russian technology platforms have not yet been fully established.

1 According to the 2013 joint study of the BDo company and the Russian Managers Association, short term business strategies (1-3 years or 3-5 years) are the most implemented type of strategies. In the innovation development programs developed by the 60 SOE the planning horizon averaged 5-7 years, while the Ministry of Economic Development recommends it to be 10-15 years.

80 4. ConCluSIonS

It is essential to consider the core characteristics and features of ITPs when defining a TP as a STI policy initiative. These features are at least partially reflected in the Russian initiative to establish and develop TPs.

First of all, it is important to be aware of the overarching complexity of TPs and the challenging nature of detecting potential applications for TPs. Both the potential application felds and the actual development work needed for the TP entail a certain level of risk; it is diffcult to assess the resources required for completion. Accordingly, a TPs activities need to be balanced in order to achieve a sustainable effect and impacts.

Second, TPs need to reflect the broad range of competences available among the members of the TP. Given this range, the strategic intention of the competence owners is usually not aligned to a broader strategic vision. The commitment of TP members to a joint strategic intention and the respective operational implementation is one of the core challenges TPs face. Developing a TP strategy and a roadmap for implementation of the strategy is less problematic than the actual allocation of resources and activities to implement the strategies.

Third, the nature of the work (research) program and the level of business intensity of its membership strongly influence the uncertainty and risk level of the TP research project portfolio overall. It follows that well designed STI policy instruments take the risk and uncertainty level of TPs into account by linking policy tools to various funding sources that may be used to support TP research. STI policy instruments also accommodate the level of business intensity; for example, if business participation proves insufficient, governments may implement a variety of incentives to increase the level of participation.

Fourth, it is evident that TPs require intensive and transparent communication between the participants and units of participating organizations. TP management is increasingly demanding in light of the open innovation paradigm and the involvement of different partners. Furthermore, the elabora- tion of TPs requires interdisciplinary thinking and cross-organizational cooperation. These strategic considerations outline the crucial importance of TPs for innovation activities of partnerships and consequently mid- to long-term commercial success.

Fifth, TPs are often established covering a wide array of research felds and governments are challenged to be selective about which TPs (or projects) to support financially. Intermediate results of TPs performance display a considerable divergence in platforms’ activity level and performance quality. While some platforms mostly perform communication functions for their membership, others are advancing large-scale R&D projects. For STI policy to remain trustworthy it is desirable for the worst performing TPs to lose their status and government support.

TPs can be summarized as a reasonable STI policy instrument with potentially signifcant impact on the innovation potential of regions, research institutes and companies. The experiences from ITPs

81 STI Policy Review_Vol. 6, No 1 show that the platform concept itself is convincing as an instrument to structure and plan targeted R&D towards multiple applications. However, the main challenge of this approach is the alignment of different stakeholders’ interests and ambitions to the overarching TP goals. For TPs to be implemented successfully and generate sustainable impacts, it is important to bring unity by considering and clearly communicating participants’ interests, ambitions and individual strategies.

This paper has given an overview of the similarities of industrial technology platforms and technology platforms as an STI policy instrument. ITPs have had a longer history, and there is accordingly more experience with these types of platforms in the policy domain. The case example of Russian TPs shows how the main features of ITPs have been reflected in TPs as a STI policy instrument. However, given the young nature of Russian TPs and also european TPs it would be premature to draw more than preliminary conclusions about their effects and impacts at this point. It is to be hoped that the emphasis on communication within TPs and ITPs will lead to formative evaluation supporting ongoing development.

82 ReFeReNceS

Bal dwin, C. Y. & Woodard, C. J. (2009). The architecture of platforms: A unifed view. In A. Gawer (Ed.), Platforms, markets, and innovation. Cheltenham: UK: Edward Elgar. BD O, Russian Managers Association (2013). Short Horizons. A joint study by BDO and Russian Managers Association: the role and importance of strategy for the Russian business (In Russian). Retrieved from http://www.bdo.ru/media/publica- tion/korotkie_gorizonty.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2014). Bou dreau, K. (2010). Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs. Devolving control. Management Sci- ence, 56 (10), 1849-1872. Cal oghirou, Y., Ioannides, S., & Vonortas, N. S. (2004). Research joint ventures: A survey in theoretical literature. In Y. Ca- loghirou, N. S. Vonortas, & S. Ioannides (Eds.), European collaboration in research and development: Business strategies and public policies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Cer vantes M., & Meissner D. (2014). Commercialising public research under the open innovation model: New trends. Foresight-Russia. 8(3). 70-81. Chu lok A. (2015) Building a national technology foresight system in Russia. In D. Meissner, L. Gokhberg, A. Sokolov (Eds.), Grand opportunities in science, technology and innovation policy and management - Potentials for countries and companies (Forthcoming). Heidelberg; New York; Dordrecht; London: Springer. Eu ropean Commission (2004). Technology platforms from defnition to implementation of a common research agenda. Re- port compiled by a Commission Inter-Service Group on Technology Platforms. Luxembourg: Offce for Offcial Publica- tions of the European Commission. Eu ropean Commission (2007). Third status report on European technology platforms - at the Launch of FP7. Report compiled by a Commission Inter-Service Group on Technology Platforms. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission. Eu ropean Commission (2010a). Strengthening the role of European technology platforms in addressing Europe’s grand societal challenges. Report of the ETP Expert Group, October 2009. Luxembourg: Publications Offce of the European Union. Eu ropean Commission (2010b). Risk management in the procurement of operations. Concepts and empirical evidence in the European Union. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/risk_management.pdf Ga ckstatter, S. Kotsemir, M. Meissner, D. (2014). Building an innovation-driven economy – The Case of BRIC and GCC Countries. Foresight, 16(4), 293-308. Ga wer, A. (Eds). (2009). Platforms, markets and innovation. Nothampton: Edward Edgar Publishing Go ldstein, H. (2005). The role of knowledge infrastructure in regional economic development: the case of the Research Tri- angle. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 28(2), 199-220. Hir schman, A. O. (1958). The strategy of economic development. Yale University Press, New Heaven Ju stman, M. & Teubal, M. (1995). Technological infrastructure policy (TIP): Creating capabilities and building markets. Research Policy, 24(2), 259-281. Ko tsemir, M. N., & Meissner, D. (2013) Conceptualizing the innovation process – trends and outlook. Work paper series (WP BRP No. 10/STI/2013). Moscow: NRU Higher School of Economics. (MPRA 46504) Ku tsenko, E. S., & Meissner, D. (2013). Key features of the first phase of the national cluster programme in Russia. Work paper series (WP BRP No. 11/STI/2013). Moscow: NRU Higher School of Economics. Retrieved from fle:///C:/Users/

83 STI Policy Review_Vol. 6, No 1

stepi/Downloads/SSRN-id2253377.pdf Me issner, D. (2014). Approaches for developing national STI strategies. STI Policy Review, 5(1), 34-56. Me issner, D., Roud, V., & Cervantes, M. (2013). Innovation policy or policy for innovation? – In search of the optimal so- lution for policy approach and organization. In D. Meissner, L. Gokhberg, A. Sokolov (Eds.), Science, technology and innovation policy for the future — potentials and limits of foresight studies (pp. 247-255). NY; Dordrecht; Heidelberg: Springer. Mo hr J. J., Sengupta S., & Slater S. (2010). Marketing of high technology products and innovations. Pearson Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River. O’ Dubhchair, K., Scott K. J., & Johnson G. T. (2001). Building a knowledge infrastructure for learning communities. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 4, 1-21. Pro skuryakova L., Meissner D., & Rudnik P. (2014). A policy perspective on the Russian technology platforms. Working paper series (WP BRP 26/STI/2014). Moscow: NRU Higher School of Economics. Pro skuryakova L. N., Meissner D., & Rudnik P. B. (2015). The use of technology platforms as a policy tool to address research challenges and technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, November, DOI: 10.1007/s10961-014- 9373-8 Pro togerou A., Caloghirou Y., & Siokas E., (2012). Twenty-fve years of science-industry collaboration: the emergence and evolution of policy-driven research networks across Europe. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 873–895. Tassey, G. (1991). The functions of technology infrastructure in a competitive economy. Research Policy, 20, 345-361 Th e Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2011). OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: Russian Federation. Paris: OECD. Th une, T., & Magnus, G. (2014). Dynamics of collaboration in university–industry partnerships: do initial conditions ex- plain development patterns? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 977-993. Vis hnevskiy, K., Karasev, O., Meissner, D. (2015). Integrated roadmaps and corporate Foresight as tools of innovation management: The case of Russian companies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90(January), 433-443.