The role of Collective Research Centres in Belgium

1. The role of Collective Research Centres in Belgium

2. Outline • Collective research centres (CRCs) • Knowledge paradox & public intervention • Innovation systems • Characteristics of CRCs • Technology transfer models • 1. Support activities • 2. Sourcing of information • 3. Dissemination (members) • Behavioural additionality

3. Knowledge paradox Products & processes become more complex (tendency to open innovation) Knowledge paradox: abundant scientific and technical knowledge is produced, but insufficient economic exploitation results (Dosi et al, 2006) Government intervention needed (e.g. industry-science relations)

4. Government intervention stimulating R&D and innovation • Rationale: market failure (Dasgupta and David, 1994; Nelson, 1959) • Market failure does not relate to R&D per se, but to the transfer and flows of information between firms or firms and public sector research institutes (Metcalfe and Georghiou, 1997) • Firms’ success is dependent on their ability to utilize external networks efficiently (Nooteboom, 1994; Dodgson and Rothwell, 1994; Chesbrough, 2003) • Governments have more and more turned away from direct R&D subsidies to policy promoting (Autio et al., 2008) • Transfer of knowledge through • Networking • Collaborative R&D programs One of these actors: Collective Research Centres (CRCs)

5. CRCs in the innovation system Enterprise sector Government sector Collective research centres Intermediary organisations TTOs Spin-offs Incubators Science parks Private non-profit Higher education

6. CRC project: objectives To look into the various activities by CRCs To go beyond quantification when discussing the impact of CRCs To study the role of CRCs for alleviating the knowledge paradox

7. CRCs - general Founded by industry to support R&D in a particular sector Origin in the Law “De Groote”, 30th January, 1947 Active in strengthening the relations between (member) firms and scientific developments (ISR) Mainly financed by member contributions (60%), but several actions are financed by regional, federal or European authorities

8. CRCs - typology • Three categories: • Centres “De Groote” • Associated collective centres • Autonomous centres: recent initiatives by regional authorities • The research focuses on first two categories. These centres often cover more than one region in Belgium

9. Location of CRCs

10. Reasons for location

11. CRCs – active in traditional sectors Overview of employment at the collective research centres, 2003-2007 (FTE)

12. Tech transfer model of CRCs Internal sources of knowledge Member companies CRC activities Dissemination 1 3 External sources of knowledge 2

13. Tech transfer model of CRCs Internal sources of knowledge Member companies CRC activities Dissemination 1 3 External sources of knowledge 2

14. 1. CRC activities (OECD Frascati)

15. Support activities by CRCs Provided by most CRCs to most members Provided to a lesser extent

16. Typology of CRC activities • Knowledge intelligence unit • TIS, provision of advice, R&D • Knowledge agency • TAD • Knowledge repository • Technical library, qualified personnel

17. Tech transfer model of CRCs Internal sources of knowledge Member companies CRC activities Dissemination 1 3 External sources of knowledge 2

18. 2. Sourcing of information • R&D and R&D related activities • TOP 3 • In-house personnel • Clients and members • Public knowledge (publications, specialized magazines, meetings and conferences)

19. Need Detection Interaction with members and non-members by Technological advisors Dissemination Permanent Committee Centexbel writes proposal and submits for finance technological advisors, project reports Collective Research (Max 2 years) Technology suppliers, conferences and literature, technical committees Example: Centexbel

20. Tech transfer model of CRCs Internal sources of knowledge Member companies CRC activities Dissemination 1 3 External sources of knowledge 2

21. 3. Dissemination and impact • CRC managers asked members to fill out online questionnaire • 856 questionnaires received

22. The member’s point of view (1) Why and when do they call upon the CRC? What services do they call upon most frequently?

23. Why and when do they call upon the CRC? Large differences between R&D/no R&D, CRC, size

24. What services do they call upon most frequently? Most frequently used services Less frequently used services Large differences between R&D/no R&D, CRC, size

25. Taxonomy: no one size fits all • “Heavy” users • Closely involved, especially on R&D activities • “Regular” users • Search information, standardisation, seminars • “Light” users • Loosely involved

26. The member’s point of view (2) • Traditional impact measures • Output additionality (patents, publications, new products launched) • Input additionality (1 public $ / 1 private $) • BUT…problems with assessing impact of intermediaries • Services impact is distributed among a wide range of activities • Benefits are not instantaneous • => Study of behavioural additionality

27. Behavioural additionality • Studies the difference in firm behaviour resulting from the intervention • Diverse definitions -> CRC analysis: • Input additionality • What would have happened without the CRC support • Network additionality • To what extend do CRC help to built networks • Competence additionality • Impact of CRC support on competencies and expertise • Speed additionality • Impact on the speed of a project • Scope and scale additionality • Impact on risk and size of projects • Output additionality • Impact on results of the projects

28. What is the impact of collaboration with the CRC for the member companies? • Of R&D related activities? • Of R&D (contract research) activities?

29. Behavioural additionality of R&D related activities Higher in case of Cies with higher R&D intensity

30. Alternatives for CRCs (R&D related activities) Especially the case for small, low R&D intensive companies Especially the case for large, R&D intensive companies CRC dependent

31. Behavioural additionality of R&D activities (contract research)

32. Alternatives for CRCs (contract research) * * * * * Dependent on R&D intensity

33. Determinants of cognitive capacity additionality • Absorptive capacity, or • the ability of a firm to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends • Within • The member firm • The collective research centre • Operationalized as R&D intensity • The intensity of use of the CRC’s services

34. Network additionality Steurs et al. (2006)

35. Competence additionality Steurs et al. (2006)

36. Regression results OLS regression results for R&D related activities (AC= Absortive capacity) N=289; *p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.001;****, p<.0001

37. Results + + + +

38. Results (2) • Firms with higher R&D intensity tend to benefit more from working with the CRCs • Push by government to focus on breakthroughs • Should CRCs then not invest in own R&D? NO, from an absorptive capacity point of view • Other types of absorptive capacity may affect the results

39. Conclusions • CRCs and their users are diverse in nature • Most important role lies in networking activities and technology transfer • But: high involvement in R&D (absorptive capacity) • Main impact for members: competence additionality / network • Especially when the member engages already in R&D • Alternatives for CRCs are mainly available for R&D-intensive and larger companies • Exist on behalf and for the benefit of the member firms (=> topics are determined by the market! <-> knowledge paradox)

40. More information Research Series 11 (Belgian Science Policy) “Collective Research Centres: A Study on R&D and Technology Transfer Involvement” FDC “Open innovation: the role of Collective Research Centres in stimulating innovation”

41. Contact • Mirjam Knockaert • Mirjam.knockaert@ugent.be • André Spithoven • Andre.spithoven@belspo.be