1 / 14

Successful Science-Industry projects

Successful Science-Industry projects. MINANO Finland/Mexico (coordinators). Mika Paajanen, Chief research scientist, .Sc.(Tech), Functional polymers, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland. Background. Minano Project resulted from the Mexico-EU Coordinated call –

naoko
Download Presentation

Successful Science-Industry projects

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Successful Science-Industry projects • MINANO • Finland/Mexico (coordinators) Mika Paajanen, Chief research scientist, .Sc.(Tech), Functional polymers, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

  2. Background • Minano Project resulted from theMexico-EU Coordinated call – • Theme Nanosciences, nanotechnologies, materials & new production • Technologies (NMP) NMP-FP7-2010-1.2-5 Adding Value to Mining at • Nanostructure level • VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland overall coordinatoras R&D Center • Peñoles - the second largest mining company in Mexico, producer of high-quatlity nanoparticlescoordinator of the Mexican partners

  3. Project goal • Goal: Develop a mass production method for the Mg(OH)2, ZnO ja Ag nanoparticles and produce plastic and wood-plastic nanocomposites utilizing the nanoparticles • Duration: 10/2010-9/2013 • Type of supporting funding scheme: EU/CONACYT

  4. Company insertion process? • How + by whom was the company introduced to this project • opportunity? • In first stage the project opportunity was suggested by VTT to Peñoles. • What were the principal incentives/arguments to try to join • the consortium? • VTT (EU) and Peñoles (Mexico) wanted to be the coordinators, because the initial ideas of the project were planned together

  5. Company insertion process? • What were the crucial factors for deciding to join? • The opportunity to work with a producer of high-quatlity nanoparticles (Peñoles) • What were the major difficulties in joining the consortium? • The major difficulty was to find a correct mining company and contact person from that company in Mexico • Were the benefits & costs of joining the project, clear to the • company (at insertion)? • The funding was only available for Mexico/EU cooperation

  6. Consortium structure • Leader of the project (company or R&D inst?) • The overall coordinator VTT is a R&D centre • The coordinator of the Mexican partners is the second largest mining company in Mexico

  7. Consortium structure • Companies and R&D institutions participating: • VTT, R&D centre, Finland, 961,493 € • Peñoles, industry, Mexico, 612,167 € • DTU, university, Denmark, 351,200 € • CIQA, R&D centre, Mexico, 313,499 € • CIMAV, R&D centre, Mexico, 330,999 € • SOFTER, industry, Italy, 435,410 € • UASLP, university, Mexico, 116,556 € • SOVERE, industry, Italy, 366,864 € • Owens corning, industry, Mexico/Brazil, 147,000/ 115,520 €

  8. Consortium structure • Any specific role that the company plays compared to the • academic partners? • Peñoles massproduces nanoparticles and their chemical functionalization process • SOFTER developes plastic products with functionalities enhanced by the nanoparticles • SOVERE developes wood-plastic composites with functionalities enhanced by the nanoparticles • Owens Corning produces building materials utilizing the functional nanocomposites

  9. IPR management • How was the sharing of results agreed between • participants? • We have a Consortium agreement and the rules of EU Grant Agreement • Was there a consortium agreement between • partners? YES • Was there any cause for problems in this respect? • Yes, it has taken a lot of time to receive signatures to the CA and GA

  10. Obstacles identified • Highlight the least positive factors of • collaboration process since the consortium’s • set up, till the end of the project. • Difficulty to receive response to email • Difficulty to get in touch by phone or by any other mean • Difficulty to find the person who takes responsibility

  11. Obstacles identified • Highlight the least positive factors of collaboration process • since the consortium’s set up, till the end of the project. • Difficulty to receive response to email • Difficulty to get in touch by any mean • Highlight what aspects could be improved in the respective • S&T system in order to foster more successful science • industry projects. • Create similar template-supported fundamental documents and guides for the project preparation as in EU for LA as well

  12. Critical factors of success • Highlight the critical factors of success beyond • the project, namely: • Previous history of collaboration between partners? • There was previous collaboration between the Mexican partners themselves, and between SOFTER and SOVERE in Europe • No other previous collaboration • Technical and financial balanced consortium? • The work between the Mexican and European partners is quite well balanced and supporting each other • External consultancy support or internal expertise on project management? • Support from the EU team within VTT • Clear IPR management? • Support from the EU team within VTT

  13. Ex-post recommendations? Given the company’s past or ongoing experience in the project, what recommendations could you propose for increased future private company partnering in these kind of projects? Provide mutual funding opportunities for cooperation Demand cooperation as a prerequisite for funding, but do not make conditions too high, e.g. one partner from each region could be a start Support the private companies only, if R&D centres or universities are involved in the consortium (they usually are more dedicated for finding funding)

  14. Mika Paajanen Chief research scientist, D.Sc.(Tech) Functional polymers VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

More Related