Integrating Research and Standardisation – A Case Study Approach

1. Integrating Research and Standardisation – A Case Study Approach University of Lausanne EASST conference 2006 August 24th 2006Heide Coenen, RWTH Aachen

2. Structure • Introduction • The INTEREST Project • Case Studies • Results and Feedback • Outlook

3. Introduction • Standards are vital to Europe for promoting competitiveness and interoperability of products and services. • Research results need to be transferred into the innovation process in order to impact economic growth and welfare. • Standards also shape the technology path. • Yet the interface between standards and research has not merited enough attention. • Example: nanotechnology in Germany (1st presentation of this session)

4. The INTEREST Project • The overall objective of INTEREST is to develop taxonomies of standards, of research outputs and of research-standards relationships and to contribute to the improvement of the interface between research and standardisation, and thus contribute to the effective diffusion and utilisation of research which is being performed in Europe • Partners: • Fraunhofer ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany; Knut Blind (CO), Stephan Gauch • Dialogic, Utrecht, Netherlands: Rudi Bekkers • NPL, UK: Kamal Hossain • NIFU-STEP, Oslo, Norway: Eric Iversen • Aachen University, Aachen, Germany: Kai Jakobs, Heide Coenen

5. Recursive Interdependence between Research and Standardisation

6. Context • Literature Survey • Survey among more than 3000 project co-ordinatiors of FP5 (CORDIS database) • 10 Case studies on research/standardisation interface • 3 Case studies on patent pools and alternative co-ordination mechanisms • Dissemination and feedback • Development of taxonomies and manuals

7. Approach and Case Study Selection • Internal Link between S-frame and R-frame is under investigation • Set of five research organisiations and five commercial enterprises • Interviews with standardisers and researchers, following the same structure: • Baseline organisation characteristics • Baseline industry characteristics • Organisation of R&D and standardisation activities • Obstacles to the participation in standardisation • Favourable organisational structures

8. The Cases in This Study • Two cases presented here: • Case 1: Blohm und Voss, ship-building and • Case 2: telecommunications and equipment provider, • both equipped with standardisation departments

9. Company and Organisational background Case 1 (Blohm und Voss) • Company‘s activities: Shipbuilding and Mechanical Engineering; System Supplier • Workforce of about 900, recent reorganisation • Trend to build ships in consortia → consortional guidelines • Standardisation mainly with the NSMT, the Shipbuilding and Marine Technology Standards Committee of the DIN • Participation in standardising bodies varies considerably among industry

10. Organisation of Research and StandardisationCase 1 (Blohm und Voss) • Standardisation department as service provider • Main task: Standardisation management • Reduced in size (25 to 10 employees) and significance • More Development than Research in R&D • Several Research Departments (i.e. Surface Vessels, Submarine etc.)

11. Successful Practices and suggestions Case 1 Evaluation • Tool to evaluate benefits • Dissemination of „German Standardisation Strategy“ of DIN • Internal Homepage • Internal Standardisation Forum/ Seminars • Hours budgets etc. for employees Awareness Incentives

12. Company and Organisational background Case 2 (telecommunication) • Company‘s activities: equipment supplier and network service operator in mobile and fixed communication • Competition decidedly global with a few major players • Especially mobile communication highly standardised  participation is a must

13. Organisation of Research and StandardisationCase 2 (telecommunications) • research unit organised as one corporate unit • important outputs of research are standards and patents and…new products • enterprise-wide technical steering group • both executives and resource owners • takes up proposals from inside and brings outside evolutions to attention • consensus-orientation permits a feedback loop into research activities • Individual level: being active in standardisation the individual researcher shows social skills, beneficial for career

14. Successful Practices and suggestions Case 2 • Need for standardisation is apparent • Consensus oriented steering-committee • Email list help find the appropriate expert: feedback loop • Circumventing IPR-issues: joint (EU) projects • Early publication of results which cannot be patented • Everything can be traced IPR protection

15. Results from other cases • Research in research institutes (RTOs): Research and standardisation activities tend to grow out of existing projects and expertise of individuals • Especially in RTOs, researchers tend to participate in standardisation activities on an ad hoc basis. • The organisational structure of standardising bodies was not perceived as a barrier. • For small firms and RTOs direct participation costs were a problem • Almost all cases stated the lacking awareness of researchers and those commissioning the research as a problem. (not corroborated by survey) Exception: ICT firms

16. Comparison of cases • While research organisations usually have less pressure to focus on commercial activities, enterprises will typically only engage in standardisation if they perceive these activities as favourable to their own profit maximisation. • In telecommunications for example, common standards are the basis for the market which is also reflected in the incentives for individual researchers. • Essentially a problem of supply and demand: Incentives for researchers and developers are too little in other industries and organisations Evaluation Awareness Incentives Funding IPR protection

17. Outlook • Synthesis of validated hypothesese • Elaboration of two manuals (researchers and standardising bodies) • Final Workshop in Brussels, November 09th • www.interest-fp6.org • Deliverabels downloadable from this website

18. Thank you for your attention • Heide CoenenRWTH-Aacheni4 Lehrstuhl für Informatik 4Ahornstraße 55 • coenen@i4.informatik.rwth-aachen.de • Questions?