Documentation from the seminar "Integrating Innovation and Entrepreneurship Policy – how to do it!"
The seminar in Brussels on October 10th was arranged by the Swedish Foundation for Small Business Research (FSF), the Swedish Agency for Econimic and Regional Growth (NUTEK) and the Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies (ITPS).
In her welcoming remarks, the Swedish Ambassador to the EU, Mrs Ingrid Hjelt af Trolle pointed out the work that is being done in the political system on innovation and entrepreneurship.
With a 10-point innovation action programme, innovation will be one of the main themes for the informal meetings of the member states on the 28th of October. The ambassador was hopeful that the council would enter into practical discussions on this matter. Cooperation, intellectual property rights and venture capital are examples of issues of importance to agree upon. The framework and the analysis are important – but taking the steps from innovation to entrepreneurship is the most important task!
Philipe Vanrie – Managing Director of EBN
EBN is a network gathering 160 Business and Innovation centres (B.I.C.s) and similar organisations such as incubators, innovation centres and entrepreneurship centres.
The business of innovation and entrepreneurship is a people business – more so than an institutional business. Therefore - we need doers!
There is a future outside the pattern of the Lisbon agenda, where big players often are in focus. Small players who are the best in their niche markets have a great outlook for the future in the EU-market. A good example of a real-life entrepreneur doing this is Ascenio Orlandini of Village Tronic.
Village Tronic is a manufacturer and developer of graphics card for notebooks and computers. Ascenio Orlandini´s experience of the start-up process. A few lessons learned from a small companies perspective, a company that has found growth in protected niche market.
The formation of partnerships with big industry leaders by seeking win-win situations is an efficient way of establishing in the market. The same goes for building partnership with leading production and distribution companies.
- The realization of the international market – aim at being a “born global” company
- Focus on highest adding value (Technology --> Product Innovation)
- Long life cycle products
- Investment on people, first in Europe then in China
- Self financing, using partnership lever whenever possible – for independence
Experiences
There are both pros and cons of relying on a partnership chain. Companies change and merge, speaking partners therefore can change with short notice. When dealing with big corporations worldwide there is always the problem of different perspectives – what is a very small project to them, may be everything to a company of Village Tronic´s size.
Help of local and EU politics - useful from Village Tronic´s perspecive:
Support to employment for R&D
Financial support to R&D and Innovation projects
Personal relations with Universities
Being part of BIC/EBN/Association
International Awards (IST Prize, EBN EuroLeader)
A general comment on the Framework Programme 6; probably easier for large companies to access the resources within the programme.
Bruno Krekels, IWT (Krekels.ppt)
Stefaan Van Ryssen, Univ. College Gent (Hogeschool Gent)
"TETRA FUND"
Tetra = Technology Transfer (in a very broad sense-knowledge transfer)
The TETRA programme aims a developing the research base at University Colleges and also to transfer technology to groups of companies, primarily SME’s. A problem within the research community in Flanders is that research at Universities and Large Companies doesn’t ‘trickle down’ to the wider SME base. Transfer of technology is therefore important. The TETRA programme tries to bridge gap between strategic research and SME’s.
The Output of TETRA:
Research about prototypes, algorithms, new materials, production techniques, chemicals.
Create insight in new technologies, through papers and articles.
Test results, case studies, in multi-disciplinary integration.
Technical guides and data, new norms.
Attention to environment and a durable infrastructure.
Economical, medical, societal or cultural use.
How the knowledge is transferred from projects? The output is given directly to involved companies, in group- or bilateral discussions, case studies, advice and focused projects.
Seminars, workshops, publications (sectorial and technical press), inclusion in curricula and college courses, sidewise transfer in mixed college-company networks. Lower priority on publications in academic journals and on patents, licences (only when necessary, e.g. when great success).
The main challenges of the program include how to measure ‘technology transfer’ and ‘applied research’ objectively and how to compare ‘applied research’ to ‘pure research’ such that the funding for applied research gets a rationale
The first results of the TETRA program indicates that:
SME’s mostly interested because of:
Direct and measurable return on investments (when applicable results)
Immaterial effects through networking
Low-cost knowledge of technologies to improve production and design processes
Less product-oriented or market-oriented questions
University College researchers mostly interested because of:
Building a research´ base, continuity of funding for research
Effects on curricula and education (spillover)
Networking with businesses
The future of the TETRA program:
International collaboration
More resources (management/money) more projects, more results
William Neale – DG Enterprise (Neale.ppt)
"Innovation and Entrepreneurship Policy form a DG Enterprise perspective"
CIP (Competitive and Innovation framework Programme)
A way of supporting the objectives jobs and growth. 4 pillars of policy.
9 previous programs boiled into 3 pillars (Entrepreneurship and Innovation, ICT Policy and Intelligent Energy Europe).
1st pillar : Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Objectives:
Enterprise and innovation related reforms
Access to finance
SME cooperation environment
Innovation and eco-innovation
Entrepreneurship and innovation culture
Main actions:
Policy analyses, development and coordination
Financial instruments (equity and loan guarantees)
Business support services
Innovation projects (sectors, clusters, networks, regional, technology transfer, services
2nd pillar ICT Program
Three main interlinked objectives:
Develop the single information space
Wider uptake and better use of ICT
An inclusive Information Society
Main instruments:
Pilot projects
Best practice exchanges and Networking
Policy analysis and promotion actions
3rd pillar – IEE Program (Energy supply security, competitiveness and sustainability)
Promote:
Energy efficiency & rational use of resources
New & renewable energy sources
Energy efficiency and new and renewable energy sources in transport
Main instruments:
Promotion and dissemination projects
Market replication projects
Jörgen Gren, DG Regio
"Structural funds from a DG Regio perspective"
4th time of structural funds in EU (1989) first – 50 million. 308 billion next time around.
Growth agendas for regions (create jobs and growth)
3 objectives:
Convergence
(82% of 308 billion here, basically new member states)
Level of development, roughly half of i.e Sweden, Belgium
4% of the GDP of new member states
Competitiveness
Countries can choose if they want to put regions on the map.
Mainly SME development, environmental development, small investments
16% of the funding
Co-operation
2% of the funding
Evaluation of the use of funds are carried out every 3 years. This shows that the money give 3% GDP growth in average. DG Regio would like governments to earmark money, where 75% of the money from the start should be aimed at Lisbon agenda objectives (old member-states).
For new states, more voluntary approach – more spending on i.e. infrastructure – 60% Lisbon agenda earmarking.
De-centralised system (shared management system), financial controls, evaluations, guide-lines, earmarking – on how to spend the money. Plan for each country on how to spend the money.
Lois Stevenson – Director, Economic Framework Policies, Industry Canada
"Integrating Entrepreneurship and Innovation" (Stevenson.ppt)
Important questions:
Do we have the right frameworks in place? (What are they?)
Do we have the right conditions? (What are they?)
In order to maintain and develop an entrepreneurial country you need to work on innovation AND entrepreneurship simultaneously.
Innovation is the key to competitiveness and growth and entrepreneurial dynamism is the key to economic renewal and growth. Generating knowledge as well as creating an environment and a system must be in focus.
There is a problem when researching innovation and entrepreneurship. There is a divide between schools and researchers – a lack of communication where the fields are separately identified as critical contributors to economic growth. There are also often different stakeholders.
Complementarity between the fields is not being otpimized. Entrepreneurship involves the act of innovation.
Comparing Entrepreneurship and Innovation policy:
Similar strategic outcomes
Economic growth (mixed evidence – lots of intervening variables)
Wealth creation
Different policy objectives
Job creation, social inclusion, poverty alleviation vs productivity enhancement and competitiveness
Different target groups of policy focus
Uneven resource allocation
Different sets of measures
It is important to keep on searching for an integrated approach to the assessment of entrepreneurship and innovation policy and to continue the work with this agenda – It is never done!
Caroline Jenner, CEO Junior Achievement Young Enterprise (Jenner.ppt)
What is entrepreneurship education?
“Education that instills a ‘spirit of enterprise’ in individuals”
An early start is needed so that young people can grow up with a positive idea about enterprise and entrepreneurship.
What is entrepreneurship education?
Entrepreneurship
Economics
Business Skills
Financial Literacy
Ethics
Citizenship
Work/Career/Life Skills
It is about having the students being “doers” of the above, not to teach entrepreneurship by definition
On the Junior Achievement DG Education needs to put the word on the agenda – and it has, one of 8 prioritized areas.
Concluding remarks from the speakers in the final panel-discussion
What is the best the EU can do on the subject of entrepreneurship and innovation?
Orlandini:
Risk-taking and culture – in U.S the culture is different. Its possible to fail – fail forward!
Look ahead,
Krekels:
Contacts, networking and stimulating ideas
Van Ryssen:
Redefinition of the concept of innovation – environmental and social issues put into the concept on innovation.
Lois:
Policy dimension of innovation, on the e-ship side; promotion of e-ship is important, because the density of the entrepreneurial population will
Jenner:
Put the word e-ship on the list of core competences from DG Enterprise.
