Innovability of Nations

359 views
268 views

Published on

Sources of innovations have considerably changed in the past. How can policy makers react? What are the key desing features of new innovation support schemes. Based on the so called ANIS approach, regional innovation systems can be analysed and appropriate innovation support schemes developed.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
359
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Innovationsprozess früher
  • Mare R&D means innovation Universicties are drivers for innovation Isolated entrepreneurial support
  • Dies sind einige Erfolgsfaktoren für NIS-Politik
  • Innovability of Nations

    1. 1. Innovability- Turning Innovation Policy into Practise -Gerd Meier zu Köckeriit – Institute for Innovation and Technology
    2. 2. The Morocco Case- Dream or Nightmare for Policy Makers -Governmental task:Improve national competitiveness in Solar EnergyFunds available: EUR 10 MioMeasurable impact: 3 – 5 years 2
    3. 3. How Innovation Happened in the Past Phases of the innovation process Results Research Invention Development Prototype Exploitable product Production Commercialisation Market success Impact on economy Mass application Quelle: FSU Jena, Fritsch, VL Innovationssysteme SS 2009 © VDI/VDE-IT 15.09.12 3
    4. 4. Sources for Innovation – Today - External Sources Internal Sources Persons Relationships Organisations Source: IBM CEO Study 4
    5. 5. Sources for Innovation – Today - External Sources Internal Sources Persons Relationships Organisations Hot spot for innovation Source: IBM CEO Study 5
    6. 6. How Innovability Depends on Organisation Issues 6Delmenhorst, 9. Dezember 2010
    7. 7. Organisational Innovability - A Self-assessment - Innovation strategy 5 4 3 2 Organisation and Innovation results 1 culture 0 Enabling Factors Product life cycle Basierend auf dem House of Innovation Konzept von A. T. Kearney 7Delmenhorst, 9. Dezember 2010
    8. 8. Silent Evolution of New Industries Source: pwc, 2012 8
    9. 9. How Converging Technologies Shaping New Industries Food Smart packaging industry Packaging Sensors 9© VDI/VDE-IT 15.09.12
    10. 10. How Converging Technologies Shape New Industries Biology Biomarker industry Health Optical Technologies 10© VDI/VDE-IT 15.09.12
    11. 11. Different Disciplines Have to Co-operate for Polymer-BasedInnovations New generation of polymer-based Material PV panels ScienceProductiontechnologies Analytics 11
    12. 12. Innovations for Emerging Markets (I) Injection pumps for cars Challenge Down-Scaling of existing highly sophisticated injection pumps to enter Indian market Why? Entering new markets Discovering new applications 12
    13. 13. How Policy Makers can Stimulate Innovation Fiscal and regulatory measures - e. g. feed in law - Institutional support - Institutions as innovation services providers - Programmatic support - Funding innovations - 13© VDI/VDE-IT 15.09.12 13
    14. 14. Innovation Policy Wheel Challenges Academia• Complexity• Technological Convegence• Organisational Convergence• Velocity Determinants• Internationalization of innovability Policy Persons• Cut budgets Organisations• Decision making processes Networks• Funding tools• Administration• External pressure Society / Markets• Expectations• Re-shape of new industries• Societal challenges• Market demands 14
    15. 15. Analysis:Level of Scientific ExcellenceInnovation Leagues 15
    16. 16. Analysis I:Supporting Solutions or Technologies X Development of new technologies Coping societal and global challenges 16
    17. 17. Analysis: What Determinant(s) Shall be Improved?30 Determinants of a National Innovation Systems Policy Institutional Programmatic Innovation Innovation Capacity Level Level Innovation Support Level Support Level National Innovation Technology Transfer Universities STI Funding Schemes Policy Centres Fundamental R&D Institutions for Regional Innovation Technology Parks Programmes Fundamental R&D Policies Incubators Applied R&D Private R&D Institutions Master Plans Programmes Clusters Innovators Joint Funding Schemes Training & Education Business Promotion Private Investors Accompanying Foresight R&D Agenda Agencies Measures to Support STI Entrepreneurs Cluster Policy Innovation Service Providers Entrepreneurial Support SMEs Innovation Friendly Funding Agencies Cluster Development Large Companies Regulations Programmes Internationalisation Support 17
    18. 18. Status of Development of the Institutional Innovation SupportProviders in Zambia 18
    19. 19. Status of Development of the Innovation Actors in Zambia 19
    20. 20. Status of Development of the Programmatic InnovationSupport in Zambia 20
    21. 21. Portofolio of Measures to Improve Innovability in Zambia 21
    22. 22. Portofolio of Measures to Improve Innovability in Manaus / Brazil 22
    23. 23. Portofolio of Measures to Improve Innovability in Indonesia 23
    24. 24. Design:New Role of Academia Due to the New Nature of Innovation Key programme design figures 24
    25. 25. Setting the Framework Conditions for better Cooperationbetween Science and Technology Turning major parts of the fixed annual budgets of universities … 1970 / 1980 Nowadays Collaborative R&D projects Competitive programmes / calls Collaborative R&D projects Fixed budget Fixed budget … in competitive programme calls for collaborative R&D 25
    26. 26. Development of Annual Budget of FhG-IDG Federal level – collaborative projects Collaborative EU – collaborative projects projects with industry Industry Fixed budget Source: Fraunhofer Institute IGD 26
    27. 27. Design:Key Outline of Programme Design Features ….how to do it ? … what has to be funded ? ….who has to be funded ? … which instruments 27
    28. 28. Design:Funding Schemes for Microsystem Technology in Germany high Mobility & Exchange Programs Basicaverage funding rate Research Accompanying Applied Research Company Specific Innovation-related Measures Innovation low Support 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 …… 15 years Period of time for exploitation / commercialization 28
    29. 29. Design:Linking Programs to Other Innovation Support Schemes Weak linkages between cluster and other innovation support programs in some European countries 29
    30. 30. Implementation:Examples for Good and Bad Practises on Program Implementation 30
    31. 31. Measuring:Measuring Output, Outcomes and Impact 31
    32. 32. Erfolgsfaktoren bei FuE-VerbundvorhabenTechnische Kompetenz und Know-how des Konsortialführers (58 %)Integration der Endanwender ins Konsortium (54 %)Kenntnisse der wesentlichen Industrieprozesse (33 %)Klarheit der Projektziele (32 %)Technische Kompetenz des gesamten Konsortiums (27 %) Quelle: eigene Untersuchungen, basierend auf einer Auswertung von rund 5.000 Verbundvorhaben Delmenhorst, 9. 32
    33. 33. Versagensgründe bei FuE-VerbundvorhabenZu ehrgeizige Zielsetzungen, zu hohe technische Komplexität der angestrebtenProblemlösung (30 %)Fehlen eines klaren Verwertungs- und / oder Geschäftsplans (24 %)Zu hohe Einführungs- oder Produktionskosten (19 %)Falsche Einschätzung der Marktbedürfnisse (12 %)Änderungen der Bedürfnisse des Marktes während der Projektlaufzeit (11 %)Andere Gründe (20 %) Quelle: eigene Untersuchungen, basierend auf einer Auswertung von rund 5.000Verbundvorhaben Delmenhorst, 9. 33
    34. 34. Einfluss der Projektmanagement- erfahrung vor Projektbeginn Delmenhorst, 9.Quelle: eigene Untersuchungen, basierend auf einer Auswertung von rund 5.000 Verbundvorhaben 34
    35. 35. Einflussfaktor: Konsortialstruktur Delmenhorst, 9. 35Quelle: eigene Untersuchungen, basierend auf einer Auswertung von rund 5.000 Verbundvorhaben
    36. 36. Einflussfaktor: Verwertungsrisiko bzw. Verwertungskompetenz der KonsortialpartnerQuelle: eigene Untersuchungen, basierend auf einer Auswertung von rund 5.000 Verbundvorhaben Delmenhorst, 9. 36
    37. 37. Erfolgsfaktoren bei FuE-VerbundvorhabenTechnische Kompetenz und Know-how des Konsortialführers (58 %)Integration der Endanwender ins Konsortium (54 %)Kenntnisse der wesentlichen Industrieprozesse (33 %)Klarheit der Projektziele (32 %)Technische Kompetenz des gesamten Konsortiums (27 %) Quelle: eigene Untersuchungen, basierend auf einer Auswertung von rund 5.000 Verbundvorhaben Delmenhorst, 9. 37
    38. 38. Versagensgründe bei FuE-VerbundvorhabenZu ehrgeizige Zielsetzungen, zu hohe technische Komplexität der angestrebtenProblemlösung (30 %)Fehlen eines klaren Verwertungs- und / oder Geschäftsplans (24 %)Zu hohe Einführungs- oder Produktionskosten (19 %)Falsche Einschätzung der Marktbedürfnisse (12 %)Änderungen der Bedürfnisse des Marktes während der Projektlaufzeit (11 %)Andere Gründe (20 %) Quelle: eigene Untersuchungen, basierend auf einer Auswertung von rund 5.000Verbundvorhaben Delmenhorst, 9. 38
    39. 39. Thank you very much for your attention Dr. Gerd Meier zu Köcker Chairman of the BoardInstitute for Innovation and Technology Steinplatz 1 10623 Berlin Tel.: +49 (0) 30 310078-118 Fax: +49 (0) 30 310078-222 E-Mail: mzk@iit-berlin.de www.iit-berlin.de 39
    40. 40. The aim of this conference is to convene a commemorative series of activitieson the intellectual legacy of Schumpeter with specific reference to developingcountries. Specific objectives of the initiative are to:(a)outline the essential features of Schumpeters ideas of relevance todevelopment policy and practice;
(b) explore the role of innovation in polymerresearch in addressing development challenges such as industry, agriculture,health, water, shelter and environmental management;
(c) disseminate theresults among development policymakers, scholars, and practitioners;
 and(d)identify new research directions on innovation and development.(b)Vortrag Vietnam und Budapest(c)IBM einleitung(d)ANIS(e)Innovation nicht gleich research !!(f)New nature of innovation(g)Knowlege triangle 40
    41. 41. Institute for Innovation and Technology The Institute Belongs to: VDI/VDE Innovation + Technik GmbH Established in 1978 200 employees Active in more than 25 countries world-wide •Innovation policy advice •Analyzing framework conditions for innovation •Funding innovation •Measuring impact of innovation support Internet: www.iit-berlin.de 41© iit, 15.09.12
    42. 42. Selected Success Factors of a Competitive National Innovation System – Policy LevelNational policy makers are committed to long-termpublic investments in innovation High demand orientation and tailor-madeNational Innovation Strategy focus’ on competitive advantages of a nation (appropriate level of innovationsought)Implementation of National Innovation Policy with allrelevant stake holdersRegulatory and fiscal measures are fully utilised for innovation(CSP innovation boost in Algeria or China through feed-in laws)Design features of innovation support measures aredemand-oriented (smart money, high impact) 42
    43. 43. Selected Success Factors of a Competitive National Innovation System – Meso Level  Many different actors of a national innovation system  are available  know and fulfil their tasks and duties  are fully operational (staff, budget, equipment, etc.)  operate in an innovation friendly surrounding  Funding agencies are responsible for the design and management of public funding measures (on behalf of Ministries, low administration)  Close co-operation and communication between industry and science (e. g. stimulated by public funding) Innovation actors on meso-level are be open for transnational co- operation Innovation friendly surrounding (e. g. Public Understanding of Science) 43Berlin, January 6 ,l 2009 th
    44. 44. Selected Success Factors of a Competitive National Innovation System – Micro Level  Sufficient educational and vocational training system into force  Low barriers towards funding and financing R&D, even for SME  Public innovation actors can operate in a flexible and customer oriented way  Close co-operation between industry & science (stimulated by public funding)  Universities, public R&D-institutions and innovation agencies do not have a fixed budget Incentives for exploitation and commercialisation of R&D results are given 44Berlin, January 6 ,l 2009 th
    45. 45. Key Expectation from Clients in the Field ofPolymer Injection Molding De-forming velocity Flexibility of application Support in material construction Overall costs Productivity Price per kilo Innovation 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage 45

    ×