1. 1Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Ciencia e Innovación
www.ipp.csic.eswww.ipp.csic.es
Luis Sanz-Menéndez
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Espagne
Institute of Public Goods and Policies (IPP)
Department of Science and Innovation
Luis.Sanz@csic.es
JOURNEES ANPR “Le paysage de la Recherche et de l’Innovation en Tunisie : Etat des
lieux et Perspectives”, 11 et 12 Mai 2015, Hammamet
The evolution of the public research
organizations and traditional industrial
technical centers in Spain

2. 2Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Ciencia e Innovación
OUTLINE
1. Aims of the presentation
2. Conceptual tools and analytical background
3. Mapping PROs and ITCs
4. 30 years of transformations, evolution and
changes
5. Some conclusion and self-reflections

3. 3Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Ciencia e Innovación
1. Aims of the presentation
• Describing and mapping the actors of research and
technology institutions (non university and non-
enterprise) under the public and ‘semi-public’ sector.
• Analyzing their changes in the last decades resulting
from government action, bottom up initiatives and
international inspiration.
• Sharing with you some of the experiences and lessons
we have learnt

4. 4Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Ciencia e Innovación
2.a Conceptual tools and analytical
Background
• Research and Innovation Systems approach: Understanding
actors, their interactions and the institutional structures are
essential.
• Actors are heterogeneous and the work in different environments
• They Cooperate and compete for public (and private) resources
and recognition (outputs and results)
• Actors have diverse degrees of political autonomy and resource
dependence, but there are hybridization trends and blurred
boundaries (ownership and publicness)
• They have different organizational attributes and diverse
authority structures
• Actors adapt to environmental changes, respond to institutional
incentives, but they could follow different strategies

5. 5Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Ciencia e Innovación
2.b Trends of recent developments
• Research and technological development policies no longer based
on the classical social contract based on “trust” in scientists and
researchers.
• Increasing requirements of “utility” (social and economic) and
demands for accountability
• Government less role in classical ways of direct performance
(micro-management) and more in indirect measures (regulations,
incentives, indirect funding) in support of S&T
• Increasing role of the Government in the definition of the S&T
priorities, steering research and evaluation.
• Governance of the system based on competition (for the limited
resources) and performance (emergence of quasi-markets)
• Reinforcement of the formal hierarchies and changes in the
authority structures in favor of the Managers inside the PROs, but
the managers have limited control of the process of work and
results

6. 6Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Ciencia e Innovación
3. Mapping PROs and ITCs
Level of
market
influenc
e
(nature
of R&D)
Proprietary
product (high)
Private technology Mixed-source
technology
Public technology
Balanced product
(moderate)
Private science and
technology
Mixed-source
science and
technology
Public science and
technology
Generic product
(low)
Private niche science Mixed-source
science
Public science
Low Moderate High
Level of governmental influence

7. 7Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Ciencia e Innovación
3. Mapping PROs and ITCs
Four types to map the research and technological organizations
and centers (non university):
•Mission-oriented centers (MOCs)
IGME, INIA, IEO, INTA, ISCIII, CIEMAT,…
•Public Research Centers and Councils (PRCs)
CSIC (120 research Institutes, 40 of them with Universities)
•Research Technology Organizations (RTOs)
Technological Centers: Tecnalia , IK4 Research Alliance,
FEDIT Association for other small technology center, ….
•Independent Research Institutes (IRIs)
New type of CNIO, CNIC, IFO, ….

8. 8Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Ciencia e Innovación
4. Thirty years of transformations
evolution and changes
Transformation in the classical PRC and MOCs
• Specialization and diversification
• Mergers and mission redefinition
• Stable and classical approach of ‘public’ as ownership, but
increasing pressure of external funding
Evolution of the traditional industrial technology centers
• Technology driven vs. Sector driven
• Mergers to increase size and collaboration for collective action
• Private non for profit ownership and Public influence through
regulation and public funding
IRIs (new in the system) as a mechanism for experimentation and
change
• Promoted by Governments but with private legal form, non for
profit
• Combining scientific excellence and social and economic
relevance

9. 9Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Ciencia e Innovación
Hybrid centers Government laboratories Technology centers
Legal status
and
governance
Independent private nonprofit
foundation with representation of public
and private actors usually included in
the Governing Board. In some cases
also an Industrial Advisory Board.
Public centers belonging to the
Consejo Superior de
Investigaciones Científicas
(CSIC). No independent legal
status from CSIC
Private nonprofit organization, most
of them affiliated to the Spanish
Federation of Technology Centers
(FEDIT).
Missions To produce research and advance
knowledge on socially and
economically relevant problems,
working in a problem solving mode,
valorizing research results.
To conduct fundamental and
applied research.
To support innovation and improve
competitiveness of firms, mainly
SMEs through the provision of R&D
and services on demand.
Funding Balance of public and private funding
but usually block grant support of
public actors involved in their creation
(normally in the context of “Strategic
Plans”) and search for external funds
(either competitive public or private) for
carrying out research projects defined
in the strategic choices.
Mix of funding sources, mainly
public, with a significant role of
direct transfers from government
Mix of funding sources, mainly
private, obtained both from research
contracts and services provided to
industry.
Human
resources
managemen
t
Private law (not civil service model).
External and international recruitment
in a world research market. Conditions
based on reputation and performance.
Civil service model. Lack of
capability to negotiate individual
salaries and rewards.
Performances playing a minor
role differentiating earnings.
Private law, competitive salaries for
regional business market. Rewards
based on fulfillment of objectives.
Stylized features of government and technology centers v. hybrid centers

10. 10Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Ciencia e Innovación
Summary of research planning and agenda setting features at government and technology
centers v. hybrid centers
Level of agenda setting Research planning Changes over time
Hybrid centers Organizational: scientific
directorship plus
advisory boards
Multiannual
Program basis
Stable
Technology centers Top Management plus
consultation with head of
departments.
Increasingly
organizational
2 tracks
1st -project basis with the
contracting firms
2nd- Multiannual generic
technology development
programs
Establishment of the
second track from the
mid nineties and plans
to reduce the share of
the first one
Government
laboratories
Micro level: Research
groups and individual
researchers
Follows competitive
national calls cycle
Project basis (usually
short-term)
Strategic plans (four
years) started recently

11. 11Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Ciencia e Innovación
5a. Some conclusions and self-reflections
• Despite traditional statistics show a reduction of the size and
role of PROs and ITCs, they continue playing a critical role for
innovation due to their role in knowledge creation and diffusion
• They combine significant focus on applied research, but also
there is a relevant role of the search for excellence and
addressing societal and economic challenges.
• Governance and organizational structures have evolved into
more hybrid forms, with increasing responsiveness to different
stakeholders and new organizational experiments
• Funding has become increasingly competitive, replacing
traditional direct funding or high dependence from the
contracts.
• Employment relations have become more flexible than under
the traditional models of civil servant.

12. 12Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Ciencia e Innovación
5b. Some conclusions and self-reflections
Some political lessons, e.g.
• It is easier to create new institutions and centers than
developing reforms or transforming the existing ones.
• Promoting the public-private partnerships and encouraging
hybridization of actors lead to better performance.
Still some challenges ahead, e.g.:
• Limited interactions among PROs and other actors in the
innovation system
• Some organizational fragmentation that makes difficult arriving
to critical mass, visibility and excellence in the PROs.
• Limited organizational specialization

13. 13Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Ciencia e Innovación
Thanks!
Contact:
Luis.Sanz@csic.es