CTO Survey 2013
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

CTO Survey 2013

on

  • 546 views

The CTO Survey was conducted by Spinverse Ltd. and covers Finnish CTOs’ views on the current innovation environment and its future outlook. ...

The CTO Survey was conducted by Spinverse Ltd. and covers Finnish CTOs’ views on the current innovation environment and its future outlook.

The survey was supported by EK, Sitra and Technology Academy Finland.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
546
Views on SlideShare
546
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    CTO Survey 2013 CTO Survey 2013 Presentation Transcript

    • CTO Survey 2013 23 Jan 2013 Terhi Marttila, Jussi Kajala, Laura Kauhanen, Pekka Koponen
    • Contents CTO Survey 2013 Introduction CTO Outlook on 2013 CTO Views on Innovation across Value Chains
    • CTO Survey 2012 Introduction
    • CTO Survey covers Finnish CTOs’ views on the current innovation environment and its future outlookSpinverse annually conducts the CTO Survey, targeted to Finnish ChiefTechnology Officers (CTOs). The survey deals with themes that arise in the semi-annual CTO Forum events.The CTO Survey 2013 was done in partnership with Sitra, Confederation ofFinnish Industries (EK) and Technology Academy Finland (TAF)The survey received 120 responses from various industries: online responses werecomplemented by interviewing representatives from large companies.Almost half (43 %) of the responses were from big corporations.The results of the survey are compared to the previous years.
    • Nearly half of the TOP 100 R&D investors inFinland answered the survey, added by othersignificant Finnish companies Examples• Wärtsilä • Outokumpu• Metso • Tikkurila• Orion • Ahlstrom• Kone • Sartorius Biohit Liquid Handling• Bayer Schering Pharma • Logica• UPM • Gasum• Kemira • STX Finland• Neste Oil • Beneq• Tieto • Okmetic• Fortum • NSN• Konecranes • Ponsse• EADS Secure Networks • Patria• Vaisala • SantenOver 95 % of Finnish R&D investments are done by the top 100 investors.We cover this population well.
    • The main part of the respondents are from technology-intensive industries 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Electronics and ICT 33Metal and Mechanical Engineering 22 Energy and Environment 15 Life Sciences and Healthcare 13 Chemical Industry 11 Forest, Pulp and Paper 7 Construction 6 Mining and Metallurgy 4 Food and Nutrition 4 Media and Marketing 1 The top three industries are similar to the surveys of 2012 and especially 2011. The next two have bigger proportions now than in 2012, and there were no responses from construction industry in 2012.
    • Nearly half of the respondents place their companies to their value chain mainly as end product manufacturers 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Infrastructure 9 Back-office services 2 R&D services 14 Operational services 9Sourcing and processing of raw materials 5 Intermediary products and composites 10 Assembly of sub-systems 6 Manufacturing of end products 50 Marketing, sales, distribution 11
    • The responses from the electronics and ICT industry cover almost the whole value chain. On the other hand, metal and mechanical engineering mainly belong to the group of end product manufacturers. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Electronics and ICT 4 1 7 7 3 2 8 1Metal and Mechanical Engineering 1 1 1 19 Energy and Environment 4 1 1 1 1 5 2 Life Sciences and Healthcare 1 1 1 5 5 Infrastructure Chemical Industry Back-office services 2 1 4 3 1 R&D services Forest, Pulp and Paper 1 1 1 4 Operational services Sourcing and processing of raw materials Construction 1 4 1 Intermediary products and composites Assembly of sub-systems Mining and Metallurgy 1 1 1 1 Manufacturing of end products Marketing, sales, distribution Food and Nutrition 1 1 1 1 Media and Marketing 1
    • R&D budgets vary between companies. In general, SMEs use a bigger percentage of their revenues to R&D % of revenues used to R&D > 15 % 21 5 SMEs10-15 % 9 6 Big companies 6-9 % 6 5 2-5 % 17 14 <2% 9 20 N/A 1 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Almost a half (48%) of SMEs but only 21 % of big companies use more than 10% of their revenues to R&D.
    • CTO Outlook on 2013
    • Almost half of the CTOs plan increases to the R&D budget for 2013 – however, the CTOs are less optimistic than in the previous years Diminishing resources have been a challenge CTOs who increase R&D investments during the years past. The CTO becomes responsible for leading operative R&D:60% 56% methods and processes. 51%50% 46% 39% 40%40%30%20%10%0% 2011 prediction 2011 actual 2012 prediction 2012 actual 2013 prediction Only about 13% had decreases in 2012 and 9% had them in sight for 2013.
    • Especially metal, life sciences and food sectors increased their R&D investments for 2012, whereas the forest industry decreased those. R&D Budget in 201270% 62%60% 55% 47% 50%50%40% 36% 30% 29%30% 24% 25%25% 17%20% Increase 9% 8% 9%10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Decrease 0% Electronics Metal and Energy and Life Chemical Forest, Pulp Construction Mining and Food and Media and and ICT (n = Mechanical Environment Sciences Industry (n and Paper (n = 6) Metallurgy Nutrition (n Marketing (n 33) Engineering (n = 15) and = 11) (n = 7) (n = 4) = 4) = 1) (n = 22) Healthcare (n = 13) R&D Budget in 201380% 75%70%60% 50% 47%50% 40% 42% 38%40% 29%30% 25% 14% 17% 14% 17% Increase20% 13%10% Decrease 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Electronics Metal and Energy and Life Chemical Forest, Pulp Construction Mining and Food and Media and and ICT (n = Mechanical Environment Sciences Industry (n and Paper (n = 6) Metallurgy Nutrition (n Marketing (n 33) Engineering (n = 15) and = 11) (n = 7) (n = 4) = 4) = 1) (n = 22) Healthcare (n = 13)
    • Even though a third of the companies increasesrecruiting in 2013, this number has clearlydeclined from the previous years CTOs who increase R&D recruiting80% 73% Many big corporations have decreased the70% number of R&D employees. The business 65% units are tied up with day-to-day work;60% a balance should be retained, it is difficult 54% at the moment.50%40% 29% 28%30%20%10%0% 2011 prediction 2011 actual 2012 prediction 2012 actual 2013 prediction However, only about 10 % foresee decreases for both 2012 and 2013.
    • The biggest drops in recruiting from 2012 to 2013 happen within the Metal and Mechanical engineering, as well as Chemical industries. R&D Employees in 201250% 44%45% 40%40% 35%35% 30% 31%30% 25%25% 25%25% 21%20% 14%14%15% 10% 11% Increase 8%10% Decrease 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Electronics Metal and Energy and Life Chemical Forest, Pulp Construction Mining and Food and Media and and ICT (n = Mechanical Environment Sciences Industry (n and Paper (n = 6) Metallurgy Nutrition (n Marketing (n 33) Engineering (n = 15) and = 11) (n = 7) (n = 4) = 4) = 1) (n = 22) Healthcare (n = 13) R&D Employees in 201360% 50%50% 44% 42% 40%40%30% 25% 20%20% 17% 13% 13%13% 14%14% Increase 10%10%10% Decrease 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Electronics Metal and Energy and Life Chemical Forest, Pulp Construction Mining and Food and Media and and ICT (n = Mechanical Environment Sciences Industry (n and Paper (n = 6) Metallurgy Nutrition (n Marketing (n 33) Engineering (n = 15) and = 11) (n = 7) (n = 4) = 4) = 1) (n = 22) Healthcare (n = 13) In 2013, recruiting clearly increases in the Electronics and ICT, Construction, and Mining and Metallurgy industries.
    • Over a half of the companies introduce anincreasing number of products or services to themarkets each year 60% 54% 53% 50% 40% 33% 30% 28% 20% 10% 0% New products - New products - Filed patents - Filed patents - 2012 2013 2012 2013Only 2% decreased the numbers of new products and patents in 2012.For the year 2013, 2% see decreases in the number of new products and noone in the number of patents.
    • An increasing number of companies is planningto benefit from external technology sources 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Licensing technologies from an external 28% party 32% Licensing technologies to an external 21% party 28%Buying IP/patents from an external party 9% 14% 2012 2013 Selling IP/patents to an external party 5% 11% Acquiring a company because of its 11% technology portfolio 16% Creating spin-offs 9% 16% In 2011 and 2012, 23 % of CTOs planned to license out a technology. Moreover, only 7 % actually did that in 2011, compared to 21 % in 2012.
    • R&D budgets vary between companies.In general, SMEs use a bigger percentage oftheir revenues to R&D % of revenues used to R&D > 15 % 21 5 SMEs10-15 % 9 6 Big companies 6-9 % 6 5 2-5 % 17 14 <2% 9 20 N/A 1 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Almost a half (48%) of SMEs but only 21 % of big companies use more than 10% of their revenues to R&D.
    • CTO Views on Innovation across Value Chains
    • Finnish CTOs understand the importance of customers and suppliers in R&D The occurrence of R&D collaboration of the CTOs’ companies with...100 % 4 5 5 290 % 7 9 11 22 22 8 3680 % 9 No opinion70 % Never 32 3060 % 38 45 Have tried, once or 22 5050 % twice Occasionally40 % 630 % 8 Continuously 51 50 2420 % 40 14 2210 % 13 14 0% 4 0 Collaborative Collaborative Collaborative Collaborative Crowdsourcing: Open innovation R&D with R&D with R&D with R&D with other Utilizing e.g. platforms: e.g. universities or customers suppliers external end-users in co- Demola, Design research partners than creation Factory, institutes within the ones listed Innovation Mill our main above industry
    • The main benefit of R&D collaboration are product or service ideas for electronics and energy, flexible knowledge for metal and life sciences Electronics and ICT Metal and Mechanical Engineering 90% 100% 80% 90% 10% 70% 19% 80% 16% 38% 34% 16% 70% 15% 15% Not important 60% 60% 10% 15% 50% 41% 45% 10% 25% 19% 50% 20% Important 40% 40% 80% 30% 59% 56% 56% 30% 60% 55% 60% 55% 65% 20% 44% 47% 20% 45% 40% 31% 29% 34% 10% 10% 0% 0% Energy and Environment Life Sciences and Healthcare120% 100% 90% 8% Not important100% 80% 20% 38% 0% Important 80% 20% 70% 31% 23% 0% 10% 10% 60% 31% 60% 50% 31% 15% 40% 85% 77% 40% 80% 10% 70% 70% 20% 70% 20% 70% 30% 46% 54% 54% 54% 46% 20% 20% 38% 30% 30% 30% 10% 0% 0%
    • Networks are important as a main benefit of R&D collaboration for chemical, construction and mining sectors. Forest values customer satisfaction and new markets. Chemical Industry Forest, Pulp and Paper120% 120% 100% Not important100% 14% 29% 25% 80% 0% Important 80% 13% 38% 63% 25% 60% 14% 60% 14% 14% 14% 40% 40% 86% 86% 75% 25% 71% 25% 75% 14% 43% 50% 50% 57% 20% 38% 20% 43% 43% 43% 25% 25% 29% 0% 14% 0% Construction Mining and Metallurgy120% 120% Not important100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 80% 25% 80% 33% 33% Important 50% 0% 25% 60% 67% 67% 0% 0% 60% 50% 0% 100% 100% 33% 100% 40% 75% 75% 40% 67% 67% 67% 67% 20% 50% 50% 50% 20% 25% 33% 33% 33% 0% 0%
    • Collaborative R&D across value chains is considered to be easy – is it really?60% Would like to do more SMEs 50%50% Big 42%40% 38% 34% 29%30% 26% 27% 23% 21% 19%20% 13% 13%10%0% Collaborative R&D with Collaborative R&D with Collaborative R&D with Open innovation Crowdsourcing: Utilizing Collaborative R&D with suppliers customers universities or research platforms: e.g. Demola, e.g. end-users in co- other external partners institutes within our main Design Factory, creation than the ones listed industry Innovation Mill above 16% 15% Find it difficult SMEs 14% Big 12% 11% 10% 10% 8% 8% 6% 6% 6% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0%
    • The CTOs would like to increase their R&D collaboration especially with Finnish SMEs Ardent, innovative entrepreneurs have a lot stronger drive than the ones working 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% in big corporations. 32% SMEs Finnish SMEs 44% Big 23% SMEs abroad 23% 21% Large Finnish corporations 25% 30% Large corporations abroad 27% 26%Universities and Research Institutes in Finland 27% 17% Universities and Research Institutes abroad 27%
    • Foreign SMEs and large companies are seen as interesting, but how to find good R&D partners among them? The amount of CTOs who think that it is easy to find good R&D partners among...80% 75%75%70% 60%60% 54% 52%50% 48% 42% 40%40% 32%31% 32% SMEs30% 25% Big 21% 19%20%10%0% Start-ups Finnish SMEs SMEs abroad Large Finnish Large Universities Universities corporations corporations and Research and Research abroad Institutes in Institutes Finland abroad
    • CTOs’ views on networking andcollaborative R&DNetworking is important for the When developing your product portfoliodevelopment work; however, it needs upstream in the value chain, you need toto be remembered that own skills remember not to go to your customer’sare needed in order to absorb new area of business.knowledge. By developing service business, a technology supplier can participate in process and technology optimisation. R&D could be developed by improved networking. CTOs have a central role in this. In order to ensure expertise and an availability of knowledgeable employees, It is important to support the research done at universities. That can often also be utilised in processes and product development.
    • SHOKs are clearly more important for big companies than for SMEs. EU funding is only important for a third of the CTOs.100 % 10% 90 % 19% 20% 24% 21% 25% 14% 80 % 4% 39% 4% 1% 55% 48% 70 % 60% 60 % 40% 37% 42% Not important 50 % Not utilized 30% 5% 9% No opinion 40 % 77% 77% 75% 4% 9% 24% Important 30 % 8% 20 % 40% 33% 36% 34% 31% 26% 28% 10 % 0% Tekes Tekes Tekes SHOKs SHOKs SHOKs ELY EU EU EU 2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 2012 2010 2011 2012• In 2010 and 2011 figures, the “not utilized” opinion was not used• 65% of the CTOs who stated SHOKs to be important were from big corporations
    • In 2012, SHOK funding was found the most important by companies within the Forest, pulp and paper industry, as well as Metal and mechanical engineering100 % 0%90 % 18% 17% 21% 23% 27% 32%80 % 43%70 % 33% 20% 36%60 % 42% 0% 27%50 % 54% Not important Not utilized40 % 9% 33% No opinion 33%30 % 12% Important 57% 45%20 % 32% 15%10 % 24% 20% 17% 8% 0% 0% Electronics Metal and Energy and Life Sciences, Chemical Forest, pulp Construction and ICT (33) mechanical environment Healthcare, Industry (11) and paper (7) (6) engineering (15) Pharma (13) (22)
    • The importance of SHOK funding remains the same in 2013100 % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 14%90 % 33%80 % 27% 47% 54% 50%70 % 29% 64%60 %50 % Decrease No opinion40 % 52% 50% Stay similar 33%30 % 47% Increase 38% 57% 27%20 %10 % 17% 15% 14% 7% 8% 9% 0% 0% Electronics Metal and Energy and Life Sciences, Chemical Forest, pulp Construction and ICT (33) mechanical environment Healthcare, Industry (11) and paper (7) (6) engineering (15) Pharma (13) (22)
    • A quarter of the respondents were not familiar with the most common EU funding opportunities CTOs who find these EU funding opportunities familiar 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Framework Programme 7 (FP7) 58% 65% EUREKA, Eurostars 25% 23% Horizon 2020 8% 35% SMEs Structural Funds (EAKR, ESR) 23% Big 13%Joint Undertakings (e.g. ENIAC, ARTEMIS, 8% Clean Sky) 21%Competitiveness and Innovation Framework 2% Programme (CIP) 6% None of the ones mentioned 21% 27%
    • Mining and metal industries need more piloting opportunities, SMEs and more value added processing to be done in FinlandGood technology companies in the metal industry A problem of small entrepreneurs is credibility.value chains are quickly acquired by someone. However, giving opportunities for piloting has been our policy. [The company] sees new SMEs beneficial and needed within the industry. • The mines that have been active in Finland for a long time have active collaboration in technology piloting with their technology suppliers. • Technology companies within the mining industry would like to collaborate more with Finnish SMEs and wish to have new entrepreneurs within the industry • The mines that have opened in Finland lately bring new opportunities for enlarging the collaboration to new metals and production processes • Domestic value-added to Finnish ore should be increased Where will Finnish mining technology be developed in the future? [...] Core competences should be retained in Finland.
    • Conclusions Even though Finnish CTOs see their R&D investments and recruiting to increase, they are less optimistic than in the previous years: less CTOs see increases coming up. Most CTOs have R&D collaboration with their customers, suppliers and universities. Big corporations would like to increase R&D collaboration especially with Finnish SMEs. However, only a third of the SME CTOs think that it is easy to find good R&D partners among big corporations. Building international networks would need additional emphasis to also enable a better gain from international funding opportunities: 25% of Finnish CTOs are not familiar with the most common EU funding opportunities and only a third of them thinks that EU is an important source of public funding. The interviews revealed that Finnish mining and metal industries need more piloting opportunities, SMEs and more value added processing to be done in Finland.