1. Innovation Impact
A Study of the Impacts of the European
Framework Programmes on Innovation
www.innovationimpact.org
Main Question
How much innovation can you get from the Framework Programmes ?
The Approach
■■ Analysis of the Community Innovation Surveys
■■ Extensive survey among participants of FP5 and FP6 (over 8000 responses)
■■ Some seventy-five case studies
Some Main Findings
Types of Innovation : Innovation Outputs :
Why participate in the FPs ? What do you get out in terms of innovation?
■■ Commercializable outputs are not the prime ■■ A great majority of FP participants report at
motivation to participate. Dominant objectives least one form of commercializable output
are access to complementary knowledge from their FP project.
and skills, keeping up with state-of-the-art ■■ A large number even records more than one
technological development and explore different of such outputs.
technological opportunities. ■■ This obervation is even more pronounced in FP6
than in FP5.
■■ In contrast, self-funded cooperative R & D
Commercialisable outputs per FP
projects which are primarily used by the (% of participants reporting as outcome)
respondents for technology exploitation New or improved
products
(closer to the market). FP6 New or improved
services
Implementation
of field trials
■■ Compared to self-funded cooperative R & D New or improved
production processes
FP5
projects, FP projects were characterized by : New or improved
standards
➜■ longer-term R & D horizons
0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 %
➜■ greater orientation towards peripheral
(read new area) technologies
Additionality :
➜■ greater complexity
➜■ On the other hand, FPs had no positive
Did the FPs make a difference ?
effects on technological or commercial risk- ■■ Substantial input additionality was found
taking. only among smaller firms. Participation in FPs
was associated with a significant increase in
R & D intensity between 2000 and 2004 among
firms of up to 100 employees.
4.0 ■■ Higher risk (scientific, technological,
3.8 average R & D project ?
3.6
commercial), novelty of technology area, and
3.4 new combination of partners (esp. participation
3.2 of newcomers) in projects increase the
3.0
2.8
chance of output additionality.
NoE& IP
2.6 ■■ Output additionality is not different between
other FP
2.4 FPs and not markedly different between
2.2 self-funded coop
2.0 specific FP
instruments.
■■ Differences exist between thematic areas in
h
isk
ng
t
sk
ity
os
rip
Ri
ex
lo
lR
C
pe
ch
t/
pl
ia
terms of output additionality. There are higher
or
C
om
e/
Te
Sh
or
C
C
in new areas (e. g. in the NANO programme).
Scientific Directors
Wolfgang Polt Nicholas Vonortas Robbert Fisher
JOANNEUM RESEARCH George Washington University Coordinator
wolfgang.polt@joanneum.at vonortas@gwu.edu robbert.fisher@estrat.eu
www.intrasoft-intl.com www.joanneum.at www.tudelft.nl www.msl.aueb.gr www.europe-innova.org www.formit.org cournot2.u-strasbg.fr/users/beta
oef pos 09 008-1

2. Innovation Impact
A Study of the Impacts of the European
Framework Programmes on Innovation
www.innovationimpact.org
Some Lessons
for Policy and Programme Management
■■ Directly commercialisable output has ■■ Small and medium-sized enterprises indicate
not been a core objective of Framework more positive results in terms of innovation in
Programmes. Yet we find significant impact FP-projects and seem more susceptible to the
on innovation. While this is in line with Framework Programmes as a policy instrument
increased emphasis on exploitation of results than their larger counterparts. They may
of the FPs, caution should be exercised not deserve more attention on that basis.
to violate the target to promote strategic,
high-quality, pre-competitive research. ■■ For successful innovation, collaborative
research consortia should include one or more
■■ Keep funding instruments simple and of the following types of partners:
maintain instrument continuity. Frequent
changes increase the cost of Programme ➜■ one or more partners with strong research
administration without demonstrably and innovation experience;
significant benefits.
➜■ highly motivated partners who may either
■■ Pay closer attention to the needs of the be smaller companies that depend on the
thematic areas at different levels and their specific project very much and/or new
associated markets, as well as to the needs participants;
of participating organizations.
➜■ experienced, motivated coordinators who
■■ The role of the traditional IP protection manage to align the diverse interests of
mechanisms (patents) as a general the various partners with the needs of the
instrument to promote innovation per se collaborative research project.
is generally low and highly depending on
the thematic area and the specific market. ■■ Encourage commercialisation thinking at
Industry effects should be taken into the proposal stage. Possibly provide the
account. opportunity to innovators for a follow-up
stage – or a follow-up project – where the
■■ The individual FP-R & D-project really is a commercialization of the research results is the
single research instance among many for core priority.
a participating organization. Do not expect
huge impacts from individual projects either ■■ Especially promote projects that are risky,
on innovation or on the ‘behaviour’ of the technically complex, and in new areas to
participating organizations. increase impact on innovation and additionality.
Scientific Directors
Wolfgang Polt Nicholas Vonortas Robbert Fisher
JOANNEUM RESEARCH George Washington University Coordinator
wolfgang.polt@joanneum.at vonortas@gwu.edu robbert.fisher@estrat.eu
www.intrasoft-intl.com www.joanneum.at www.tudelft.nl www.msl.aueb.gr www.europe-innova.org www.formit.org cournot2.u-strasbg.fr/users/beta
oef pos 09 008-2