Presentation on Structure and Developments of Public Research Organisations at the Conference in Honor of Hariolf Grupp

1. THE ROLE OF PUBLIC RESEARCH
ORGANISATIONS IN THE INNOVATION SYSTEM
Wolfgang POLT
Joanneum Research – Centre for Economic and
Innovation Research
Innovation Research and Policy – International
Conference in Honour of Hariolf Grupp
Mannheim 3.3.2011
1

2. Main topics
 Motivation and rationale of the
debate
 Definition(s) of PROs/RTOs
 Main trends and observations
 Research questions and policy
challenges
2

3. Motivation and rationale
PROs/RTOs:
 .. are important parts of the science / innovation
systems in many countries
 ..have seen their roles debated and contested
several times in the past decades
 …and in many countries are in the centre of
technology and innovation policy debates again
 …restructuring of the science systems of post-communist countries
 …changing missions and find new business models (e.g. to
achieve greater role in TT)
 …adapting divisions of labour with in the science/innovation
systems (e.g. German debate about ‚plilarization‘)
 Yet, we find sound knowledge about the sector
3
limited !

4. Background (I)
Recent studies on PROs/RTOs:
 W. Polt et al. (2010): Das deutsche Forschungs- und
Innovationssystem. Studien zum deutschen
Innovationssystem Nr. 11-2010
Berlin/Wien/Mannheim
 R.Hofer / W.Polt: European Research and Technology
Organisations: Models, Practices and Cases. In:
Fundacion Conocimiento y Desarollo (Ed.): La
Contribution de las Universidades Espanolas al
Desarollo. Barcelona 2010
 E. Arnold / J. Clark / Z. Javorka: Impacts of European
4
RTOs. A Report to EARTO. Brighton 2010

5. Background (II)
 M. Berger / R. Hofer: The Internationalisation of R&D: How
about RTOs? - Some Conceptual notions and qualitative
insights from European RTOS in China. Joanneum Research
– Working Paper. Vienna. June 2008
 Hofer, R., Nones, B., Jantscher, E., Polt, W., Wiedenhofer,
H.: Europäischer Benchmark der Entwicklungstrends
außeruniversitärer Forschungsinstitutionen. Vienna 2007
 Recent activities to better map the sector:
 Project in the context of the OECD RIHR (Research Institutions
and Human Resources) and NESTI (National Experts on Science
and Technology Indicators) Working Groups to (re)map the sector
– currently:
5

6. PROs / RTOs – an uncharted
territory?
 Lack of commonly approved definition – despite
the fact that we have statistical categories that
appaer in OECD / EU statistics !
 E.g.: sector categorization differs from country to
country (public sector <-> enterprise sector)
 New forms of PPPs (like ‚competence centers‘)
are hard to categorize
6

7. Definitions
EARTO definiton(s):
 „Organisations which as their predominant activity
provide research and development, technology
and innovation services to enterprises,
governments and other clients“
 Or more narrowly as institutions that are based on
the following model of activities:
 „exploratory R&D to develop an area of capability or
technology, further work to refine and exploit that knowledge
in relatively unstandardised ways, often in collaborative
projects with industry and are involved in more routinized
exploitation of knowledge (e.g. measuring and
testing),including consulting.“
7 (adapted from Arnold et al 2010)

8. Main trends and
observations (I)
 PROs/RTOs: a seemingly declining sector?
 PROs/RTOs: a sector with out a clear
mssion, serving too many masters, striving
for too many goals?
 PROs/RTOs: locked-in geographically and
mired in institutional inertia?
8

9. PROs/RTOs: a seemingly
declining sector?
9

10. Positioning PROs/RTOs in the
Science/Innovation System (I):
Between ‚pillars‘ and ‚humps‘?
10

11. Positioning PROs/RTOs in the
Science/Innovation System (II)
11

12. Portfolio of activities of
PROs/RTOs
12

13. Portfolio of activities of
PROs/RTOs (II)
13

14. PROs/RTOs co-opetition with other actors
in the Science/Innovation System
14

15. Differentia Specifica of PROs / RTOs
15

16. Differentia specifica of
PROs/RTOs‘ activities (I)
16

17. Differentia specifica of
PROs/RTOs‘ activities (I)
17 Source: Arnold et al 2010

18. Geographical lock-in of
PROs/RTOs‘ ? (I)
18 Source: Arnold et al 2010

19. Geographical lock-in of
PROs/RTOs‘ ? (II)
19

20. Main observations on
internationalisation
 Growing share of funding accrued from
abroad
 Having a pivotal role in the Eus Framework
programmes for RTD
 …but still linked to predominantly
national/regional customer base
 …not able to ‚follow‘ the internationalisation
of their clients?
20

21. Main observations on positioning in
the science / innovation system
 Increasing range of activities  increasing
overlaps with ranges of activities of other
actors
 …but (still) distinct attribution of roles and
competences to PROs/RTOs
  need for a clear mission and role, good
division of labour AND smooth cooperation
21

22. Main observations on the size of the
sector
 Decreasing share might be a statistical
artefact  statistical ambiguities, largely
ignorat of new institutional forms(PPPs)
22

23. Main observations on the size of the
sector
 Decreasing share might be a statistical
artefact  statistical ambiguities, largely
ignorant of new institutional forms(PPPs)
  OECD RIHR/NESTI activities regarding
‚Mapping PRIs‘
23

24. Research questions and
policy challenges
 First and foremost: to get a better statistical handle of
the sector  necessary to amend / adapt the
FRASCATI manual ?
 Better understand the different ‚knowledge markets‘,
their development and the potential market failures to
assess the ‚public purpose‘ of PROs/RTOs
Degree of Specialisation?
Amount of base funding / block grants?
Performance criteria for PROs/RTOs (Publications? Patents?)
New role for PROs/RTOS in ‚new mission oriented research‘?
 (Re)define the division of labour between the actors
in the science / innovation system
Relation to Universities? Re-Integration? More institutionalised
24 forms of collaboration?

25. Thank you for your attention !
25