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.

1. Innovability
- Turning Innovation Policy into Practise -
Gerd Meier zu Köcker
iit – Institute for Innovation and Technology

2. The Morocco Case
- Dream or Nightmare for Policy Makers -
Governmental task:
Improve national competitiveness in Solar Energy
Funds available: EUR 10 Mio
Measurable impact: 3 – 5 years
2

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. Sources for Innovation – Today -
External Sources Internal Sources
Persons
Relationships
Organisations
Source: IBM CEO Study
4

5. Sources for Innovation – Today -
External Sources Internal Sources
Persons
Relationships
Organisations
Hot spot for innovation
Source: IBM CEO Study
5

6. How Innovability Depends on Organisation Issues
6
Delmenhorst, 9. Dezember 2010

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 7
Delmenhorst, 9. Dezember 2010

8. Silent Evolution of New Industries
Source: pwc, 2012
8

9. How Converging Technologies Shaping New Industries
Food
Smart packaging industry
Packaging Sensors
9
© VDI/VDE-IT 15.09.12

10. How Converging Technologies Shape New Industries
Biology
Biomarker industry
Health Optical
Technologies
10
© VDI/VDE-IT 15.09.12

11. Different Disciplines Have to Co-operate for Polymer-Based
Innovations
New generation of
polymer-based
Material
PV panels
Science
Production
technologies
Analytics
11

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. 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. 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. Analysis:
Level of Scientific Excellence
Innovation Leagues
15

16. Analysis I:
Supporting Solutions or Technologies
X
Development of new technologies
Coping societal and global
challenges
16

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. Status of Development of the Institutional Innovation Support
Providers in Zambia
18

19. Status of Development of the Innovation Actors in Zambia
19

20. Status of Development of the Programmatic Innovation
Support in Zambia
20

21. Portofolio of Measures to Improve Innovability in Zambia
21

22. Portofolio of Measures to Improve Innovability in Manaus / Brazil
22

23. Portofolio of Measures to Improve Innovability in Indonesia
23

24. Design:
New Role of Academia Due to the New Nature of Innovation
Key programme design figures
24

25. Setting the Framework Conditions for better Cooperation
between 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. 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. 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. Design:
Funding Schemes for Microsystem Technology in Germany
 high
Mobility & Exchange
Programs
Basic
average 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. Design:
Linking Programs to Other Innovation Support Schemes
Weak linkages between
cluster and other innovation support
programs in some European countries
29

30. Implementation:
Examples for Good and Bad Practises on Program Implementation
30

31. Measuring:
Measuring Output, Outcomes and Impact
31

32. Erfolgsfaktoren bei FuE-Verbundvorhaben
Technische 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. Versagensgründe bei FuE-Verbundvorhaben
Zu ehrgeizige Zielsetzungen, zu hohe technische Komplexität der angestrebten
Problemlösung (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 5.000
Verbundvorhaben
Delmenhorst, 9. 33

34. Einfluss der Projektmanagement-
erfahrung vor Projektbeginn
Delmenhorst, 9.
Quelle: eigene Untersuchungen, basierend auf einer Auswertung von rund 5.000 Verbundvorhaben
34

35. Einflussfaktor: Konsortialstruktur
Delmenhorst, 9. 35
Quelle: eigene Untersuchungen, basierend auf einer Auswertung von rund 5.000 Verbundvorhaben

36. Einflussfaktor: Verwertungsrisiko bzw.
Verwertungskompetenz der Konsortialpartner
Quelle: eigene Untersuchungen, basierend auf einer Auswertung von rund 5.000 Verbundvorhaben
Delmenhorst, 9. 36

37. Erfolgsfaktoren bei FuE-Verbundvorhaben
Technische 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. Versagensgründe bei FuE-Verbundvorhaben
Zu ehrgeizige Zielsetzungen, zu hohe technische Komplexität der angestrebten
Problemlösung (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 5.000
Verbundvorhaben
Delmenhorst, 9. 38

39. Thank you very much for your attention
Dr. Gerd Meier zu Köcker
Chairman of the Board
Institute 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. The aim of this conference is to convene a commemorative series of activities
on the intellectual legacy of Schumpeter with specific reference to developing
countries. Specific objectives of the initiative are to:
(a)outline the essential features of Schumpeter's ideas of relevance to
development policy and practice; (b) explore the role of innovation in polymer
research in addressing development challenges such as industry, agriculture,
health, water, shelter and environmental management; (c) disseminate the
results 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. 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. Selected Success Factors of a Competitive
National Innovation System – Policy Level
National policy makers are committed to long-term
public investments in innovation
 High demand orientation and tailor-made
National Innovation Strategy focus’ on competitive
advantages of a nation (appropriate level of innovation
sought)
Implementation of National Innovation Policy with all
relevant 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 are
demand-oriented (smart money, high impact)
42

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)
43
Berlin, January 6 ,l 2009
th

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
44
Berlin, January 6 ,l 2009
th

45. Key Expectation from Clients in the Field of
Polymer 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