Networking innovation and business support infrastructure

В статье раскрыто понятие сетей, их цели, функции, принципы работы, пути возникновения. Приведены примеры сетей, действующих на территории ЕС. Отмечена роль ассоциаций научных парков как организаторов и участников сетей. Представлена подробная информация об основных европейских и международных сетях...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:	Наука та наукознавство
Datum:	2011
1. Verfasser:	Rumpf, G.
Format:	Artikel
Sprache:	Ukrainian
Veröffentlicht:	Центр досліджень науково-технічного потенціалу та історії науки ім. Г.М. Доброва НАН України 2011
Schlagworte:	Міжнародний симпозіум
Online Zugang:	https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/49258
Tags:	Tag hinzufügen Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Назва журналу:	Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Zitieren:	Networking innovation and business support infrastructure / G. Rumpf // Наука та наукознавство. — 2011. — № 2. — С. 21-42. — англ.

Institution

Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

id	nasplib_isofts_kiev_ua-123456789-49258
record_format	dspace
spelling	Rumpf, G. 2013-09-14T19:44:43Z 2013-09-14T19:44:43Z 2011 Networking innovation and business support infrastructure / G. Rumpf // Наука та наукознавство. — 2011. — № 2. — С. 21-42. — англ. 0374-3896 https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/49258 В статье раскрыто понятие сетей, их цели, функции, принципы работы, пути возникновения. Приведены примеры сетей, действующих на территории ЕС. Отмечена роль ассоциаций научных парков как организаторов и участников сетей. Представлена подробная информация об основных европейских и международных сетях с участием научных парков и инновационной инфраструктуры. Enhance Innovation Strategies, Policies and Regulation in Ukraine — EU Project Europe Aid/12794/C/SER/UA. uk Центр досліджень науково-технічного потенціалу та історії науки ім. Г.М. Доброва НАН України Наука та наукознавство Міжнародний симпозіум Networking innovation and business support infrastructure Інноваційні мережі та інфраструктура підтримки бізнесу Инновационные сети и инфраструктура поддержки бизнеса Article published earlier
institution	Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
collection	DSpace DC
title	Networking innovation and business support infrastructure
spellingShingle	Networking innovation and business support infrastructure Rumpf, G. Міжнародний симпозіум
title_short	Networking innovation and business support infrastructure
title_full	Networking innovation and business support infrastructure
title_fullStr	Networking innovation and business support infrastructure
title_full_unstemmed	Networking innovation and business support infrastructure
title_sort	networking innovation and business support infrastructure
author	Rumpf, G.
author_facet	Rumpf, G.
topic	Міжнародний симпозіум
topic_facet	Міжнародний симпозіум
publishDate	2011
language	Ukrainian
container_title	Наука та наукознавство
publisher	Центр досліджень науково-технічного потенціалу та історії науки ім. Г.М. Доброва НАН України
format	Article
title_alt	Інноваційні мережі та інфраструктура підтримки бізнесу Инновационные сети и инфраструктура поддержки бизнеса
description	В статье раскрыто понятие сетей, их цели, функции, принципы работы, пути возникновения. Приведены примеры сетей, действующих на территории ЕС. Отмечена роль ассоциаций научных парков как организаторов и участников сетей. Представлена подробная информация об основных европейских и международных сетях с участием научных парков и инновационной инфраструктуры.
issn	0374-3896
url	https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/49258
citation_txt	Networking innovation and business support infrastructure / G. Rumpf // Наука та наукознавство. — 2011. — № 2. — С. 21-42. — англ.
work_keys_str_mv	AT rumpfg networkinginnovationandbusinesssupportinfrastructure AT rumpfg ínnovacíinímerežítaínfrastrukturapídtrimkibíznesu AT rumpfg innovacionnyesetiiinfrastrukturapodderžkibiznesa
first_indexed	2025-11-26T00:09:37Z
last_indexed	2025-11-26T00:09:37Z
_version_	1850593915702345728
fulltext	Наука та наукознавство, 2011, № 2 21 10. Ющенко В. До нації. Вибрані промови/В.Ющенко. — К.: Національний інститут стратегічних досліджень, 2010. Получено 26.05.2011 Б.А.Маліцький Стратегія інноваційного розвитку України: від розробки до реальної практики Дано оцінку Проекту ЕС «Удосконалення стратегій, політики і регулювання інновацій в Україні». Аналізуються з позицій поняття національного інноваційного потенціалу реальні структура і ключові па- раметри інноваційно-інвестиційної моделі розвитку економіки України, їх зміни, стан економіки і став- лення до науки й інновацій за правління першого, другого і третього президентів України. Акцентується увага на основних найбільш фундаментальних перешкодах, що стоять на шляху просування стратегічних інноваційних ініціатив і відповідних законів у реальну практику формування і реалізації науково- технологічної й інноваційної політики. 1. International innovation and business support infrastructure Introduction Economic conditions have changed considerably in the world’s industrialized nations in the last decades. The combi- nation of technologies and economies of scope has emerged as an important source of job creation and growth. During the 1960 and 1970s, and par- ticularly following the oil crisis, most countries increasingly recognized that in- novation was a crucial element of compet- itiveness in the manufacturing and service sectors. They began to develop technology policies either to stimulate the transfer of public research results to create new prod- ucts and processes or to enhance private sector efforts to innovate, notably through increased investment in research and de- velopment (R&D). These policies have taken the form of large public programs Gudrun Rumpf Networking Innovation and Business Support Infrastructure* © Gudrun Rumpf, 2011 * Enhance Innovation Strategies, Policies and Regulation in Ukraine — EU Project Europe Aid/12794/C/ SER/UA. Gudrun Rumpf Science and Science of Science, 2011, № 222 and procurement in high-technology sec- tors, incentives to engage in R&D, as- sistance in patenting, and deregulation of utilities. Over the last decade, a policy shift has taken place. Recent academic analy- sis of empirical evidence on the innova- tion process has shown no mechanical relationship between investment in R&D and innovation; rather, new products and processes appear to be the result of the in- volvement of many companies and institu- tions in a common endeavor. Innovation is therefore seldom an outcome of the effort of a single company or institution. As a re- sult, governments have directed resources to stimulate the emergence and strength- ening of clusters of firms, links with re- search institutions and universities, and knowledge diffusion. Innovation and busi- ness support infrastructure such as Science Centers, Technology Parks, Technology Transfer Centers, Innovation Centers, or Business Incubators are particular features of these new policies. They are a structured community dedicated to the development of innovation. They usually bring together in one location (or spread across a region) the components necessary for making in- novation happen: academics, research in- stitutions, and enterprises. However, they mostly rely on momentum and a long-term vision elaborated by community leaders. The intangible side (scientific knowledge, social consensus, entrepreneurship) is as important as the material side («hard» in- frastructure, technology facilities, R&D investment). Support policies increasingly depend on the capacity of innovation and business support infrastructure to contribute to the development of entrepreneurship, to par- ticipate in cluster initiatives, to generate spillover effects, and more generally to en- hance the regional culture of innovation. For policy makers, innovation and busi- ness support infrastructure is not to be de- veloped for their own sake but must con- tribute to the building of learning regions and knowledge-based territorial econo- mies. The bursting of the high-technology bubble at the end of the 1990s made clear the need to respond to local and regional demand rather than systematically em- barking on high-technology research. The issue is to transform innovation and business support infrastructure so that it benefits the countries’ economy sustain- ably. Introduction to Networks Networks are characterized by geo- graphically dispersed communities of practice with common interests, shared needs, and participants with a similar identity. The sum of the parts benefits the whole network. Network members have functions within the group, and the flow of communication between communities of peers contributes to synergy and achieving best practice. Innovation is a function of changes in technology, organization, and social prac- tice, and the pace of knowledge exchange and uptake of new ideas and technologies are extremely important. Because networks facilitate speedy diffusion, they are helpful to innovation. Innovation networks are communities of technological practices: they support organizational learning, and they allow for increased specialization and the combination of resources. Such net- works act as «innovation thought collec- tives» and can facilitate the paradigm shifts which are important for innovation uptake and disruptive technologies. Networks usually organize informa- tion exchange mechanisms: meetings, conferences, training, access to experts, websites, databases, and newsletters. They stimulate activities such as technology transfer, and access to clients or finance NETWORKING INNOVATION AND BUSINESS SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Наука та наукознавство, 2011, № 2 23 across geographic boundaries. They estab- lish benchmarks of best practice, against which members can rate their perform- ance against their local or international peers. They support professionalization of organizations and individuals within their sphere of interest. The networks themselves become learning organizations which promulgate good practice. Networks vary greatly in scope: geo- graphic reach, thematic focus, size, and organization. They may include: an indus- trial cluster with a shared technology or market; a group of innovation actors from one region or country; an international network of science parks; or special service providers. Networks relevant to innovation and business support infrastructure usually have specialized interests: a technology, such optics or bio-technology, or a spe- cial interest, such as sources of finance, for example the European Private Equity and Venture Capital Association (EVCA). Establishing a new network involves formalizing relationships and developing financial models to pay for services, estab- lishment of management structures, and formalizing procedures for service deliv- ery. Sometimes networks are formed with public support, and members join the net- work by responding to calls for proposals, and are evaluated by the organizing public authority. Joining a network usually in- volves paying a membership fee and satis- fying specific selection criteria. Innovation and business support in- frastructure participates in networks in different ways: the level of participation is determined by an organization’s strategic intent and the resources it can contribute as a network member. This includes the important resource of human participa- tion1. 1 Worldbank 2009 «Plan and manage a science park in the mediterranean- Guidebook for decision makers». Origin of networks Networks emerge in different ways. They may arise organically or from a top-down policy stimulus. Organically emerging networks are those that evolve naturally from a perceived common need among a group of actors. They may be companies in industry clusters coming to- gether to agree standards, or organizations in an innovation park coming together to identify common service needs. A network that emerges from a top-down policy ini- tiative is one for which a perceived «gap» exists. Policy-setting organizations allo- cate resources to provide support, through a network, to fill this gap. It is important to know how networks emerge, since their origin has a fundamental impact on their ownership and governance, and on how they function and grow. When networks form spontaneously it is usually around a common interest. When companies share a common loca- tion, or interact in a supply chain, they may quickly co-operate on shared issues, and networks emerge rapidly. Inside inno- vation and business support infrastructure, companies often come together and form local networks to promote their interests. Industry clusters frequently emerge when large corporations are surrounded by sub- contractors and/or component suppli- ers. Clusters can go beyond regional and national boundaries. International in- dustries, which require large investments and high-technology rigor, give rise to networks of clusters across borders. In- ternational cooperation among networks of clusters becomes increasingly impor- tant in a global economy, especially when industries compete for limited resources, including access to expert knowledge. Supra-national clusters are found, for example, in the aviation, biotechnology, optics and pharmaceutical sectors. One Gudrun Rumpf Science and Science of Science, 2011, № 224 example of public support for international clusters is the project, Clusters Linked over Europe (CLOE), a European network of excellence for cluster management, matching and promotion, supported by EU programs. Networks also form to support specialized functions: for example patent marketing and technology transfer; turning innovative entrepreneurial projects into successful businesses, coordination with research organizations; or support on innovation finance. The possibilities are linked to needs of innovation and business support infrastructure and their clients. Policy initiatives support the forma- tion of networks. In the European Union (EU), SMEs represent 99% of all compa- nies in the EU. They are the biggest sec- tor of the EU economy, with 23 million enterprises employing around 75 million people responsible for the creation of one in every two new jobs. SME produce con- siderably more than half the EU’s GDP. However SMEs find it very difficult to op- erate outside their local market, although their participation in a European market- place would be beneficial for global trade. Therefore, many public initiatives organ- ize specialized networks to support SMEs’ operations beyond national bounda- ries. For example, public initiatives have formed networks: to support technology transfer between SMEs; to introduce ven- ture financiers to small high-technology companies; and to help high-level re- searchers move between universities and specialized high-technology companies. Sometimes, public-private interests co- operate to develop groups of incubators or science parks in a country, which lead to national networks. The focus here is often on technology-led urban development, and on synergy between universities and industry. Networks of innovation and business support infrastructure operate in parallel in some countries: some are formed on a purely commercial basis, and some with public funding and public objectives. These networks can co-exist and offer different types of services to their members. The overall intention of all these networks is similar: to come together to share knowledge and resources and to improve outcomes. The manner in which networks develop is different: Experience proves that there is more than one path to success for network-based development2. Networks are often organized in tiers: first as small consortia organized on a regional or national basis, and then into super-networks at international level. In many countries, innovation and business support infrastructure forms national or specialized networks, such as the United Kingdom’s Science Park Association (UKSPA). Representatives from these national bodies also meet with those from other countries in international networks. Finally, networks coordinate internationally in organizations such as the International Association of Science Parks (IASP) and the World Technopolis Association (WTA). Connection between innovation and business support infrastructure and networks Innovation and business support in- frastructure forms, or links into, networks to: formalize relationships that bring syn- ergy and benefits to stakeholders; benefit from connectivity and synergy across the 2 See on this point the conclusions of the workshop Innovative Metropolitan Territories: Technology Parks and Competitiveness Clusters organized in June 2007, in Tunis, Tunisia, by the World Bank, Marseille City Council and GTZ, in partnership with the Urban Community of Marseille-Provence Metropole, Marseille Innovation and the Marseille- Provence Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and under the patronage of the Tunisian Ministry for Research, with the support of Tunis City Council. NETWORKING INNOVATION AND BUSINESS SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Наука та наукознавство, 2011, № 2 25 network; enhance services provided to cli- ents of innovation and business support infrastructure; develop network members through professionalizing services; and undertake benchmarking between net- work members. Each of these aspects of network membership is examined below. Networks tend to emerge from shared interests and the need for a common ex- change platform. The shared interest may be a shared goal, proximity, a common client, or a single technology. Shared in- terests may include, for example, coop- eration on the design of components for a common client or industry. Networks can grow organically, formed by a group of ac- tors with shared interests, such as clusters of companies or a group of business sup- port organizations. At some point, the decision is made to formalize the struc- ture. Networks serving this type of group are characterized by an interest in indus- try standards, a common technology, or streamlining delivery cycles. These clus- ters may be small, and deal with local in- terests: agro-food technology or common tourism campaigns, for example. Clusters can evolve into worldwide industry supply chains: aviation, optics, petro-chemicals, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, etc. The differences in network needs are scaled to the size and scope of the cluster. The creation of new networks can also be stimulated by top-down actions. Regional agencies and commercial inno- vation-support organizations can provide budgets or infrastructure to bring com- panies, or other relevant organizations, together. Urban development programs frequently bring industries together in one geographic location to profit from com- mon infrastructure and to share state- of-the-art resources, including access to university knowledge. This can encourage the emergence of innovation and business support infrastructure, which in turn brings together various actors and support them in their common objectives. Networks that emerge in this situation may address: local infrastructure issues; national and inter- national topics such as legislation on taxa- tion or trade tariffs; or support for clients of the innovation and business support in- frastructure. Networks that have emerged from this environment include, for exam- ple, specialized networks of science parks and incubation centers, and networks for assisting high-technology companies to access finance. More recently, governments have undertaken innovation policy develop- ment, including foresight analysis, and the selection of specialized technologies. The intention is to pick fast-growth, high- technology sectors, to leap-frog industry cycles, and to have clean industries that provide local employment and support modern economies. Planning on innova- tion brings together high-level actors from research, education, industry, and many layers of government. The outcome may be islands of high-technology best-prac- tice that peg themselves to international standards. These high-technology nodes must be linked to their international coun- terparts. In this case, networks may emerge from international research teams and universities, and public programs that sup- port research. These high-level initiatives have given rise to specialized networks and exchange platforms, such as international technology platforms, or integrated indus- trial projects. All networks, regardless of their size or focus, need some formalized agreement and structures and common exchange platforms (Internet forums, etc.) to reduce the costs of knowledge exchange. Devel- oping new tools and platforms is not a triv- ial investment. How tools and platforms evolve, and are paid for, is linked to how the network emerged. Gudrun Rumpf Science and Science of Science, 2011, № 226 Networks emerging organically from industry clusters commonly have mem- bership subscriptions. Local initiatives that bring industry together in one location, or a common network, may involve pay- ing a rent or a membership fee, but may benefit from local government support. Top-down initiatives are commonly sup- ported during both the inception and de- velopment phases. Financial support may take the form of paying, fully or partially, for research, network meetings, and a cen- tral secretariat. Over time, these initiatives may be expected to generate sufficient revenues to allow public sector support to be discontinued. Sometimes networks are not intended to be permanent and are dis- continued when an initiative has reached its logical conclusion. In addition, a number of networks address special innovation issues. For ex- ample, the struggle to grow experienced by small companies is largely dependent on access to finance. Two specialized net- works in Europe support the innovation sector with mechanisms to improve access to finance: the European Business Angels Network (EBAN) and the European Ven- ture Capital Association (EVCA). Some networks also directly serve companies and individuals. The European Association of Research Managers and Administrators (EARMA) and the Pro- Ton Europe initiative both seek to support innovation management professionals through training, organized employment exchanges, and professionalization of in- dividuals and organizations working to support innovation. They publish guide- lines and training manuals for their mem- bers. Specialized networks offer services both to innovation and business support infrastructure and to their end-users. For example, the services may be the identifi- cation of technology transfer opportuni- ties. Services may be targeted at SMEs as in the case of the INSME network. Net- work services are as varied as the clients of innovation and business support infra- structure. Given that so many networks serve innovation and business support infra- structure, the issue is often how to iden- tify which networks to join, and how to select the appropriate networks, given resource limitations, so as to optimize the exchange. Getting the best results from network membership depends on the net- work processes or exchange tools, and also on who acts as an interlocutor to the net- work. Exchanges with the network must involve a sufficiently high-level repre- sentative from the innovation and business support infrastructure to allow for strategic exchanges and high-level decision mak- ing. Moreover, the interface between the network and the innovation and business support infrastructure must be sufficiently active so as to bring decisions close to lo- cal actors and to create dynamic activities. Open exchange and knowledge sharing is the key to success. Funding and Governing Networks When networks formalize their existence they must chose a legal form (or legal personality). A legal personality is tied to an address, and therefore is governed by a legal framework. The type of legal personality adopted is commonly determined by the geographic base of the network, the intended scope of its activi- ties, its stance regarding risk, and its inten- tion regarding profit taking and taxation. Common types of legal personalities for networks in the EU include: limited com- panies, charities, foundations, European Economic Interest Groups (EEIGs), and consortia or projects funded by public or- ganizations. In some countries, public sec- tor support networks are established under NETWORKING INNOVATION AND BUSINESS SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Наука та наукознавство, 2011, № 2 27 special, non-profit-making government charters. When EU public authorities seek to help establish new networks, they may publish calls for proposals or calls for tenders. This process is often governed by public procurement legislation. It is quite common for networks to adopt a non-profit-making legal personal- ity. The network can make profits on indi- vidual activities, such as training or annual meetings, but the overall objective of the network owners is not to tip profits out of the network but to reinvest any profit in network operations and development. Having determined the appropriate legal personality, networks must choose the internal organization of their govern- ance and control systems. Traditionally networks establish governing boards, ex- ecutive boards, and/or secretariat services. In addition, they may have external expert advisory bodies. Board membership is de- termined by the legal personality and stat- utes, or charter, of the network. It is com- mon for board members in a network to change over time and to reflect the distri- bution of stakeholders within the network. For publicly funded networks, the central secretariat is commonly fully funded by the interested public actors. Financial control is commonly ensured through mechanisms including a clear division between the gov- erning and executive boards, financial au- dits, publication of financial reports, and rules on incurring costs. The scope of a network’s activities de- termines the costs it will incur. Network costs may include: IT tools (including an exchange platform, a website, a database); meetings (including training and annual conferences); the development of the net- work’s common agreements or standards; publications (including promotional bro- chures and benchmarking reports); net- work administration (including a central secretariat). Networks with a private le- gal personality generally cover their costs though membership or subscription fees. Within networks that emerge from a pub- lic-sector call, members’ integration in the network is partially or fully subsidized. It is possible to combine different fund- ing mechanisms; for example, members whose network participation is paid for through subscriptions or public support receive core services free, but may be re- quired to pay to participate in special serv- ices or events, including training or annual conferences. Regarding subscriptions, it is common for networks to have more than one type linked to different membership categories. For example, members may be catego- rized as corporate members or individual members. Membership categories may be linked to the number of individuals who can receive network core services or attend meetings. Many networks seek corporate sponsors, particularly for the organization of events, or to cover large infrastructure costs. Typically sponsors have an inter- ested relationship with network members, and both benefit from the sponsorship deal. The governance and funding of net- works is rarely static. In fact, networks lend themselves to changing structures. For example, the European Commission (EC) established two networks: the In- novation Relay Centre (IRC) Network, and the European Information Centres (EIC), both of which were organized on a regional basis though national and regional nodes. These networks had separate central secretariat services following calls for tenders. The secretariats were made up of private organizations organized in consortia. At some times, the secretariats were responsible for members’ contracts and at other times for network members’ performance review and support, but not contracts. In 2008, the two networks were Gudrun Rumpf Science and Science of Science, 2011, № 228 combined into a single network called the Enterprise Europe Network (EEN), and its governance was assigned to the Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI). The network is open to non-EU members. Partial funding of members by the EC is possible, based on their location, if the interested country has a cooperation agreement with the EU. Examples of networks of innovation and business support infrastructure Innovation and business support in- frastructure has formed a variety of net- works which are organized regionally, na- tionally, and internationally. In addition, innovation and business support infra- structure groups itself into networks that offer special support. Technology transfer, business services or incubator support, in- dustry clusters, and innovation finance are just some examples. National science park associations form networks. For instance, the mission of the United Kingdom Science Park As- sociation (UKSPA) is to be the authorita- tive body on the planning, development and the creation of science parks that fa- cilitate the development and management of innovative, high-growth, knowledge- based organizations. However, member- ship of UKSPA is not restricted to UK- based organizations. UKSPA members are involved in the following networks: EBAN, EVCA, and IRC, and the Inter- national Association of Science and Tech- nology Parks. In many cases, science parks are in- volved in more than one network. AREA is a predominately public initiative in Italy which brings together research and public organizations and was founded in 1978 as Italy’s national science park coordina- tor. AREA is a multi-sector science and technology park that carries out research, development, and innovation activities aimed at achieving excellence. It is a refer- ence in Italy for technology transfer. AREA is a member of APRE, an Italian network that promotes the creation of partnerships enabling research bodies and regional companies to take advantage of European research programs. To support technology transfer, AREA joined the IRC Network, now EEN, by responding to an EC call for proposals. To provide services to new en- trepreneurs, it joined EBN European BIC network. To support exchanges of highly qualified researchers, AREA joined ERA- MORE, the European Network of Mobil- ity Centers. AREA is finally a member of HiCo, Hi-tech Integrated Cooperation, and a technical and economic develop- ment network in the border regions of Friuli, Venetia, Giulia and Slovenia. Major European and international networks of science parks and innovation and business support infrastructure Launched in 2008 by the European Commission, the EEN (Enterprise Europe Network) combines and builds on the former Innovation Relay Centre (IRC) network and the Euro Info Centre (EIC) network, established in 1995 and 1987, respectively. The IRC focused on tech- nology transfer and the EIC on business information and support. The network is made up of regionally or nationally organ- ized networks, coordinated centrally by the Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI). In 2010 the EEN is present in 45 countries, with around 4,000 experienced staff in 600 local part- ner organizations providing expert advice and services to EU businesses. Organiza- tions outside the EU can submit propos- als to join at a later date, on a non-funded basis. The new integrated network offers a one-stop shop to meet the information NETWORKING INNOVATION AND BUSINESS SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Наука та наукознавство, 2011, № 2 29 needs of SMEs and companies in Europe. The EBN European Business & Inno- vation Centre (BIC) Network was set up in 1984 as a joint initiative of the European Commission, European industry leaders, and Business and Innovation Centers. EBN is now a major non-governmental pan-European network bringing together over 200 Business & Innovation Centres (BICs), and similar organizations such as incubators, innovation and entrepreneur- ship centers across the enlarged Europe. BICs are organizations which promote innovation and entrepreneurship. They drive the creation of start-ups by sup- port to innovation, incubation and inter- nationalization. EBN provides help and support to these BICs by acting as an in- terface with other organizations by provid- ing expertise in numerous areas including funding and by stimulating the sharing of best practices. EBN membership entails payment of an annual membership fee. EBN membership is organized into two categories: Full members and associate members. Full membership is awarded to business and support organizations (BICs) implementing the EBN quality assurance system involving a quality charger and self-assessment protocol. The International Association of Sci- ence and Technology Parks (IASP) is the worldwide network of science and tech- nology parks. It was created in 1984 and has its headquarters in Spain. IASP con- nects science park professionals from across the globe and provides services that drive its members’ growth and ef- fectiveness. Members enhance the com- petitiveness of companies and entrepre- neurs of their cities and regions and con- tribute to global economic development through innovation, entrepreneurship, and the transfer of knowledge and tech- nology. In 2008 IASP had 359 members, involved 150,000 companies located in IASP member parks. in 74 countries and five regional divisions: IASP Asia-Pacif- ic, IASP Europe, IASP Latin America, IASP North America, IASP West Asia. Between 1984 and 2007 IASP organized 24 world and 42 regional conferences. IASP is a founding member of the World Alliance for Innovation. Another example of a network of Sci- ence parks is the World Technopolis As- sociation (WTA), a multilateral coopera- tive international organization. The main goals of the WTA are to promote regional development and prosperity through ex- changes and cooperation among science cities and to contribute to the happiness and well-being of all peoples through the advancement of science and technology. The World Technopolis Symposium in 1996 was a preliminary event which led to the establishment of the WTA, which formally emerged in Daejeon, Korea. The Daejeon Metropolitan City has made spe- cial efforts for the WTA: first, it has sought the United Nations Educational, Scientif- ic, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as an affiliate; second, it has set aside part of the city municipal budget for the WTA and secured a subsidy from the Korean government. The WTA is pushing ahead with international cooperative research projects and building an information net- work among members. Other critical networks A number of specialized networks do not focus on bringing innovation and busi- ness support infrastructure together. Some target services offered by the innovation and business support infrastructure to its clients. Other networks form to support specialized functions: for example, Tech- nologieAllianz is a German network of patent marketing and technology transfer agencies. Many specialized networks op- Gudrun Rumpf Science and Science of Science, 2011, № 230 erate internationally, but are organized nationally3. A number of specialized networks sup- port access to funding (business angels, venture capital, sectoral funds, etc.). One of these, the European Private Equity and Venture Capital Association (EVCA) rep- resents the European private equity sector and promotes the asset class both within Europe and throughout the world. EVCA’s role includes representing the interests of the industry to regulators and standard setters; developing professional standards; providing industry research; professional development and forums; facilitating in- teraction between its members and key in- dustry participants including institutional investors, entrepreneurs, policy makers and academics. EVCA’s activities cover the whole range of private equity: venture capital (from seed and start-up to develop- ment capital), buy-outs and buy-ins. A network can serve more than one need of innovation and business support infrastructure: It can be both a network that provides support to it’s’ employees or stakeholders and specialize in a technology relevant to it. The Centre of Excellence for Applied Research and Training (CERT) was established in 1996, and constitutes a hub for a network of 13 higher colleges of technology in Dubai.4 3 Among other examples, there is the Red de Officinas de Transferencia de Resultados de Investigación (RedOTRI), the Spanish Network of University Knowledge Transfer Offices, or the European Network of Mobility Centers for Researchers (ERA-MORE) for researchers wishing to work in another country than their own and for organizations willing to recruit talented European and non-European researchers. A support network exists in 32 countries through 200 centers. Services provide information on research fellowships and grants, at European, national, and international levels. The service is free of charge and supported by the European Commission. The National Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) uses ERA-MORE to draw its skilled scientists back home to Turkey. 4 CERT operates two science and technology parks, one in Abu Dhabi and one in Dubai, which provide One of the more important aspects of network participation is synergy and ex- changes of experience. It is not only top- level decision makers who participate in networks. Those who implement various innovation and business support infra- structure’s services and provide support to clients can learn from, and share, their experience in networks. Innovation and business support infrastructure joins many networks to establish and maintain con- nectivity and synergy in, and between, the innovation and business support organiza- tions, to connect to the local and wider re- gion, and to support special interests5. Sometimes, specialized clusters are very large, especially in industries requiring world-class technologies. Representatives of France, Germany, and Switzerland, working in life sciences, business, and economic development, helped to create a network of science, industry, politics, and finance. Cooperation between life-scienc- es and medical-technology companies, including major global players in the phar- access to world-class experts in technology through more than 20 multinational partners. The Dubai Technology Park, launched in 2002 by the Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corp (PCFC), is designed to attract foreign investment in research in oil and gas, desalination, and environment management. 5 The Baltic Association of Science and Technology Parks and Innovation Centers (BASTIC) brings together associations of science parks active in the Baltic countries. There are three member associations: the Association of Lithuanian Innovation Networks (ALIN), the Latvian Association of Technology Parks, Centers and Business Incubators (LTICA), and the Association of Estonian Science and/or Technology Parks (AESTP). BASTICS is a member of: AESTP, a national network supporting trade (common market) needs; ALIN, a national network supporting trade (common market) needs; IASP, an international association of science parks, which allows for study visits and comparison of practices; EEN to support international technology transfer exchanges for BASTICS; LTICA, a national network supporting trade (common market) needs. Effective participation in networks involves many categories of innovation and business support infrastructure stakeholders. NETWORKING INNOVATION AND BUSINESS SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Наука та наукознавство, 2011, № 2 31 maceuticals and agro-chemical sector, 40 scientific institutions and four universities, and about 280 research groups, has result- ed in one of the largest biotechnology re- gions in Europe, called BioValley6. It goes beyond the organization of local activities and requires active cluster management. Such interactions influence the services delivered and can help to professionalize innovation and business support infrastructure’ services. It may be noted that only a small number of specialized networks relevant to innovation and business support infrastructure have been mentioned here. Contribution to the professionalization of innovation and business support infrastructure’s services Networks serve the interests of inno- vation organizations, at the level both of the innovation and business support infra- structure and of individuals. Networks can support professionalization through: open exchanges and knowledge sharing, publica- tion of materials that advance knowledge, staff exchanges, training, organization of exams, formal qualifications, identification of good practice, and benchmarking. 6 In the late 1980s, the idea emerged to create a «Silicon Valley» dedicated to biotechnology in the Upper Rhine Region. A BioValley Promotion Team implemented the concept in the late 1990s, and a budget of EUR 2.2 million was received through EU regional/structural funds. A new legal structure for the BioValley was created, involving three national associations and one central tri-national association. In the mid-2000s, EUR 2.8 million was allocated from EU structural funds to «BioValley: from network to tri-national biotech cluster.» In 2008 the BioValley has 600 companies: including 40% of the world’s biggest pharmaceuticals companies, and 50,000 biotechnology sector jobs. It has 40 scientific institutions, and 100,000 students. It includes 11 life sciences parks, 12 universities and academic institutes offering life sciences, biotechnology, chemistry or nanosciences curricula. It has over 30 qualified technology platforms for scientific services: screening, ADME, spectroscopy, NMR, phenotyping, clinical research, etc. Participation in networks takes place through human interaction: individuals involved in innovation and business sup- port infrastructure benefit from network participation, and can pass this benefit on to customers and stakeholders. Therefore, innovation and business support infra- structure can be improved through em- ployee training and service improvements result from interaction with networks. Part of the process of service professionaliza- tion includes developing specific tools such as checklists, guidebooks, manuals, quality procedures, and general training materials. Some networks focus on developing the individual as an actor in his/her organi- zation. For example the European Associa- tion of Research Managers and Administra- tors (EARMA) focuses on the knowledge of individuals within their organization (university, research laboratory, etc.). An- other example is Technology Innovation International (TII), an independent Euro- pean association of technology transfer and innovation support professionals. Some publicly supported initiatives organize and deliver formal training in in- novation support skills. The ProTon Eu- rope network, supported by EC research program funding, has organized profes- sional training programs and qualifications for individuals responsible for innovation support. The training includes: setting up and managing a knowledge transfer office; patenting and IPR management; licensing; university-industry collaboration; and spin- off and campus companies. Finally profes- sionalization can occur through bench- marking of services across the network. Benchmarking innovation and business support infrastructure Performance Benchmarking is an additional aspect of network membership and is relevant to Gudrun Rumpf Science and Science of Science, 2011, № 232 innovation and business support infrastruc- ture’ management. Benchmarking allows an innovation and business support organi- zation to evaluate itself in relation to best practice across the network. This requires network members to agree to study their activities and to compare results and out- puts, and to share this information, often in the form of a report. When benchmarking is undertaken on an ongoing basis, overall improvements across the network can be observed. Ongoing benchmarking is fre- quently linked to agreed evaluation criteria and performance indicators. All of this es- tablishes quality systems and contributes to a process of continuous improvement. Benchmarking provides a route to suc- cess. It facilitates planning to improve the quality of services within the innovation and business support infrastructure. As services are upgraded, all participants in the benchmarking process move towards best practice. Any deficiencies in results will provoke action plans to improve per- formance. The Innovation Relay Centre (IRC) network, which focused on technol- ogy transfer, triggered a process to com- pare network member outputs. Common standards and outputs from the network were proposed by an advisory group and subsequently agreed upon. The types of outputs measured across the IRC network included: the number of cases in which technology transfer assistance was pro- vided to clients, the number of technology transfer agreements, group meetings of participants, all compared across the net- work and taking into account the number of personnel in each network member or node. Annual reports captured results and, over time, overall network outcomes improved. Any network members who had difficulty in reaching outputs were supported by a central IRC secretariat, through training and direct interventions. Another interesting example is provid- ed by the Innovating Regions in Europe (IRE) network, created by the European Commission (EC) in the mid-1990s. Its aim was to facilitate the exchange of expe- rience and good practice among European regions that are enhancing their capacity to support innovation and competitive- ness among regional firms, through the development and implementation of re- gional innovation strategies and schemes. In 2008, over 230 regions were members of the IRE network. The majority of IRE re- gions have developed regional innovation strategies (RIS). The European Commission pub- lished, in 2004, a call for pilot projects on benchmarking. The types of organizations involved were: regional administrative and political authorities, development agencies, and regional innovation sup- port organizations. Eight pilot projects on benchmarking were launched, involv- ing 36 regions across Europe. Some of the regions had leading industrial zones with high growth, and others were poorly de- veloped or declining regions. The projects adopted different methods for bench- marking innovation strategies. Measures were applied to innovation strategies and services at regional, science park, and services levels. These projects made it clear that, even if innovation strategies exhibit significant differences, the results can be benchmarked with a view to im- provement. Activities of organizations within a network are very diverse, and selecting the outputs to be measured is a challenge. For instance, many innovation and business support infrastructures are established with the expectation that they will positively in- fluence economic growth and technology- based developments in their environment or region. The strategy behind this think- ing can be high-level, outcomes may only NETWORKING INNOVATION AND BUSINESS SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Наука та наукознавство, 2011, № 2 33 be expected in the long term, and the out- puts may be difficult to measure. Benchmarking across network mem- bers contributes to a mutual learning en- vironment. One of the expected outcomes of network membership is synergy. Bench- marking allows members to improve their performance to reach the level of the high- est network performer. Networks that identify best practices, and compare out- comes, perform better than those that do not. Conclusion international innovation and business support infrastructure International networks vary in geo- graphic reach, thematic focus, special in- terest, size, organization, funding, emer- gence, and level of member participation. They stimulate activities in specific areas, such as formulation of common services or standards; technology transfer; patent marketing; access to clients or to finance; internationalization; driving creation of start-ups; facilitation of international re- search consortia: promotion of mobility of researchers; or representation of member’s interests to regulators and standard set- ters. They organize information exchange mechanisms by meetings, conferences, websites, platforms, databases, or news- letters. They support members’ profes- sionalism by access to experts, trainings, guidelines, good practices exchange and benchmarking, or performance rating and enhancement. Network membership re- quires membership fees (often), adherence to criteria, and time. Therefore adherence to networks must be carefully selected in order to make best use of scarce resource. When selecting networks likely to fill gaps within Ukrainian innovation and business support infrastructure, ques- tions should be considered like: What lo- cal, regional, national, and international networks exist and are open and of inter- est? Can the Ukrainian innovation center provide resources to participate fully in the network? What criteria have been es- tablished to choose between different net- works? Who in Ukraine can be contribut- ing to the network? How can exchanges be diffused form the network to Ukrainian innovation centers? Have measures been established on outcomes expected from participation in the network? 2. Ukrainian innovation and business support infrastructure7 National economies are increasingly interlinked. Innovation and business sup- port infrastructure must be, too. 8 However, there is no comprehensive provision of innovation and business sup- port services in Ukraine according to EU standard. Innovation and business support infrastructure in Ukraine is underfunded and not equipped with tools, methodolo- gies and knowledge to provide state of the art support services. Start ups and SMEs are most affected by this lack as they often cannot develop international networking on their own hereby often not being able to tap into knowledge needed to innovate and to develop commercially viable prod- ucts and services at the speed and quality imposed by increasingly competitive and complex markets. 7 Including outcome interviews with innovation projects Support to knowledge based and innovative enterprises and technology transfer to business in Ukraine, Development of financial schemes and infrastructure to support innovation in Ukraine, and Joint Support Office for enhancing Ukraine’s integration in EU research area. 8 Key features of innovation policy as a basis for designing innovation enhancing measures lead- ing Ukraine to a knowledge-based competitive economy-Comparison EU and Ukraine; G.Rumpf, G.Strogylopoulos, I.Yegorov, June 2011, in Ukrain- ian. Gudrun Rumpf Science and Science of Science, 2011, № 234 Also Ukrainian innovation and busi- ness support infrastructure is ’under net- worked’ when compared to their Western counterparts both bilaterally and within networks. Ukrainian innovation and busi- ness support infrastructure is not actively engaged in networks they are mostly una- ware of. Having in mind the chronic un- derfunding of most business support or- ganizations missing international links might seem as a minor problem. However, being cut out from accumulated interna- tional learning experiences, best practices, methodologies and tools ignites a virtuous circle. The downward spiral of profession- alism of provided innovation and business support services makes it increasingly loos- ing their raison d’être for assisting Ukrain- ian business in becoming more competi- tive. Likewise the gap to state of the art business support infrastructure widens and its actors are less and less able to provide state of the art business support services designed to help client organizations be- come more competitive in the globalised economy. A recent analysis suggests 147 innova- tion infrastructure actors in Ukraine com- prising 16 Techno Parks and 24 innovation business incubators9. However, to many, these figures are highly overrated: According to the Ukrain- ian Association of Investment Business Association (UBICA) only 8 Techno parks (out of 16 registered ones) are oper- ating. Experts estimate out of these only 2 or 3 of them are performing well. Further- more, according to UBICA, to date there are only 10 active business incubators in Ukraine. According to the opinion of Ukrainian experts, business incubators and business centers have not been working successful- 9 Ministry of Education, Science, Youth and Sports presentation innovation forum, October 2009, Kyiv. ly in recent years [10]. They were focused much more on general commercial activi- ties than on support of innovation enter- prises. Innovation projects were few and small; they could not compete with projects in property development or merchandise trade. A similar situation presented itself with other forms of innovation and busi- ness support organizations. Partially, this could be explained by the fact that there are no special (indirect) incentives for cre- ation and utilization of innovation in the country. Also state finances for innovative enterprises are scarce. Due to the economic crisis new forms of innovation and business support infra- structure have not been developed in spite of sound declarations. Likewise the State Agency for Investment and Innovation (SAUII) had to create a number of region- al innovation and business support cent- ers in 2008-2009. However, in reality only first organizational steps were taken, and no innovation projects were supported. Technology Parks11 According to some experts the most (and to some: the only!) successful measure in stimulation innovation was the creation of techno parks. The country’s first tech- no park created in the early 90s in Brody, Western Ukraine, was not successful due to the lack of a sustainable business strat- egy. In addition, disputes relating to prop- erty rights for land and buildings created an insecure business environment, which discouraged the creation and expansion of new companies. 10 Strikha M.V., Shovkaluk V.S., Borovich T.V., Dutchak Zh. I., Sedov A.O. Information and Ana- lytical materials of the Ministry of Education and Science to the Parliamentary Hearings ’ Strategy of Innovation Development of Ukraine in 2010-2020 in conditions of Globalizing Challenges’ — Kyiv, MON, 2009 — 39 pages (in Ukrainian). 11 With input of Igor Yegorov, Dobrov Center. NETWORKING INNOVATION AND BUSINESS SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Наука та наукознавство, 2011, № 2 35 In 1999 a new attempt to create tech- no parks was made. In July 1999, another Law on Special Regime of Investment and Innovation Activities for Technological Parks passed Parliament. According to this Law, three new techno parks with some re- al financial privileges for innovation com- panies were created — Techno park in the Paton Institute for Welding (Kyiv), Tech- no park in the Institute of Semiconductors (Kyiv), and Techno park in the Institute of Mono-crystals (Kharkiv). They were cre- ated on the basis of leading institutes of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine with strong technological orientations. Tax and customs privileges could be received not by the institutes themselves but by specific (specially registered) innovation projects with the overheads they transfer to the techno park management were ex- empted from standard taxation procedure. Despite their privileges, techno parks con- tributed almost 905 million Hryvnas of dif- ferent taxes to the central and local budg- ets in 2000-2008. They also created more than 3000 new jobs. However, the number of employees in techno parks dropped by almost 10 times in 2007 and in 2008. This means that techno parks worked in ’iner- tial mode’ in 2007-2008 [12].In 2009 the Ministry of Education, Science, Youth and Sports reported 16 technology parks. They were registered after 1999 following a law on technology parks that set out a regime of tax incentives, reductions in du- ties and customs. Beginning 2005 the tax privileges granted to Techno Parks were abolished. According to the Ukrainian Business Incubators & Innovation Centres Association (UBICA) 8 Techno parks are still operating. Among them only 3 Tech- no parks sell innovative projects. These are the Electric Welding Institute named 12 Mazur O,A., Shovkaluk V.S. Technological Parks: Ukrainian and Foreign Experience. — Kyiv, MON, 2009 — 71 pages (in Ukrainian). after E.O. Paton (Kyiv); the Institute of Monocrystals in Kharkhiv; and the Semi- conductor technologies and materials, optoelectronics and sensing Technology Park in Kyiv. However, according to international experts there is no innovation and business support infrastructure in Ukraine accord- ing to international standards. Ukrainian Technology Parks do not constitute in- novation infrastructure according to inter- national standards. They are legal entities that serve the founding research institutes to engage in commercial activities, e.g. to manufacture products based on intel- lectual property vested by said research institutes. Ukrainian Technology Parks offer no space for rent, nor any promotion for foreign direct investment apart from joining as legal partner to the Technology Park. They are not business infrastructure allowing businesses establish independent facilities. It may be worth investigating to set up a pilot Science and Technology Park hosting a business incubator in Ukraine. Business Incubators A current weakness in the Ukrainian National Innovation System is the continuous fresh supply of high tech start ups. While start ups are a vulnerable species everywhere in the world they face particular challenges in an economy of transition like in Ukraine. There is no legislative base for creation of innovative spin-offs from Ukrainian universities and there are no tools to stimulate innovative start-ups. However, experience and practical support to start up companies would be needed to improve efficiency, to avoid unnecessary work and mistakes. Also start ups need to be introduced well selected and prepared investment opportunities. In the EU some business incubators provide these services hereby enhancing the odds of success and Gudrun Rumpf Science and Science of Science, 2011, № 236 helping entrepreneurs and companies to become faster credible, taxpaying members of society. However, the currently existing few Ukrainian business incubators are often busy struggling with their own survival and are not prone to help entrepreneur to succeed. Often product-based ideas originating from diverse areas of expertise, research and practical business experience on the basis of protectable technology or information enrichment and scalable business models are not put into practice. This affects Ukrainian economy as it is often such business ideas that, if properly implemented, have the potential for creating new jobs, revenue of hundreds of millions Euro and lucrative exit for shareholders. Overall, in Ukraine there is a short- age of supporting the creation of new in- novative company set ups. According to UBICA there are 10 active business incu- bators in Ukraine. However, many busi- ness incubators are not primarily focused on innovative start ups but on other com- mercial projects, a tendency that had also been observed within the State Agency for Investment and Innovation (SAUII). The provided range of innovation and business support services is not complete compared to their Western counterparts. Contrary to the EU, in Ukraine higher education institutes only rarely are among the founders of business incubators. The provisions of law prohibit universities to participate in almost all types of entrepre- neurial activities, including the right to create companies, which are working on commercialization of R&D results. The establishment of the science park KPI could open the way for changes in the leg- islation, if it could show substantial posi- tive results of its work. Typically business incubators are supported by public sector schemes with modest contributions by entrepreneurs who avail of their services to create new businesses and jobs hereby providing an increased tax base. However, in Ukraine public private partnerships are largely un- derdeveloped. Also companies hosted by business incubators are observed to have an «all inclusive» mentality expecting 100 % funding from the state. While it is desirable to foster the en- trepreneurial spirit and propensity towards co-financing among tenant companies it remains the role of the state to fund the lion’s share of business incubator opera- tions. However, in Ukraine the share of financial support from the side of local authorities is small. Some experts estimate NGOs account for 50 — 80 % of business incubator financing. Without systematic support by local authorities and the state most business incubators cannot count on sustainable development. Business incu- bators have to choose either to transform into purely commercial enterprises (this may lead to loss of clients who hoped for certain preferential terms at the first stage of running business) or to reduce the vol- ume of services they render to their clients (by refusing to lease business space, or by reducing other services). This limits their possibilities to obtain additional financ- ing from donor organizations which con- nect the criteria of sustainable develop- ment with interest of local community and authorities in assisting and supporting projects financed by them. [13]. A European best practice is the Euro- pean BIC (Business and Innovation Cen- tre) Network (EBN) which spreads across the world. The project «Development of fi- nancial schemes and infrastructure to sup- port innovation in Ukraine» is considering 13 Sipos, Zoltan, and Szabo, Antal, Benchmarking of Business Incubators in CEE and CIS Transition Economies, (ERENET and Sintef, Budapest, Hun- gary), 15 June 2006, available at: http://www.erenet.org/papers/download/bench- markingbusinessincubation.pdf . NETWORKING INNOVATION AND BUSINESS SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Наука та наукознавство, 2011, № 2 37 facilitating the set up of Business & Inno- vation Centres (BICs), to link them as full members to the EBN European Business & Innovation Centre (EBN-BIC) Net- work, and to provide high tech start ups with dedicated funding instruments. Cluster initiatives In the EU and beyond thousands of clusters bring together small and large companies, universities and research in- stitutes, business support infrastructure and regional public administration to stimulate collaboration in view to enhance production, marketing, and technological skills. This collaboration is often stimulat- ed by cluster initiatives who organize joint branding, training, export promotion, etc. Usually cluster initiatives are kick started by regional authorities, and tend to be self sustainable after around 2—5 years. In Ukraine there are currently neither clusters nor supporting cluster initiatives operating according to EU standards. Companies and research organizations in a given geographic area operating in the same sector tend not to collaborate. Rath- er, entrepreneurs and researchers tend to work in isolation hereby not developing synergies to further develop joint brand- ing; export and domestic markets; entre- preneurial and export skills; raise produc- tivity.; enhance competitiveness; produc- tion and logistics value chains; technology transfer; joint research; etc. Likewise busi- ness potential is untapped. It may be worth fostering collabora- tion in some strategic clusters by launch- ing and funding pilot cluster initiatives in sectors with growth potential. Technology transfer infrastructure Missing commercialization of research results to industry is one of the Achilles verses of the Ukrainian National Innova- tion System. There currently are no func- tioning technology transfer broker mecha- nisms or structures that assess, audit and matching technology needs and surplus of technology providers and consumers. The technology gap of already innovation ad- verse Ukrainian firms compared to inter- national players is widening as a result. In spite of the fact Ukraine has a patent port- folio, university technology transfer offices and some acting technology transfer play- ers, the existing initiatives are not working together. Rather, universities explore their Intellectual Property in an isolated ap- proach so that it is difficult for companies to compare technology solutions offered by various universities. Technology trans- fer agents are not pro-active in matching technology needs with technology solu- tions. Rather technology transfer is un- derstood as publishing publicly funded research results in databases without the active promotion facilitated by technology brokers. IT based technology transfer plat- forms do exist but they are not intercon- nected with each other hereby impeding user friendly access to all of them. It seems no player in the infrastructure is dedicated to assessing and promoting technology de- mands of companies to universities. Also there are not financial incentives promot- ing SME-university research cooperation. Overall, technology transfer actors facili- tate few technology deals. The gap between the higher education sector and industry in Ukraine is substan- tial. Current legislation does not allow uni- versities or research institutes to be found- ers of a spin-off company with non-state ownership. The introduction of the Law on KPI Science park (2008) might change the situation but it is too early to make conclu- sions about the effectiveness of changes. Business support infrastructure is to be equipped with appropriate resources Gudrun Rumpf Science and Science of Science, 2011, № 238 and with international state of the art busi- ness support services methodology and tools to help minimize and close this gap. The fastest way to do this is to adhere to partner with organizations that have a successful track record in brokering tech- nology. A best practice is the Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) which success stimulated governments in four continents to fund EEN centers outside Europe. To date EEN spans the EU, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile, China, Croatia, Egypt, former Yugoslav Republic of Mac- edonia, Iceland, Israel, Montenegro, Nor- way, Russian Federation, Serbia, South Korea, Switzerland, Syria, Turkey, and counting. The project «Support to knowl- edge based and innovative enterprises and technology transfer to business in Ukraine» has facilitated the set up of EEN Ukraine. Care must be taken to provide sufficient operating financing for consortium part- ners and associated members. Care must be taken to co-ordinate efforts of interna- tional, national, and regional technology transfer centers (be it regional/national technology transfer brokers, liaison of- fices at universities, technology transfer services at National Academy of Sciences, etc) to avoid duplication of services and resulting confusion of client organisations. Training to research centers on channels for technology transfer, negotiation skills, language (English) skills, and technology marketing skills will help market Ukrain- ian technology worldwide. FP7 contact points — National Contact Points (NCPs) A shortage within the Ukrainian Na- tional Innovation System is the overall reluctance of Ukrainian researchers to engage in international consortia and to engage in Framework Programme (FP) project. While the efforts of the NIP Ukraine have borne fruit it appears that a significant part of the country’s research potential is not satisfactorily addressed and exploited since the NCP individu- als provide NCP services on a part time basis and are therefore more focused on offering intra organization support. The development of a management and self- assessment tool is critical. There still is no scheme for concrete monitoring or for assessment of NCP services or a standard procedure for providing NCP services. A sustainable region wide support structure of National Contact Points (NCP) would help to reach and assist researchers across the regions to participate in FP. A well con- ceived NCP system is needed to contrib- ute to strengthening FP participation and the working relations between Ukrainian and EU researchers. High expertise and provision of advanced level NCP services can be achieved by frequently organizing training sessions on advanced FP issues and experience sharing workshops. Care must be taken to adapt the NCP system to national policies, priorities and strategies, into national structures (government, re- search funding system, scientific and busi- ness communities), and to FP7 and Euro- pean NCP networks. To date Ukraine has one official INCO National Contact Point (NCP). The NCP system of Ukraine consists of a network of seven regional NCPs (Lo- cal Information Points — LIPs) covering some geographical regions. The National Information Centre for Ukraine (NCP coordinator), the National Information Center for Ukraine-EU S&T Coopera- tion (NIP) provides the Ministry of Edu- cation and Science with regular reports on conducted activities partially based on the reports received from the LIPs. NIP was established by the Ministry of Education and Science on August 1, 2003 following Order #514. It is hosted by Kyiv Center NETWORKING INNOVATION AND BUSINESS SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Наука та наукознавство, 2011, № 2 39 for Scientific, Technical and Economic Information. Communication channels with EC officers and research performers outside Ukraine have been established and are maintained mainly by the NCP Coor- dinator. The LIPs depend on the contacts of the NCP Coordinator. NCP services are provided by regional NCPs. The network of Local Informa- tion Points was established in 2003 and it is composed of regional state centers for science, technology and economic infor- mation as well as universities. NCP serv- ices are provided by a total of 9 physical persons on a part time basis and coordi- nation of the regional NCPs is performed by the NCP coordinator. The NCP coor- dinator’s activities are funded through a state financed project and some European funded projects whereas LIPs have been selected on a competitive basis and are directly contracted by the NCP coordina- tor for performing NCP services at agreed fees.14 No thematic specialization is estab- lished. Each LIP handles inquiries relat- ing to all priorities. When advanced tech- nical issues arise, informal signposting is activated on the basis of the professional background of the individual NCP or the research focus of its hosting organiza- tion. The NCP has a rather small access to academic clientele (if the NCP target group identity is compared against that of the Ukrainian research performers). This could be partly explained by the strong ties of the regional NCP individuals with their hosting organization. This implies that there might be a significant percent- age of research performers which are not satisfactorily accessed. The links with the industry, SMEs and private enterprises are limited and vary depending on the region and the research focus of the host organi- zation. Access and dissemination of infor- 14 IncoNet EECA: Analytical report on the NCP structure of Ukraine mation to potential clients that are located in remote areas is limited. Not all LIPs make a final proposal check mainly due to lack of human resources. The level of the FP expertise required also varies among LIPs. Statistics prove the NCP has already linked some Ukrainian researchers to the Framework Programme (FP): In FP7, 107 Ukrainian organizations participated in 79 projects incurring 8,44 million EU co-fi- nancing (information obtained by head of NIP on 11.6.2010). The promising results could be enlarged by setting up and main- taining NCPs across FP7 thematic areas. The project «Joint Support Office to for enhancing Ukraine’s integration in EU research area» is setting up a comprehen- sive Ukrainian National Contact Point (NCP) support system with regional NCP nodes to be systematically trained by the central NCP. The Ukrainian NCP net- work will be linked with European NCP networks to ensure the dissemination of information regarding FP7 opportunities to their potential beneficiaries, recipients (universities, research institutes, and com- panies). Care must be taken to adapt the NCP system to national policies, priori- ties and strategies, into national structures (government, research funding system, science and business communities), and to FP7 and European NCP networks. The state Centres of Scientific, Technical and Economic Information (CSTEI), the In- stitutes of the National Academy of Sci- ences, and Ukrainian universities can be a suitable basis of the NCP structure. Ukrainian innovation and business support infrastructure Conclusions National economies are increasingly interlinked. Innovation and business sup- port infrastructure must be, too. Gudrun Rumpf Science and Science of Science, 2011, № 240 Innovation and business support infra- structure is an integral part of a wider insti- tutional setting for supporting start ups and small and medium businesses. Business and innovation infrastructure in Ukraine ac- cording to international standards should be set up. Regardless of their form (non-profit institutions, partnership between state and non-profit institutions, private, integral part of a university, etc.), business incu- bators, science centers, innovation cent- ers, and techno parks must be linked with present economic needs and economic and developmental policy of the country. Care must be taken to strengthen Ukrainian business support service provid- ers. The public budget situation leaves limit- ed room for manoeuvre and puts the imper- ative to spend public money wisely. Indeed a few effective business support providers providing the most urgent public serviced must be wisely selected, set up, trained and maintained. Areas to be found of particular relevance are technology transfer, promo- tion of high tech start ups, and facilitation of international research consortia. Innovation and business support in- frastructure is not developed for its own sake. It must prove to contribute to build- ing of the country’s knowledge-based economy. Some networks operate since decades. Ukrainian innovation and busi- ness support infrastructure can benefit from the network’s cumulative learning experience. Ukraine is currently setting up EEN Ukraine and will join it to Enterprise Europe Network, (EEN). Ukraine plans to set up of Business & Innovation Centres (BICs) and to link them as full members to the EBN European Business & Innovation Centre (EBN-BIC). Moreover Ukraine is establishing a comprehensive FP7 Na- tional Contact Points system and will link it to EU NCPs. It is expected that the collaboration within international networks and initia- tives contributes boosts both the propensi- ty and capability of Ukrainian innovation and business support infrastructure to pro- vide state of the art support services hereby paving the way of Ukrainian industry to a knowledge-based economy. 3. Bibliography Institutions, public programs, innovation portals United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) http://www.unido.org/ World Bank Private Sector Development Program (PSDP) http://www.worldbank.org European Commission, DG Enterprise (EC DG ENT) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/index_en.htm Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7) http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) http://ec.europa.eu/cip/ Innovation portals European Association of Research Managers, & Administrators (EARMA) http://www.earma.org/ European Business and Innovation Centre (BIC) Network (EBN) http://www.ebn.be/ Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) http://www.enterprise-europe-network.ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm European Business Angel Network (BUSANET) http://www.eban.org/ NETWORKING INNOVATION AND BUSINESS SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Наука та наукознавство, 2011, № 2 41 European Private Equity and Venture Capital Association (EVCA) http://www.evca.com International Association of Science Parks (IASP) http://www.iasp.ws/publico/intro.jsp International Network for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (INSME) http://www.insme.org/page.asp World Technopolis Association (WTA) http://www.wtanet.org/ Ukrainian Association of Investment Business Association (UBIICA) http://www.uaib.com.ua/ Support to knowledge based and innovative enterprises and technology transfer to business in Ukraine http://innoenterprise.com.ua/ Development of financial schemes and infrastructure to support innovation in Ukraine http://inno-ukraine.com Joint Support Office for enhancing Ukraine’s integration in EU research area www.jso-era.org Enhance Innovation Strategies, Policies and Regulation in Ukraine http://innopolicy.com.ua/ Received 22.04.2011 Гудрун Румпф Инновационные сети и инфраструктура поддержки бизнеса В 60—70-е годы ХХ ст. и особенно после нефтяного кризиса инновации были признаны большинством стран в качестве решающего фактора конкурентоспособности промышленного сектора и сектора услуг. Эти страны начали разрабатывать технологическую политику, нацеленную либо на стимулирование передачи в производство результатов исследований, полученных в государственных научных учреждени- ях, либо на расширение инновационной деятельности в частном секторе, в основном путем повышения размеров инвестиций в исследования и разработки (ИР). Такая политика реализовывались в виде мас- штабных государственных программ, стимулирования исполнителей ИР, помощи в получении патентов и т.п. Однако последние эмпирические данные свидетельствуют об отсутствии непосредственной связи между инвестициями в ИР и инновациями, а также о том, что новая продукция и новые процессы воз- никают в результате совместной деятельности различных институциональных структур. Это приве- ло к смещению акцентов в политике, и сегодня правительства направляют ресурсы на стимулирование формирования кластеров фирм, связей между научными институтами и университетами и на распро- странение знаний. Кроме того, взорвавшийся в конце 90-х годов высокотехнологический «пузырь» сигна- лизировал о необходимости реагирования политики в первую очередь на технологические потребности на локальном и региональном уровне, в том числе путем формирования сетей (networks). В статье раскрыто понятие сетей, их цели, функции, принципы работы, пути возникновения. Под- черкнуто, что сети возникают двумя путями — в результате политических решений («сверху—вниз») или самоорганизации субъектов на базе общих интересов, проистекающих из близости местоположения или производственной кооперации, причем возникающие таким образом кластеры могут иметь меж- дународные масштабы. Ввиду значительной роли малых и средних предприятий (МСП) в странах ЕС, которым, однако, очень трудно выходить за пределы местных рынков, многие меры государственной политики в этих странах направлены на содействие формированию специальных сетей для поддержки международной деятельности МСП. Приведены примеры сетей, действующих на территории ЕС. Отмечена роль ассоциаций научных парков как организаторов и участников сетей. Представлена подробная информация об основных евро- пейских и международных сетях с участием научных парков и инновационной инфраструктуры. Кроме того, на территории ЕС созданы и действуют так называемые функциональные сети. Их основной задачей является не объединение субъектов технологической и инновационной деятельности, а предоставление конкретных видов услуг или поддержка конкретных функций, например маркетинга патентов, трансфера технологий, финансовая поддержка. Science and Science of Science, 2011, № 242 Отмечено, что одним из важных элементов деятельности сетей является бенчмаркинг — самооце- нивание участвующих в сетях организаций в сравнении с наиболее эффективными участниками сети. Предложен алгоритм участия субъектов инновационной и технологической деятельности в сетях, который состоит из отдельных блоков контрольных вопросов на конкретных этапах формирования сети или присоединения к сети. Приведена подробная информация о состоянии инновационной инфраструктуры в Украине, в том числе в сравнении с ЕС, а также предложены соответствующие рекомендации по ее совершенствованию на основе общепринятых международных стандартов. Вдумливих аналітиків вражає без- прецедентна нестабільність українсько- го законодавства, що регулює відносини в сфері науки та інновацій, непослідов- ність законодавчої та виконавчої влади у запровадженні реальних механізмів про- ведення в життя науково-технологічної та інноваційної політики нашої держави. Свого часу це виливалось у протистоян- ня законодавчої і виконавчої влади, по- зиції яких з ряду принципово важливих питань виявлялись прямо протилежни- ми [1]. Проте загальні причини такої не- стабільності, на наш погляд, полягають в боротьбі двох принципово різних по- глядів як на роль держави, так і на роль науки в розвитку економіки і загалом в поступі суспільства. На еволюції українського законо- давства виразно відбивається боротьба двох протилежних тенденцій: спроб за- конодавчо закріпити деякі механізми проведення в життя дієвої державної політики, спрямованої на прискорен- ня розвитку і досягнення конкретних результатів, з одного боку, і спроб за- безпечити тотальний контроль та при- скіпливий нагляд, з другого. Прихильники і активні провідни- ки обох тенденцій обґрунтовують свої дії державними інтересами: перші по- яснюють, що без активної підтримки держави наша економіка не виживе, інші ж виходять з того, що людина по самій своїй суті є хитрим злодієм і головне завдання держави того зло- © О.С. Попович, 2011 О.С.Попович Дерегуляція підприємницької діяльності чи гальмування розвитку економіки — суперечлива еволюція українського законодавства Показано, що безпрецедентна нестабільність українського законодавства, яке регулює відносини у сфері науки та інновацій, не зрозуміла багатьом експертам непослідовність законодавчої та виконавчої влади у створенні реальних механізмів формування та реалізації науково-технологічної політики, зумовлені боротьбою двох принципово відмінних підходів у розумінні ролі держави в цих процесах. При- хильники одного з них виходять перш за все з необхідності всезагального контролю і повної недовіри до людини і не вірять у можливості науки серйозно впливати на економіку, інші намагаються сформувати механізми активізації ініціативи людей, якомога більш повного використання можливостей вітчизняної науки.

Networking innovation and business support infrastructure

Institution

Ähnliche Einträge