OECD REVIEWS OF INNOVATION POLICY: NORWAY
OVERALL ASSESSMENTDirk PilatDeputy DirectorDirectorate for Science,Technology and [email protected]
Launch of the OECD review of Innovation Policy: Norway 2017, Oslo, 13 June 2017
A wide-ranging science and technology revolution is underway
Productivity growth has declined since the 1990sAnnualised growth of labour productivity (output per hour worked)
Source: OECD estimations using OECD National Accounts database; OECD Productivity database; International Labour Organisation database. Statlink: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933367500
The productivity benefits of innovation and new technologies are urgently needed ...
4
… and science and technology can also help in addressing global and social challenges
+60% food to feed 9.7 billion people
by 2050
+55% water demand by 2050
Norway is around the OECD averageon investment in R&D
USAJPN
DEU
KOR
FRAGBR
ITA
CANAUS
ESP
NLD
SWE
TUR
CHE
AUT
ISR
BEL
MEX
POL
DNKFIN
CZE
NOR
PRT
IRL
HUN
GRC NZL
SVN
CHL
SVKEST LUX
ISL
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
200 400 600 800 1 000 1 200 1 400 1 600 1 800 2 000
Researchers, per thousand employment
Gross domestic expenditures onR&D per capita population (current PPP $)
R&D in OECD and key partner countries, 2014 or latest year available
Researchers per thousand employment
Gross domestic expenditures onR&D as a percentage of population
Source: Main Science and Technology Indicators Database; Scoreboard 2015
… and is among the countries wherepublic investment has grown …
Government budget appropriations and outlays for R&Das a % of total government expenditures, 2000 and 2015
Source: OECD R&D Statistics (RDS) Database, April 2016, www.oecd.org/sti/rds; OECD National Accounts Database.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0 %
2015 2000Increased spending on R&D Decreased spending on R&D 2015 2000
… although not as much as in somepeer countries
Government budget appropriations and outlays for R&Das a % of GDP, 1981-2013
Source: OECD R&D Statistics (RDS) Database, April 2016, www.oecd.org/sti/rds.
France
United Kingdom
Germany
Unites States
Sweden
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013
Chinese Taipei
EU28
Mexico
Norway
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013
Denmark
Korea
Austria
Finland Iceland
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013
On R&D inputs, Norway is around the average, but trailing other Nordic countries
Gap 1st and 3rd quartiles Norway Sweden Denmark Finland
R&D funding OECD and selected countries2015 or latest available data
Source: MSTI (2017); OECD Historical Population Data and Projections Database; STI Scoreboard 2015
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
GERD, % of GDP
GERDBERDHERD
GOVERD
by industryby government
by industryby government
Per capita
GERD financed
BERD financed
On R&D outputs, Norway has someareas of strength
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Number of publications% publications among 10% most
cited
Top 500 universities per habitant
International co-authoriship
Higher Education
Government
Health
Private sector
Gap 1st and 3rd quartiles Norway Sweden Denmark Finland
Scientific outputs OECD and selected countries2016 or latest available data
OECD Innovation Policy Reviews:Coverage of the Nordic countries
• Requested by the Ministry of Education and Research (MER) to inform the revision of the LTP in 2018
• 3 fact-finding missions (>180 people interviewed)
• 2 case studies (‘seas and oceans’; health and healthcare R&D)
• A stakeholder workshop held at the the Research Council of Norway in March 2017
• 3 international experts
• A dedicated team of analysts at OECD/STI
Process and methodology of the review
Norway is among the richest and most advanced economies but is still vulnerable
• A remarkable transformation into one of the leading national systems of innovation
• Several success stories, with a prominent role of strong and interlinked research and innovation capabilities
• Norway is now facing a “triple transition” imperative1. away from oil and gas toward a more diversified and robust
economy2. towards a research and innovation system that produces
excellent and relevant knowledge …3. …including for addressing mounting societal challenges
• This transition imperative calls for strong coordination and agenda setting
The triple transition imperative
The Long-Term Plan for Research and Higher Education 2015-2024 is a unique initiative to
respond to these challenges
Objective 1
Objective 2
Objective 3
The triple transition imperative
Improved agenda setting and coordinationObjective 4
The Long-Term Plan for Research and Higher Education 2015-2024 is a unique initiative to
respond to these challenges
AUSAUT
BEL
CAN
CHL
CZE
DNK
ESTFIN
FRADEU
GRCHUN
ISL
IRLISRITA
JPN
KOR
LUX
MEX
NLD
NZL
NOR
POL
PRT
SVK
SVNESP
SWE
CHE
TUR
GBRUSA
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
1,6
1,8
Publications per capita
Relative citation impact
Publications per capita and relative citation impact 2003–2012
Norway’s insufficient average research quality …
Objective 1 Developing
research communities of
outstanding quality
Objective 1 Developing
research communities of
outstanding quality
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Netherlands Switzerland Israel Sweden Austria Finland Denmark Norway
Number of ERC grants ERC grants/100 k inhabitants
Number of ERC grants and ERC grants/100 k inhabitants
Source: ERC (2016), European Research Council Statistics (database)
.. that is missing ‘peaks of excellence’
• Government’s effort to enhance competitive mechanisms have had mixed results– among HEIs– within HEIs
• The new wave of mergers – too recent to be evaluated– the objectives are not clear (raising the average quality or
creating ‘champions’?)– the dual university system should be preserved
Enhancing HEI competitive mechanisms & critical mass to improve research quality
Objective 1 Developing
research communities of
outstanding quality
Low business R&D, partly related to structure of the economy
0
20
40
60
80
100Industry
High-techmanufacturing
High-knowledgemarket services
Primary andresource-based
industries
Large firms
Foreign affiliates
Services
Medium to low-tech
manufacturing
Low-knowledgeservices
Non-resource-based
manufacturing…
SMEs
Domestic firms
OECD Norway Norway (2007)
Structural composition of business enterprise R&DAs a % of total BERD performed by sector, 2013
Objective 2 Enhanced
competitiveness and innovation
Source: OECD (2016), OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_scoreboard-2013-en.
Norway as a moderate innovator but with strengths in some areas
Top/Bottom 5 OECD values Middle range of OECD values OECD median Norway
Skills for innovation
R&D and innovation in firms
Innovative entrepreneurship
Top half OECD
Bottom half
OECD 100
0
200
150
50
Objective 2 Enhanced
competitiveness and innovation
• No major gap, diverse portfolio of financial support schemes and technical services
• Better suited to support existing strengths rather than new sectors and new areas for diversification?
• A shift towards neutral instruments
A comprehensive policy mix Objective 2 Enhanced
competitiveness and innovation
• A strengthened knowledge transfer infrastructure, but incentives are missing– no third-stream policy and funding
– no commercialisation indicators in the performance-based funding system
• A strong research institute sector, but with a questionable contribution to the transition required– heterogeneous and fragmented– limited block funding– limited capacity of RCN’ to steer the institutes towards specific
policy goals
A diversified and effective policy infrastructure to support business
innovation
Objective 2 Enhanced
competitiveness and innovation
• A strong tradition of investing in research to tackle societal challenges
• Strong but not top scientific performance in related fields
Norway has taken up the societal challenges
Objective 3 Tackling major
social challenges
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Denmark FinlandNetherlands NorwaySweden Switzerland
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Denmark FinlandNetherlands NorwaySweden Switzerland
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Denmark FinlandNetherlands NorwaySweden Switzerland
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Denmark FinlandNetherlands NorwaySweden Switzerland
Renewable energy, sustainability and the environment
Water science and technology
Global and planetary change
Health (social science)
• Focus on the development of the basic knowledge base underpinning societal challenges… – … in ‘traditional’ societal challenge areas (climate, energy,
medicine, biotech,…) – …at the detriment of the development of the framework
conditions for systemic change
• Deficit of horizontal coordination• ‘21 Forum’ processes complement the LTP but do not
take systemic change far enough
But suffers from a rather traditional and linear approach, not conducive to
systemic change
Objective 3Tackling major
social challenges
• A stable and functional policy framework, highly sectorised and consensus-based
• Effective to support incremental innovation rather thanlong term (system) transition
• Several agenda setting / coordination mechanisms exist, but do not fully compensates for the absence of a dedicated institution
• The LTP did not fully achieve its initial expectations, but it is a significant first step in this direction and is expected to advance further in its 2018 revision
The STI governance has improved but new challenges ask for priority setting
and coordination
Objective 4Improving agenda
setting and coordination
Main areas for recommendation
Developing research
communities of outstanding
quality
Continue to focus on excellence and critical mass in the higher education sector (performance based funding
system, research careers, CoEs, etc.)
Enhanced competitiveness and innovation
Tackling major social
challenges
Improving agenda setting
and coordination
Provide innovation actors with the appropriate conditions and incentives to contribute the
transition (targeting of instruments, funding of PRIs, “third mission” in universities, etc.)
Implement a holistic, comprehensive and ambitious approach towards societal challenges (broad integrated programmes, coordination TVET-HE,
policy experimentation, etc.)
Use the LTP process and its regular revisions to gradually enhance the level of multiannual financial
commitment and STI priority-setting
Takk for oppmerksomheten!
Contact: [email protected]
Twitter: @OECDinnovation and @PilatSTI
OECD Going Digital website: http://oe.cd/goingdigital
Sign up for the STI Newsletter:www.oecd.org/sti/news.htm
OECD REVIEWS OF INNOVATION POLICY: NORWAY
RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVESYSTEM GOVERNANCEPhilippe Larrue, OECDPolicy Analyst
Michael Stampfer, WWTF (Vienna Science and Technology Fund) Director
Oslo, 6 March 2017
Launch of the OECD review of Innovation Policy: Norway 2017
• The highly sectorised and consensus-based policy making has strongly shaped STI policy in the past– allowed constant improvements relying upon incremental
innovation– ensured actor mobilisation once consensus has been achieved
• Risk of missing out on radical innovation prerequisites– cross-sectorial coordination – bold, longer term, strategy and corresponding prioritisation
• Two key questions– When and where is agenda setting and coordination taking place?– To what extent has the LTP improved agenda setting and
coordination ?
Basic features of research and innovation policy making in Norway
When and where is agenda setting and coordination taking place?
Ministry Ministry Ministry
minister minister minister
Prime minister
Cabinet meetings
memos
White Papers
The Storting
Strategic level
Ministry Ministry Ministry
minister minister minister
Prime minister
Cabinet meetings
memos The Storting
minister minister minister
Prime minister
Annual budget conference
Minister of finance
Strategic level
Budgeting level
Ministry Ministry Ministry
minister minister minister
Prime minister
Cabinet meetings
memos The Storting
minister minister minister
Prime minister
Annual budget conference
Minister of finance
Strategic level
Budgeting level
‘STI common pot’
Ministry Ministry Ministry
minister minister minister
Prime minister
Cabinet meetings
memos
White Papers
The Storting
minister minister minister
Prime minister
Annual budget conference
Minister of finance
Research Council of Norway
programme
programme
programmeprogramme
programme
Strategic level
Budgeting level
Programme implementation level
Annual allocation letters
Higher education institutions and Public research institutesProject implementation level
Call for proposals
Project proposals
‘STI common pot’
Ministry Ministry Ministry
minister minister minister
Prime minister
Cabinet meetings
memos
White Papers
The Storting
minister minister minister
Prime minister
Annual budget conference
Minister of finance
Research Council of Norway
programme
programme
programmeprogramme
programme
Strategic level
Budgeting level
Programme implementation level
Annual allocation letters
Higher education institutions and Public research institutes
Strategic advises
Strategic advises
Strategic advises
Project implementation level
Call for proposals
Project proposals
‘STI common pot’
• Several agenda setting / coordination mechanisms but these do not fully compensates for the absence of a central referee at the top
– Little foresight– Operational coordination rather than coordination on long
term STI strategy– Costly research policy co-ordination model at ‘ground-floor’
level
When and where is agenda setting and coordination taking place?
Has the LTP improved agenda setting and coordination ?
Ministry Ministry Ministry
minister minister minister
Prime minister
Cabinet meetings
memos
White Papers
The Storting
minister minister minister
Prime minister
Annual budget conference
Minister of finance
Research Council of Norway
programme
programme
programmeprogramme
programme
Strategic level
Budgeting level
Programme implementation level
Annual allocation letters
Higher education institutions and Public research institutes
Strategic advises
Strategic advises
Strategic advises
Project implementation level
Call for proposals
Project proposals
‘STI common pot’
Ministry Ministry Ministry
minister minister minister
Prime minister
Cabinet meetings
memos
White Papers
The Storting
minister minister minister
Prime minister
Annual budget conference
Minister of finance
Research Council of Norway
programme
programme
programmeprogramme
programme
Strategic level
Budgeting level
Programme implementation level
Annual allocation letters
Higher education institutions and Public research institutes
Strategic advises
Strategic advises
Strategic advises
Project implementation level
Call for proposals
Project proposals
‘STI common pot’
LTPInter departmental groups’ meetings
Ministry Ministry Ministry
minister minister minister
Prime minister
Cabinet meetings
memos
White Papers
The Storting
minister minister minister
Prime minister
Annual budget conference
Minister of finance
Research Council of Norway
programme
programme
programmeprogramme
programme
Strategic level
Budgeting level
Programme implementation level
Annual allocation letters
Higher education institutions and Public research institutes
Strategic advises
Strategic advises
Strategic advises
Project implementation level
Call for proposals
Project proposals
‘STI common pot’
Inter departmental groups’ meetings
Ad hoc high level meetings
LTP
Ministry Ministry Ministry
minister minister minister
Prime minister
Cabinet meetings
memos
White Papers
The Storting
minister minister minister
Prime minister
Annual budget conference
Minister of finance
Research Council of Norway
programme
programme
programmeprogramme
programme
Strategic level
Budgeting level
Programme implementation level
Annual allocation letters
Higher education institutions and Public research institutes
Strategic advises
Strategic advises
Strategic advises
Project implementation level
Call for proposals
Project proposals
‘STI common pot’
Inter departmental groups’ meetings
Ad hoc high level meetings
Influence of LTP priorities
LTP
Ministry Ministry Ministry
minister minister minister
Prime minister
Cabinet meetings
memos
White Papers
The Storting
minister minister minister
Prime minister
Annual budget conference
Minister of finance
Research Council of Norway
programme
programme
programmeprogramme
programme
Strategic level
Budgeting level
Programme implementation level
Annual allocation letters
Higher education institutions and Public research institutes
Strategic advises
Strategic advises
Strategic advises
Project implementation level
Call for proposals
Project proposals
‘STI common pot’
Inter departmental groups’ meetings
Ad hoc high level meetings
Influence of LTP priorities
Inter departmental groups’ meetings
LTP
+ -
Time horizon • Ten year perspective • Commitment for four years
Scope • A Government document
• Research and Higher education
• Concrete financial commitments mainly in areas pertaining to MER
• Higher education overlooked
Status • Authoritative status • Not a binding multiannual bill
Agenda setting • Six priorities • Side-ranging priority areas, weakly selective
• The revolving nature of the LTP allows for a gradual approach to build on first accomplishments and solve issues
Has the LTP improved agenda setting and coordination ?
RECOMMENDATIONS
17
• Rationales and expected impact – The LTP process is now trusted and well established– The 4 years rolling basis is well-suited to align sectorial interests
periodically and to reach consensus on the next wave of STI priorities at government level.
Commit to additional and bolder policy actions, programmes and initiatives from other ministries, as well as MER, in the 2018
Support the implementation of the LTP, including in the thematic priorities
• Main challenges– Current budgeting process not easily amenable to multiannual
financial commitment– Need to leave rooms for flexibility and adjustment
(R1) Use the LTP regular revisions to gradually enhance the level of multiannual financial commitment and priority setting
• Rationales / impact– research policy guided as the ex post result of the balance
between the different elements of the system (rather than ex ante by strategic decision making)
– needs strategic advising and coordination capacities on a top level to help develop long-term agenda setting
– its strategic advising function puts RCN in a difficult position a specific adapted instrument / body could to be set up, possibly
serviced by a permanent inter-ministerial group monitoring the LTP progress
• Main challenges– ensure linkages with strategic discussions in Cabinet– use the 21-processes as complement
(R2) Build upon the LTP process to improve agenda-setting and inter-ministerial
coordination
• Rationales / impact– little long-term foresight, even in the run up to the LTP– optimising the existing sectors dominates policy discourse– foresight is particularly important to support transition proper foresight activities should inform the revision of the
LTP
• Main challenges– link between foresight and strategic decision making– where to position the foresight capacity? – one off initiative every 4 years?
(R3) Prepare the ground for long-term foresight activity
• Rationales / impact– Costly/time consuming research policy co-ordination
model at the ground floor – complex annual budgeting process (15 principals)– the absence of RCN central budget and the earmarking of
funds leaves little room for reallocation of resources between different programmes/measures
• Main challenges– where should the central budget come from?– how to conciliate this central budget with the sectorial
principle?
(R4) ·Provide RCN with a more “independent” budget
• Rationales / impact– despite reduction, RCN still runs a large number of
programmes relatively to the size of the research system
– compartmentalisation makes it more difficult to• discuss over-arching strategic questions• develop cross-cutting activities
• Main challenges– negotiations with the principals and various interest
groups supporting ‘their’ respective programmes– requires inter-ministerial coordination
(R5) ·Incentivise RCN to further reduce the number of funding programmes
Takk for oppmerksomheten!
OECD REVIEWS OF INNOVATION POLICY: NORWAY
DEVELOPING RESEARCH COMMUNITIES OF OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE
Michael Stampfer, WWTF (Vienna Science and Technology Fund) Director
Oslo, 13 June 2017
Launch of the OECD review of Innovation Policy: Norway 2017
• LTP sets the tune: “outstanding quality” as core objective – LTP quite critical of current status in Norway
• A number of Norwegian and global challenges call for it– “Transition” imperative– Increasing global competition for markets, ideas and talent – Next waves of innovations not predictable … often science based – Increasing returns (outputs, companies, FDI …) in top strata
• Other smaller European countries are very successful …
• … and Norway can have (+ afford) it, too
Why “outstanding”?
2
• Sizeable sector with high but not top performance– Several academic strongholds– Issues with critical mass and drive towards excellence
• HEI expenditures lower than in top countries
• Rather conservative and non-strategic approaches to hiring and academic careers
• High number of tertiary student dropouts and overly long academic studies
• Constant step-wise HE / research policy reform steps …– … are pointing in the right direction, but …– … often cannot / are not taken up by the HEIs
Synthesis of main conclusions
3
• One funding system both for universities and university colleges (UCs) – Both subsectors are regulated by the same law
– Few differences in system; most UCs can grant PhDs
• Research and education funding come in one stream
• No tuition fees, generous financial support for students• Access managed by a national student allocation system
• Share of block funding is comparatively high in Norway
• Block grants include performance-based (PBF) component• Performance agreements (PAs) introduced in the HE system
System for governance and funding of Norwegian HEIs
4
• How does the current set-up translate into performance? – Publications / citations: Good but not outstanding position
Share of top 10% most frequently cited articles in their respective fields by the top publishing universities, selected countries, 2006-14 (all sciences, fractional count); Source: CWTS
– ERC record: to be strongly improved– HE rankings %
Quality and relative positioning
5
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14
%
Denmark Sweden Finland Switzerland Netherlands United Kingdom Norway
6
Placement in HE rankings
Each point marks a university; in total 92 universities are included; Data: THE World University Rankings 2016-2017
7
Placement in HE rankings
Each point marks a university; in total 92 universities are included; Data: THE World University Rankings 2016-2017
8
Placement in HE rankings
Each point marks a university; in total 92 universities are included; Data: THE World University Rankings 2016-2017
You mightend up here
What happens between government and HEIs:• Rather generous block funding, moderate pressure
• PBF element only in part effective?
• Performance agreements: a step in the right direction
• Mergers, HEI ambitions and unified law: All HEIs to become similar?
What happens within HEIs:• Slow take up of tenure track / strategic recruitment and career
development options
• Still leadership issues around
• External incentives to build critical mass not complemented by internal strategies and actions
• A complacent sector?
“You might end up here”: Two sets of dynamics; interacting?
9
RECOMMENDATIONS
OVERALL: CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON EXCELLENCE AND CRITICAL MASS
IN THE HE SECTOR
10
• Rationales – Next step with Performance Based Funding (PBF) formulae for
incentivizing better outputs and profiles• Research and teaching
– Introduction of Performance Agreements (PAs) for clearer individual profiles
• Main challenges – PBF and PAs: definitely no silver bullets– PBFs can have also distorting effects
• Difficult to establish clear causal chains
– PAs need to be short, clear + include KPIs• Austria: Every 3 years 1.300 pages to the ministry …• … and another 1.700 pages development plans … … but no KPIs
– Alternatives even more ambivalent • Case of the UK REF evaluations
(R1) Develop incentives for high quality research and education in the funding system
11
• Small federal system: two ETHs and four PRIs (most HEIs cantonal)– ETH Zurich and EPFL Lausanne among best HEIs globally
– Strong presidents; focus on structure and recruitment
– High level of organisational autonomy
• Simple governance model:– Federal law “Bundesbotschaft”: budgets and priorities for the next four years
– (Abundant) money comes with strategic goals / standards for ETH domain
– Basis for ETH councils’ overall mid-term plans: governance for ETH domain
– Plans are basis for individual PAs, negotiated between each ETH and council
– PA for ETH Zurich 2013-16: 24 pages, lists of goals and monitoring indicators
– No PBF funding element
• Other good practice models for (selective) PAs: NL, LUX, Bavaria
Example: The Swiss ETH sector agreements
12
Global rank 2016 THE ranking
ERC success 2007-16 / Rank European HEIs
ETHZ rank 9 110 grants / rank 5EPFL rank 30 116 grants / rank 4
• Rationales – Bring in top people perhaps most effective way to renew and boost HEIs
– Link to increased outputs: attract and keep the best
– Legal provisions in Norway allow for tenure track
• Main challenges – Does Norway recruit enough top class people?
• Issues from labour laws to internal structures and habits
• Few attractive and long term positions available
• Often unambitious recruitment policies
• Slow take up of tenure track, extra govt. incentives?
– Meet Wolfgang Herrmann, President TU Munich• 100 tenure track positions, forerunner in Germany
• … similar, Patrick Aebischer in Lausanne …
• … a top leadership task
(R2+R5) Prioritise top-class recruiting and career models Tenure Track
13
Patterns differ:
(R2+R5) Rapidly install a fully-fledged tenure-track system in the HE sector
14
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
Outflows New inflows Returnees StayersMedian journal rank, SJR2013
Impact of scientific authors by type of mobility, Median ScimagoJournal Rank (SJR) scores for 2013
• Norway
• Rationales – Build up critical mass and more “research communities of outstanding
quality” (LTP) • Positive impact of a few strong research universities in a small country
• Dynamics: compare to Swiss, Dutch, Danish trajectories
– The transition imperative calls for action • More top quality / transformative research is needed
• Allow for a next phase in Norwegian output/impact catch-up process
– Keep the binary system alive ( see R6)
• Main challenges – Legal framework mainly in place but slow uptake
• Consensus principle within and across organisations
– Trend towards “more similar actors”
(R3+R4) Increase capacity of HE leadership and develop a few European players
15
• Not richer than a top Norwegian university– and educating 57.000 students
• Approx. No. 40 in global THE ranking• Stands for …
– > 90 ERC grants since 2007
– Approx. 100 spin offs over 3 decades
– Extra: IMEC, 3.500 research staff
– 1.4 billion € IPR income in 10 years
• An example of many in Europe
16
Example KU Leuven: Excellence andrelevance can go hand in hand
Greetings fromLeuven
• Rationales – Many mergers in last decades, a few more could be done
– Merger issues and development ambitions of UCs should not inadvertently lead to an increase in the number of universities
• Main challenges– Local and institutional ambitions and resistance
– Maintain functional stratification ( R4)• Fewer but more similar HEIs: Detrimental to quality and to differentiation?
• Binary element (I): Again Dutch, Danish, Swiss examples, small number oftop class HEIs (see also Germany, UK)
• Binary element (II): Norwegian economy and society will in the future still need a „real“ UC sector (see also Swiss, German, Austrian examples)
(R6) Further promote HE mergers without abandoning a functionally binary system
17
• Rationales / impact– Bring change into HEIs and public research sector in general: Critical mass,
excellence, research management, interdisciplinary research
– Use external funding instruments as drivers, where internal reform proves difficult. SFF / SFI et al. follow international good practices
– Evaluations show highly positive impact
• Main challenges– CoEs cannot substitute for internal priority setting and structural reforms, but
can play a strong supportive and enabling role
– External incentives to build critical mass not always complemented by internal strategies
– Existence of “sunset” transfer issues
(R7) Continue funding centres of excellence
18
19
Final slide:Norwegians can do everything!
ENHANCING COMPETITIVENESS AND INNOVATION: THE NORWEGIAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE, RESEARCH COMMERCIALISATION AND BUSINESS SECTORS Elvira Uyarra
Elvira UyarraAssociate Professor, Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Alliance Manchester Business School Oslo, 13 June 2017
Launch of the OECD review of Innovation Policy: Norway 2017
• Research institutes are an integral part of the Norwegian research system.– Around 23% of the total GERD
– Significant contribution to high quality scientific production
– Undertakes applied research of relevance to industry, the public sector and society esp in engineering & technology and natural sciences.
• Dual role in the Norwegian system, in supporting industry needs and as key intermediaries between firms and universities– Significant impact on firm performance and strong user satisfaction
– Indirect impact through licensing, patenting and spin-off activities
– Strong contribution towards doctoral training in STEM subjects.
• Strong contribution to internationalization of research.
• …But is it well equipped for the transition imperative?
Strong research institute sectorI. Norwegian PRI
sector
Rationales
• PRIs are important contributors to value creation and innovation in Norway. They are also well placed to contribute to Norways’ economic transition
• However low levels of basic funding limits long term capacity to undertake forward looking and risky research to support industrial renewal
• Short termism and systemic co-dependency between PRIs and industry and between PRI and RCN.
• Lack of strategic funding. In some arenas SIS complement the basic allocation and provide space to undertake strategic research
Challenges
• Operationalisation e.g. how to measure contribution to innovation
• Coordination across funding arenas
(R1) Additional block funding to institutes that can make demonstrable contribution to innovation/ transition
I. Norwegian PRI sector
Rationales• By international standards, the Norwegian PRI sector is large, also
more fragmented and heterogeneous• Fragmentation a constraint in terms of competing in international
areas and developing quality and competence• In addition to formal mergers of institutes, there is scope for
generating greater synergies between them and between PRIs and with HEIs
Challenges• RCN funding systems do not encourage collaboration between PRIs• Need to maintain clearly defined roles and responsibilities between
the HEI and institute sectors • Maintain diversity and autonomy of institutes
(R2) Advance structural reform of the sector via mergers but also encourage
synergies between PRIs as well as with HEIs
I. Norwegian PRI sector
Rationales:- Institutes play a key role in innovation. - A more active role may be constrained by a lack of
infrastructure for innovation and lack of/ potential mismatch of incentives to engage in innovation.
- New plans for the development of multi-user facilities for testing, piloting, visualisation and simulation.
Challenges- Excellence vs relevance- Heterogeneity of the sector in terms of their potential
contribution to innovation. One size does not fit all
(R3) Clearer incentives for innovation and knowledge transfer activities of
institutes
I. Norwegian PRI sector
• Norwegian universities are increasingly expected to play a strong third-mission role.
– Legislative changes and funding (e.g. Forny) to support commercialization
– Changes in governance structures of universities to strengthen the links between universities, industry and the broader society
– Some incentives for third mission engagement in PBFS
– Many funding instruments encouraging collaborative research links between universities and industry
• There is a fairly well functioning system of commercialization, supported by more professionalized TTOs and a more effective system of project selection.
• Good practice examples of active regional and industrial engagement, e.g. NTNU, Tromsö, also in the context of the pilot institutional performance agreements (PAs)
Active efforts to support research commercialisation
II. Commercialisation
Rationale
• Successful funding mechanisms such as FORNY
• However insufficient incentives for staff to engage in research commercialization and other forms of external engagement
• Commercialization activities not always well integrated within HEIs broader activities and institutional strategies
• Insufficient attention to:
– Other forms of engagement e.g. around continuing education
– The differentiated role that university colleges play in commercialization and knowledge exchange
Challenges
• Inclusion of third mission in the funding conditions of HEIs needs to be done carefully danger of distorting effects
• Avoid a too narrow commercialisation view
• University level strategies/leadership
• Improved system of reporting of third mission activities
(R4) Provide more holistic support to the ‘third mission” in Universities
II. Commercialisation
A comprehensive policy mix
• Comprehensive portfolio of financial support schemes and technical services to support innovation by RCN and IN
• Policy mix for business R&D is dominantly generic (R&D tax reduction scheme and open arenas for user driven innovation)
• It is also dominantly supply side but leading towards a more balanced mix
• Improved coherence and consistency (implementation) of policy mix
• Evaluations have suggested positive outcomes and strong additionality of the schemes
• Policy mix effective to support R&D… But is it sufficiently supportive to the economic transition? it is sufficiently stimulating productive linkages between research and public funding and the more distributed landscape of innovation capabilities?
III. Policy mix for business R&D
A comprehensive policy mix III. Policy mix for business R&D
Strong public investment in business R&D, esp. grants and tax incentives
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Competitivegrants
Debt financingand risk-sharing
mechanisms
Repayableadvances
Technologyconsulting
Innovationvouchers
Equity financing Publicprocurement
Tax incentivesfor business
R&D
Tax incentivesfor IP revenuesand other profits
Other tax base
Norway OECD median
Direct funding Indirect funding
Source: OECD STI outlook 2016
Most relevant instruments of public funding of business R&D, 2016
III. Policy mix for business R&D
Funding of R&D from Skattefunn has increased dramatically
Funding of R&D from Skattefunn and other sources of public funding
0
200
400
600
800
1 000
1 200
1 400
All (10 persons employed and more) 10-49 persons employed 50-199 persons employed >200 persons employedAll (10 persons employed and more)
Public funding Tax reduction system (SkatteFUNN)
III. Policy mix for business R&D
Rationale
• Recently increasing selectivity and strategic thinking in funding mechanisms– Joint calls aimed at cross-sectoral knowledge transfer and
diversification
– Crossover cluster initiatives and collaborative projects to exploit competences and technologies from the oil and gas industry to address challenges in other sectors such as aquaculture
Challenges
• Need to address systemic challenges hindering the efficient delivery of co-ordinated policies
• Need to better leverage regional structures for the purposes of diversification and renewal
(R5) Increase the targeting and reorientation of innovation support
funding
III. Policy mix for business R&D
More efforts needed to open up opportunities for diversification
Source: http://www.gcesubsea.no/
Example: GCE Subsea
III. Policy mix for business R&D
Takk for oppmerksomheten!
OECD REVIEWS OF INNOVATION POLICY: NORWAY
RECOMMENDATIONS TO TACKLESOCIETAL CHALLENGESSylvia Schwaag SergerVinnova and Lund University
Oslo, 6 March 2017
Launch of the OECD review of Innovation Policy: Norway 2017
• Tend to be ’wicked problems’ – Multistakeholder problems that span several disciplines and
policy areas– No ’track record’ or well-established best practice to fall back on– Characterized by uncertainty, unpredictability and rapidly
changing conditions (eg refugee crisis)– Mismatch between organizational structures and problem
structures (OECD 2017)• Often located in or strongly linked to the public sector (and/or
provision of public goods)– Often involves systems that cannot be ’turned off’ (requirement
for continuous service provision)– Risk aversion, weak mechanisms for (resistance to) innovation,
change, experimentation and scaling of successful solutions; hard to appropriate the gains
The ’challenge’ with societal challenges
• Need to balance evidence and action (OECD 2017)• Need for ’stewardship’ (agile leadership)• Re-balance research vs. ’translation’ and innovation• Will require much more ’learning by doing’ (incl
reflexivity) i.e. linear approach particularly unsuitable• Debate over what drives quality of science (productivity
commission vs. Sarewitz 2016)
The ’challenge’ with tackling societal challenges
• Increasing focus on tackling societal challenges• Increasing pressure to maintain and improve
provision of public services (part. health and care)
Finland, Norway, Sweden
• Mature systems (education, research, governance, public services)…
• …create aversity to disruption and risk-taking?
• Silos (and lack of mobility or diversity) in education, research, policymaking…
• … hamper cross-sectoral, multidisciplinary approaches and policymaking
• Universities: slow pace of change and focus on degree programs
• National orientation of research, governance, policies and funding systems…
• … create a bias against globally embedded initiatives
5
System biases that hamper tackling societal challenges (not only in Norway)
• A rapidly changing world…
• ...with increasingly urgent challenges that require interdisciplinary and international approaches…
• …risk-taking, experimentation…
• …and continuous education (lifelong learning)
• Need for policy coordination
• Increasing international competition and need for cooperation
RECOMMENDATIONS
6
• based on inclusive processes beyond experts and users (artists? Immigrants?)
• examine regulatory issues and framework conditions• promote interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research • access a wide range of instruments, from specific research
and innovation projects (including social innovation) to experimentation and public procurement
• include foresight exercises and agree on strategies/visions that transcend sectoral boundaries and include education, innovation and upscaling.
(R1) Devise broad integrated programmesaiming in priority at addressing societal
challenges
• Rationale / Impact– Societal challenges require a different approach– Programs that follow problems not sectors– Access a broader spectrum of instruments (framework
conditions, innovation, education)– Stewardship
• Main challenges– Coordination– Unchartered territory (but examples from Finland, Sweden)– Requires reflexivity, agility, space for experimentation– The global dimension
(R1) Devise broad integrated programmesaiming in priority at addressing societal
challenges
• Agenda 2030 as driver of…– Tackling societal challenges (social, economic,
environmental sustainability)– Governance– Policy coordination– Innovation– Global cooperation
(R1) Devise broad integrated programmesaiming in priority at addressing societal
challenges
• Tackling societal or grand challenges…– … is not the same as mission-driven R&D programs!– requires combining bottom-up initiatives with some
top-down policy direction
(R1) Devise broad integrated programmesaiming in priority at addressing societal
challenges
• The biggest innovations are happening at the interface of different sectors, disciplines and industries
• The importance of ’tricksters’ (Arie Rip)
(R1) Devise broad integrated programmesaiming in priority at addressing societal
challenges
• Examples– Challenge driven innovation (Sweden)– Strategic Research Council (Finland)– Experimentation and pooling of analytical
resources at PM Office (Finland)– Green Deals (Netherlands)
(R1) Devise broad integrated programmes aiming in priority at
addressing societal challenges
• Rationale / Impact– Importance of lifelong learning and continuous upgrading of
skills– Breaking down educational silos– 21st century skills
• Main challenges– Uncertainty– Specialization vs. generic skills– Rapidly changing workplace vs. rigid academic structures– Autonomy vs societal needs
(R2) Align the higher education and Technical and Vocational and Educational Training (TVET)
system to the skill base needed for societal challenges
(R2) Align the higher education and Technical and Vocational and Educational Training (TVET) system to the skill base needed for societal challenges
• Rationale / Impact– Unique character of societal challenges– Bring research closer to needs– Unique character of public sector (and public goods)
creates bias against change and risk-taking and results in absence of scaling mechanisms
– Lack of innovation culture• Main challenges
– Accountability (fear of failure)– Lack of platform and instruments for learning and
scaling
(R3) : Invest in translational activities and establish structures for experimentation (including radical/ disruptive innovations) as well as for learning and upscaling solutions.
• Rationale / Impact– Importance of public sector as demanding customer
and market creator– Focus innovation (and research?) on pressing needs
• Main challenges– Formulating needs, not solutions– Lack of competencies– Identifying appropriate level of govt and
dissemination– State aid rules?
(R4) Strengthen public procurement for innovation, aiming to address societal challenges and considering other forms of support to demand relevant solutions
• Rationale / Impact– Important issues fall between the cracks of different
ministries and policy domains– Need for a holistic approach, speedy delivery and
reflexivity
• Main challenges– 19th century institutions for 21st century problems?– Little mobility between ministries?– Power balance between central government and
municipalities
(R5) Address governance issues to improve co-ordination across ministries and policy domains of efforts towards solving societal challenges (for example in healthcare innovation)
Building blocks for system innovation and tackling societal challenges
Transformative / highrisk research
Systematicexperimentation
Reforming educationResearch for better policy-making
Better policy coordination
Promoting challenge-driven innovation
Better governance of innovation policy
Policy evaluation and learning
International dimension Innovation in and for the public
sector• Capacity-building• Procurement• Experimentation and scaling
Multi/interdisciplinaryresearch
• Norway’s assets…– High trust in government / public sector (Low
corruption, high transparency)– Large research investments in areas relevant
to societal challenges– Consensus culture and user orientation
• … provide a unique (but as yetunderexploited) opportunity to be morebold in trying to tackle societal challenges
Summary
• Join development aid and research and innovation in initiatives to tackle global societal challenges with business opportunities for Norwegian firms (Nilsson & Sörlin 2017)
• PANORAMA initiative• Focus also on innovation side
Tackling societal challenges: International dimension
THANK YOU!
• Invest in translational activities and establish structures for experimentation (including radical/ disruptive innovations) as well as for learning and upscaling solutions. This could take the form of policy labs, experimental regulation-free zones, and also assigning selected actors (agencies, ministries, commissions) the responsibility for broader implementation
• Strengthen public procurement for innovation, aiming to address societal challenges and considering other forms of support to demand relevant solutions
• Address governance challenges (eg innovation in health can be argued to be the responsibility of many or no ministries, there is a need for better orchestration)
Areas for improvement – tackling major societal challenges contd
• Society / govt:– Provide investment/funding and focus– Demanding customer (market creating)– DoD ‘brought all of the players in the innovation game together, disciplined them by
providing strategic, long-term focus for their activities, and shielded them from the market rationality that would have doomed almost every crazy, over-expensive idea that today makes the world go round. The great accomplishments of the military-industrial complex did not result from allowing scientists to pursue “subjects of their own choice, in the manner dictated by their curiosity,” but by channeling that curiosity toward the solution of problems that DOD wanted to solve’.
• ‘In the future, the most valuable science institutions will be closely linked to the people and places whose urgent problems need to be solved; they will cultivate strong lines of accountability to those for whom solutions are important; they will incentivize scientists to care about the problems more than the production of knowledge. They will link research agendas to the quest for improved solutions — often technological ones — rather than to understanding for its own sake. The science they produce will be of higher quality, because it will have to be.’
Sarewitz 2016
1. ‘scientific knowledge advances most rapidly, and is of most value to society, not when its course is determined by the “free play of free intellects” but when it is steered to solve problems — especially those related to technologicalinnovation’.
2. ‘when science is not steered to solve such problems, it tends to go off half-cocked in ways that can be highly detrimental to science itself.’
3. ‘science will be made more reliable and more valuable for society today not by being protected from societal influences but instead by being brought, carefully and appropriately, into a direct, open, and intimate relationship with those influences.’
Sarewitz (2016)
R&D budgets earmarked to societal challenges
CanadaMexicoAustraliaUnited KingdomChinese TaipeiUnited StatesLatviaLuxembourgNorwayPolandSpainOECDNew ZealandArgentinaKoreaDenmarkEstoniaFrancePortugalSloveniaJapanItalyEU28HungaryChileCzech RepublicGermanyFinlandGreeceSlovak RepublicLithuaniaIcelandIrelandAustriaSwedenNetherlandsBelgiumTurkeyIsraelSwitzerland
051015202530
Health Environment Energy
Source: OECD
Example health and care
0
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
7 000
8 000
Humanities
Social Sciences
Medicine and health
TechnologyMathematics and Natural Sciences
Agriculture, Fisheries and Veterinary Medicine
Expenditure for R&D to higher education and institute sector according to field of science, 2015 prices, million NOK
• Rapid increase in R&D spending• Largest thematic area in terms of R&D spending (one fourth
of total for HEIs and institutes; 37% of all R&D personnel at HEIs)
• A typical area of ’societal challenges’ and highlighted in LTP
• Significant increase in research (part. in hospitals) and effortsto strengthen knowledge resources in municipalities
• Flora of innovation projects in municipalities, healthcare etc• Some ambitious experimentation (pilot welfare technologies)• Attempts to reform education in health services• No shortage of strategies, analyses, processes, reforms• Increasing focus on stakeholder und user involvement• LTP made an important contribution by making societal
challenges a priority, and by linking health, welfare and modernization
Example health and care: lots going on…
• Strong focus on ’bottom-up’ projects and awareness-raising
• Lack of ’stewardship’ of systemic change• Innovation in healthcare is influenced by
several ministries and policy domains• Lack of systemic experimentation and of
mechanisms for system learning, dissemination and scaling
…but
• Emphasis has been on research, less on ’translation’ / innovation• Lack of innovation culture, weak tradition of industry cooperation• Barriers to cooperation within the healthcare system• No overarching structure / architecture for supporting research
and innovation in primary healthcare and for municipalities• Paradox: research is ‘applied’ but not necessarily challenge-driven
(from a societal perspective)• Weaknesses in lifelong learning and skills upgrading• Innovation and primary care fall ‘between the cracks’ of
ministries’ responsibilities and coordination. “The Ministry of Industry and Fisheries has all the instruments for commercialization”
Example health and care: challenges
Takk for oppmerksomheten!
Challenge driven innovation – some experiences from a Vinnova-programme
Jonas Brändström, head of department,
Kunnskapsdepartementets konferanse 13. juni 2017
About VINNOVA• 200 employees• Stockholm, Brussels and Silicon Valley• Government agency under the Ministry of
Enterprise and Innovation
Three roles
Investment in research and
innovationNational EU node Expert agency
2010:Do we need to radically change our funding instruments to solve societal challenges?
Why?
A traditional, typical, Vinnova-project
• R&D-projects that develop strategic, new, knowledge
• Focus on technological challenges
• Long projects, 3-5 years, hard to adjust for changes
• Few project partners, generally 1-5 actors
• Typically male dominance and reaching the same actors
• Impact often too unclear
Primarily top-down calls: narrow themes or stakeholder oriented
Let’s try….
We changed the process so that the projects...
• depart from societal challenges, not technology
• are set-up bottom-up
• involve all relevant problem owners at an early stage, addresses the whole value chain
• works iteratively, test-driven
Has it been easy? NO
Has it made a difference? YES
Key attributes and principles Must deal with significant demands in society and industry, which can be
associated with clear stakeholders
Shall result in innovations that combine international business potential and public welfare
Builds on collaboration with actors in value networks, which actively involve users and customers
Embodies a systemic approach, taking consideration to the whole innovation system and not only parts or subsystem
The project impact logic must demonstrate desired results and how to reach them
………
Innovation capabilityAction-oriented learning
Mobilization
Innovations
Impact logic: high-level objectives in two dimensions
Results are implementedAttracts investmentsSustainable growthChanging cultures
(journeys)
Three stages stimulating innovative projects and appropriate risk sharing
1 InitiationDevelop idea and
consortium or technical feasibility study
2 CollaborationDevelopment and
integration, restricted tests, user involvement
3 ImplementationFull-scale tests in real
environments, demonstrate, user
involvement
A competitive impact-driven processNo of projects
approvedVinnova’s
contribution (max)Vinnova’s contribution:
share of total costs
A competitive impact-driven processNo of projects
approvedNo of applications
stage 1
33(20%)
10(30%)
6(60%)
The combination of mission, principles and stages made it possible to deal with over-
subscription
Impact and lessons learned
What?
At first the funding scheme might seem like common goods, but it is really different…
Traditional Vinnova-project CDI-project
• One long project 3-5 years
• A few key partners (approx. 3-6)
• Technological challenges
• R&D-projects that develop strategic new knowledge
• The “usual suspects”, typically male researchers
• Top-down calls
• Several shorter projects, three stages
• Much broader consortia (approx. 12)
• Societal challenges
• Change & Innovation projects that focus on both results and effects
• Reaching new groups, good gender balance
• Mix top-down / bottom-up
Innovation capabilityAction-oriented learning
Mobilization
Innovations
Clear results in two dimensions
Results are implementedAttracts investmentsSustainable growthChanging cultures
(journeys)
Renewed Vinnovas’ portfolio of parties
One of the biggest SME-programs at
Vinnova
One of the biggest public sector programs at
Vinnova
Best in class with respect to gender
equality
Value of the CDI-process (questionnaire)
ValueRejection
Stage 1Stage 1 realized, not
applied to stage 2Stage 1 realized,
rejection to Stage 2Improved networks and relations 47% 44% 80%
Improved the analysis of the problem 39% 44% 70%Identified new
technological/scientific opportunities 17% 38% 40%Improved the level of knowledge
within the technological area 16% 31% 60%No value
25% 6% -
Teknikföretagen highly appreciates the CDI-programme in how it brings companies, academia and public sector together for mutual benefit
Peter JohanssonDirector Research and Innovation
Teknikföretagen*
* Association of Swedish Engineering Industries
SmedpackCounterfeit medicines is growing and a global problem with serious consequences
Increase the security in supply chains of the legal medicines, e.g. security and tamper-evident features of the packages, consumer apps and collaborating with Europe
The Medical Products Agency, pharmaceutical producers, pharmacies, universities, law enforcement, customs, The Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, counties, labelmakers and designers
CHALLENGEFutureHealthcareSTAGE
The Smedpack-project gave a unique opportunity to support Swedish industry and organisations to comply with the EU directive.
Sandra PousetteProject Manager
Smedpack (Stage 3)RISE Bioeconomy (Research institute)
Innovation capabilityAction-oriented learning
Mobilization
Innovations
Clear results in two dimensions
Results are implementedAttracts investmentsSustainable growthChanging cultures
(journeys)
The world’s most northern passive
house built in stage 2
Research on digital pathology
commercialized in stage 3
A spin-off company signed a long-term contract with a big
regional county after stage 3
The whole portfolio clearly contribute to the
Sustainable Development Goals
All stage 3 and most stage 2
projects test their solutions in real
settings
Insights lead to rearticulated research
questions and 90 MSEK investments from a private fund
School for everyone, from the first day in the new country
Many students with a foreign background are not eligible for higher education and are therefore alienated from societyDevelop and test multi-lingual e-learning solution for immigrant students that yet do not master the Swedish languageTechnology providers, publishers, research institutes, universities, municipalities, schools, authorities
CHALLENGE 2015-2017InformationSocietySTAGE
The link to CDI is what made our work raise from pure product development to radical service innovation.
Carl HamiltonProject Manager
School for everyone, from the first day in the new country (Stage 2)Komplementskolan
CDI has been instrumental in Vinnova’stransformation 2010-2016!!!
Thank you!