fernando jiménez sáez dr. elena castro martínez

1

Instituto de Gestión de la Innovación y del Conocimiento

The articulation of the Spanish Food Innovation System: measurement of the impacts fostered by the Spanish Food Technology Programme.

Fernando Jiménez Fernando Jiménez SáezSáezDr. Elena Castro Dr. Elena Castro MartínezMartínez

Montreal 2004

Measuring the Impacts of Science

2


What do we mean by articulation?

Articulation reflects the relationships between the different elements of the Innovation System (National/Regional/Sectoral)

Why is this interesting?– It is an objective of both the National R&D Plan and

the National Technology Food Programme

– Relationships are a key element for the existence and of any Sectoral (National/Regional) Innovation System

– There is a need for new indicators in the Economics of Technical Change

3


Main Research Question

How can we measure the capacity of a nationwide R&D Public Policy to promote relationships among the Innovation System agents? This means: Reproducible Based on both qualitative and quantitative

information Dynamic explanation Impact evaluation

4


The lack of coherence: where and why

Policy design: it follows a linear model approach, technology push approach.

Policy objectives: some follow a neoclassical approach (market failure) some others a structuralist-evolutionary approach (institutions)

Policy implementation: tools are used again in a neoclassical fashion

Impact evaluation of the policy: so far, it is non existent

Hence: we find several problems in assessing the articulation fostered with this policy

5


The analytical framework for articulation

Public Research

Institutions

Firms in the FBS

R&D Projects

PETRI Actions Concerted Projects

The SFTP

Bilateral Contracts

6


Approaches to the topic

• Callon’s Techno-economic approach: observation between and within units of analysis– Advantages: characterisation of interactions among

units of analysis useful to structurally characterise economic sectors and networks

– Drawbacks: not easily reproducible

• Network Analysis: quantitative observation of units of analysis before and after – Advantages: indicator based on relationship variables– Drawbacks: not dynamic measure

7


Our approach

• Economic evaluation of outputs– Statistical descriptive analysis: input and output variables– Bibliometric analysis of publications: scientific results

• Structural analysis of relationships– Monitor and trace trajectories: analysis of relationship

tools– Characterisation of interactions: role of interface

structures

• Programme’s Management Evaluation– Personal interview to the Programme’s managers: role of

the main interface structure managing the NFTP

8


The data

Quantitative data from the Programme’s tools

Quantitative data from publications (FSTA

Database)

Quantitative data from bilateral contracts

between CSIC research groups and firms from

the Spanish Food and Beverage Sector

Qualitative data from interviews with

researchers participating in the SFTP

9


Some results so far (1)Regarding the Economic Evaluation of outputs

0%

100,00 %

40 ,4 1%

4,89 %

16 ,8 1%

0%

30,00 %

16 ,6 7%

55 ,9 8%

33,20 %

14 ,6 7%

1,16 %

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

20% d e m e nor pr odu cció n 2 º 20 % 3e r 2 0% 4 º 20 % 20% de m a yor pr oduc c ión

Gr upo s d e p rod ucc ión

Acu

mul

ado

Artículos internacionales

Patentes registradas

Tesis doctora les realizadas

10


N ú m e r o t o ta l d e P ro y e c t o s d e I+ D

7 , 06 , 05 , 04 ,03 , 02 , 01 ,00 , 0

N ú m e r o to ta l d e P r o y e c to s d e I+ D

Fr

ec

ue

nc

ia

1 6

1 4

1 2

1 0

8

6

4

2

0

D e s v . t í p . = 1 , 6 9

M e d ia = 2 ,3

N = 6 2 , 0 0

N ú m e r o t o ta l d e A c c io n e s P E T R I

3 ,02 , 01 , 00 , 0

N ú m e r o to ta l d e A c c io n e s P E T R I

Fre

cu

en

cia

6 0

5 0

4 0

3 0

2 0

1 0

0

D e s v . t í p . = , 6 1

M e d ia = , 3

N = 6 2 , 0 0

N ú m e r o to ta l d e P r o y e c to s C o n c e r ta d o s

2 ,0 01 , 5 01 , 0 0, 5 00 , 0 0

N ú m e r o t o t a l d e P ro y C o n c e r ta d o s

Fre

cu

en

cia

6 0

5 0

4 0

3 0

2 0

1 0

0

D e s v . tí p . = ,5 6

M e d ia = , 2 4

N = 6 2 , 0 0

N ú m e r o to t a l d e C o n tra to s

4 0 , 0

3 5 , 0

3 0 , 0

2 5 , 0

2 0 , 0

1 5 , 0

1 0 , 0

5 , 0

0 , 0

N ú m e r o to ta l d e C o n t r a to s

Fre

cu

en

cia

3 0

2 0

1 0

0

D e s v . t íp . = 7 , 2 0

M e d ia = 5 , 7

N = 6 2 ,0 0

Some results so far (2)Regarding the Economic Evaluation of outputs

11


Analysis of relationships: articulation (1)

TABLE 1. COEFFICIENTS MATRIX OF ROTATED COMPONENTS. ANALYSIS 1 Component*

1 2 3 4 5 6

International articles .856 .170 .308 .102

Total financial subsidy to R&D Projects .852 .201 .223 .142 .199

Total number of R&D Projects .834 .311 -.175 .145

Doctoral thesis from R&D Projects .833 .117 .330

Trained Personnel .755 .121 .263 .161

Submitted patents .729 .114 .144 -.177 -.152

Total number of Contracts .195 .938 .147 .100

Total number of Contracts Type 2 (R&D Contracts) .132 .913 .158

€ invested in Contracts Type 1 (Technology support) .158 .857 .315

Total number of Contracts Type 1 (Technology support)

.152 .804 .394 -.209

€ invested in Contracts Type 2 (R&D Contracts) .272 .695 .432

Average size research group for PETRI Actions .853

Total financial subsidy to PETRI Actions .326 .354 .798 .149 .116

Total number of PETRI Actions .362 .348 .663 .120 -.105

Average size research group for Concerted Projects -.182 -.124 .854

€ loan in Concerted Projects .161 .166 .139 .831 .268 .206

Total number of Concerted Projects .115 .353 .133 .750 .127 .372

Average size research group for R&D Projects .341 -.444 .289 -.469

€ invested in Contracts Type 4 (Others) .127 .965

Total number of Contracts Type 4 (Others) .127 .965

€ invested in Contracts Type 3 (licences and patents) .169 .115 .169 .764

Total number of Contracts Type 3 (licences and patents)

.276 .112 .105 -.106 .751

Research group average of age -.378 .245 -.189 .242 .399

Extraction method: Principal components analysis. Rotation method: Normalisation Varimax with Kaiser.

Rotation converged alter 8 iterations.

* Coefficients of factors with absolute value less than 0,1 have been removed.

Factor analysis

12


Analysis of relationships: articulation (2)

TABLE 2. COEFFICIENTS MATRIX OF ROTATED COMPONENTS. ANALYSIS 2

Component*

1 2 3 4 5

Total number of Contracts .947 .182 .128

Total number of Contracts Type 2 (R&D Contracts) .924 .149

€ invested in Contracts Type 1 (Technology support) .864 .119 .342

Total number of Contracts Type 1 (Technology support) .795 .439 -.175

€ invested in Contracts Type 2 (R&D Contracts) .724 .373 -.118 .229

Doctoral thesis from R&D Projects .898

Total financial subsidy to R&D Projects .223 .887 .189

International articles .204 .843 .277 -.208

Trained Personnel .141 .835

Submitted patents .131 .643 -.344

Average size research group for PETRI Actions .867 .147

Total financial subsidy to PETRI Actions .390 .340 .770 .111

Average size research group for Concerted Projects -.115 -.172 .894

€ loan in Concerted Projects .200 .253 .103 .849

Average size research group for R&D Projects -.449 .397 .293 -.468 .136

Research group average of age -.103 .910

Extraction method: Principal components analysis. Rotation method: Normalisation Varimax with Kaiser.

Rotation converged alter 8 iterations.

* Coefficients of factors with absolute value less than 0,1 have been removed.

Factor analysis

13


Analysis of relationships: articulation (4)Cluster analysis

14


Some results so far (4)

• Regarding the Evaluation of Articulation

– Few articulation has been found. Mismatch between industry needs and research groups interests. Only specific cases under specific circumstances

– Few continuity in collaborations between firms and research groups after having collaborated in the NFTP

– No trace of research results transfer in the medium run

• Regarding the Evaluation of the Management Structure

– Lack of both human and financial resources

– Lack of co-ordination among three different management structures

– Same managerial style applied to the heterogeneous scientific community

15


Some conclusions

•In the specific case of the SFTP very little articulation has been found, despite the initial and promising expectations of researchers.

WHY?

•Funding has been one of the barriers (Relationship tools)

… BUT

•There are other barriers: communication, bureaucracy, etc. The role of the Interface Structure is key to overcome these barriers.

•The lack of coherence between policy formulation and policy implementation make difficult the analysis of articulation.

The methodology to structurally evaluate a R&D Public Policy of a peripheral region, like Spain, must count on both the assessment of the “Relationship Tools” and the role of the “Interface Structures”.

16


INGENIO - UPVCamino de Vera s/n46022 ValenciaEspaña

[email protected]

Montreal, 17th-18th June 2004

fernando jiménez sáez dr. elena castro martínez

Documents