1

Transforming Technopark, Stellenbosch

Discussion Document

June 2011

“To enable and create a Sustainable, vibrant and active Innovative Community”

-Background Information, Challenges and Researcher Commentary-

Compiled by Pieter van Heyningen (Principal researcher) Pieter.vanHeyningen@spl.sun.ac.za

Supervisor: Prof. Alan Brent acb@sun.ac.za

2

Contents

1. Synopsis of Document and main Discussion Points ............................................................3

2. Background Description.......................................................................................................4

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 4 2.2 The research Intervention.................................................................................. 4 3. Google Map of Technopark ................................................................................................5

4. Transforming Technopark (Visions & Challenges) ..............................................................6

4.1 Vision 1: Wide Stakeholder Vision 4th June 2010 .............................................. 6 4.2 Commentary on Revised vision at the Sustainable Innovation Stellenbosch Network Forum ...................................................................................................................... 10 4.3 A second visioning workshop was held exclusively for the TPOA trustees .. 16 5. Municipality Drafted Consultancy Report, 2009 – Key Findings [+ COMMENTS FROM RESEARCHER PERPECTIVE] ......................................................................................................16

6. Opportunities and Challenges ...................................................................... 16 6.1 Opportunities ............................................................................................... 16 6.2 Challenges................................................................................................... 17 7. Evaluating Stellenbosch Technopark (Municipal Report) ............................................17

8. Conclusion of consultancy ordered by Municipality (NB: Ideas can be improved upon!) ..................................................................................................................... 20 6. Challenges from the Researcher’s Perspective ...............................................................22

3

1. Synopsis of Document and main Discussion Points

The document gives a brief background to Technopark in terms of its original design as a Science Park in the

eighties. It also discusses how the park developed commercially, and where its potential now lies in terms of a

future mandate and development. The research is described as an intervention, to engage with stakeholders to

assess the thinking around a future technopark. The document details the visioning and problem identification

workshops. The various stakeholders included a wide diverse and mixed group of interested parties to more specific

stakeholder groups. This includes the Technopark Owners Association Trustees, who separately established their

own vision during a workshop. The challenge of the researcher is to bring the stakeholders together, as a facilitator

and set in motion, discussion to find a joint and common strategic vision. Other main stakeholders include, the

business community, the municipality, the university/innovUS. The researcher has also commented on previous

studies conducted by consultancies commissioned by the municipality.

A) Problem Identification: The problem is identified on multiple levels. The unit of analysis or the subject of research is Technopark. The problem can be identified as the following:

- Lack of clear mandate of Technopark - Lack of clear vision, leadership and stakeholder collaboration (in maintaining park as a ‘science

park’ and in determining a future orientation for the park). B) Processes of problem-solving: Research as an intervention to facilitate process of inclusive problem solving together with stakeholders.

- Gaining stakeholder perspectives at various levels - Visioning workshops and action plans - Joint problem-solving and action plan - Forum discussions, meetings, interviews and facilitation

C) Joint stakeholder-researcher envisioned outcomes:

- Collective strategic vision and action plan. - Transformation of Technopark toward ‘sustainability orientated park’ with ‘innovation’ mandate

through collaboration. - Collaboration in a formal sense with Municipality, Technopark Owners Assocation (as governing

1), businesses and the University (innovUS). - Possibility for a joint advisory group for Technopark consisting of representatives from each

stakeholder group and possibly also GreenCape (PGWC).

D) Joint proposal for funding/ venture capital

E) Possible establishment of joint Innovation and Research commons or facility in Technopark

1 This would follow normal procedure that is currently in place regarding constitution and governance agreement

with Municipality. However TPOA, should have vetoing powers in terms of development in TP.

4

2. Background Description

2.1 Introduction Technopark was originally conceived of as a Science Park in the late 1970’s when Prof Christo Viljoen, then vice-dean of the

Engineering faculty at Stellenbosch University, went to Taiwan. There he visited Shinshu Science Park, one of the world’s

revered successes. He brought over the concept to Stellenbosch, and managed to obtain buy-in from the local and national

government. The park was established in 1985, and was supported by the Industrial Development Corporation and housed an

incubator and innovation lab. The park was managed by a committee and the local municipality. The entering of firms into the

park was very slow for numerous reasons including a poor community understanding of the concept and benefit of a science

park. Other external factors such as an economic slowdown forced the management to allow it to become market-oriented in

the 1990’s and the strict criteria of firms entering the park were relaxed. (For a United Nations definition of a science park go to

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/science-technology/university-industry-partnerships/science-technology-

park-governance/concept-and-definition/).

Today the park is well developed, albeit not as a traditional science park, and consists of a variety of businesses ranging from

satellite manufacturers, banks, finance institutions to the headquarters of a liquor company. However, there do remain

numerous firms that fit the profile of traditional science park firms, but more importantly, fit the profile of the modern concept

of ‘innovation hubs’. There are a number of Internet & Communications Technology, (ICT) businesses and engineering firms,

financing firms and others (see www.technopark.co.za for a detailed breakdown and http://blogs.sun.ac.za/sisn/ for info).

The more modern concept of ‘innovation hubs’ or ‘innovation environments’ allows for mixed use, living spaces and an

interactive and attractive space for citizens. This ensures the sustainability of the use of space and enhances vibrant interaction

and creativity through sharing of ideas at strategic meeting places. What all these ‘innovation environments’ have in common is

a strong link to knowledge centres or universities providing incentives for collaboration and mutual learning. Furthermore, the

concept of clustering similar industry together, as in the traditional model of a science park has been shown to have mixed

results. The more modern concept also allows for looser boundaries and encourages numerous visitors to the park, which

brings in new knowledge and diversity. The vibrancy of modern ‘science cities’ are known to stimulate innovation and mutual

learning in all sectors (see 22@Barcelona article). This vibrancy is often created through incorporating arts and cultural

elements into the environment. Universities benefit because they can align certain research projects with real world ventures,

and collaborate for joint problem solving. Firms benefit because they receive a flow of new knowledge, information and

expertise that increases their competitiveness and innovativeness. All benefit through various forms of joint training and

education programmes or internships for students etc.

Furthermore, these science parks in the past were primarily designed for economic growth and regional competitiveness.

Technopark, similarly has a very competitive business climate, where most of the business owners do not engage with each

other and serve international clients. They have a lot of interest in sustainability but little knowledge of it. The hypothesis for

the transformation of Technopark lies in its future design, as a Sustainability oriented Innovation hub or urban “Innovironment

for Sustainability”. Through the transformation of the physical infrastructure and the implementation of sustainable systems

(3R’s, energy etc), the park is expected to attract businesses and investment which are Sustainability oriented, and want to be

associated with the park. This is a well positioned opportunity for the investment in capacity-building for sustainability for the

region and the green cape initiative and sustainable Stellenbosch. (green-cape.co.za & www.sustainablestellenbosch.co.za).

2.2 The research Intervention With the advent of the research intervention project there has been a lot of stimulation and talk about sustainability in

Technopark among several stakeholders. The primary stakeholders are the Technopark Owners Association (TPOA) whom

represent the owners of the buildings. They are legally bound by a constitution, and have to engage with the municipality on

several matters of service delivery in the park. This relationship has been strained in the past, but with new visions for the park

and through stakeholder engagement there is hope for much better collaboration in achieving i) a collective strategic vision and

ii) implementing the vision.

In January 2010 a preliminary study including interviews and contact sessions with the Technopark community revealed that

the mandate of the park was in a state of flux. What was worse was that the service delivery was very poor, and the park was

5 neglected. The local municipality conducted several studies concerning this matter, however, there was no immediate

improvement (the findings of the most recent report are included).

Through the research intervention, a public event was held in June 2010 designed to establish a future vision for the park,

which was well attended. The vision was established by a wide group of stakeholders through a workshop – where the

challenges were also raised (This vision is also attached). After the event, however, numerous individual concerns and fears

arose that the reinstatement of the park as a conventional science park would be established, primarily by the business owners.

There were several fears that the traditional ‘science park’ ideal would result in businesses having to leave the park as they did

not fit the profile of a research and development or ICT company. Since then, and through the intervention of the research

process, the stakeholders understood that they were in control of their own destiny and would not be dictated to by

government or the university. Consequently their vision and the vision of the TPOA together with the municipal reports provide

the road ahead for the future development and transformation of Technopark toward an innovation hub for sustainability. The

official vision of the TPOA is, “To enable and create a Sustainable, vibrant and active Innovative Community” [By 2015].

3. Google Map of Technopark

Where is the heart of Technopark? What are the assets of TP? Official Website?

6

4. Transforming Technopark (Visions & Challenges)

4.1 Vision 1: Wide Stakeholder Vision 4th

June 2010

WORKSHOP ON ESTABLISHING A COMMON VISION FOR TECHNOPARK

Clarity on an issue:

“We at Stellenbosch Academy have the intention of going totally off the grid within the next five years.

But don’t have the technological knowledge, and want to know where to access this. BARBARA FASSLER

– Director Stellenbosch Academy.”

Team members Visions:

Overarching Question: “Somebody is experiencing something in Technopark in 2015, what does the

community look like?”

GRP 1: {Philosophy PhD; Strategic Performance Managers; WWF Peace Parks NGO; Regional

Government; Branding & Marketing Distell} Green Routes, bicycle lanes within TP and connecting TP to

the rest of Stellenbosch. Some form of public transport, or improvement of current transport. Walkways

and public spaces for people to meet. Swap shop, Kindergarten (Play-School; After-school facilities).

Open days, involving people from wider community (Khayamandi); Fashion show (Elizabeth Galloway;

(Activities); Photographic exhibition; Scientists/ businessmen can give lectures; Village concept

(Connected & Integrated community).

LAURIE – Somewhere where the TP community can interact. Q&A – None

GRP 2: {Engineers; Businessmen (Technical skills) Architects; Urban Designers; Academic} Market

Place; Hub; Activities; Place to Exchange ideas inside & Outside Technopark (University; Kayamandi;

Government)} Currently there is an experience of competitiveness between departments at the

university; Rural Place – must retain rural feel; (Picturesque & Fresh air); Urban Agriculture; Lots of

green space; Public space, to go for a walk after lunch; Place to sit next to a stream/dam or under a tree;

Vegetables can be grown here, and are free to take; Erection of a state-of-the-Art Icon building;

(Compared to Table Mountain – super attraction); Best & Fastest IT broadband and Telecommunications

in the country; Off-Grid as far as possible (Utilizing renewable and Sustainable Technologies/Energy); TP

must be less dense in terms of cars, and must be linked by green-routes to other parts of Stellenbosch;

TP must not be an island but must be a centre or hub of activity; Must be linked by better modes of

transport, green modes of transport; Must support & showcase green technologies;

Q & A – Icon building – Comment: Buildings not particularly env. Sound (From England) Icon

Transformation of Existing buildings; Q: Get off the grid, HOW & WHAT? Just energy, or energy &

water; Reduced carbon footprint (Complete Carbon Footprint) Water, Energy, Waste, Lifestyle.

7 Transport – Regulation of electrical vehicles?? (Traffic Regulations eg. Golf cart? Why not? Joule R235

000); R50 000 and travel 50km/h.

GRP 3: {Prof. Alan Brent (CRSES); Businessman (Solar Energy); Accountants; Human Resources &

Industrial Psychologist; Energy Engineer (Energy Optimization); Mixit; Industrial Engineers} Started

talking from the technological viewpoints about resource efficiency and then shifted completely to the

social elements; The most important is the human resources; What is needed to lure and attract the

best human resources?; Social interaction for human resources; Effective logistics; People staying in TP

or close by; Communication between people and businesses (Forum) or internet based chat facility for

human interaction; technology that is required to make TP attractive for example recycling; Interaction

with environment; What is the future TP design going to look like, incorporating the environment rather

than impacting on the environment; make it attractive for people; Start with the human side, and the

technology will be dragged along as a result of that. Q & A – None

GRP 4: {Santam; EDH Engineer; GEOSS Geo-Hydrology Engineering; Eco-International, Sustainable

Energies} Setting targets, water reduction; public targets, monitoring our resources use; Not have to

leave Technopark, tranquil serene, future design element; special place; affordable housing in or near

technopark; public transport in and out of technopark; what kind of companies do we want in

technopark; What incentives will be put in place to lure investment and the best human skills and

companies; How are we going to create a symbiotic environment; what spaces are we going to create

for a symbiotic environment?; How are we going to invigorate existing companies to take up the vision

or contribute to a constantly improving vision? How are we going to utilize existing companies in TP and

combine skills, brain power and knowledge to reach these goals; Management – who is going to take

responsibility of this initiative, who is going to drive this initiative and manage it? How is technopark

going to be conscious? Conscious of surroundings, environment, people and who we include and

exclude, its own functioning (Resource use and infrastructure) and identity.

GRP 5: {Stellenbosch Design Academy; Academics; Nedbank; Engineers; Water Saving Practitioners}

Is knowledge out there, but not being utilized properly or optimized. Knowledge should be made

available to through the correct channels so as to make use of it more effectively. This is knowledge

about Sustainable Development and new technologies for sustainability. As well as the knowledge for

changing mindsets.

KEYWORDS

GRP 1: Leadership for Responsible Communication

GRP 2: Champion, “Buy-In”, Social [Human Resources]; Socialize Government that buys-in

GRP 3: Rural Quality Environment; Connectivity & Demographic Diversity; Green Transport and Pre-

competitive environment

GRP 4: Responsibility – Ability to respond; Symbiotic Relationships (Feeling part of the community);

Meaning or commitment.

8 GRP 5: Etiquette (Educate); Conserve; Manage

SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR NOT DOING IT NOW (BLOCKAGES)

GRP 1: No money/finance; Scared to Try; (We have to dream, we don’t believe and we think its

impossible)

GRP 2: Passiveness (Passivity); Lack of Proper Leadership; Lack of passion (Distance between the heart

and the head)

GRP 3: Lack of Common-Vision; Resources; Barriers (Knowledge, Economics)

GRP 4: Self Interest; Cost (Eg. Cost of converting existing infrastructure); Apathy

GRP 5: Lack of Governance; Lack of community mobilization; Lack of Knowledge; Lack of commitment to

a shared vision. (No reason for not doing it now).

Laurie Barwell posed a final question, “Was this event useful? Did you enjoy it and should we organize

the following event to be held after the world cup?” There was an overarching consensus of agreement

to all these questions.

The event was convened, and special thanks were given to all the speakers and facilitators. Protea Hotel

and Simonsig were thanked for supplying wine, the venue and snacks.

DRAFT COMMON VISION FOR TECHNOPARK BY 2015

The draft common vision was established through the following method. Several categories were

identified stemming from the data gathered during the workshop. Not all of the information is written

above, as these only represent the conclusions of each group discussion, and therefore additional

information may be included into the draft vision. The vision will be written according to the following

S*M*A*R*T* guidelines. S = Specific M = Measurable A = Achievable R = Reliable T = Time based.

The following table represents the suggested importance of the following elements. The components at

the top were mentioned as more important, and those below as less important. However, their

respective importance is also seen as forming part of a complex vision, with each part contributing to a

whole.

Social Elements Technical Elements Ecological Elements Economic Elements

Leadership &

Management

Champion(s),

Visionaries,

Catalyst,

Discipline,

Social

Mobilization

Design [TP

infrastructure

design, spatial,

technological =

focus on

sustainability &

excellence]

Resource

Flows,

Decoupling

[Design, adopt

and utilize best

technologies

for reducing

total carbon

footprint;

Regional

Economic

Benefits

[Brain Gain,

Job Creation,

Marketing,

Business &

Industry

Support]

9

ecological

sustainability]

Social

Innovation

Technological

Innovation

Educate/Social

Learning

Driver of

Growth

Human

Resources

[Skills &

Knowledge

base]

Infrastructure

& Resource

flows [Best

infrastructure,

ICT, Transport,

support systems,

public spaces

amenities, living

space]

Local Organic

Food

Production

[Urban

Agriculture]

Business

sense [Innovation,

symbiotic

partnerships &

mutual

learning,

knowledge

sharing]

Community

Cohesion [Networking;

Integration;

Interaction,

Socializing,

Identity]

Clean &

Sustainable

Technologies

[Showcase;

Implement,

Design &

Develop]

Revitalization

of Ecology

[Parks, Dams

Rivers,

Ecological

Biodiversity]

Economic

Inclusion

[Skills

development

learning,

Economic

resilience]

Social &

Institutional

Inclusion [Partnerships,

collaboration]

Incubator,

Innovation

hub, Discovery-

Innovation

Institute

Learning

Centre/Hub

[A place/ space

for learning

about ecology/

environment]

Economic

Linkages &

Incubator [Commercializ

e ideas,

Innovate,

Research]

SUMMATION of DRAFT VISION TP 2015 (4th June 2010)

The “Technopark 2015 vision” is based upon several opinions and a workshop held on the 4th of June

2010 for the establishment of such a vision.

By 2015, TP seeks to become a national and regional asset for Sustainable Growth. Technopark will

provide the capacity to spearhead the regional GreenCape clean-tech initiative as well as provide

impetus and support for the national Green Economy. This will be achieved through social,

technological, ecological and economic directives to be achieved by 2015 in Technopark.

TP seeks a solid management structure that shall oversee and drive the project through a champion of

change. This management structure will ensure that the goals and vision of TP are met within time. They

shall provide leadership and facilitate partnerships with the university and government. TP will provide

spaces for community interaction, knowledge and idea sharing for business and beyond. TP will be

connected to the rest of Stellenbosch via green routes, supporting sustainable public transport. Most

10 importantly by 2015, TP will provide and house a state-of-the-art facility for social learning, idea and

business incubation and a discovery-innovation centre for national problem solving and idea generation

in line with the principles of sustainable development, the national Green Economy strategy and

National Research directives. It will be a neutral space for beneficial collaboration between research

institutions, government agencies, business and industry.

TP seeks to become the first example of a future sustainable urban node in Africa, where people

interact, and children play in a safe picturesque environment. Bicycle lanes are provided and public

transport is readily available to connect to wider regions including Cape Town. TP seeks to become its

own innovative solution, placing emphasis on human health and workplace wellbeing – certain areas

shall support organic agriculture and other public activities – and people will be free to harvest their

own vegetables. The rural feel of TP will attract the best artisans and skilled professionals for the benefit

of businesses in TP. It will become a market place for innovation, creativity and productivity.

TP will be able to showcase the best sustainable technologies, and most of TP will be self-sufficient in

terms of energy usage. Water usage will be minimized through extensive reduction in consumption and

re-use through sustainable technologies. Similarly the principles of waste minimization, re-use and

recycling will be applied creating skills and jobs in the interim. All new buildings will be mandated to be

green buildings. TP will harbor the best infrastructure in terms of telecommunications and network

infrastructure while subsidized by government. Tenants from TP will be able to access university

networks and knowledge databases.

Finally, TP will have a common identity as a community of practice able to achieve the dreams of young

South African entrepreneurs through a network of support systems. TP will drive regional growth in a

sustainable fashion and serve as a centre of learning for sustainability and future living together with the

Stellenbosch University (and other learning institutions) as well as government. The community of

Technopark will provide a beacon for investment in African talent and will be able to teach other South

African towns and cities how to Transform toward a more sustainable and integrated South Africa.

4.2 Commentary on Revised vision at the Sustainable Innovation Stellenbosch Network Forum

PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR TPOA

*[FORUM RESPONSES IN BLUE 16th March 2011]

-SUSTAINABILITY & TRANSFORMATION SUB-COMMITTEE-

Action Plans According to Strategic Vision for Transforming Technopark

Strategic Proposed Vision (RECOMMENDATIONS AMMENDMENT 1):

Technopark seeks to Transform into a Sustainable Innovation Hub by 2015 as the official mandate. All

activities in Technopark should aim to be sustainability-oriented. This includes transformation at three

levels 1) The Greening and Sustainable Development of Technopark. 2) The Mandate of Technopark as a

Sustainability Innovation Hub (Ratified by a constitution and accommodated by rezoning adjustments).

11 3) TP collaboration is spelt out via a transparent and mutually beneficial Mode of Agreement established

with the University of Stellenbosch 2(CHEC) Cape Higher Education Consortium, local and provincial

Government of the Western Cape.

[Each of these aims, are sub-divided into action points for achieving these aims and ultimately the vision

they collectively support].

The purpose of this vision is to manifest Technopark into a vibrant sustainable innovation community

and cultural hub, providing knowledge and expertise for sustainable futures, locally, nationally and

globally. Technopark seeks to compete on a world stage as a novel concept for fostering sustainable

development. It is an inclusive vision that seeks the contribution of all Technoparkers as well as the

Stellenbosch academic, business and governance (or government) structures. The future leadership and

decision-making of Technopark is represented by a Technopark Leadership Council (or

committee/team) (TPLC) which includes representatives from academia and the municipality into the

existing TPOA. The management of TP may be outsourced by a professional full-time manager or

company that serves to maintain the interests of the (TPLC) and Technoparkers.

TP should boast a state-of-the-art facility for research, idea labs, incubators, design and innovation

commons (hub). Its purpose is aimed at catalyzing and enhancing sustainability competitiveness in

businesses, and in enhancing technological and process innovations for socio-economic and

sustainable development.

[DELETED] the business tenants of Technopark and Stellenbosch – so as to improve the competitiveness

of businesses in Technopark and attract businesses in the sustainability technology and services

industry, whilst retaining a mixed-use environment. Ultimately TP should become a vibrant and modern

urban space with an ability to attract and showcase technology and social organization for sustainability

in South Africa. Above all Technopark should strive to increase its productivity as a future urban space.

INCLUSION OF “SHORT VERSION” VISION/MISSION STATMENT:

The vision of Technopark is to become an interactive and vibrant learning, innovation and knowledge

collaboration environment for technical, social and environmental sustainability excellence.

Comments and Amendments to Above – Names & Contact (Optional but preferred): SISN FORUM COMMENTS IN BLUE BELOW ARE SUMMARIES OF GROUP INTERACTIONS AND COMMENTS _ HELD 16th MARCH AT BLAAUWKLIPPEN. ALL ANSWERS ARE KEPT ANONYMOUS.

*What, who and how? Need experts!! *Transform public open space into community areas; parks; outdoor gym. *Leadership – Must have Owners Buy-in. *must make sustainability fashionable in TP. *use water to heat and cool.

2 CHEC refers to specifically the universities of: UCT; CPUT; UWC and Stellenbosch University. This need not be

limited to these universities and may include other research bodies or organizations such as CSIR and the

Technological Innovation Agency (TIA) as well as research transfer offices such as INNOVUS.

12

*open-air theatre. *Need shorter vision / mission (simplify) 2 sentences *Based on workshop forum of stakeholders. Need to create climate of true collaboration & mutual respect –clever people tend to be competitive. Vision too long and complex – summarize – need one liner sexy title – one liner than can inspire (mission). *Need incentives to encourage people to go greener and live less resource-intensive lives/lifestyles. *The vision looks good, problems might be in the implementation and getting the buy-in of all the stakeholders (companies; residents; etc). *Solutions include attaching incentives to being ‘green’. *Residential commercial zoning; retail? *Sustainable Gardening; Each company sponsors a garden (areas for development – public open space/ common property). Divided responsibility. Sense of ownership in Technopark. Community vibe & Pride.

Three overarching goals contained in the vision:

These goals are connected and in a sense necessary components for achieving a collective,

sustainable and holistic vision for the future of Technopark.

1) The Greening and Sustainable Development of Technopark

2) The Vision, Mandate & Zoning of Technopark (Includes Management & Governance of TP)

3) The Collaborative Framework: 3-helix & Knowledge cluster, (SISN) Network configuration for

Sustainability (TP Mode of Understanding with University and Government)[SIMPLIFY to just

Collaborative Framework]

In Agreement or Not in Agreement? Please give reasons and further suggestions below. What problems do you foresee? EVERYBODY AGREED WITH THE VISION’S 3 COMPONENTS ABOVE; ADDITIONAL COMMENTS INCLUDED:

*Greening and Sustainability is a positive feature. *Elaborate on Zoning, needs extra discussion and debate. *Too academic *Agree with overarching goals *Start social events, projects that will include all in TP, and that will be a platform for knowledge exchange and this should help in achieving and implementing the collective sustainable vision for TP. *Give feedback of developments to all [website] this should also help to get buy-in. *In agreement with project: Incentives at work to encourage employees and owners to go greener and live less resource intensive lifestyles. Incentives, eg. biking to work. Competitions, fun days. *Provide pedestrian and bicycle lanes *Green: attract companies that work in environmental and sustainability field -attractive environment; example of low resource user/s (TPark). -collaborate with the Sustainability Institute [and Centre for Renewable and Sustainable Energy Studies CRSES]. -Water recycling systems (greywater systems); Roofgardens -Creativity (Spaces)

13

-Create a space people want to come to, is attractive for clients; track changes on website. -create inviting suggestions. Green makes place attractive in all ways (retrofitting buildings); Social responsibility economics Make it pretty (attractive). *Zoning: Change zoning by amendment *Collaboration: Include CHEC and other universities. *Technical, legal and political change (mandate) *Need ownership agreements; inputs from all stakeholders; needs to be ongoing – so TPOA (TP Leadership Council needs to energize; TP Sustainable Development Team / association 1) TP should be an example/ showcase to attract sustainability focused organizations. Goals should be sequential: Greening; Social; Economic 2) Start with Point 2 as First Objective. 3) Could help to enhance aims into objectives that are SMART: (S)*specific (M)*measureable (A)* achievable (R)* relevant (T)*time-based. *Indigenous trees and vegetation *Bicycle lanes in TP, and bike storage facilities *Need a well represented committee in TP that can make high level decisions and liaise with government and the university *Improved utilization of public space; commons *Need to develop strategies for continually adding value to TP.

Achieving the Vision and Transformation: Action Points

1: Greening & Development:

Ecological Assessment of Technopark (Dams, Wetlands, Grassy Areas, Fynbos,

Potentials, Roof Gardens etc.

Infrastructure (ICT, roads, parking, security, etc.)

Agricultural spaces / Food Gardens

Recreational Spaces

Recycling

Transport / Traffic / Parking Solutions

Safety & Security

Energy Audit

Water

Please Provide Additional Points Below and make suggestions and comments:

*Tram line link to Stellenbosch Town Centre and University *10-20% Residential *Neo-tel or Broadband link to TP and University network; improved cable infrastructure *Trust fund or funding scheme for realization of projects *Owners & business levy (Central improvement District levy) like Cape Town

14

*Use Cape Town partnerships model for upliftment of infrastructure and re-development of TP *Pilot projects, small commencement projects *Government funding project; Energy projects *Solar park; off the grid and indepenedent of eskom *build TP image as Sustainability centre *Public transport; dedicated bus service; improved taxi shuttles *Continuous workshops for Sustainability; learning and education centre *Alternative entrance/ exit for Technopark *Expansion and greater zoning area for Technopark *Idea of a soft boundary; extend boundary to include Stellenbosch town (infrastructure and networks for sustainability) *Picnic areas; benches; fishing facilities for dams; walkways *Education through bio-diversity gardens; fynbos gardens; greenhouses *Dedicated evening security; sign in *Group pledging: X needs this amount = if all give x then we get amount Y. *Different funding options for the realization of the green projects need to be explored. *Need to bring in and lure experts. *Get companies to help, and sponsor certain greening projects (such as the dams).

2: Vision, Mandate, Constitution, Zoning & Governance / Leadership / Management:

Establish & Finalize vision (Display for Public Comment)

Ratify Final Vision

Establish Mandate / Amend Constitution of TP (Must be Sustainability-Orientated)

Establish transparent code of conduct, mission statement, rules and regulations of the

TPOA (TP Leadership council/comitee)

Reinforcing the TPOA to include (Academic Representatives, Business Rep’s and

Municipality/govt)

Establish Expert TP Manager and Management (Clear Goals, Objectives & Deliverables)

Finalize Zoning Adjustment as (Sustainability Innovation Park / Hub) [Meaning all future

businesses with Sustainability interest get preference to entry]

TP Trust Fund / International Funding / Governmental Support Fund etc.

TP Communication Channel / Platform (Develop and support www.technopark.co.za).

Please Provide additional Points Below and make Suggestions and Comments:

*Need to formalize partnerships and collaboration with municipality and government *Need to bring in expert, or use proper research which is busy being conducted by PhD project to establish working vision, and include stakeholder viewpoints *Continued workshops and forum meetings to convey messages *Stimulate social learning processes, and provide experts on sustainability for businesses *Need competent management of TP *Education and learning in TP is needed *Needs to be a monitoring and evaluation of our activities, and businesses *Need to help businesses adopt sustainability in their functioning; CSR and social projects *Sustainability will only work if we compromise our comfort now for future

15

*Code of conduct and rules: start with proposal and get buy-in same as doing now with vision *Tax exemptions; government incentives *Need MOU for Mutual collaboration (Govt-University and business). *Less talk; more DO; can achieve *Must rezone after vision is accepted *Networking and collaboration is beneficial to all

3: Mode of Agreement / Understanding, Networking & Collaboration for Sustainability:

Proposal for Mode of Agreement / Understanding

Establish Contract with University / Municipality / National & Provincial Govt.

Funding & Tax exemptions etc

Future potentials for online network in Stellenbosch: The Sustainable Innovation

Stellenbosch Network (SISN)

Continuation of Forums, Networking and Collaboration

Knowledge Cluster; Knowledge Production/ outputs; Co-production of Knowledge; Idea

Labs and Business Incubators (University-business-Govt relations)

Sustainability and Society: Solution oriented Focus for Stellenbosch

HOPE Project??

How do we initiate and sustain the above ‘social capital’? Comments and suggestions below:

*Business incubator *Communication platform *Continuation of Forum; discussion groups *Involve key stakeholders; personalities and champions for the projects *TP Open day; TP events; Regular social engagements; Exclusive parties or cocktails events *Get people from government involved *International AID funding *Need venues or a place where people can meet *Needs to be a core or central office for Technopark; Management office; Research commons *Art and culture centre *Network and exchange ideas with partners; continuous basis *Marketing for networking and collaboration; showcase results; learning centre *SISN Forum; share ideas; give businesses a chance to talk; get more involved *Agree to use university resources; link to HOPE Project! *Get high profile people together; chancellors; Johan Rupert; Big Business representatives *Get endorsements of project; WWF; Remgro etc. *Improve online communication and platform

16 4.3 A second visioning workshop was held exclusively for the TPOA trustees

A visioning workshop was held with the Technopark Owners Association on the 2nd May. A similar

process was used to systematically arrive at a strategic vision. The report of the meeting/workshop is

available upon request.

The final outcome of the 3 hour workshop was the following vision:

“To enable and create a Sustainable, vibrant and active Innovative Community”

As well as agreement on the following process to be followed in the next two months

1) To meet with the Municipality and gain their stakeholder perspective on TP.

2) To converge ideas into a discussion document.

3) To discuss the Transforming Technopark project with the University (formally).

4) To discuss a strategic collective vision and action points, with all stakeholders present, at a

workshop in June/ July.

5) To establish a formal Memorandum of Understanding between the University, the TPOA, and

the Municipality.

5. Municipality Drafted Consultancy Report, 2009 –

Key Findings [+ COMMENTS FROM RESEARCHER

PERPECTIVE]

6. Opportunities and Challenges

6.1 Opportunities

Stellenbosch University provides a skilled pool of graduates to the Technopark.

Located close to institutions such as the CSIR, Stellenbosch University, Elsenberg Agricultural

College and Sustainable Energy Institute.

Easily accessible.

Located in a rural ambience.

Located in the Western Cape which is one of the major tourist destinations in South Africa. Thus,

there is a marketing opportunity to attract major players in the areas of science and technology.

17

[As spelled out in the various workshops, there are far more benefits and opportunities for TP,

than those mentioned here. It is about opening up the debate to all stakeholders that more

novel ideas and ownership of the project comes about. There should not be a top-down

decision making without adequate stakeholder engagement. Various ideas and visions should

be considered].

6.2 Challenges

The economic meltdown is affecting all sectors of the economy.

Parking is a serious problem because the green space is currently used as a parking area.

Public Open Spaces are neglected.

Most of the businesses do not comply with the scheme’s parking requirements of 1 bay for

every 30m².

Need for security enhancement.

Need for partnership between the Municipality and Technopark Association.

The two-storey height restriction is causing delay to development. It is recommended that 3

storeys with the 11m height should be applicable.

[The challenges mentioned above are important, and are issues in TP. However they are

superficial and minor challenges. The real challenges are to engage the community of

Technopark in a collaborative and social learning process for Sustainability. This also means

economic sustainability. To lure talent and expertise to the area and ensure continued

investment into the park, via enhancing the use of space, and improving its attractiveness to

big business. This means infrastructure improvement at various levels; for sustainability and

technological enablement; research and development. This should be explored in the

workshop. Ie. What changes to TP will make it more profitable, sustainable and attractive,

what will be the spill-over effects].

7. Evaluating Stellenbosch Technopark (Municipal Report)

Evaluation of technoparks is not an easy task. The fundamental limitation arises from the diversity of park characteristics. As noted earlier in the report, there is no commonly used definition of a technopark. Therefore comparing one technopark with another is quite a complex task. Professor Link citing Michael I. Luger and Harvey A in “Understanding Research , Science and Technology Parks : Global Practice : Report of a Symposium 2009 notes that “ one of the conceptual difficulties is that there is no consensus about the definition of success.

18

The most cited goals relate to economic development. However, both the literature and our data from interviews with park developers, elected officials, university administrators, business leaders and others confirm the existence of other goals , including technology transfer, land development, and enhancement of the research opportunities and capacities of affiliated universities”. [Please note above: that the consultant did not adequately consult the various stakeholders mentioned above as he quotes from the “Report of a Symposium 2009’ on the Understanding Research , Science and Technology Parks : Global Practice”. It is vital to have stakeholder engagement in such a process – otherwise it is not sustainable. Mr. van Heyningen’s research process does follow this procedure – whereas the consultancy reports do not. This leaves them disconnected from the real opinion and situation in TP, and can only give superficial reports on TP, from other experiences worldwide, which is found in the literature. (As this consultant did, and the previous Urban Econ report). Furthermore, the concept of “Science Parks” are correctly difficult to define, even though there is an ‘accepted definition’. What is important to understand is that there may not be a ‘golden’ formula as to the success of a science park, but there are certain characteristics that need to be present to make it a success. These are clearly listed in numerous studies. Furthermore, there are also ‘assessment standards’ that are worked out for Science parks. However, all these conceptual frameworks fit an outdated paradigm for science parks. The new paradigm, is about creating an innovative space, for knowledge generation, collaboration, excellence, attractiveness, mixed use and sustainability. This does not even have to be in a park type location, it can be in the centre of a city. Technology like ICT, has allowed for the boundaries to be defined according to the context. It is more about being connected to the outside world, and being attractive to investment and talent. (See 22@Barcelona). This is where Technopark should be headed, not a traditional cluster development through strict controls. This will stifle development, as is the case in the “Innovation Hub” in Pretoria which is so arduously cited in the consultancy report. This kind of development also needs a professional and dynamic management team to drive a collective process.

Also noted in literature as one of the limitations is the absence of a systematic framework to understand the dynamic interactions amongst stakeholders. [The US researchers work represents a systematic framework of stakeholder engagement, as science with society, and collective problem solving] According to Luger and Goldestein, there are several metrics that can be used to gauge the relative

success of a research park. Box B summarises the metrics.

19

Box B: Summary of the Evaluation Metrics [These are limited metrics for ‘traditional science parks’]

Meeting the goals of legislation. One plausible way to measure the success of research parks is to assess their performance against stated goals.

Return on public investments. Direct expenditure by government on land acquisition, infrastructure development, financial inducements, and the cost of land for research park versus other types of uses.

Enhanced firm performance. This can be measured in terms of the change in income and cooperate tax collected by local, state, and federal government as the result of the growth of successful businesses inside and outside the park as well as the net gains in jobs.

Enhanced university performance. Spillovers to the economy usually take the form of creation of codified knowledge, which can also be examined in other ways. Tenant often form research joint ventures with other firms in the park, and this can be tracked. Tenant companies may also provide benefits to the host university by sponsoring laboratories, professorship and, hiring students, or associating themselves with co-patenting activity.

Value of the park to tenants. Another kind of measure is the value of the park to the tenant companies that benefit from the richness of the flow of knowledge between them and the universities. For example, the firms may seek the cachet of working in a successful park which can benefit the host university, tenant firms, and the local community.

Source : Understanding Research , Science and Technology Parks : Global Best Practice: Report of a Symposium:2009

7.1 Comparing the Stellenbosch Technopark with Best Practices

Table 3 Global best Practice Performance by Stellenbosch Park 2000-2008

Business model draws on best

practices in the context of local

conditions.

Options vary in terms of whether the residents are owners or tenants. Leases do vary.

No specifications i.t.o. leadership development and attraction of postgraduate students.

[Lack of understanding of opportunities for TP]

Physical infrastructure

stimulates social interaction

and innovation with a cross

fertilisation of ideas, flow of

knowledge and technology and

sharing of exploits and

experience.

Infrastructure designed to stimulate collaboration, interaction and networking. [Disagree completely, no evidence of this!]

Close to world–class Universities and research institutions (i.e. the Stellenbosch University, CSIR, The Sustainable Energy Institute and Elsenberg Agriculture College).

No common area, research facility, innovation lab/hub, conference facilities, incubator, ICT support

Cluster environment for

knowledge workers that

accommodates new business,

education and research needs.

Cluster in terms various business but not specific to technopark specifications. Presence of various businesses that have nothing to do with research and knowledge. [This is total speculation. There is certainly knowledge creation and research in TP. The mixed use environment may in fact be more beneficial to stimulate new ideas and innovations. There is a need for creating infrastructure for engagement, collaboration and incentives for investment in an industry focus. Not forced!]

20 Enabling environment to

stimulate the impact of

innovation into the region.

The current environment needs improvement so that the local brand can be recognised locally and regionally to attract investors. [True, but what is the local brand? What should it be, and who decides? It should be a collective strategic visioning process, as is supported by numerous successes in Europe. The more recent literature about innovation regions, learning regions and transitions & Sustainability, triple-helix and Innovation Systems].

8. Conclusion of consultancy ordered by Municipality (NB: Ideas can be improved upon!)

Firstly, land ownership of any science park should preferably be in single ownership by an institution

that is not profit driven, preferably a University or other research driven institution. Science based or

research based institutions such as universities or teaching hospitals form the main anchor of most

science parks. Secondly, successful science parks have a clear strategic vision that informs all the

institutional arrangements of the park including financial models, marketing, tenant selection and

networking, both within the park and with other outside institutions and stakeholders. Thirdly, a

supportive and flexible policy and regulatory environment (for example development parameters

determined by site development plans as opposed to zoning scheme) is critical in responding to the ever

changing operational regime of technology and innovation led enterprises. Fourthly, effective and

sustainable intra and inter networks based on shared and common vision of developing and supporting

business development. Finally, flexibility of infrastructure, physical space as well as communication

networks to accommodate the changing needs of technology and innovation driven enterprises.

The findings on the study of the Technopark shows that most of these attributes are not present in the

case of Technopark and that, where any of the above attributes appear to be present, they are either

not sufficient and or appear not to be there as a result of a strategically driven initiative aimed at

realizing the benefits of a science park.

Nonetheless, given the proximity of the Technopark to some of the leading universities in the country

and in the world, it is possible to develop synergies between universities and knowledge based

enterprises with support of all the three spheres of government, despite the absence of the attributes of

some of the successful science parks. In particular, the environmentally sensitive functional region

within which the Technopark is located presents a perfect opportunity for research based organizations

such as the (CSIR), the University of Stellenbosch and local Municipality to collaborate on initiatives

aimed at promoting sustainable and liveable environments, with specific focus on building materials,

methods and techniques, sustainable and alternative farming techniques as well as “green

communities”. The pivotal role of the wine industry on the regional economy should be visible in the

research and development initiatives that should form the backbone of enterprises locating in

Technopark. In other words, the Technopark should reflect the drivers of the regional economy in which

it is located.

21 Recommendations by Consultancy Report

NB: Although commendable recommendations. The main criticism about the study is that the body of

literature and the content of the report does not systematically or rationally lead up to these

recommendations. There is a disconnect between his study and the recommendations. These do not

adequately represent the views of the Stakeholders, who collectively should have the final say.

As a researcher, I agree with 90% of his findings. What lacks is HOW is this to be achieved. I believe

that through stakeholder engagement and the collective visioning process the first steps are put in

place. Futhermore, the process to be followed needs to be agreed upon by ALL stakeholders to at least

a majority agreement as a democratic and inclusive process. Thereafter, the process to follow should

be one of strategic management and implementation of an action plan, that is malleable to the

situation or new and better ideas. The process should certainly be professionally managed, and long

term, and sustainability oriented.

Whilst some of the critical and success defining factors of Technoparks and or Science Parks that have

seen the relative success of the science park initiatives overseas are not necessarily present in the case

of Technopark, it will be short-sighted to treat Technopark as an ordinary office park.

The future development strategy of Technopark should be informed by the strategic location of Technopark in the regional economic space as well as the unique competitive advantage that Stellenbosch offers.

Whilst the Technopark is situated in a unique and breathtaking physical landscape, it should be acknowledged that a beautiful physical landscape is not on its own sufficient to make it desirable for knowledge based and business development enterprises to locate in the Technopark.

Sustainability should form the main pillars of all developments in Technopark, with emphasis on creating a “green park” with “green buildings” being the norm, especially where new development rights are sought as well as incentivizing existing buildings and infrastructure.

Enterprises that are not knowledge/research based or oriented towards business development should not be encouraged to locate in the Technopark.

The current development parameters together with basket of land use rights need to be revised during the Integrated Zoning Scheme process and existing enterprises that fall outside the scope of a Technopark should be allowed as non conforming uses. In addition, the required parking rate of 1 bay per 30m² should be increased to be in line with the office park.

Introduction of residential buildings in the Technopark should be resisted as this will result in demand for associated social infrastructure such as schools, clinics, shops, sporting facilities and places of worship that will eventually transform the Technopark into ordinary suburbia.

Whilst the direct and indirect benefits of a Technopark are not yet quantified, it is strongly recommended that such an exercise be done as any initiatives that may seek to cross subsidize the enterprises locating in the Technopark, must at the minimum be supported by quantifiable benefits of the Technopark to the local and possibly regional economy.

Where possible, initiatives that will lead to the maximization of the competitive advantages of the Technopark as well as strengthening its relationship with research institutions as well as the Universities must be pursued.

22

The institutional arrangements that will see the Technopark Property Owners Association playing a far greater role in initiatives that will attract the “right” type of enterprises should be supported at all the three spheres of government. (involvement in ASGISA, JIPSA etc).

Enterprises that are research based and/or those that provide “starter packs” for emerging high tech companies should be incentivized to locate in the Technopark, taking into account the resultant benefits from such enterprises to the regional and national entrepreneurial capital. The nature, duration and type of such incentives should be informed by further research with a specific focus on the locational prerequisites for such enterprises that are geared at business development as well as knowledge based enterprises and may also include a trade off between development rights against a “sustainability suite”.

Further studies are needed to determine the possible strategic interventions that are required to attract the knowledge and business development based enterprises. The management of open spaces, security as well as interventions that will lead to an optimal management of vehicular traffic entering and leaving Technopark will be critical in creating an environment with a competitive advantage to draw hi-tech and knowledge based enterprises.

The provision of off site park and ride facilities should be explored jointly by the Technopark Property Owners Association and the other stakeholders. In addition, due to the fact that the required 1 bay per 30m² was not always enforced and the result is that there is insufficient parking in Stellenbosch, Council should encourage private enterprise to develop parking areas on Municipal property.

6. Challenges from the Researcher’s Perspective

General challenges

Initially lack of coherent understanding of Sustainability in Technopark (Learning has been achieved through stakeholder engagement, website etc. Long way to go).

No sense of community in Technopark

People did not/do not see a reason for the transformation of Technopark

Short-term understanding of problems (Understanding of problem as day-to-day issues; no long term vision!)

There is a need for bolstering leadership capacity and management in Technopark

Lack of collaboration between the businesses (most probably because of lack of attractive open-public spaces, no social life, no bars etc.)

Tension between TPOA and Municipality i.t.o service delivery. (Communication barriers – research project has served as an intervention, and communication between stakeholders is taking place slowly).

Challenges regarding the Greening and Eco-design of Technopark (Only suggested challenges there are

certainly many more).

Traffic flows, parking & mobility (Municipality put in traffic circles – more problems!)

No green spaces; parks; recreational areas; cafes; lunch-time areas; beautification

No adequate recycling; waste (Future project for Stellenbosch Academy of Design)

Energy supply problems, energy efficiency? Street Lighting etc.

23

Water flow problems; irrigation; dams in bad state; pump for irrigation and dam flow is broken; Water drainage; flooding issues

No green buildings, but great interest!

Bird reflectors/ right next to dam; no bird life!

Potential for buying energy from Solar power project at Spier (Buy-in challenge?)

Waste water??

Many more...

Challenges regarding the collaboration framework and mandate of Technopark & Transformation

process

No Synergy and collaboration between stakeholders (Is changing, and there is potential)

Needs to be an agreed upon strategic and collective vision for the future of TP

Needs to be a ‘champion’ of changes (Can be an organization, or institution, or one person)

Need of representative decision-making body (TPOA, business representation, Municipality,

Veto powers need to remain in hands of owners for sense of ownership

Need for university-TPOA/business-municipality collaboration

Need for experts

Need for a focus for the park (ie. Innovation Hub for Sustainability)

Name change – new identity (ie. 22@Barcelona; FutureBosch; Sustainable Innovation Hub Stellenbosch etc etc.)

Soft elements; Network building (Continuation of online platform, forums, engagement spaces ie. Sustainable Innovation Stellenbosch Network).

MOU agreement; HOPE Project affiliation

INNOVUS (Technology transfer)

INFRASTRUCTURE & MANAGMENT

Include big business players, involve all of Stellenbosch (Remgro; Steinhoff; BAT)

Official professional proposal

Needs financial backing and investment (National Government, COFISA, UN, Aid)