The role of Collective Research Centres in Belgium
1
Outline
 Collective research centres (CRCs)
• Knowledge paradox & public intervention
• Innovation systems
• Characteristics of CRCs
 Technology transfer models
• 1. Support activities
• 2. Sourcing of information
• 3. Dissemination (members)
 Behavioural additionality
2
Knowledge paradox
 Products & processes become more complex (tendency
to open innovation)
 Knowledge paradox: abundant scientific and technical
knowledge is produced, but insufficient economic
exploitation results (Dosi et al, 2006)
 Government intervention needed (e.g. industry-science
relations)
3
Government intervention stimulating R&D and
innovation
 Rationale: market failure (Dasgupta and David, 1994;
Nelson, 1959)
 Market failure does not relate to R&D per se, but to the
transfer and flows of information between firms or
firms and public sector research institutes (Metcalfe
and Georghiou, 1997)
• Firms’ success is dependent on their ability to
utilize external networks efficiently (Nooteboom,
1994; Dodgson and Rothwell, 1994; Chesbrough,
2003)
 Governments have more and more turned away from
direct R&D subsidies to policy promoting (Autio et al.,
2008)
• Transfer of knowledge through
 Networking
 Collaborative R&D programs
4
One of these actors: Collective Research Centres (CRCs)
CRCs in the innovation system
Enterprise sector
Collective
research
centres
Government sector
Intermediary
organisations
TTOs
Spin-offs
Incubators
Science parks
Higher education
Private non-profit
5
CRC project: objectives
 To look into the various activities by CRCs
 To go beyond quantification when discussing the
impact of CRCs
 To study the role of CRCs for alleviating the knowledge
paradox
6
CRCs - general
 Founded by industry to support R&D in a particular
sector
 Origin in the Law “De Groote”, 30th January, 1947
 Active in strengthening the relations between
(member) firms and scientific developments (ISR)
 Mainly financed by member contributions (60%), but
several actions are financed by regional, federal or
European authorities
7
CRCs - typology
 Three categories:
• Centres “De Groote”
• Associated collective centres
• Autonomous centres: recent initiatives by regional
authorities
 The research focuses on first two categories. These
centres often cover more than one region in Belgium
8
Location of CRCs
9
Reasons for location
To which extent were the following criteria important
in setting up R&D activities in your region? (1= very
low importance, 7= very high importance)
a. Availability of highly skilled personnel
b. Presence of a university
c. Presence of a research centre
d. Presence of important
clients/members/activities/production facilities
e. Presence of physical infrastructure (terrains,
transport/accessibility)
f. Local rules and regulations
g. Possibilities of enjoying grants and subsidies from
government
h. Presence of a cluster of companies active in the
domain
i. Presence of networking possibilities
j. Financial attractive location conditions
k. Historical reasons
l. Prestige
Average
Median
Weighted
average
3.5
4.1
3.8
4.8
3
4
2.5
6
3.7
4.0
3.5
4.2
3.8
4.5
3.8
2.5
3.5
1.5
5
2.1
3.5
3.1
3.5
2.9
3.2
2.7
3.5
2.0
3.5
2
3.5
1
3
4.1
3
2.5
10
CRCs – active in traditional sectors
Overview of employment at the collective research centres, 2003-2007 (FTE)
2004
2005
2006
2007
105
100
107
113
110
CRIC- Cement
40
38
38
39
43
BCRC- Ceramics
21
22
23
24
26
SIRRIS- Technology
143
143
131
135
139
BRRC- Road
101
104
109
101
97
BBRI- Building
193
193
199
204
207
CTIB-TCHN- Wood
18
17
18
18
18
WTOCD- Diamond
19
14
15
15
14
CoRI- Coating
22
22
16
16
20
139
138
134
128
128
BWI- Welding
17
14
15
19
19
BPI- Packaging
13
13
13
14
14
831
818
824
828
835
2003
CENTEXBEL- Textile
CRM- Metallurgy
Total
11
Tech transfer model of CRCs
Internal
sources of
knowledge
Member
companies
External
sources of
knowledge
2
CRC activities
1
Dissemination
3
12
Tech transfer model of CRCs
Internal
sources of
knowledge
Member
companies
External
sources of
knowledge
2
CRC activities
1
Dissemination
3
13
1. CRC activities (OECD Frascati)
Global activity of the
institution
Scientific and Technologic
activities (STA)
Research and
Development (R&D)
Other activities
Other related R&Dactivities
fundamental research
applied research
development
R&D services (1)
Related industrial activities
(2)
14
Support activities by CRCs
Provided by most CRCs to most
members
Provided to a lesser extent
15
Typology of CRC activities
 Knowledge intelligence unit
• TIS, provision of advice, R&D
 Knowledge agency
• TAD
 Knowledge repository
• Technical library, qualified personnel
16
Tech transfer model of CRCs
Internal
sources of
knowledge
Member
companies
External
sources of
knowledge
2
CRC activities
1
Dissemination
3
17
2. Sourcing of information

R&D and R&D related activities

TOP 3



In-house personnel
Clients and members
Public knowledge (publications, specialized
magazines, meetings and conferences)
18
Example: Centexbel
Need Detection
Interaction with
members and nonmembers by
Technological
advisors
Dissemination
Permanent
Committee
Technology
suppliers,
conferences and
literature, technical
committees
Centexbel
writes
proposal and
submits for
finance
Collective
Research
(Max 2
years)
technological
advisors,
project reports
19
Tech transfer model of CRCs
Internal
sources of
knowledge
Member
companies
External
sources of
knowledge
2
CRC activities
1
Dissemination
3
20
3. Dissemination and impact
CRC managers asked members to
fill out online questionnaire
856 questionnaires received
21
The member’s point of view (1)
 Why and when do they call upon the CRC?
 What services do they call upon most frequently?
22
Why and when do they call upon the CRC?
Drivers to call upon CRC support (1= totally unimportant; 7= very important)
6
5
4
mean
s.d.
3
2
1
0
Because of the
high economic
risks associated
with own R&D
Because of the
high costs
associated with
R&D
Because of the
lack of available
financial means
Because of the
lack of
organisational
flexibility
Because CRCs
dispose of qualified
personnel
Because CRCS
dispose of
technical
information
Because CRCs
dispose of market
information
23
Large differences between R&D/no R&D, CRC, size
What services do they call upon most frequently?
Most frequently used services
Less frequently used services
24
Large differences between R&D/no R&D, CRC, size
Taxonomy: no one size fits all
 “Heavy” users
• Closely involved, especially on R&D activities
 “Regular” users
• Search information, standardisation, seminars
 “Light” users
• Loosely involved
25
The member’s point of view (2)
 Traditional impact measures
• Output additionality (patents, publications, new
products launched)
• Input additionality (1 public $ / 1 private $)
• BUT…problems with assessing impact of
intermediaries
 Services impact is distributed among a wide range
of activities
 Benefits are not instantaneous
 => Study of behavioural additionality
26
Behavioural additionality
 Studies the difference in firm behaviour resulting from the
intervention
 Diverse definitions -> CRC analysis:
• Input additionality
 What would have happened without the CRC support
• Network additionality
 To what extend do CRC help to built networks
• Competence additionality
 Impact of CRC support on competencies and expertise
• Speed additionality
 Impact on the speed of a project
• Scope and scale additionality
 Impact on risk and size of projects
• Output additionality
 Impact on results of the projects
27
 What is the impact of collaboration with the CRC for
the member companies?
• Of R&D related activities?
• Of R&D (contract research) activities?
28
Behavioural additionality of R&D related activities
Additionalities for R&D related activities (1=little impact; 7= much impact)
6
5
Mean (1-7)
4
mean
3
s.d.
2
1
0
output
speed
network
competence
input
29
Higher in case of Cies with higher R&D intensity
Alternatives for CRCs (R&D related activities)
What would have been the impact if it had not been possible to call upon the CRC
knowledge transfer activities? (1=disagree entirely; 7= agree entirely)
mean
s.d.
We would have called upon private parties (consultants, companies,…)
4.15
1.67
We would have called upon public bodies (IWT, DGTRE,…)
4.26
1.63
We would have called upon universities or public research institutes
4.48
1.60
We would have allocated more internal resources
3.95
1.57
We would not have taken any further actions
3.34
1.62
N=285
Especially the case for
small, low R&D intensive
companies
Especially the case for
large, R&D intensive
companies
CRC dependent
30
Behavioural additionality of R&D activities (contract
research)
Additionalities for contract research (1= little impact; 7= high impact)
6
5
Mean (1-7)
4
mean
3
s.d.
2
1
0
output
network
competence
input
31
Alternatives for CRCs (contract research)
What would have been the impact if it had not been possible to call upon the CRC
contract research? (1= disagree entirely – 7= agree entirely)
Mean
Standard
deviation
The project would have taken place with the same budget
3.34
1.50
The project would have taken place with a smaller budget
3.51
1.53
We would have allocated more internal resources to the project
4.07
1.45
The project would not have taken place at all
3.29
1.56
The project would have taken place at a slower speed
4.46
1.48
The project would have taken place on a much smaller scale
3.82
1.50
The project would have taken place with less ambitious goals
3.88
1.43
We would have called upon private parties (consultants)
4.07
1.64
4.19
1.71
4.51
1.57
*
*
We would have called upon public institutions (IWT, DEGRE,…)
We would have called upon universities or public research centres
*
*
*
Dependent on R&D intensity
32
Determinants of cognitive capacity additionality
 Absorptive capacity, or
• the ability of a firm to recognize the value of new,
external information, assimilate it, and apply it to
commercial ends
• Within
 The member firm
 The collective research centre
• Operationalized as R&D intensity
 The intensity of use of the CRC’s services
33
Network additionality
Network
R&D related activities
R&D activities
The intervention by the CRC allowed my company
to identify potential partners
The project allowed us to network
with universities or public research
centres
The intervention by the CRC allowed my company
to cooperate with other companies
The project allowed us to network
with other companies
The intervention by the CRC allowed my company
to cooperate with knowledge institutes, such as
universities or research institutes
The project allowed us to build
research networks
34
Steurs et al. (2006)
Competence additionality
Competence
R&D related activities
R&D activities
The intervention by the CRC allowed my company
to acquire new knowledge
The project increased our skills to
network with universities or public
research centres
The intervention by the CRC allowed my company
to increase our innovation management capabilities
The project increased our skills to
network with other companies
The intervention by the CRC allowed my company
to upgrade its human resources
The project allowed us to acquire
new knowledge
The project allowed us to upgrade
our human resources
The project increased our innovation
management capabilities
35
Steurs et al. (2006)
Regression results
OLS regression results for R&D related activities (AC= Absortive capacity)
Mediation Test
Network
additionality
Competence
additionality
Network
additionality
Competence
additionality
AC CRC
-.13**
.05
-.11*
.08
AC member firm
.03
.03
.10*
.12*
Intensity of use
.41****
.51****
Age
-.02
-.05*
.02
.00
Slack
.00
.01
-.03
-.01
Adjusted R²
.18
.25
.02
.02
F
13.32****
20.59****
2.09*
1.13
Independent
variables
Control variables
N=289; *p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.001;****, p<.0001
36
Results
Cognitive
capacity
Cognitive
capacity
AC of technology
intermediary
additionality
additionality
Network
additionality
AC of member firm
+
+
+
Intensity
of use
Competence
additionality
+
37
Results (2)
 Firms with higher R&D intensity tend to benefit more
from working with the CRCs
• Push by government to focus on breakthroughs
 Should CRCs then not invest in own R&D? NO, from an
absorptive capacity point of view
• Other types of absorptive capacity may affect the
results
38
Conclusions
 CRCs and their users are diverse in nature
 Most important role lies in networking activities and
technology transfer
• But: high involvement in R&D (absorptive capacity)
 Main impact for members: competence additionality /
network
• Especially when the member engages already in
R&D
 Alternatives for CRCs are mainly available for R&Dintensive and larger companies
 Exist on behalf and for the benefit of the member firms
39
(=> topics are determined by the market! <->
knowledge paradox)
More information
 Research Series 11 (Belgian Science Policy) “Collective
Research Centres: A Study on R&D and Technology
Transfer Involvement”
 FDC “Open innovation: the role of Collective Research
Centres in stimulating innovation”
40
Contact
 Mirjam Knockaert
• Mirjam.knockaert@ugent.be
 André Spithoven
• Andre.spithoven@belspo.be
41