1. 1 „MAPPING OF EXCELLENCE” IN THE NEW MEMBER STATES THE LESSONS LEARNT IN THE RECORD PROJECT Balázs BORSI research manager GKI Economic Research Co. Benchmarking RTDI Organisations in Central and Southeast European Countries. Sofia, 19 November 2004

2. 2 Introducing the RECORD Map Stairways of excellence in RECORD RTDI specialisation and spatial characteristics Case study experience

3. 3 Introducing the RECORD Map

4. 4 What is the RECORD Map? A tool to map and draw conclusions from best practice RTD organisations: the organisational level of interpretation of the quantitative and qualitative benchmarks A geographical interpretation of RTD organisations acceding the European Research Area (ERA)

5. 5 Why is it experimental? RECORD (2002-2004) was a methodological network with small research budget The focus was on the international Centres of Excellence that can integrate in the ERA Regional case studies was not our task However, some experience at the national level can also be shown

6. 6 Reasons for mapping The European Paradox The lack of science-industry relationships The curiosity for knowing how RTDI is spread across the CEECs The dissemination of an effective learning tool

7. 7 Stairways of excellence

8. 8 Creative and innovative team (see the internal factors)

9. 9 Links with users (see the negotiated factors)

10. 10 Advanced stage of transition (see the external factors)

11. 11 Finding excellence Pilot survey: simple questions and simplified metrics Case studies: in-depth survey of selected RTDI institutions (running the full RECORD methodology as much as it was possible)

12. 12 RTDI specialisation and spatial characteristics (the survey results)

13. 13 The number of researchers Source: Ljubljana Proceedings

14. 14 ‘Strong’ S&T fields * in the Ljubljana proceedings only 25 Czech institutions were processed Source: the RECORD Experimental Map

15. 15 Knowledge generation benchmarks (mapped by field of science) Source: Ljubljana Proceedings

16. 16 Source: Ljubljana Proceedings Knowledge utilisation benchmarks (mapped by field of science)

17. 17 Source: Ljubljana Proceedings Knowledge diffusion benchmarks (mapped by field of science)

18. 18 Assessment of excellence at two levels Potential International CoEs: > 50% of budget earned on a competitive basis AND at least one important innovation in the past 3 years Potential National CoEs: > 50% of budget earned on a competitive basis

19. 19 Was there innovation in the last 3 years? (number of respondents) Source: Ljubljana Proceedings

20. 20 Location of potential International CoEs

21. 21 Location of potential National CoEs

22. 22 Blue banana and boomerang in Europe Source: Brunet [1989] and Gorzelak [1996]

23. 23 The number of potential CoEs mapped* * based upon the survey results + network remarks

24. 24 Spatial economy conclusions in some cases (e.g. Poland, Slovenia) the distribution of important RTD units does not coincide with the traditional industrial concentration the task is to link the eastern boomerang and the western blue banana only the Prague, Central Hungary, Malta and Mazowieckie (Warsaw) regions have at least 2-3 international CoEs - this is NOT enough! out of the 37 NUTS-2 regions, only the Prague, Central Hungary, Malta and Mazowieckie (Warsaw) regions have at least 2-3 international CoEs - this is NOT enough!

25. 25 Case study experience

26. 26 The cases by countries Czech Republic: Department of Cybernetics (Czech Technical University), Centre for Molecular and Genetic Biotechnology (CAS) Hungary: ComGenex Inc., Cereal Research Non-Profit Research Co. Poland: Faculty of Material Science and Engineering (WUT), Institute of Fundamental Technological Research (IPPT) Slovakia: Institute of Electrical Engineering (SAS), Department of Nuclear Chemistry (Comenius University) Slovenia: National Institute of Chemistry, National Building and Civil Engineering Institute

27. 27 Type of RTD organisation* *broad categories adopted from Glaser [2000]

28. 28 Establishment: the time horizon The oldest traditions: Cereal Research Non-profit Co. (1914) After WWII: Institute of Electrical Engineering (1963), Department of Nuclear Chemistry (1963), Department of Cybernetics (80s), Institute of Fundamental Technological Research (1953), National Building and Civil Engineering Institute (1949), National Institute of Chemistry (1946)  also sector-dependent New champions: ComGenex Inc. (1990), Faculty of Materials Science and Engineering (1991), Centre for Molecular and Genetic Biotechnology (2000)

29. 29 ‘Stairways’ in the cases International CoEs: Faculty of Materials Science and Engineering (PL), ComGenex Inc. (HU), Department of Cybernetics (CZ), VIGO System Ltd. (PL) National CoEs: Cereal Research Non-profit Co. (HU), Centre for Molecular and Genetic Biotechnology (CZ) Small CoE: Department of Nuclear Chemistry (SK) Transition stage – might be international CoE: National Building and Civil Engineering Institute, National Institute of Chemistry (both SI) Transition stage – might be national CoE: Institute of Electrical Engineering (SK), Institute of Fundamental Technological Research (PL)

30. 30 Creative and innovative team (the benchmarks mapped)

31. 31 Links with users (the benchmarks mapped)

32. 32 Advanced stage of transition (the benchmarks mapped)

33. 33 The benchmarks mapped in the case studies All knowledge processes (KG/KU/KD) are affected by history, clear-cut objectives, industry relationships, networking KG: all physical and human factors within the critical mass benchmark group, many progressive management benchmarks, project work + publications, user relations, mobility, balanced financing KU: innovation, patents, project management, technical competence, ALL the negotiated factors, favourable sectoral conditions KD: ICT infrastructure, hosting foreign researchers

34. 34 we must climb...

35. 35 www.record-network.net

36. 36 Thank you for your attention!