Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Guide to Best Policy Practices for Policy Makers AU INNOPOLIS Project, Task 3.12 19 th October 2011.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Guide to Best Policy Practices for Policy Makers AU INNOPOLIS Project, Task 3.12 19 th October 2011."— Presentation transcript:

1 Guide to Best Policy Practices for Policy Makers AU INNOPOLIS Project, Task 3.12 19 th October 2011

2 Table of contents The guide in a nutshell Best Policy Practice Helsinki: SHOKs Best Policy Practice Łódź: LORIS Best Policy Practice Salford: KTP Best Policy Practice Thessaloniki: RIPCM BPPs in wider context Conclusions Discussion

3 The guide in a nutshell A practical, user-friendly guide for policy makers to help them develop Policy Practices for knowledge exchange between universities, enterprises and cities in their regions. The guide includes: – A summary of one successful BPP case from each project region – Key policy recommendations derived from each case on how to make similar Policy Practices succeed – Six BPPs in from around the world (wider context) – Conclusions The case policies are seen as very successful in their regions and were chosen by INNOPOLIS partners from those regions

4 BPP Helsinki: SHOKs Strategic Centres for Science, Technology and Innovations (SHOKs) are public ‐ private partnerships for speeding up innovation processes in Finland. Goal: to renew industry clusters and create radical innovations; achieves this by supporting and creating long-term cooperation between industry and the academia Owners: ~30–60 shareholders, e.g. companies and universities; all interested parties can apply to participate in SHOK projects. Industries: forest, metal products and mechanical engineering, built environment, information and communication industry and services, energy and environment and health and well ‐ being. Budget: 6 SHOKs, 40–60m€ annually for each SHOK. 50% government, 50% companies. Time scale: Decision to found SHOKs: 2006. Five-to-ten-year periods in research.

5 BPP Helsinki: key policy recommendations for similar PPs 1.Multidisciplinarity: involve different sectors of industry and society 2.Cooperation: base it on trust and openness to increase innovativeness (may be difficult to recreate in different environment) 3.Long-term commitment: anticipate needs in a five-to-ten- year perspective 4.Innovate together: identify strategic area of research that profits the industry as a whole and bring together the leading companies of that industry 5.Focus on pre-commercial mid-term technology development 6.Organize centres as Public-Private-Partnerships with industry stakeholders

6 BPP Łódź: LORIS Regional Innovation Strategy for the Łódź Region (LORIS) Goal: develop the Region’s innovativeness The main instruments: joint activities, information infrastructure, promotional events, internships, scholarships and capitalization of the regional loan fund (for micro ‐, small ‐ and medium ‐ sized enterprises). Time scale: The diagnosis phase is about 3 years, the implementation phase of RIS will be carried out until 2015.

7 BPP Łódź: key policy recommendations for similar PPs The policy should stimulate cooperation between science and economy within the efficient regional innovation system The policy should change the role of science from theoretical to applied research for promoting regional development The policy should develop the business support infrastructure

8 BPP Salford: KTPs Knowledge Transfer Partnerships involves the formation of a partnership between an enterprise, academic institution and an associate (a recently qualified person) Goals: – Helps businesses improve their competitiveness, productivity and performance through better use of the knowledge, technology and skills available within the UK knowledge base – Provide company-based training for graduates – Enhance business-relevant education in the university Budget: about £ 140m annually (grant support ~35%, business ~75% in 2009-2010) Time scale: 1-3 years (classic KTPs, since 1974) or 10-40 weeks (shorter KTPs, since 2009)

9 BPP Salford: key policy recommendations for similar PPs The policy should provide a clear framework for collaboration that can be applied flexibly to the needs of each enterprise. The policy should have mutual benefits for both business and academia. The policy should be business led but rely on new knowledge generated in academia

10 BPP Thessaloniki: RIPCM The Regional Innovation Pole of Central Macedonia (RIPCM) is a regional non ‐ profit association Goal: establish a regional ‐ sectoral system of innovation and boosting competitiveness in the Region of Central Macedonia Making use of ICTs in a wide spectrum of productive, commercial, enterprise and administrative activities This strategy is intended to deal with the most important weaknesses recorded for the Greek regions Instruments and actions: – Regional technology platforms – New product development consortia between ICT enterprises, research laboratories, institutions and user enterprises – New spin ‐ off companies based on research results – Horizontal activities for the entire ICT sector Time scale: the implementation period is 2 years.

11 BPP Thessaloniki: key policy recommendations for similar PPs Place emphasis and support to the technological information mechanisms and to primary development of innovation in enterprises. Increase the absorptive capacity (the ability to absorb knowledge) of regional enterprises Promote projects with a strong technological focus (one sector) R&D consortia, spin ‐ offs and horizontal actions should constitute the core of projects, as it seems that they have a strong systemic dimension and great sustainability

12 BPPs in wider context To be able to put these BPPs to proper context, the guide includes summaries of six other BPPs: – The Boston Indicators Project, US – Intelligent Nation 2015, Singapore – Adaptable & Seamless Technology Transfer Program through Target ‐ driven R&D (A ‐ STEP), Japan – OPIC ‐ Ontario Partnership for Innovation and Commercialization, Canada – Community ‐ based Participatory Research (CBPR) of Institute of Transnational Medicine, University of Chicago, US – The Governor Gray Davis Institutes for Science and Innovation, California, US

13 Conclusions Some of the conclusions presented in the guide: – The cases in this guide are recommended as starting points for university ‐ city ‐ regions which want to develop support structures and services for innovative industries – The policy context forms an important starting point for university ‐ city ‐ regions to fully develop their potential – Despite a readiness of industries and universities to take a risk, the support from EU funding schemes and national programmes constitute a relevant part of the innovation enterprise – A close cooperation between stakeholders and future beneficiaries helps develop custom made solutions, as there is no ‘one size that fits all’. Flexibility and technical understanding are needed to fully develop the potential.

14 Discussion Thoughts? Comments? Anything to add? A few questions: – Where to direct a reader that is interested in knowing more of the BPP of your region? – Is it possible (or needed?) to get more exact information on funding: what was it used to support (organisation, projects etc.) Changes have been made to the summaries and/or recommendations you sent, please read through at least the parts of the BPP of your region and write comments to collaboration space and/or email to finnish partners, thank you.

Download ppt "Guide to Best Policy Practices for Policy Makers AU INNOPOLIS Project, Task 3.12 19 th October 2011."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google