H k KOMMISSIONEN FOR DE EUROPÆISKE FÆLLESSKABER 
Bruxelles, den 01.04.1996 
KOM(96) 130 endelig udg. 
MEDDELELSE FRA KOMMSSIONEN 
TIL RÅDET. EUROPA-PARLAMENTET 
OG DFT ØKONOMISKF OG SOCIALF MD VA LG 
VEDR. AFSLUTTENDE EVALUERING AF DET 
STRATEGISKE PROGRAM FOR INNOVATION 
OG TEKNOLOGIOVERFØRSEL 
(SPRINT) 1989-1994 

I. Indledning 
1.1 I Rådets beslutning af 17. april 1989, 89/286/EØF1, der blev bekræftet og udvidet 
ved Rådets beslutning af 20. december 1993, 94/5/EØF2, om hovedfasen i det 
strategiske program for innovation og teknologioverførsel 1989-1994 (SPRINT) 
står der i artikel 8, at Kommissionen ved programmets afslutning forelægger en 
rapport om programmets gennemførelse og resultater for Europa-Parlamentet, 
Rådet og Det Økonomiske og Sociale Udvalg. 
1.2 Kommissionen udpegede et panel af uafhængige eksperter til at foretage denne 
evaluering under forsæde af hr. Chabbal. Panelet fremlagde rapporten for 
Kommissionen den 11. november 1994. Rapporten blev i december 1994 forelagt 
udvalget for programmet, som tog positivt imod den og godkendte dens 
væsentligste resultater og anbefalinger. Panelets fuldstændige evalueringsrapport 
og dens resultater er vedlagt i bilag A, inklusive panelets mandat og 
sammensætning. 
1.3 Ved udarbejdelsen af rapporten har panelet taget højde for SPRINT-
midtvejsrapporten og evalueringer af specifikke aktionslinjer under SPRINT, som 
f.eks. evalueringen af netværk af forsknings- og teknologiorganisationer, af 
konsulentnetværk eller af specifikke projekter (se listen i bilag B). De erfaringer, 
man har gjort under VALUE-programmet med udnyttelse af resultater og panelets 
evalueringsrapport om dette program, der blev forelagt Kommissionen den 3. juni 
1994, blev også taget i betragtning. Yderligere undersøgte panelet 
sammenhængen mellem SPRINT-erfaringerne med holdningen til innovation og 
med de målsætninger, der er opstillet i arbejdsprogrammet for særprogrammet 
for videreformidling og nyttiggørelse af resultaterne af forskning, teknologisk 
udvikling og demonstration, tredje aktion under det fjerde rammeprogram. 
1.4 Nærværende rapport er organiseret som følger: afsnit 2 opsummerer SPRINT-
programmet og dets hovedelementer. Afsnit 3 indeholder den generelle vurdering 
af programmet i lyset af de væsentligste resultater og konklusioner i panelets 
evalueringsrapport. Endelig giver afsnit 4 panelets detaljerede analyse af 
hovedelementerne i SPRINT-programmet sammen med Kommissionens holdning 
til denne analyse. 
II SPRINT-programmets hovedmålsætninger og instrumenter 
2.1 Hovedfasen i SPRINT-programmet havde følgende målsætninger, som var 
opstillet i ovennævnte rådsbeslutning: 
1 EFTnr. LI 12, 25.04.1989, s. 12 
2 EFTnr. L6, 08.01.94, s.25 
2ft 
at styrke innovationskapaciteten hos europæiske producenter af varer og 
tjenesteydelser med henblik på det store marked fra 1992; 
at fremme hurtig indtrængning af ny teknologi og udbredelse af 
innovationer i hele det økonomiske netværk i Fællesskabet; 
at effektivisere og koordinere redskaber og igangværende politik inden for 
innovation og teknologioverførsel på fællesskabsplan samt på regionalt og 
nationalt plan. 
2.2 For at nå disse mål koncentrerede man aktiviteterne, som blev udviklet under 
programmet, om innovationsaktiviteter, som ikke alene er baseret på forskning 
og teknologi, men også knyttet til ledelsesfærdigheder og forretningspraksis. Ikke 
blot stræbte man efter nye forskningsresultater i high tech-sektorer, men også 
efter indførelsen af avancerede, men gennemprøvede teknologier i traditionelle 
erhverv. Navnlig var man opmærksom på SM Ver som den største endelige 
målgruppe for programmet. 
2.3 I henhold til ovennævnte målsætninger og specifikke prioriteringer, og med et 
budget på 113 Mecu for en periode på 5 år, koncentrerede SPRINT indsatsen om 
tre hovedområder: 
udviklingen af innovationsstøttetjenester og den tilsvarende europæiske 
infrastruktur. Dette blev især betragtet som relevant for SMV'er, der 
typisk er langt mere afhængige end store virksomheder af ekspertise 
udefra, når det drejer sig om innovation og teknologiindførelse. Eftersom 
kvaliteten og tilgængeligheden af sådanne tjenester er et afgørende element 
i innovationsprocessen, forsøgte SPRINT at fremme den tværnationale 
udveksling af erfaringer, at lette Europa-dækkende samarbejdsmønstre 
mellem sådanne tjenester og at oprette en tilsvarende organisationsmæssig 
infrastruktur på europæisk plan. 
demonstration af teknologioverførsel og teknologiindførelse inden for 
Fællesskabet. Her blev aktiviteter igangsat med henblik på at styrke 
demonstrationskapaciteten for eksisterende teknologioverførselsprojekter 
inden for Fællesskabet samt identifikation, udvikling og demonstration af 
den bedste ledelsespraksis inden for disse rammer. 
øget viden om innovationsprocessen, systemer og politikker i 
Fællesskabet, på nationalt og regionalt niveau. Dette skulle bidrage til 
effektiviteten og sammenhængen i innovationspolitikker gennem 
indsamling af pålidelige data og oplysninger om innovationsaktiviteter og 
-processer, videreudviklingen af de begrebsmæssige rammer og en øget 
udveksling af erfaringer mellem beslutningstagere og enheder af relevans 
for innovation og formidling af teknologier (EIMS - European Innovation 
Monitoring System). 
3a 
2.4 Inden for hver af ovennævnte linjer blev der iværksat en lang række initiativer. 
Panelet præsenterede og analyserede dem enkeltvis i rapportens bilag I. 
III. Generel vurdering af programmet 
3.1 Referencerammer for et fællesskabsprogram for innovationsstøtte 
Panelet mente, at det var nødvendigt at definere referencerammerne for et 
innovationsprogram i Fællesskabet inden det beskæftigede sig med evalueringen 
af SPRINT-programmet. Ifølge panelet må man holde sig følgende faktorer for 
øje: 
• forskellen mellem forskningspolitik, som sigter mod tilvejebringelse af 
ny viden, og innovationspolitik, der er orienteret mod anvendelsen af 
viden, som er ny for brugeren; 
• den nødvendige fremgangsmåde for innovationspolitik, der består i 
stimulering af de mange vekselvirkninger mellem innovationsaktører, og 
som garanterer foranstaltningernes fuldstændighed, komplementaritet og 
sammenhængende karakter; 
• relevansen af en SMV-orienteret innovationspolitik, kraftig baseret på 
efterspørgsel fra SMV'er, som gennemføres via strukturer tæt på disse 
SMV'er, og navnlig på regionalt niveau. Denne politik ligger vægten på 
spredning af eksisterende teknologier, en proces der hænger sammen med 
virksomhedernes absorptionsevne. 
Kommissionen er enig i denne analyse af rammebetingelserne for 
innovationsstøtteprogrammer og mener, at hovedretningslinjerne for SPRINT-
programmet har været i tråd med disse krav. 
3.2 Generelle konklusioner om SPRINT og anbefalinger 
Panelets generelle konklusion om SPRINT er positiv. Det mener, at 
målsætningerne i Rådets beslutning blev forfulgt på en effektiv måde i betragtning 
af de tildelte ressourcer, og at programmet stemmer godt overens med opgaverne 
i et innovationsprogram. 
Omend det ikke er lydefrit anses SPRINT for at have været et originalt og 
veltilpasset redskab til støtte for alle typer SMV'er i deres innovationsproces: 
SPRINT's eksperimentelle karakter muliggjorde afprøvning af en lang række 
løsninger, og en utraditionel tankegang - eksperiment, evaluering og formidling 
af viden - blev udviklet under programmet. Endvidere fandt en lang række 
aktører af relevans for innovationsprocesserne i SPRINT europæiske rammer for 
samarbejde og samspil, som de tidligere havde manglet. 
ita 
Med henblik på fremtidige fællesskabspolitikker anser panelet innovation og 
teknologiformidling for at være af største vigtighed. Formidling af teknologier til 
traditionelle sektorer betragtes som værende vigtigere end den massive produktion 
af nye teknologier, som udelukkende ville gavne high tech-sektoren. 
3.3 Panelet giver også et positivt svar på de spørgsmål, der er fremsat i dets mandat: 
• SPRINT-programmet forfulgte de målsætninger, der var opstillet i 
beslutningen af 17.4.1989; 
• Politikker for innovation og teknologiformidling er stadig relevante 
navnlig for formidling til traditionelle sektorer, og den politik, der er 
opstillet af SPRINT, passer godt til disse begrænsninger og målsætninger; 
• Samtidig med at arbejdsprocedurerne bør forbedres, anser panelet den 
generelle arbejdsproces for at være sund, og det anbefaler, at 
hovedtrækkene heri bevares. 
3.4 Panelet påtaler visse svagheder i: 
• gennemskueligheden af programmets arbejdsproces; 
• formidling af resultater; 
• rolle som katalysator for innovationsaktioner på regionalt og nationalt 
plan; 
• samspil med andre af Kommissionens tjenestegrene. 
3.5 Disse punkter tages op igen i panelets anbefalinger vedrørende sammensætningen 
af et fremtidigt program og dets fremgangsmåder: 
• valget af nye aktioner bør gøres mere gennemskueligt; 
• programmet bør udarbejde eksplicitte mekanismer til analyse, fornyelse 
og indstilling af aktioner; 
• udvælgelsen af SMV'er bør forbedres ved udviklingen af en SMV-
typologi, baseret på innovationsefterspørgsel; 
• foruden støtte til formidlere anbefales direkte intervention til fordel for 
SMV'er på visse områder; 
• valget af EIMS-temaer bør foretages i nært samarbejde med andre 
interesserede tjenestegrene i Kommissionen; 
SiC\ 
• metodologiske aspekter af pilotprogrammer, som f.eks. definition af 
målsætninger og evaluering, bør styrkes; 
• nye metoder til formidling af resultater bør undersøges og anvendes; 
• generelt bør der iværksættes samspilsmekanismer mellem tredje aktion og 
andre fællesskabsprogrammer; 
• det fastansatte personale, som er afsat til programmet, bør øges. 
Disse relevante punkter er blevet undersøgt af Kommissionen ved udformning af 
arbejdsprogrammet til særprogrammet for formidling og udnyttelse af resultaterne 
af forsknings- og udviklingsaktiviteterne og vil, hvor det er hensigtsmæssigt, 
blive taget i betragtning ved gennemførelsen heraf. 
IV Detaljeret analyse af SPRINT-programmets hovedelementer 
Foruden ovenstående generelle vurdering af programmet anvendte panelet en ny 
og interessant model med henblik på en grundig vurdering af programmets 
hovedelementer såvel som dets egnethed til at opfylde målsætningerne for den 
tredje aktion under det fjerde rammeprogram. 
4.1 Analyse af de anvendte midler og metoder 
Den arbejdsmetode, der er udarbejdet for SPRINT, er karakteriseret ved den 
følgende cyklus, bestående af overvejelser, forsøg, evaluering og formidling: 
De indledende overvejelser 
Bekræftelse gennem forsøg og evaluering; 
Opbygning af menneskelige netværk, i form af makro- eller mininetværk, 
hvorved man opnår en kraftig multiplikatorvirkning af foranstaltningerne. 
Analyse af resultaterne og udledning af de høstede erfaringer. 
Hensigtsmæssig formidling af de indsamlede resultater og god praksis. 
Kommissionen mener, at denne noget formaliserede beskrivelse af SPRINT's 
metoder, som panelet har udarbejdet, grundliggende er i overensstemmelse med 
Kommissionens praksis. Disse metoder er imidlertid ikke målet, men et middel 
til at opnå større målsætninger på en effektiv måde under hensyntagen til 
partnernes erfaringer i innovationsprocessen. 
4.2 Analyse efter aktørkategorier 
6.-G 
Panelet mener, at SPRINT har inddraget en lang række aktører, som er relevante 
for SMV-innovation. Men efter deres mening bør der ofres mere opmærksomhed 
på et antal formidlere, som f.eks. konsulenter i intellektuel ejendomsret, 
teknologiske ressourcecentre for visse teknologier, finansielle partnere for 
innovative SMV'er og regionale infrastrukturer. 
Endvidere mener panelet, at fællesskabsaktiviteter bør sigte bredere end på 
samarbejdet mellem SMV'er, og at de bør omfatte samspillet mellem 
teknologileverandører eller -brugere, navnlig mellem SMV'er og store firmaer, 
og samarbejdet mellem innovationstjenester for SMV'er. 
Kommissionen er vidende om det faktum, at formidlere og SMV-
samarbejdsstrukturer kun delvis var involveret i programmet. Dette skyldtes 
væsentligst de begrænsede ressourcer, der var til rådighed, og behovet for at 
koncentrere sig om et begrænset antal forsøgs- og pilotaktiviteter. Under den 
tredje aktion vil man udvide bestræbelserne på især to områder: samarbejde med 
regionalpolitiske initiativer og instrumenter til innovationsfinansiering. Der vil 
specielt blive lagt vægt på systematiske bestræbelser inden for forskning og 
fællesskabsstatistikker over innovationsaktiviteter, navnlig i SMV'er. 
4.3 Analyse efter målsætninger 
Panelet undersøgte aktiviteterne med hensyn til deres egnethed til at opfylde de 
målsætninger, som er opstillet i arbejdsprogrammet for den tredje aktion: 
• skabelse af gunstige betingelser for evnen til at absorbere innovation og 
teknologi; 
• støtte til oprettelse af et område med fri cirkulation af teknologier; 
• lettelse af teknologileverancer. 
De foranstaltninger, som SPRINT iværksatte med relevans for den første 
målsætning, sigtede mod at øge kvaliteten af specialisterne inden for SMV-
relaterede tjenester, at formidle den bedste praksis gennem 
demonstrationsprojekter samt fremme af teknologiformidlingen. Panelet 
bemærkede, at der kunne have været gjort mere systematiske bestræbelser på at 
drage lære af disse forskellige erfaringer og på at formidle sådanne erfaringer til 
lokale eller nationale beslutningstagere. 
Kommissionen mener, at denne åbenbare begrænsning skyldtes det faktum, at den 
umiddelbare formidling af erfaringer mellem deltagerne og deres partnere kom 
til at stå i forgrunden, og at en videregående spredning ville foregå i 
efterfølgende faser. 
IK 
Med hensyn til den anden målsætning understreger panelet, at de europæiske 
netværk, som SPRINT havde oprettet på en systematisk måde, spillede en positiv 
rolle. Det beklager, at der på europæisk plan ikke var tilstrækkelige 
samarbejdsplatforme virksomhederne imellem, og at disse netværk ikke i højere 
grad er blevet brugt til formidling af information mellem de forskellige partnere 
i forskellige regioner. 
Kommissionen understreger, at hensigten med Fællesskabets støtte fra bgyndelsen 
kun var at lette etableringen af sådanne netværk, og at disse senere skulle bevise 
deres levedygtighed og opnå økonomisk uafhængighed. 
Kommissionen agter at styrke netværkssamarbejdet under den tredje aktivitet, 
navnlig ved at fremme et udvidet net af formidlingscentre og ved at støtte et 
europæisk samarbejde mellem eksisterende nationale netværk eller initiativer. Det 
er tanken også at benytte sådanne netværk mest muligt til initiativer under andre 
fællesskabsprogrammer. 
Med hensyn til den tredje måsætning understreger panelet, at denne ikke refererer 
til tilvejebringelsen af teknologier som sådan til SMV'er, men til tilpasningen af 
F&U-viden til innovative SMV'ers behov. Det nævner SPRINT's støtte til 
samarbejdet mellem tekniske centre (netværk af forsknings- og 
teknologiorganisationer) eller visse særprojekter som et positivt bidrag. 
Kommissionen har til hensigt at øge sine bestræbelser på det område under den 
tredje aktion, navnlig ved at yde støtte til teknologivaliderings- og 
teknologioverførselsprojekter. 
4.4 Panelets bemærkninger til de enkelte aktionslinjer under Sprint-programmet 
Panelets holdning i enkeltheder til individuelle aktionslinjer er opsummeret i 
rapportens bilag 1, hvis hovedpunkter er som følger: 
Aktioner, der tager sigte på SMV'ers teknologipartnere, navnlig netværket 
af forsknings- og teknologiorganisationer, anses for nyttige og bør 
fortsættes med visse forbedringer. 
Foranstaltninger til fordel for de regionale teknologirådgivningscentrc 
giver betragtelig merværdi og bør videreføres. 
Støtte til forskerparker godkendes generelt af panelet, der foreslår en 
yderligere undersøgelse af synergierne med GD I og PHARE-
programmet, samt at der lægges mere vægt på at fremme kvaliteten af 
sådanne parker. 
Panelet har et positivt syn på aktioner, der tager sigte på konsulenter 
generelt og på fremme af værktøjer, som øger kvaliteten af deres 
rådgivning af SMV'er, som f.eks. MINT, Value Analysis, Design and 
8<? 
Quality, og giver specifikke anbefalinger til forbedring af visse aspekter 
af den praktiske afvikling og her igen væsentligst på området formidling 
og offentliggørelse af viden og resultater. 
Aktioner, der tager sigte på konsulenter med speciale i licensoverførsel, 
som f.eks. firmanetværk og teknologioverførselskonferencen, har efter 
panelets mening vist deres nytte og bør bevares og endda styrkes. 
Initiativer vedrørende finansieringssystemet, først og fremmest den 
præststationsafhængige teknologifinansiering og investeringsfora, ville 
kræve fornyede overvejelser vedrørende værktøjer og metoder. 
Foranstaltninger til støtte for SMV'ers samspil med andre virksomheder 
kunne efter panelets mening have været udviklet yderligere. 
Aktioner vedrørende regionalpolitikker inden for rammerne af initiativerne 
"Regionale Strategier og Infrastrukturer for Innovation og 
Teknologioverførsel" og "Regionale teknologiplaner" er af betydning og 
bør udvikles yderligere. 
Styrkelsen af SMV'ers absorptionsevne under aktionslinjen for "særlige 
projekter", betragtes som et eksempel på vellykkede 
undersøgelsesprojekter, som fortjener at blive forsat og udvidet i 
fremtiden. 
Oprettelsen af tværeuropæiske netværk for innovation og videnoverførsel 
igangsatte en europæiseringsvirkning, som panelet anser for meget 
værdifuld, og som bør fortsættes under det fjerde rammeprogram og gøres 
tilgængelig for andre af Kommissionens tjenestegrene, som beskæftiger 
sig med SMV'er. 
Innovationsinformationssystemet i Europa anses for at være et meget 
vigtigt element i programmet, idet det muliggør analyse og udvikling af 
nye begreber. Man foreslår mere empirisk arbejde med SMV'ers 
betingelser. 
4.5 Panelet foreslår, at de forskellige foranstaltninger, som er udviklet under 
SPRINT, fortsættes under særprogrammet for videreformidling og nyttiggørelse 
af resultaterne af forskning, teknologisk udvikling og demonstration under Fjerde 
Rammeprogram, og at dette program kommer til at omfatte alle aspekter af 
innovationsprocessen. 
Som tidligere nævnt har Kommissionen, hvor det var hensigtsmæssigt, taget 
panelets anbefalinger i betragtning ved udarbejdelsen af arbejdsprogrammet for 
særprogrammet. 
'« 
Kommissionen deler panelets interesse i at se alle aspekter af 
innovationsprocessen dækket, men understreger, at dette skal opnås ved hjælp af 
flere forskellige instrumenter såvel inden for som uden for rammeprogrammet, 
og med skyldig hensyntagen til sådanne operationers retlige grundlag og sikring 
af en koordineret indsats som anbefalet i grønbogen om innovation. 
V. Konklusioner 
5.1 Kommissionen har omhyggeligt gennemgået rapporten og panelets holdning. Den 
vil bestræbe sig på så vidt muligt at tage hensyn til de relevante anbefalinger for 
gennemførelsen af særprogrammet for videreformidling og nyttiggørelse af 
resultaterne af Fællesskabets aktioner inden for forskning, teknologisk udvikling 
og demonstration, der blev bekræftet ved Rådets beslutning 94/917/EØF af 15. 
december 1994 for perioden 1994-1998. 
5.2 Denne meddelelse samt panelets evalueringsreport er henvendt til Europa-
Parlamentet og Rådet i oveensstemmelse med artikel 8 i Rådets beslutning af 17. 
april 1989 om SPRINT-programmet. 
Bilag 
A. Panelets evalueringsrapport 
B. Liste over evalueringsrapporter 
10 *a 
I PANEL EVALUATION OF THE SPRINT PROGRAMME 
Page 
SUMMARY OF THE REPORT 5 
PART ONE 10 
TERMS AND FRAME OF REFERENCE JO 
A TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE GROUP, WORK METHOD 10 
B REFERENCE FRAMEWORK 11 
1 What is innovation? 11 
2. Research polio.' and innovation policy arc two different things 12 
3 Characteristics of an SME-targeted innovation policy 13 
C WHAT IS THE ROLE OF A EUROPEAN PROGRAMME TO 
STIMULATE INNOVATION IN SME'S^ 15 
PART TWO 
ANALYSIS OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM 11 
A OBJECTIVES 17 
B METHODS AND MEASURES OF THE SPRTNT PROGRAMME 17 
1. • First combine reflection and experimentation, 
evaluation and dissemination 17 
2. Evaluate the actions 18 
3. Then build up networks 18 
4. Target SME partners 18 
C. COHERENCE OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM ANALYSIS BY CATEGORY 
OF OPERATOR 19 
1. Consultants 19 
2. Technological partners 20 
3. Field consultants 20 
4. Financial partners for innovative SMEs 21 
5. Local policy-makers 21 
6. What SPRINT has overlooked 22 
D. .. COHERENCE OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM: ANALYSIS BY OBJECTIVES 22 
1. Helping to create an environment beneficial to innovation in SMEs 23 
a. Influencing specialists 23 
b. Influencing tools and policies 23 
c. Disseminating technologies 24 
2. Europeanising the operators in the innovation sysu~ 25 
3. Horizontal schemes 25 
E CONCLUSION 26 
PART THREE 
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 27 
A GENERAL APPRAISAL OF THE S; YSTEM 27 
B PROPOSALS FOR THE COMPOSIT THE PROGRAMME 28 
1. A programme such as SPRINT must L< flexible and evolutionary 28 
2. Should the programme continue to target intermediaries or should it be 
aimed at SMEs directly? 30 
3 A new dimension: a privileged relationship between SPRINT and 
regional authorities 32 
C PROPOSALS FOR SPECIFIC ACTION 32 
1. Improve the reflectic«<xpennK3itation<valuanon^ssemmation cycle 33 
2. Reinforce and systematise the interaction between the SPRINT programme 
and its potential partners 34 
3. Increase human resources within the SPRINT programme 35 
D. MISCELLANEOUS 36 
E. CONCLUSION: SUMMARY ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS PUT 
TO TOE PANEL 36 
i 
ANNEXES 
ANNEX 1: ANALYSIS OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM BY TYPE OF INITIATIVE 39 
1. Schemes aimed at technological partners of SMEs 40 
2. Schemes aimed at RTACs 41 
3. Schemes aimed at science parks 42 
4 Schemes aimed at consultants in general 45 
5. Schemes aimed at consultants specialising in licensing 47 
6 Schemes aimed at the financial system 49 
7. Schemes aimed at the interaction of SMEs with other SMEs (networks) and/or large firms 52 
8 Schemes aimed at regional policies 52 
9 Schemes aimed at the absorptive capacity of SMEs and their interactions with their partners 54 
10. Evaluation of the action taken under SPRINT 56 
ANNEX 2: ANALYSIS OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM ACCORDING TO OBJECTEES 59 
1. First objective: Creation of an environment beneficial to innovation and the absorption 
of technologies 60 
2 Second objective: Establishment of an area for the free circulation of technologies 
in the EU and for application of innovative products) 63 
3 Third objective: Supply SKlE's with technologies adapted to their requirements 66 
ANNEX 3: NOTE ON THE I%RULE 68 
ANNEX 4: SPRINT EVALUA TION PANEL 70 
ANNEX 5: TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE SPRINT FINAL EVALUATION PANEL 71 
ANNEX 6: LIST OF ACRONYMS 72 
Tables 1.2.3 and 4 and Figure 1 75 
2> 
SUMMARY OF THE REPORT 
1 Introduction 
This summary reiterates the main points of the evaluation report on the SPRINT programme 
(Strategic Programme for Innovation and Technology Transfer) submitted to the European 
Commission. 
The SPRINT programme, run by Directorate XÏÏUD, comprises a set of lines of action, the 
overall objective of which is to create a climate favourable to innovation around European 
small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). 
Launched in 1984, SPRINT was the forerunner of numerous tools and "best practices" for 
technologie transfer on a pan-European scale. To do this, it relied on regional and/or 
national intermediaries (both public and private) active in the field of innovation and 
technology transfer and targeted a whole series of actors (technical, managerial, financial, 
etc.) who each have a role to play in the innovation process. The set of corresponding 
initiatives encompasses what is generally regarded at national level as an innovation policy 
2 Innovation policy at European level 
2.1 Innovation policies 
An innovation polio,' is a system of measures designed to facilitate the innovation process, 
that is the process which leads from the idea of new products or new processes to its 
successful commercialization, the novelty may be radical, but very often it is limited to an 
improvement of what already exists. The idea may be the result of research work, but this is 
an exception. 
In practice, h is SMEs which form the main target of innovation policies inasmuch as large 
enterprises are felt to be well equipped for innovation without any special outside help 
Furthermore, h is important not to confuse research policy, which tends to develop scientific 
knowledge, with innovation policy, which tends to facilitate the production and successful 
commercialization of new products and services or the introduction of new processes into 
enterprises, h is nevertheless increasingly vital for the two policies to be conducted 
simultaneously and on the same footing 
2.2 Value added of the European approach 
Specific innovation policies have been introduced in the Member States, especially at 
regional level. SPRINT looked at the problem in a European context 
In order to do this, the programme set out to demonstrate the relevance of certain tools 
(networks, common projects, financial instruments, fora, consultation, etc.) with, as the 
ultimate objective, their adoption by national and regional authorities so that they benefit 
directly a large proportion of European SMEs. 
This highlights an important aspect of SPRINT, i.e. its capacity' for experimentation and 
evaluation of new types of action. In this it is assisted by the EIMS programme (European 
Innovation Monitoring System), which helps it to identify the relevant actions which need to 
be carried out, in particular for the benefit of regional and national governments. 
Furthermore, those involved in innovation in the various Member States have been able to 
add a transnational dimension to their work by coming together, at the European level, 
thanks to the SPRINT networks. 
Lastly, SPRINT has contributed to the objective of European cohesion through the 
dissemination of proven technologies from particular countries to other regions, especially to 
those suffering from a "development gap", thanks in particular to the "specific projects" for 
innovation transfer. 
In line with regional or national innovation policies, a Community' innovation policy needs to 
be "horizontal", i.e. implemented so as to ensure that there is some consistency in the actions 
undertaken by the various Commission directorates-general with regard to innovation among 
SMEs 
3 SPRINT objectives and methods applied 
SPRINT actions can be classified according to the three initial objectives of the programme 
/ - DEVELOPMENT OF A PAN EUROPEAN INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT 
INNOVATION 
networks (brokers, research and technology agencies, regional interface 
organizations, university-industry intermediaries) 
science parks and regional infrastructure for innovation: 
innovation financing. 
U - DISSEMINA TION AND ABSORPTION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND 
PRACTICES 
innovation management techniques (MINT, design, quality, etc.): 
technology transfer days. 
demonstration projects C special projects "for innovation transfer), 
III - PROMOTING AWARENESS OF INNOVATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF 
HOW IT WORKS 
"European Inno\xttion Monitoring System "(information gathering, 
studies, workshops on policies, etc.). 
In response to the complex nature of the innovation system, SPRINT itself was bound to be 
systemic in nature and its aaions were bound to be diversified. This explains the profuse 
aspect which is a feature of the programme. 
The programme gradually adopted an approach which was both pragmatic and considered, 
building up in-depth knowledge of the mechanisms which underly innovation and technology 
dissemination. This approach comprises a cycle which produces in turn reflection (what is to 
be done, what initiative should be launched? - the European Innovation Monitoring System), 
experimentation (the various actions in the programme other than the EIMS), evaluation and 
dissémination (proven and evaluated good practices). 
These actions are for the most part aimed at SMEs' partners (various types of intermediary 
and interface) and interaction platforms (capital and technology markets, fora, science parks 
and technopoles). The programme thus targeted several thousand intermediary bodies, on 
the assumption that the service to several hundreds of thousands of SMEs would be 
improved. SMEs were directly involved only in pilot projects (MINT) or promotional events 
(European Design Prize). 
4 Results of actions: analysis according to categories of actors 
Has SPRINT succeeded or failed in achieving the objectives it was given? These questions 
need to be answered according to the category of actors in the innovation system. 
In the systemic model of the innovation process, the six main types of partner who are able to 
bring to SMEs the varied skills which an innovation process requires and to supplement their 
internal know-how are as follows: consultants, technological resource centres (technological 
partners), financial institutions, non-specialist bodies which stimulate demand and organize 
the .coherence of the various actions (field consultants and regional departments responsible 
for innovation), and other enterprises 
i) Consultants, Thanks to the launch of a large number of networks, the programme 
has made it possible to stimulate the work of the main types of non-technological experts, 
especially technology brokers (nuni-nctworks for inter-firm technology transfer, HI 
Technology, Innovation and Information macro-network, organization of technology transfer 
days), experts in the field of technology management (MINT initiative for the strategic 
review of SMEs) and specialists on science parks and similar structures (feasibility and 
evaluation studies). Lastly, the programme set out to promote certain techniques of 
innovation management such as quality, value analysis and industrial design. The field was 
broadly covered in spite of some gaps (consultants specializing in market studies or 
intellectual property problems). 
ti) Technological partners or research and technology organizations (RTOs). Among 
these, the sectoral technical centres (involved in collective research on fundamental 
technologies in traditional sectors) benefited from one of the main initiatives in the 
programme: RTO mini-networks. As for contract research organizations (CROs), they were 
helped by setting up a European association. Technological research centres (TRCs) 
focusing on one technology' have not been targeted by any SPRINT action. 
Hi) Financial partners. These partners, comprising bankers and venture capitalists, are 
of major importance. SPRINT focused chiefly on the second category by helping to set up 
the European Venture Capital À. ..ation (EVCA) and organizing a series of investment 
fora. As for the banking sector, it was solicited by the experimental TPF (Technology' 
Performance Financing) action. Lastly, a wide-ranging action was launched in the final 
months of the programme to study the feasibility of European markets of the NASDAQ type 
(second market in North America) in collaboration with DG XVIH (Credit and Investments) 
and DG XXTJŒ (Enterprises). 
There is still much to be done with regard to innovation financing, where SPRINT has 
started to play an important role. 
iv) Field consultants. The multiple functions of these partners include prospecting 
SMEs with a view to anlaysing their needs, diagnosing problems and helping to launch and 
steer innovation projects. A network of Regional Technology Advisory Centres (RTACs) 
which fufils this type of function was launched under SPRINT two years ago 
v) Regional (and national) services responsible for innovation. SPRINT has been 
systematically involved in assisting science parks and similar structures, and has therefore 
made itself felt with those responsible locally. Actions to assist regional policy-makers took 
on more substance at the end of the programme with tne launch of Regional Technology 
Plans (RTPs, undertaken in collaboration with DG XVI Regional Policies) and the RITTS 
initiative (Regional Innovation and Technology Transfer Strategies and Infrastructures) for 
the strategic analysis of regional infrastructure for support to innovation, based c enterprise 
demand and resulting in ar i plan accepted by all t" technical and economic actors in a 
region 
vi) Other enterprises. SMEs' partners in the innovation process are as much other 
SMEs as large enterprises. Apart from an EIMS study, SPRINT has not been very active in 
this area, and this is one of the major shortcomings of the programme 
The important role of "specific projects" (21 in all) must be stressed, these being pr^. rs for 
the transfer of proven technologies to regions where such technologies are in demand but not 
yet available. This action lux made it possible to bring together a number of different actors 
(SMEs, RTOs, consultants, regional interface services, etc.) around comme« objectives and 
to develop a common language among them - a* difficult but vital task. 
Lasth the European Innovation Monitoring System (EIMS) was considered by the 
evaluation panel to be the linchpin of a construction based on consideration and identification 
of the most suitable actions. It is pnmanlv policy-makers in the Member States who are 
targeted in the six main areas of EIMS analysis (evaluation, innovation in firms, innovation-
support infrastructures, regional aspects of innovation, innovation financing and innovation 
policy). 
5 Panel's conclusions and recommendations 
SPRINT occupies an essential and original gap, that of developing SME innovation policy 
Furthermore, the programme has been able to develop tools which tackle a complex problem 
Ffc-- %, SPRINT has become progressively acknowledged by field actors as a privileged 
meeting ground. For these three reasons, the panel considers that the overall working 
process and the actions which are carried out by the SPRINT programme should be 
continued and even amplified as part of the future programme for the Framework 
Programme's third activity. The panel is convinced that the programme's weaknesses would 
not justify the marginalization of the SPRINT system. The panel identifies the following 
weak points: 
a certain inability to publicize its global working process which has yielded a small 
overall visibility, and sometimes even a reputation for dispersion; 
poor dissemination of results from pilot actions such as EIMS studies, which 
therefore reduces their impact; 
insufficient interaction with national authorities and with other services of the 
Commission. 
The panel also feels that there is a lack of qualified staff for the size of the programme. 
While recommending that intermediaries remain the main target of the SPRINT system, the 
panel would like to see regular, category-specific reports on the impact on SMEs of the 
actions launched . The panel also considers that some direct intervention gaps on SMEs do 
exist, and that these could be developed • for example via carefully prepared pilot actions -
without violating the principle of subsidiarity. 
The panel stresses the importance of renewing Community actions by a rigorous process for 
discarding actions going hand in hand with and a mechanism for selecting new programmes, 
based on consultation (with the other directorates-general involved but also with all those 
involved in the innovation process). 
The Commission must strengthen its contact role with regional authorities and improve the 
dissemination of results and studies derived from the activities of the programme. Such 
dissemination means structuring the lessons learned and transforming "tacit" knowledge into 
explicit information which can be broadly disseminated in written form. 
Transparency (visibility), dissemination and interaction summarize the three axes for 
improving the SPRINT system. 
Overall, the SPRINT programme represents a remarkable and highly articulated set of 
actions, and it has proved to be a very effective means of support for national and regional 
innovation policies, while respecting the principle of subsidiarity. 
10 
PARTONE 
TERMS ÅND FRAME OF REFERENCE 
A. TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE GROUP; WORK METHOD 
Our committee was asked by the Commission to produce an evaluation report on the 
SPRINT programme. Some of the questions asked are common for this type of exercise: 
have initial objectives been achieved? Is there sufficient rationale for continuing current 
projects, taking into account economic trends? In this particular case a further question needs 
to be asked on how to derive the greatest benefit from the incorporation of SPRINT in the 
Third Activity" of the Fourth Framework Programme. 
It should be remembered that SPRINT was not part of the third Framework Programme and 
that its inclusion in the Fourth Framework Programme is linked to the innovation concept. 
SPRINT has so tar been the only Commission programme whose main objective is. to 
strengthen the innovative capacity of providers of goods and services: this concept of 
innovation is added for the first time to those of research and technology in the vers 
definition of the Framework Programme. 
After getting to know the SPRINT programme and its many schemes, the panel was able to 
confirm that the programme had remained true to the intentions of its founders. It was not a 
classical technology research programme, but an implementation at Community level of an 
innovation policy intended mainly for standard SMEs 
As we shall see later, such a policy follows necessarily a systems approach, in particular, it 
means multiplying interaction paths between innovation operators, and guaranteeing that the 
measures taken for their benefit are complete, complementary and coherent. The danger of 
such a policy is to focus on one element of the innovation system while ignoring the need for 
others and failing to see the wood for the trees. This has been avoided as a result of the 
highly experimental nature of SPRINT, which successively investigated all the methods of 
supporting innovation and was able to implement by trial and error what we shall later call 
the SPRINT system. 
The panel therefore essentially concentrated on analysing SPRINT as a complete and 
interactive system. It did not inevestigate each initiative in detail, (even though Annex 1 
provides a brief review of them with an appreciation); there was no time for detailed 
assessment, and moreover, most initiatives were the subject of separate evaluation exercises 
which, after having their validity assessed by a few restricted public-opinion polls, were a 
source of inspiration for the panel in its general conclusions. 
11 
The panel met SPRINT CIT (Committee for Innovation and Technology Transfer) delegates 
separately; visits were also paid to national policy-makers from two Member States. Finally, 
those responsible for each line of action of SPRINT were interviewed along with 
representatives of three Directorates with an interest in SPRINT. 
B. FRAME pF REFERENCE 
The SPRINT programme is made up of a variety of schemes or initiatives whose global 
coherence is often ill-perceived. There is a striking contrast between the opinions of those 
working in the field, very satisfied with the support they get, and policy-makers who worn* 
about the dense overall appearance of SPRINT and cannot clearly distinguish its objectives 
and its logic. 
Before getting involved in evaluating each line of action, the panel considered it necessary to 
define the framework within which the objectives and initiatives of SPRINT are located. 
There is no innovation policy, whether research-led or technology-led, which docs not claim 
as a central objective the competitiveness affirms, in a context in which they are abruptly 
exposed to international competition and technological change. This also applies to 
SPRINT, of course, and to the programme into which it is to be incorporated: the Third 
Activity of the Fourth Framework Programme. 
Ever since its origins (19S4), the original aspect of SPRINT has been its intention to aim at 
innovation in SMEs. particularly those which do little or no R&D. This is in contrast with 
traditional policies which seek to develop pre-competitive research in industrial laboratories, 
mostly within large firms. It is only recently, in fact, that the clear distinction between R&D 
policy and innovation polio1 been well understood. At Community' level, SPRINT has been a 
useful focal point for those who have set the tone for the new policies in each Member State 
and region. 
In terms of industrial policy, innovation in SMEs is a segment whose importance is 
universally recognised, but one in which it is difficult to act : either because we lack recipes 
or because the SME target is more diversified than the large firm or laboratory target, but 
also because it is tricky for public authorities to intervene in a area very close to the market, 
such as SME projects. This is why we need to act together, at a European level, to gain a 
clearer picture of the requirements, to compare experiences and to disseminate " best 
practices ". . 
The panel summarises me latest ideas on innovation as follows: 
1. What is innovation? 
Innovation is defined as "the process which leads from the idea of new products or new 
processes toits successful commercialisation the novelty may be radical, but very often it is 
limited to an improvement on what already exists". 
In order to succeed in this innovation process, the firm must incorporate all the necessary 
knowledge in its product or process. To dc it must bring together a number of financial 
and human resources and combine its ink i know-how with a wide range of external 
12 
expertise. Part of this knowledge is technological, but other parts deal with management, 
marketing, financing, intellectual property, market prospects, etc. 
the innovation process should not be confused with R&D. The two concepts are 
complementary, but there is a great deal of innovation without any specific R&D effort and 
research by no means always leads to innovation. 
The dissemination of technology and the various forms of technology' transfer.are 
important, but not unique, aspects of innovation 
2. Research policy and innovation policy are two different things 
Besides research polio,', also called scientific policy, there is now innovation policy, whose 
aims and content are very different: 
- research policy aims to develop scientific knowledge by supporting public 
laboratories and, more indirectly, industrial laboratories. 
- innovation policy aims to promote innovation projects originating within firms, 
i.e. the successful commercialisation of new products and new processes. It 
therefore directly contributes to the competitivity of industry. 
The mistake has been to confuse these two objectives: even when the new product or 
process has a strong technological base, its commercial success depends on a number of 
factors of which the use of new scientific knowledge is rarely the most important. And 
vice versa, the competitiveness of firms is by no means the only goal of scientific 
development. It is therefore essential to unravel the two objectives, and hence the two 
policies. 
It should be remembered that this confusion, still acute today, stems from the "linear 
model" which describes the innovation system as a pipe: fundamental research results are 
injected at one end, and the commercial products come out at the other. This reasoning 
presupposed a direct and unavoidable link between economic competitiveness and 
intensive research. All the experience of the past 20 years shows bow rarely this link 
actually exists. 
Not only the aims, but also the content of research policy and innovation policy are 
different Innovation policy takes into account the development of knowhow, since the 
economy is increasingly dependent on this, but whether the knowledge to be developed is 
tacit or explicit, whether h is part of a firm's heritage or that of the public sector, it goes 
far beyond scientific knowledge or technological knowledge stemming from research. The 
nature of innovation is also managerial, financial, commercial, legal, and so forth. 
Furthermore, the creation of new knowledge is not the purpose of innovation policy, (but 
the one of research efforts, whether locally or anywhere else in the world): the crucial 
question for innovation policy is whether or not the necessary knowledge is actually used 
by firms. Its aim will therefore be as follows: 
- to place the SME within an environment where all expertise and the necessary 
knowledge are available, i.e. the individuals and organizations which not only 
13 
have this knowledge but have also been trained to give efficient help to firms, 
particularly SMEs; 
• to help SMEs to be in a position to use this knowledge and to combine and take 
advantage of this expertise. 
The difference between the two types of policy is well illustrated in the context of 
technology. For research policy, the aim is to create new technological knowledge, 
particularly of a generic nature, i.e. able to be used in many different sectors and suited to 
many different products. For innovation policy, the key issue is at a later point when 
relevant technologies must be disseminated to firms, at the right time and in the right 
place. There is interaction to the extend that awareness of demand brings to light new 
research areas. 
To summarise, researcf policy and innovation policy need to be conducted 
simultaneously and on the same footing. They must also, of course, interact and support 
each other. 
3. Characteristics of an SME-targeted innovation policy 
As stated above, the aim of r vation policy is to boost the success of innovative projects 
in SMEs. What form should this policy take in the current climate? 
a. An SME-oriented innovation policy must be all-embracing and include a number of 
different aspects. 
All models describing the innovation system stress its systemic and interactive nature. The 
sue of SMEs prevents them from having all the necessary in-house expertise, however, 
and often they are neither prepared nor trained to work with partners and therefore have 
great difficulty in taking full advantage of their environment. An innovation policy should 
therefore ensure that: 
• SMEs have knowledge of and access to all the necessary partners; 
- these partne are prepared to work with SMEs (this includes a training policy, in 
particular); 
- the tecnnological needs of SMEs, whether obvious or latent, are identified as a 
guide to the development of basic knowledge; 
- interaction develops between all operators in the innovation system via: 
• promoting interface services and interactif tforms; 
• enhancing the absorption capacity and appetite of SMEs for innovation; 
• helping SMEs to network; 
14 
specific (vertical) policies such as those relating to research, technology, education, 
energy, health, telecommunications, equipment etc. are encouraged to take account 
of the specific needs of SMEs; 
finally, but only where necessary, funds are injected where market imperfections 
are preventing the private sector from starting up or working properly. 
b. An SME-oriented innovation policy therefore has certain characteristics: 
- it has to run a number of different schemes simultaneously, since it has to take into 
consideration the wide variety' of SME partners. It may therefore appear to be diffuse: 
- it must attempt to coordinate policies already launched .by the various public 
authorities responsible for these partners, according to their profession It is therefore 
horizontal, 
- it will avoid becoming a substitute for such authorities. It will, for example, only 
exceptionally give direct financial support to laboratories developing new technologies 
(this will be the province of technology policy, a sub-structure of RTD policy) 
c. Innovation policy is to be guided by the demand from SMEs (unlike exploitation 
policy, which is supply-led). 
This demand varies from one category of SME to another: without going into detail, there 
are three major categories 
- new SMEs based on a technological idea (NTBFs), whose purpose is to commercialise 
a completely new product Thev usual!v lack financial resources as well as managerial 
skills; 
- research-intensive SMEs (and suppliers of technology in the form of hardware, 
software, materials etc ), which are usually clients of public R&D programmes; 
* by far the most common category is the adult SME which needs to review its product 
range or modernise its processes. Some are primarily sub-contractors of large firms, 
while others have their own products It is these SMEs whose needs are the most 
varied and difficult to satisfy, often because those needs are neither defined nor 
expressed. One basic challenge here is to strengthen the absorptive capacity of these 
companies in order to facilitate innovation 
Table 1 summarises these differences 
The need to take demand into account explains the importance currently given to general 
innovation advisers, or field agents (see annexes 1 and 2). 
d An SME-oriented innovation policy is largely implemented at regional level, 
because most SMEs find their resources in their local environment. But, as we shall see 
later, this does not preclude action on a European scale. 
15 
e. Innovation policy includes n ology dissemination. 
Technology dissemination is an important aspect of innovation policy since it is crucial to 
know how to incorporate new technological knowledge into products or processes, 
whether •riginating directly from a laboratory or whether already used in another product 
or secu 
It is therefore desirable and even necessary that those who are responsible for innovation, 
whether in public institutions or private firms, devote a large part of their efforts to the 
dissemination of technology. This was recognised by the SPRINT decision-makers, 
setting dissemination as one of the three objectives of the programme. 
It is now understood that, if technology dissemination becomes an appendix of research, it 
will be less effective: research sees dissemination merely as a means of exploiting its 
results, and justifying the investment in retrospect. There is then a gradual shift towards 
the so called research exploitation policy: an interesting activity-, but one with a limited 
impact. 
The policy of influencing those in charge of the dissemination and transfer process is more 
realistic: a first part of this knowledge is primarily tacit, i.e. it can only be disseminated 
by those who created it or acquired it by using it on a another product or sector. A first 
step is therefore to mobilise these experts, and make them take part in innovative projects 
in firms or, better still, create firms based on their ideas. 
Another part of the knowledge is explicit, or can be made explicit by building models or 
by technological research It can then be disseminated via physical media such as 
databases. 
In all cases it is essential to boost the absorptive capacity of firms themselves, the last 
chapter of the dissemination process this happens far more easily when firms have 
properly learnt how to interact with their information sources. 
Finally, to complete this description of "novation policy, it must be said that innovation 
policy requires extensive flexibility- because of the wide variety and rapid changeability of 
situations. Any innovation policy must, at this stage, be experimental. 
C WHAT CAN BE THE ROLE OF A EUROPEAN PROGRAMME TO 
STIMULATE INNOVATION IN SME'i? 
Since one of the first requirements for innovation in SMEs is face-to-face contact, the role 
and rationale of a European programme needs to be carefully established in view of the 
subsidiarity principle and the extreme diversity of regional circumstances. One of 
SPRINTs achievements has been to specify what this policy could or should not be, by 
combining analysis, experimentation and evaluation. 
According to the panel, a European programme must: 
- echo the variety of regional and national policies; stimulate and nurture them; promote 
collective reflection and any exchange of experience between policy-makers and 
operators in the field It must therefore increase the Community's economic and social 
cohesion; 
16 
- study, evaluate and disseminate a range of best practices through common guidelines 
and pilot demonstration projects suggesting action models based on analysis Establish 
a common language; 
- help build up a solid infrastructure of local agents, particularly interface services, 
- give this infrastructure a European orientation; 
- feed it with European information, thus aiding the free circulation of technologies, 
- accelerate the dissemination and utilisation of technology and strengthen the absorptive 
capacity of SMEs; 
- increase the social and economic cohesion of the Community-; 
- in line with regional or national policies, this policy must be horizontal It should be 
coordinated with other horizontal policies such as those of DG XVI (support to LFRs), 
DG XXIII (SMEs) and DG III (industrial policy) It must interact with "vertical" 
policies: research, education, telecommunications, energy, finance, competition etc 
and provide them with suggestions (not to say recommendations) 
Nevertheless, unlike regional innovanon policies, it would be difficult for a European 
innovation policy to influence all SMEs. 
After having highlighted the frame of the reference, part two of this report analyses the 
whole range of SPRINT initiatives, regarded as a system which must respond globally 
and in detail to the broad objectives of an innovation policy. Part Three is a general 
appreciation, followed by recommendations for enabling the SPRINT system to adapt to 
rapidly-evolving tasks once it has been incorporated into the Third Activity. 
Let us state here and now that the policy implemented by SPRINT corresponds well to the 
stated objectives It has succeeded in following up the transformation of policies in 
various areas of Europe Despite its obvious imperfections, therefore, SPRINT is an 
original and appropriate tool for tackling the innovation problems of SMEs of all kinds. 
The panel therefore stresses the senous losses which would be incurred by an even partial 
abandonment of this approach as SPRINT enters the R&D Framework Programme: the 
objective of the Framework Programme is first and foremost to give support to research; 
hence there is a danger that the Third Activity" might be used merely for adding value to 
the specific programmes. 
According to the work programme of the Third Activity, its general objectives are very 
largely in line with those set out in this reference framework. 
17 
PART TWO 
ANAL YSIS OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM 
OBJECTIVES 
SPRINT action lines could be described as a juxtaposition of schemes adopted in accordance 
with the objectives defined in 1982 and 1989, which can be summarised as follows: 
a. to reinforce the absorptive capacity of SMEs; 
b. to promote rapid dissemination of new technologies and innovation throughout the 
Community economy, thereby strengthening economic and social cohesion in terms 
of innovation and technology transfer; 
c. in the field of innovation and technology transfer, to increase the coherence and the 
efficiency of innovation tools and policies, whether regional, national or community-
based. 
SPRINT tackled these objectives by implementing a system of schemes whose coherence we 
will assess later. 
B. METHODS AND MEASURES OF THE SPRINT PROGRAMME 
The challenge for SPRINT was to invent a working method in a completely new area. Even 
at local level, an innovation policy is difficult to conceive and implement. At European level, 
choices are still more difficult because the subsidiarity principle has to be respected and 
therefore, directly dealing with SMEs is an exception: indeed, it is now recognised that for 
the average SME, local schemes are most effective. 
Faced with these difficulties, the SPRINT programme has developed original working 
methods ever since its launch. 
1. First of all, combine reflection and experimentation, evaluation and dissemination: 
• The EIMS (European Innovation Monitoring System) initiative makes up the first part of 
this approach. It is based on a series of studies and workshops which deal with the various 
aspects of innovation policy, and which have enabled to strengthen the European network of 
experts m the subject. 
18 
- Many of SPRTNTs pilot schemes described below were launched as a result of this 
reflection platform. There is a now a well-known experimental approach within 
SPRINT which allows real-size testing of various projects. 
- Those experiments which turn out to be successful are adopted by the regional 
authorities and local agents which took part in them, but ideally their results should be 
more widely distributed, which ought to occur if there were effective dissémination of 
such practices. Indeed, a dynamic programme such as SPRINT, which must tackle 
constantly-evolving needs, should include generally an "exit mechanism", or a means 
of handing over proven schemes to others. As Part Three will demonstrate, this exit 
mechanism is still far from adequate. 
The reflection / experimentation / evaluation / dissemination approach is adopted not only 
in the Specific Projects Action Line (SPAL), but also in schemes such as MINT, TPF, 
SPNET etc.; these systematically include SMEs as well as the various types of partner 
(intermediaries and others). 
2. Evaluate the actions 
The logical follow-up to the reflection / experimentation cycle consists of assessing the 
policies of regional decision-makers. This is the case with the RITTS and RTP schemes 
recently implemented and with the consultancy schemes for science parks. 
3. Then build up networks 
The aim of networks is twofold, to disseminate best practice, particularly knowledge 
gained through SPRINT pilot projects, and to launch Fv->pean areas of interaction 
between operators in national : ! regional innovation syste 
•The purpose of some of these networks (macro-n. iworks), such as EACRO, 
RTAC, etc., is to bring the various operators together and to disseminate 
information. These also provide a framework for organising major conferences 
from time to time. ' 
•Other networks (mini-networks) are targeted more at collective action: the 
adaptation and dissemination of technologies (RTO mini-networks), or technology 
transfer (Inter-firm mini-networks). 
4. Target SMEs partners 
To aim these schemes primarily at SME partners (various types of intermediaries and 
interfaces), and interaction platforms (markets, fora, science parks and technopoles) is a 
choice of method. 
Since the programme cannot directly influence some 300 000 SMEs, it addresses a few 
thousand SME partners and hopes for a wide multiplier effect. SMEs are directly 
involved in a few pilot projects only to study the practicalities and difficulties of their 
interactions with intcnnedianes and the effectiveness of interaction platforms. We shall 
come back to this. 
19 
The means available to SPRINT are very small for the task. Admittedly, stimulation 
rather than management is the watchword, implying a lightweight structure in which 
human resources are a key element. Because of insufficient permanent staff, SPRINT has 
relied on a network of consultants. We shall come back to this in Part Three of the report. 
The interconnections of the action modes with the categories of operator and then with 
the objectives are summarised in Tables 2 and 3. 
G COHERENCE OF THE "SPRINT SYSTEM": ANALYSIS BY CATEGORY 
OF OPERATOR 
As mentioned above, a systems approach only can make a real impact on an environment 
as complex and interactive as the innovation system. Is the SPRINT programme a system, 
having an internal logic7 To assess its coherence, the panel chose to analyse it 
successively through two grids: the innovation operators grid and the objectives grid. 
The interconnections between these two grids are summarised in Table 4. 
Analysis by category of operator 
One of the main virtues of SPRINT has been its recognition that the innovation process 
relies on a variety of SME partners and its consequent promotion of emerging innovation 
services. Whatever the sector of activity, SMEs cannot work without partners with 
expertise conducive to innovation and complementary to the internal know-how of the 
firm. To illustrate this diversity, the panel uses the so called hexagon diagram (see Figure 
1 ): SMEs are in the centre and on each side of the hexagon are the six main types of SME 
partner: 
- various types of consultancy (management, marketing, intellectual property); 
- Technology Resource Centres (RTOs, or Research and Technology Organisations); 
- financial institunons (banks and capital development organisations); 
generalists who stimulate the demand and organise the coherence of the various 
schemes: 
- field innovation consultants and 
- regional authorities responsible for innovation policy, and lastly 
- other firms (SMEs and large firms) 
1. Consultants . 
These were the original target of SPRINT. Technology-licensing brokers were grouped 
into "inter-firm mini-networks", still active today. The TII network, easily set up, 
grouped them on a wider European basis. More recently, SPRINT launched a vast 
operation for bringing together SMEs and management consultants (MINT). They have 
20 
benefited from three original lines of action (value analysis, quality and design), thanks 
to which European specialists- have been able to create real communities (similar to 
scientific communities) which developed the knowledge and various relevant documents to 
disseminate. The creation of a panel of consultants and managers of science parks and 
technopoles should also be mentioned. 
By tackling technology management, the programme neglected other types of consultant. 
such as those who conduct market analysis and those who deal with intellectual property 
problems. 
2. Technological partners 
SPRINT grouped the various types of technology supplier under the heading of RTOs ( 
Research and Technology Organisations). A conference was organised by SPRINT in 
1993 which enabled the development of these important SME partners to be assessed. 
They include: 
- sectoral technical centres which mostly conduct collective research projects on 
basic technolog ^ in traditional sectors; 
• CROs (Contract Research Orju jsations), which have a similar work function 
but are privately owned, and v. with SMEs for only part of their time; 
- Technological Resource Centres (TRCs), which concentrate on one technology 
only (laser technology, materials technology etc.). Small technical teams 
developed, for instance in France, in close contact with laboratories and are 
totally dedicated to SMEs (te ung, analysis, participation in product or process-
based projects etc.) 
The first category was supported by SPRINT in the early days; in particular though RTO 
mini-networks which are still successful, conferences and workshops which regularly 
bring together a number of RTOs on a European scale, and the creation of the macro-
network FEICRO (Federation of European Industrial Cooperation Research 
Organisations). 
The second category benefited a few years ago from the creation of the macro-network 
EACRO (European Association of Contract Research Organisations), whose overall 
activity is fairly intense. 
The third category has been somewhat neglected. 
3. Field Consultants (innovation & technology consultants) 
It is only recently that the new function of RTACs (Regional Technology Advisory 
Centres) has developed. It can be described as follows: to explore the SME system; to 
diagnose their needs, and to offer SMEs a wide choice of technological partners (and 
others), and eventually to help SMEs launch and pilot the definition phase of their 
innovations. 
The macro-network of such consultants (RTAC) was launched two years ago. It is too 
early to assess its impact, but it should be noted that RTAC working groups have been 
created and do some useful work. 
21 
4. Financial partners for innovative SMEs 
Innovation is an industrial operation which requires not only self-financing and public 
support, but also substantial funding from the financial sector. Hence the importance of 
banks and venture capitalists as partners to the SME. To make banks aware of the 
specific problems of SMEs, to help venture capitalists to set up throughout Europe and to 
have access to the same tools as their American colleagues had to be one of the main 
priorities for a programme such as SPRINT. 
The nature of SPRINTs action in this new and difficult area is experimental At the 
beginning the macro-network EVCA (European Venture Capitalists Association) was 
created. Then the banking system was approached through the TPF scheme. Because of 
its limited success, this initiative was recently reassessed, taking into account the lessons 
learned. In collaboration with DG XVIII and DG XXIII, an EIMS type initiative is 
adressing venture capital problems and is aiming at the creation of a European market of 
the NASDAQ type. 
Further experiments should be launched in this rapidly-changing environment (sec 
paragraph 6 of Annex 1), which SPRINT is far from having covered completely. 
5. Local (and national) policy-makers 
Regional authorities now play a major role in creating an infrastructure for supporting 
innovation in SMEs, particularly by: 
• injecting financial resources into those SMEs and into public or private innovation 
service organisations; 
- by organising the interactions between these innovation operators; 
• by favouring coherence of the actions taken by the various authorities concerned. 
The regions have therefore become major partners for SMEs. Has SPRINT taken this 
into account? 
- SPRINT took action a long time ago at the local policy-maker level through its science 
park consultancy scheme. Science parks play an important role in technology transfer 
and they are rapidly increasing in number. SPRINT supported many of them from the 
outset and allowed a number of science park promoters, in fact the majority of them, to 
benefit from the experience acquired by their predecessors. Today the feasibility study 
strand has not been abandoned, but added to by a second phase of evaluation studies 
of existing science parks with some maturity. 
- Action in support of regional policy-makers has suddenly become highly relevant 
thanks to the launch of the RITTS and RTP (piloted by DG XVI) schemes. The 
ambition here is broader, since RITTS or RTP tackles the overall regional innovation 
infrastructure, and analyses and aims to redefine what should be done to improve it. 
The accent is on the consensus which should prevail amongst the various relevant 
administrations and on the interaction which should be developed between the various 
local innovation operators (the various firms and their partners). 
22 
The very recent nature of these actions can be criticised, together with the lack of 
qualified personnel within SPRINT to undertake such a task (essentially accomplished by 
consultants whose competence should be carefully monitored). 
6. What SPRINT has overlooked 
The range of SME partners dealt with by SPRINT is large. However, the panel considers 
that there are two gaps in the programme: 
- Other firms: experience has shown that other firms have become a major partner for 
SMEs. For example, high-technology firms are the main technolorv suppliers for 
SMEs through hardware, software and materials technologies which && manufactured 
on demand. More generally the newly-organised industrial pattern multiplies day-to­
day interactions between firms and makes them inter-dependent. This is particularly 
true of the innovation process, in which SMEs integrated into a network succeed better 
and more quickly than those which are not integrated. According to arrangements to be 
defined, SPRINT could be expected either to give direct support to the creation of 
business networks (SME/largc firms networks, SME networks, clusters), or to support 
those attempting to develop such networks. 
The SPRINT programme has so far neglected this aspect of the problem. Even 
though the TT Days and some EIMS schemes work in that direction, their impact is 
* am adequate, and there are no real SME/large firm networks. 
action amongst SME partners: no serious effort has really been made to bring 
u -ther all the various SME partners and reinforce their interaction, apart from 
SPAL, even though one has to acknowledge that such a task would not be easy. 
D. COHERENCE OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM - ANALYSIS BY OBJECTIVE 
Th rious SME partners form a complex entity which SPRINT has succeeded in 
assi. Jig and targeting, except for a few which have been overlooked. Other partners will 
probably come to light; the method which SPRINT applies should enable them to be 
identified. 
But this is not enough. It is necessary to check that the various objectives of a European 
innovation policy are being fulfilled, at least where the prime target of "standard" SMEs is 
concerned. 
A detailed analysis of the SPRINT system by objectives is included in Annex 2. The grid 
used is that which defines the work programme of the third activity of the fourth RTD 
FWP, into which it has been decided that SPRINT initiatives will be incorporated. The 
three objectives of this work programme are the following 
1. Favouring an environment beneficial to innovation and the absorption of technologies 
2. Establishment of an area for the free circulation of technologies in the El) 
3. Supply of appropriate technologies to the SME system 
23 
The links between this work programme and the general objectives of an innovation policy 
as described are clear: it is therefore natural to refer to them. 
1. Helping to create an environment beneficial to innovation in SMEs 
a. Influencing specialists (section 1.3 of this report: "to help implement a solid 
infrastructure for field operators, particularly interface services"). 
The aim is to increase the individual quality of SME services through the creation and 
dissemination of basic knowledge and practical know-how. The following approaches are 
identified in this context. 
- management tools such as value analysis, design and quality (the documents published 
under these headings are a genuine asset); 
- field projects of the MINT type (provided that the right lessons have been learnt from 
comparing the contractors' methodologies); 
- to improve the homogeneity of the quality of mini-networks in which less-developed 
European countries participate; (the Segal Quince evaluation of mini-networks stresses 
that this improves the general quality of networks); 
- the experience acquired by RTOs within specific projects. 
It is regrettable that there has not been enough systematic effort to learn from these 
various experiences. Some EIMS studies should be dedicated to them, and enable best 
practice to be more widely disseminated. In general, the training aspect should be 
developed in connection with regional and national authorities. 
b. Influencing tools and policies 
Repeating what was said earlier in the first part of this report, the problem here is "to 
disseminate best practices through a policy of demonstration which proposes action 
models based on reflection, and to establish a common language". SPRINT uses the 
EIMS experimentation/evaluation system Jo further that aim, as described above. In this 
context the following initiatives can be identified: -
- TPF, which aims to establish a new mechanism of interaction between banks and the 
suppliers and users of technology; 
- specific SPAL projects in which pan-European experiences allow model initiatives to 
be demonstrated to local or national policy-makers; 
- the MINT programme, a large-scale management support demonstration scheme; 
- programmes for assessing the instrumental value of a science park or regional 
innovation policy/infrastructure. Such schemes have a number of merits: with low 
cost, they investigated a series of local schemes and are a powerful tool for 
dissseminating best practice; 
24 
Such a comparison of initiatives with objectives reveals a lack of instruments aimed at 
increasing the absorption capacity of SMEs, by influencing the selection or training of 
their personnel. In particular, very little was done to increase human mobility from public 
research institutions to companies or between firms. 
These schemes analysed aim to disseminate widely experiences which have been tested 
successfully at local level with or without SPRINT support. Here, SPRINT can be 
criticised mostly at the level of the dissemination of results Even though mac - and 
mini-networks, general conferences, EIMS workshops and the recent information 
campaign on best practices in transnational technology management networks are all 
instrumental in disseminating lessons learned, there is a major gap: putting together the 
lessons learned from each experience to enable all local or national innovation policy­
makers to benefit from them 
SPRINTs lack of influence on policy-making is noticeable in that action taken under the 
structural funds is rarely inspired by SPRINT. 
c Disseminating technologies 
This is SPRINTs second explicit objective, and a particularly important one. Let us stress 
once again that there are a number of mechanisms for bringing the necessary technologies 
to the firm. 
* The firm may buy certain items (software, hardware, etc.) which incorporate the 
desired technologies, thus requiring a limited learning process. SPRINT aims to 
promote this process through an original financial tool, TPF (see Annex 1, 
paragraph 6). 
* A similar approach is to buy licences: in this area, SPRINT supports the mini-
networks of "licensing brokers". There may be financial tools which would help 
such purchases. 
* In order to tackle an innovation project properly, the firm may call on experts who 
know the basis of the technology to be integrated and agree to take part in the 
project as real partners. SPRINT has tried to develop this new type of activity for 
consultants (specific projects). 
• The firm may go as far as employing these experts for good. Some national 
programmes exist which favour this type of mobility. SPRINT has recently 
launched a network of people responsible for these programmes* This is an 
interesting effort, but is not yet adequate, since the ultimate aim of such an 
approach is to increase the absorptive capacity of SMEs, which requires far more 
attention. 
• Lastly, the dissemination of explicit information should not be neglected (explicit 
knowledge in contrast to the tacit knowledge which is used in the approaches 
described above). This is the role of databanks and other types of technology-watch 
tools extensively developed by the CORDIS system (VALUE programme). 
In all cases, dissemination is a learning process in which the interested firm learns to 
Warn. In the long run it is more efficient for the firm to learn to detect and rapidly master 
new technologies than to supply it with tailor-made technologies. If the challenge for a 
25 
dissemination policy is to develop "learning products", it could be said that SPRINT has 
prepared the ground but that much remains to be done. 
2. Europeanising operators in the innovation system 
Here we have in mind the European networks which SPRINT has set up in a systematic 
way, as and when new operators arrived on the innovation scene. The way they work is 
described in more detail in Annexes 1 and 2. They are obviously valuable tools for 
developing a European reflex amongst operators in the innovation system who work 
mostly at regional, sometimes national, level. 
Interaction platforms developed within the context of SPRINT should also be mentioned -
investment fora, TT Days, and some specific projects. 
These networks and platforms are excellent initiatives. As already stated, it is regrettable 
that these initiatives aimed at developing inter-firm networks are so embryonic; it is also 
regrettable that these networks have not been used sufficeintly for disseminating 
information, not only top-down information, but information exchanged between two 
nodes of a network on what is being produced, invented or disseminated in each region. 
3. Horizontal schemes 
The purpose of a horizontal programme such as SPRINT is to provide a catalyst to 
enable various specific (vertical) projects to support its objectives. SPRINT has relied on 
a considerable network of field operators and therefore is easily able to detect the various 
needs of SMEs. This is true of technology, financial resources, information on 
international markets for products and services, industrial protection, standards, etc. In 
all these areas SPRINT could speak up for SMEs when dealing with large European 
programmes and those who establish rules and procedures and to some extent it has 
already done so. 
There will be further development of this theme in part 3, paragraph C.2. For a long time 
SPRINT had no meaningful collaboration with other services, but has succeeded recently 
in establishing some significant links such as: 
- a joint programme with DG XVI on RTP. SPRINTs experience is being widely 
used by those responsible for the structural funds. This looks very promising. 
- interaction with DG XVIII and DG XXIII on the problem of venture capital; 
- making the directorate responsible for telematics aware of the links needed 
between science parks and technopoles. 
- co-operation with EUROSTAT on the Community Innovation Survey; 
- links with DG III on sectoral projects. 
This list is not exhaustive and unfortunately does not include any RTD programmes, nor 
does it include directorates in charge of intellectual properties and standards. 
26 
E. CONCLUSION 
This analysis demonstrates that the SPRINT programme is a coherent system in which the 
various lines of action of an innovation policy involve all those active in the innovation 
system. The system was built up progressively as new operators and new needs emerged, 
and has evolved more as a response to demand than as an attempt to create an "attractiveM 
programme. 
The EIMS system is used.as a filter for projects proposed. Since SPRINT is now 
recognised by innovation operators as their European focal point, more and more projects 
are being put forward. 
In saying this we do not wish to conceal the defects of the SPRINT programme, which are 
listed in Part Three of this report - particularly its inability to describe its overall working 
procedures accurately although some efforts have been made to remedy that. Each 
operator sees in SPRINT only what interests him or her, and external observers describe 
it as unstructured and diffuse (this is very often the impression given by innovation 
programmes, however). Interaction does take place between the various initiatives, but not 
always at the right level. 
These criticisms are moderated by the considerable progress made by SPRINT over the 
past three years. The general analysis provided by the EIMS programme, the contacts 
made with other directorates and the increasing implementation of measures in the 
regions following the evaluation process are all starting to provide SPRINT with the 
visibility and strategic importance it used to lack. 
27 
PART THREE 
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
A. GENERAL APPRAISAL OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM 
The segment occupied by SPRINT is both original and essential: the development of SME 
innovation policy. It has also succeeded in developing appropriate tools to tackle a 
complex problem. Finally, SPRINT is increasingly often acknowledged by field operators 
as a preferential meeting-place. 
For these three reasons, the panel considers that the overall approach and the initiatives 
implemented by the SPRINT programme should be preserved or even amplified under 
the Third Activity oftheFourth Framework Programme. 
SPRINT also has its weaknesses: the panel has identified them and has offered some 
recommendations, but it is not convinced that they would justify marginalising the 
SPRINT system within the Framework Programme. 
SPRINT is indeed a system in which each initiative makes sense only as part of a more 
general policy. It is this system which the panel has attempted to analyse and evaluate 
rather than spending too much time assessing the separate lines of action. 
Let us summarise some of the strengths of SPRINT. Its achievements have been: 
- to tackle all aspects of the problem of innovation, including finance and 
management; 
- to combine reflection and action, experimentation and evaluation; 
- to generate a number of "action models" for private and public innovation 
policy-makers, in particular at regional level; 
- to create real European communities of experts in professional circles in which 
they did not previously exist, thus fostering the cohesion of innovation practice, 
tools and skills. 
Some weaknesses which emerged during the evaluation must also be mentioned: 
- the inability to publicise its general approach, resulting in a low profile for the 
programme or even a reputation for being diffuse; 
28 
- poor dissemination of results from spex .c initiatives such as EIMS studies, thus 
reducing their impact; 
- hence an ina^T'at* catalytic effect on regional or national innovation schemes; 
- too little interaction with national governments and other Commission 
departments, even though influencing other programmes is one of the major 
objectives of a horizontal policy. 
The root of most of these weaknesses is a shortage of qualified staff, only partially offset 
by the creation of a technical assistance unit. The SPRINT programme appears to be 
suffering from implicit Commission rules according to which the number of staff 
available is proportionate to the budget allocated. Yet SPRINT is an activity programme 
whose impact derives no less from the expertise of its staff than from its budgetary funds 
granted. 
To compensate for its staff shortage, SPRINT relies on a large network of consultants. 
This is useful but not sufficient, because permanent staff are essential for accumulating 
experience and knowledge of the overall system, for disseminating results and for guiding 
and controlling consultants. 
One might ask why so many initiatives.were undertaken with so few staff: to have done 
less would have reduced or undermined the systemic nature of SPRINT, whose overall 
effect relies precisely on the diversity and complimentarity of its initiatives. 
B. PROPOSALS FOR THE COMPOSITION OF THE PROGRAMME 
The strength of SPRINT lies in the importance of the segment it fills and the general 
approach it has taken. However, it can only be effective if the diversity of its initiatives 
precisely meets the needs of innovation operators. In Part Two of this report (and in 
Annexes 1 and 2) the panel attempted to define this relationship, first by ana ,ing the 
programme in the light of the objectives of the Third Activity, and secondly in u*c light of 
what concerns the operators themselves In doing so the committee detected some 
deficiencies in the overall process and had some doubts concerning particular lines of 
action, but this is not essential The panel identifies the following three main issues: 
1. A programme such as SPRINT must be flexible and evolutionary: 
The environment changes fast New partners appear, other partners lose their importance 
or no longer need support. The demand from SMEs changes as the need for innovation 
spreads to new categories of firms 
SPRINT must be able to hand over the management of certain schemes to other operators 
(in the Commission or in a Member State >nly then will SPRINT be fully able to play 
its role of catalyst and stimulate a genuine teaming process amongst innovation policy­
makers. 
29 
It is therefore essential to have a mechanism for renewing the initiatives. 
Where exit mechanisms are concerned, it should be possible to: 
specify the date and the mechanisms for terminating each scheme: 
include within each project the time and resources for learning lessons according 
to a transparent methodology which is to be continuously improved. It is important 
that the follow-up and evaluation process should be extended to a large number of 
new projects run in certain regions or Member States, i.e. beyond those run as part 
of the third activity; 
organise a follow-up mechanism according to rules depending on the European 
dimension of the scheme; for example: 
* the scheme could be followed up at Community level, either within the third 
activity (e.g. the micro-network activity, each project of this line of action 
being limited in time, as it is now), or within other Commission departments: 
* the scheme could be continued using resources provided by its participants 
(as is true of most SPRINf-initiated macro-networks, EVCA, etc.); 
* the scheme could serve as a model for regional or national policy-makers 
using the results of SPRINT pilot projects (this should be MINT s future). -
Another important measure would be to replace one SPRINT initiative by another pilot 
action along the same lines, using the reflection-action-evaluation-dissemination approach 
of which the panel so strongly approves. For example, innovation financing is currently 
an important question of universal concern, and one in which a series of tests should be 
launched to help find answers. 
These mechanisms already exist to some extent in the SPRINT system, but what we are 
suggesting is to systematise and throw more light on an overall approach which is largely 
a mystery to outsiders. 
The entry mechanism, while remaining quite simple, should also be made more 
transparent and allow future clients to take on a broader role: 
- the three main sources of ideas should remain (a) the demand constantly expressed in 
the field (through TT Day events, the Specific Projects, etc.), (b) the EIMS initiative, 
which filters ideas and improves the targeting and definition of projects which are still 
unclear, and (c) the results of evaluations of specific projects and programmes. 
- concerning the choice of new initiatives, a committee of independent experts is one 
solution; an intra-Commission working group bringing together various Commission 
programmes which would later be likely to take over some of the advanced schemes is 
another. These proposals also apply to the choice of EIMS themes. 
30 
By stressing these entry/exit mechanisms, the aim of the panel is definitely not to reduce 
SPRINT to an experimental programme. On the contrary, the panel considers that an 
innovation policy under the third activity should combine: 
• an observation, demand assessment, identification and dissemination of best practice 
and experimentation project, as is expected by future users both in the Commission 
and in regional and national authorities; 
- long term projects. 
2. Should the programme continue to target intermediaries, or should it be 
directed at SMEs? 
SMEs are, of course, the ultimate target, and the ultimate criterion for the success of 
SPRINT is whether or not it considers the specific needs of the various SME categories. 
However, the main approach of SPRINT initiatives at present is to increase the degree of 
efficiency and europeanisation of SME partners instrumental in the innovation process. 
This produces a leverage of around 100, permitting indirect contact with some 100 000 of 
a total of 300 000 potential SME clients. 
Ideally one should go beyond this and contact SMEs directly. This could be done in a 
number of ways: 
a. Maintain SME participation in pilot schemes for testing the efficiency of various 
modes of partnership with SMEs. It is far from obvious that "intermediaries", the current 
name given to SME partners, exactly meet the demand from SMEs. SMEs are highly 
diversified and have many different needs; moreover, many intermediaries do business 
mostly with large firms and are not willing to make the effort to adapt to SME demand, 
which is often unprofitable. 
There are two positive aspects to SME participation in pilot schemes: 
- give direct help to SMEs taking part in the scheme (as with MINT, Specific Projects, 
TTDays, Investment fora, etc.) 
- check that the action taken by SME partners really meets the requirements of the 
firms. Test the quality of these partners and recommend ways of improving their 
professionalism in dealing with SMEs. A close analysis of observed interactions 
permits a better grasp of real SME demand. 
However, it is important that these SMEs are a representative sample. For example, the 
three categories described in the first part of the report ought to be represented, bearing in 
mind that the main target of innovation policy is the standard SME, i.e. firms which do 
little or no research. We recommend that a classification of SMEs, based on innovation 
demand, be compiled and kept constantly up to date. :/ 
Furthermore, it is useful to calculate (by category) the number of SMEs which are clients 
of intermediaries supported by the programme. It is then possible to avoid over-
concentration on service-type firms or institutions, which would aim only at small 
categories of SMEs with relatively low economic weight. 
31 
b. Use SPRINT as a tool for identifying SME demand and as their ambassador to 
operational programmes. 
For example, after selecting about fifteen traditional sectors (textile, footwear, furniture, 
three or four agri-foodstuffs sectors, structural steelwork etc.) or "high-tech" sectors a 
systematic investigation might be carried out, providing a more precise vision of the needs 
of SMEs in each sector which is both exploratory and practical. This investigation would 
closely involve representative SMEs and regional authorities (since traditional sectors 
have strong regional affinities). We shall come to this in the third point of this paragraph, 
concerning SPRINTs role vis-à-vis the regions. 
This type of investigation may bring to light as many "horizontal" needs (e.g. the injection 
of own resources into new technology-based firms) as "vertical" needs (e.g. future 
technologies for the footwear sector). 
SPRINT does, in fact, work in that direction with RTO mini-networks, but in a way 
which is too fragmented to be noticed by SMEs and especially for SPRINTs advice to be 
taken seriously by other programmes, European or regional. 
c. Beyond this experimental approach and "programming consultancy", the third activity 
might approach SMEs from traditional sectors directly and in large numbers, offering 
them the type of support which local authorities provide today. 
Is this type of extensive and direct approach to SMEs conceivable for standard SMEs 
(those which do Utile or no research) with schemes close to the market? This is a 
debatable point; it is certain, however, that SPRINTs already thorough knowledge of the 
SME system (through its interface networks in particular) would help the third activity to 
succeed in such an undertaking 
But the subsidiarity principle (and also the real tendency SMEs have to be suspicious of 
partners which are too distant) are opposed to this a priori. In any case, one should be 
wary of the response to subsidiarity which consists of forcing SMEs to work together in 
international consortia: this may be an interesting formula for the high-tech SME fringe, 
but it is not necessarily the key to the competitiveness of European SMEs. A more 
realistic approach would be to try to influence the use of the structural funds by regional 
authorities (or directly through DG XVI), by disseminating best practices which are 
clearly demonstrated and explained. 
Whilst recommending that intermediaries remain the main target of the SPRINT system. 
the panel wishes the impact on SMEs to be monitored and regularly reported on. e.g. 
through pilot schemes carefully devised for the purpose. 
The panel also feels that there are some opportunities for a direct approach to SMEs. 
and that these could be met without violating the subsidiarity principle. 
32 
3. A new dimension: SPRINT as the contact point for regional authorities 
Historically speaking, while aiming to cover the entire range of innovation operators, the 
various SPRINT initiatives first concentrated on consultants, then on technological 
partners, and thereafter on financial partners and proximity advisers (RTACs) But the 
increasingly important role of regional policies for supporting innovation in SMEs tends 
to create a preferential relationship between those responsible for these policier and 
SPRINT. 
This new dimension of the SPRINT system should be considered a priority' but on the 
condition that all the implications are assessed. The experience acquired by SPRINT and 
the double approach of EIMS and experimentation places the third activity in an ideal 
position for 
- helping local authorities def the content of their programmes in support of 
innovation in SMEs (What?) PRINT has been doing this for years through its 
activities in the science park coi~ ultancy scheme. 
The sectoral p'.orities described above are a special issue. SPRINT could help regions 
to define new sectoral balances and technology interaction programmes without a great 
deal of extra input. 
- advising the regions on the implementation of their programmes in support of 
innovation in SMEs and/or for technology dissemination (How?). This has already 
begun under the "strategy" beading of the RITTS and RTP schemes. The heavy 
response to the RITTS call for proposals (a quarter of all European regions) also 
shows bow much the regions seek advice on the various modes of action, the best 
intervention mt-nods, the new facets of innovation, schemes for fostering a more 
professional approach, etc. 
ng regions to evaluate their projects from the outside, and at the same time to 
iemcnt permanent self-evaluation mechanisms. This is the basis of the RTTTS and 
iv fP projects. The considerable strrngth of the SPRINT programme here is its ability 
to combine reflection, internationa comparison, control over a vast network of experts 
and its "supranational" position, which gives the evaluations it can "guarantee" a 
Dog credibility. It could even be said that SPRINT could play the same role with 
onal authorities as the OECD has with national authorities. 
The panel feels mat this support for regional innovation policies deserves encouragement 
particularly because it is perfectly in line with two principles of all Community 
programmes: subsidiarity and cohesion 
C PROPOSALS FOR SPECIFIC ACTIO*' 
The first recommendauon from the panel is tfu., ^e tools perfected by SPRINT should be 
fatly used and should form the basis for the originality and effectiveness of the third 
acnv:ty 
As is pointed out above, however, these tools incorporate some weaknesses that must be 
dealt with. Targets for improvement can be summarised in three words: transparency 
33 
(visibility), dissemination and interaction. These key words have already appeared in the 
proposals for entrance/exit mechanisms. 
1. Improve the reflection - experimentation - evaluation - dissemination cycle. 
The panel considers this global approach to be very effective, and particularly well-suited 
to the diversified and changing environment of innovation in SMEs. However, the panel 
recommends some improvements: 
(a) as already said above, improve the transparency of the choice of EIMS themes by 
associating it with other Commission services; 
(b) concerning experimentation, define the methodological objective of each pilot project 
(expected lessons) more precisely; work out what the evaluation procedure will be: 
accumulate knowledge on the evaluation methodology. 
The aim is to be able to provide a description of each experience in order to allow 
managers (from regional organisations, or RTOs, or SMEs, etc.) to reproduce it, or at 
least to be inspired by it, or on the contrary to abandon projects which might have 
appeared attractive at first. In fact, the innovation area is full of ideas which arc 
propagated without their field of application being known and which need to be validated. 
It has already been said that the evaluation of, say, specific projects, and of future third 
activity projects, should be extended to other.projects run in the European arena. 
(c) Currently, poor dissemination is probably the greatest weakness of SPRINT. This is 
connected with the previous point, since it is not possible to disseminate information 
profitably unless it can be utilised directly.which will usually require elaborate 
presentation work. There is a strong analogy here with technology dissemination: 
innovation processes are a. technology in their own right, and their dissemination follows 
the rules set out in Part Two. 
Some of the knowledge acquired through an experimental project (MINT, Specific 
Projects, etc.) is still tacit and can only be disseminated by those who took part in the 
experiment. The permanent staff of SPRINT in charge of these projects can apply to new 
projects of the 3rd activity a substantial amount of experience accumulated in earlier 
projects .This is, however,. Besides a rather special case and considering the low level of 
mtra-European mobility, does not allow for extensive dissemination. 
Hence mere is a need to present what has been learnt, so as to transform this tacit know-
how into explicit knowledge able to be widely disseminated in written form. One good 
example is the recent campaign on "Best practices in managing transnational technology-
transfer networks". 
One effective form of dissemination would be the use of the methods explained for the 
design and continuous assessment of projects financed by the Commission on the basis 
of calls for proposals. The Commission would describe the methods in its call for 
proposals - a ready-made means of dissemination (if anything, calls for proposals are 
documents properly read). Then, when the project is under way, SPRINT experts 
(permanent or external) would have a field in which to put the methodology into practice 
and improve on it. The projects in question would be not only transfer projects (SPAL), 
but also the innovation policy evaluation exercises (RITTS and RTP). 
34 
What must be disseminated are learning methods (transfer processes, teamwork projects, 
"Goal-Oriented Project Planning"- (GOPP-) groups for managing international projects, 
mini-network organisation, operation of an RTAC, etc.). These have a far greater 
multiplier effect than the "top-down" dissemination of each technology in turn. 
This dissemination should cover all the aspects of SPRINT (and in future all those of the 
third activity): 
published proceedings of the EIMS workshops; 
- publication of executive summaries of EIMS studies and easy access to the 
studies themselves; 
- dissemination of the results of specific projects in a form to be specified. 
For example: the proceedings of EIMS symposia and studies are not always published. It 
is crucial that executive summaries be published, the results of the specific projects 
should remain confidential. 
77ie panel suggests that new methods of disseminating what has been learnt by 
experimentation should be studied and applied within the SPRINT system and more 
generally within the third activity. 
2. Reinforce and systematise the interaction between the SPRINT programme and 
its potential partners 
• Interaction with other Commission departments 
This is a delicate subject However it is worth the effort, because one of the major 
objectives of an innovation policy.is to mobilise all available resources from vertical 
programmes for new initiatives which are better targeted at new categories of SME. 
The best example of cooperation between SPRINT and another DG is the joint RTP 
scheme with DG XV" (see Annex 1, Chapter 1.8). This cooperation could prove 
particularly fruitful: if the results of SPRINT are interesting and well-authenticated, they 
could be exploited by structural fund users and be of considerable influence. Furthermore, 
the panel thinks that lessons should be learnt from this successful case study and that 
general mechanisms of interaction between the third activity and other services could be 
derived nom mem. 
DG XXm pursues similar objectives to those of SPRINT, but in a larger political arena. 
Flexible and regularly-applied mechanisms should therefore be used to link up the two 
programmes (the same applies to the whole of the third activity and other horizontal 
programmes of the Commission). 
Care should be taken concerning interaction between the third activity and the rest of the 
Framework Programme. Applying the linear model could make the third activity appear to 
be a" mere device for exploiting the results of the first activity. This would be a mistake 
which the conuiùttee already pointed out in the first part of this report. 
35 
Without neglecting the services it will be required to provide, the third activity should be 
first and foremost regarded as a consultation and coordination opportunity for initiatives 
in support of innovative SMEs. It should also inspire and evaluate the various 
departments responsible for exploiting the "1%" allocated to exploitation in each specific 
programme of the first activity. The experience that SPRINT has acquired, and its ability 
to assess SME demand, should also be exploited by all those whose terms of reference 
include support for innovative SMEs. 
To summarise, the panel suggests that interaction mechanisms be negotiated between 
the third activity and each Commission programme likely to contribute to the 
development of innovation in SMEs. 
* Interaction with the local and regional authorities responsible for innovation. 
In paragraph B3 we stressed the appropriateness of such an interaction; it had a head start 
with the launch of the RITTS and RTP programmes. The panel suggests that this 
approach be first of all extensively investigated by experimentation and then implemented 
on a long-term basis, together with any other scheme able to stimulate dialogue between 
the Commission and 200-300 European partners dealing with innovation policy 
Other forms of interaction could be developed in the context of specific projects. Some of 
these could take the form of "joint ventures" between the third activity and a regional 
authority. The use of such a project as a test for a technology transfer mode or for a local 
innovation policy would enhance its credibility, and it would be far easier to duplicate if it 
proved successful. 
When the "Council of the Regions" provided for by the Maastricht treaty becomes fully 
operational, it will be important for the third activity to report to it on its activities. The 
third activity would find its natural political support there, because today it is the regions 
which press in each Member State for a redistribution of the funds earmarked for large 
projects and the far more modest sums allocated to supporting innovation in SMEs. 
Similar steps should strengthen SPRINT contacts with national policy-makers responsible 
for innovation in SMEs in the Member States. 
3. Increase human resources within the SPRINT programme: 
As already stated, SPRINT lines of action can achieve their objectives only through the 
availability of a number of highly-qualified experts. Whether the work entails reflection, 
evaluation, dissemination, running of networks or mini-communities, etc., we are faced 
with a situation in which budgets are relatively modest (except for specific projects), but 
in which the objective to be ultimately achieved requires substantial staff availabilty. 
The combined number of Commission officials plus staff in the technical assistance unit is 
less than 20. The extensive use of a network of consultants is a positive consequence of 
the shortage of permanent staff. Although we welcome this development, it must be 
recognised that consultants are no substitute for permanent staff, cannot accumulate 
36 
relevant experience and general knowledge of innovation problems, and cannot . de 
responsible for dissemination or, of course, for following up their own work. 
77ie panel therefore strongly recommends that manpower of the SPRINT jrys? - be 
increased. A way should be found to implement this recommendation in the of 
current European Commission rules with respect to manpower expenditures. Ek *nng 
experts from regional and/or national organisations is an initiative which could be 
taken systematically. 
D. MISCELLANEOUS 
During its work, the panel tackled various problems for which there was no time to go into 
details but which might be of interest to the third activity. These include: 
- the contribution of the third activity to the practice of the " 1 % rule" (see appendix 3); 
- provide innovation policy with a broader vision. Besides the main objective, i.e. 
industrial competitiveness, consideration could be given to a world dimension, 
ecological and socio-economic aims, 
- support from the third activity for innovation and technology transfer policies in 
Central and Eastern Europe. 
EL CONCLUSION: SUMMARY ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION PUT TO THE 
PANEL 
LeX us answer in order the three questions put to the Commi-ee in its terms of reference: 
1. Has SPRINT pursued the objectives laid down in the Decision of 17 August 1989? 
These objectives were couched in very ambitious terms: 1) to strengthen the innovative 
capacity of European firms, 2) to promote the innovation process and the penetration of 
new technologies and 3) to improve the efficiency and coherence of innovation and 
technology transfer policies throughout the Member States and the regions (cohesion 
objective). 
The analysis of Part Two and the conclusions of the Part Three provide a generally, 
positive answer to this question 
- SPRINTs experimental character enabled a large number of solutions to b ested 
in nearly all explorable paths of innovation support. Thanks to EIMS and th: inal-
and-cTTor method enabling the internal aspects of the various lines of action to be 
specified, the Commission now has in its possession a well-used tool for reflection, 
experimentation and decision-making 
37 
- Operators in the innovation system (including technical organisations) have found 
in SPRINT the framework for cooperation and interaction which they used to lack. 
- SPRINT only recently started to focus on the efficiency and coherence of policies 
at regional or national level. It is therefore too early to assess SPRINTs impact on 
this third objective 
One could, of course, raise multiple criticisms of a programme which has by no means 
achieved all it set out to do, and has succeeded even less in bringing all those involved in 
the innovation system to a high level of competence and efficiency. But SPRINT had very 
few resources for performing these tasks. Its cost/benefit ratio is, in fact, vers high: the 
RTO mini-network programme, for example, succeeded in changing the behaviour of 
many RTOs with very meagre funds per organisation. 
2. Are innovation and technological dissemination policies still relevant today? 
The second question can be answered simply by pointing out that, five years after 1989, 
strengthening the innovative capacity- of SMEs has become a top priority for those 
responsible for economic competitiveness Above all, the dissemination of technology to 
traditional sectors has become more important than the large-scale production of new 
technologies of sole benefit to the high-tech sector. Furthermore, in a area in which 
activities are close to the market and earned out by firms with a regional bias, the 
subsidiarity principle makes direct targeting of standard SMEs very difficult. The policy 
invented by SPRINT fits these constraints and objectives very well. 
3. How should the problems now being dealt with by SPRINT be handled as part of 
the third activity? 
Various criticisms and recommendations are put forward throughout Parts Two and 
Three and Annexes 1 and 2. There is a great deal to be done before SPRINT initiatives 
can be considered as working totally satisfactorily. 
However, the panel regards SPRINTs overall approach as a very healthy one and 
recommends that its main characteristics be retained. 
The coherence of the "SPRINT system" must above all be preserved in the new 
organisation: the main value of these initiatives lies in the position they occupy within a 
global policy. There is an obvious danger that each scheme and each type of partner might 
cut itself or himseh7herself off from the rest of the system. This can already happens 
today where each category of operator remains more or less ignorant of what the other 
categories are doing. This weakness of the programme ought to be remedied rather than 
aggravated. 
The panel deems it essential for a suigle group within the "Third Activity" should be in 
charge of promoting: 
- interaction with other Commission programmes and with Third Activity schemes 
(the horizontal dimension of an innovation policy); 
- an overall approach of reflection • evaluation • dissemination applying to the 
whole of the Third Activity (experimental dimension); 
38 
initiatives for bringing together the various SME partners (interactive dimension); 
assessment of the impact that various schemes in support of innovation policy 
may have on SMEs. - -• 
• • • • • 
.1 r 
39 
ANNH^C 1: 
ANALYSIS OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM BY TYPE OF OPERATOR 
Comments on the individual schemes 
As mentioned above, systematic action is the only way to make a real impact on an 
environment as complex and interactive as the innovation system. Is the SPRINT 
programme a system? Has it an internal logic? To assess its coherence, the panel 
chose to analyse it through two grids: the innovation operators grid, used in this annex, 
and the objectives grid, used in Annex 2. 
In the following pages the evaluations of each line of action of SPRINT are set out 
according to the following set of criteria: 
a. terms of the objectives 
b. background to the scheme and its implementation 
c. experimental aspect: dissemination effort 
d. interaction with other programmes (inside and outside SPRINT) 
e. the panel's assessment 
f. assessment of future prospects. 
The panel's comments take into account the evaluation reports carried out at the request of 
the Commission for six of the activities 
One of the main virtues of SPRINT since its beginnings has been its recognition that the 
innovation process rehes on a variety of SME partners and its consequent promotion of 
emerging innovation services. Whatever the sector of activity, SMEs cannot work 
without partners with expertise conducive to innovation and complementary to the internal 
know-how of the firm. To illustrate this diversity, the panel used the so called hexagon 
diagram (see figure 1). SMEs are in the centre, on each side of the hexagon are the six 
main types of SME partner 
- other firms (SMEs and large firms), 
• Technology Resource Centres (RTOs, or Research and Technology Organisations); 
- various types of consultancy (management, marketing, intellectual property), 
- financial institutions (banks and capital development organisations); 
and on the last two sides of the hexagon, we have generalists who stimulate the 
demand and organise the coherence of the various schemes: 
- field innovation consultants; 
- regional authorities responsible for innovation policy. 
40 
1. Schemes aiming at SME technological p vaers 
SPRINT grouped the various types of technology supplier under the heading of RTOs. A 
conference was organised by SPRINT in 1993 whieb-enabled the development of these 
important SME partners to be assessed. They include': -L 
- sectoral technical centres which mostly conduct «elective research projects on basic 
technologies in traditional sectors; 
- Technological Resource Centres (TRCs), which concentrate on one technology only 
(laser technology, materials technology etc.). Small technical teams in close contact 
v laboratories, and totally dedicated to SMEs (testing, analysis, participation in 
. ct or process-based projects etc.) developed, particularly in France: 
- CROs, which have a similar work function but are privately owned, and work with 
SMEs for only a small part of their time 
MINI RTO (OR RA) NETWORKS 
Launched in 1987, this line of action includes over 60 individual RTO networks with a total 
of about 300 members which have been or still are supported by SPRINT. An evaluation of 
this line of action was conducted by Segal Quince Wicksteed. Published in March 1994, -it is 
based on data dating back to 1991 and 1992. 
Sectoral RTOs are the main target for this action, but universities, CROs (Contract Research 
Organisations) and engineering consultancies are now also included in that target. These 
networks usually bring together five to ten RTOs, the task of the network ranging from a 
joint technology research project to a joint scheme for disseminating a proven technology or 
•prenon ve (pn>standardisation) analysis". There are technology oriented networks as 
well as *. wtoralry based networks. 
The scheme is experimental and aims to develop the European technology transfer 
infrastructure. Its overall impact is considered to be very positive. About one half of all 
European RTOs have been contacted. 80 % of the networks would not have existed without 
SPRINT support, and half of them will continue network activities after SPRINT support is 
ended at a slower pace, however. 
The most striking changes in the attitude of RTOs involve the increased number of schemes 
they can conduct and tie quality of their action; those RTOs located in the less-fâvoured 
regions had the opportunity to acquire competencies in disciplines such as consultancy, 
testing and participation ir« ^novation projects for SMEs. The impact on dissemination is 
noticeable -nr\ more diflfic a measure. The direct impact on SMEs (SPRINTs ultimate 
target, it should be rerncnu -od) can only be measured indirectly, through the increasing 
number of services offered by RTOs. 
Assessment 
This nu>. network programme demonstrates the value of trans-European collaboration and 
continues to evolve and uncover a range of SME needs which can be met by RTOs. The 
programme offers ways of tackling the crucial issue of adoption of new technologies by 
41 
SMEs, and improves the quality and relevance of RTO services in the Member States. The 
programme has by no means exhausted all possible paths of action and should be 
maintained, taking into account the changes suggested by the SQW evaluation report. 
NETWORK OF EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF CONTRACT RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS 
(EACRO) 
EACRO is an association of contract-research professional organisations (CROs) from 
Community and EFTA Member States. It was launched in 1989 with the help of SPRINT. In 
total, CROs employ some 25 000 highly qualified people in all sectors of RTD. Their 
turnover is more than ECU 1500 million. 
Contract Research Organisations are independent R&D institutions which work on a 
commercial basis by generating and transferring technologies for industrial firms according 
to the terms of a contract. 
2. Actions aiming at RTACs 
The new function of RTACs (Regional Technology Advisory Centres) developed only 
recently. It can be described as follows: to explore the SME system, to diagnose its needs, 
to offer SMEs a wide choice of technological partners, and eventually to help SMEs launch 
and pilot a project definition phase 
Depending on the country, this RTAC function may be attached to that of an RTO, or it may 
be quite separate. For those in favour of the second approach, RTO representatives tend to 
suggest their own technologies rather than the best solution. 
Most often, these centres (sometimes consisting of no more than two or three people) are 
grouped in regional networks (in France, RDTs or Réseau de Diffusion de la Technologie) 
whose function is to bring some order to a profession which is still ill-defined. 
RTAC NETWORKS 
This network is an association of some 150 regional centres for technology consultancy all 
over Europe. It aims to disseminate information amongst all its members for the benefit of 
its clients, particularly SMEs. 
Annual conferences are organised and sub-groups meet up in order to solve common 
problems on a European basis. The network has published a Who's Who guide along with a 
guide to innovation support instruments in the various Member States. The network is also 
currently working on topics such as classification of client firms and on measurements and 
methods of "internal benchmarking" with the aim of improving the working efficiency of 
RTACs. Since RTACs actively work with SMEs in their own regions, the impact on SMEs 
of experience shared between RTACs is widespread. 
42 
By allowing RTAC representatives to meet up, by contributing to travel expenses and 
providing adniinistratfve backup, SPRINT triggers a europeanisation effect on RTACs. The 
panel considers that this action is appropriately managed, that it provides good added value 
and that it should be actively pursued. 
3. Schemes aiming at science parks 
An innovation policy must promote interaction between its operators. One of the preferred 
tools of policy-makers is the creation of interaction "platforms" or science parks, of which 
there are currently twotypes: 
- traditional science parks (British or US-type) which are usually close to the grounds of a 
university, and where "high-tech" firms decide to take root (sometimes they are generated 
through an "incubator" within the park); 
- technopoles, particularly in France, which aim to stimulate and structure local industry, 
whatever the sector and the location of the firms. Their concentration on service 
allowances, telematics etc. makes them similar to the RTACs described above; 
- in both cases, the "incubator" function has developed extensively in order to help start up 
new technology firms. 
In practice, policy-makers tend to combine the two functions, particularly since the defects of 
the linear model have been shown up. 
SCIENCE PARK CONSULTANCY SCHEME (SPCS) - STRAND: FEASIBILITY STUDIES 
Objectives and background 
For the regions, science parks and similar structures (technopoles etc.) are an important tool 
for promoting innovation and technology transfer. The Science Parte Consultancy Scheme 
had been launched in 1990 as a SPRINT line of action to help promoters improve the design 
and planning of their initiatives. 
By sunt- sing the cost of a panel of foreign expert consultants, the Scheme supports 
promoter - particularly those in less-developed areas or in regions where there is little 
history of science paries - to access previous European experience through established 
independent experts. In most cases, the study comes at the definition phase and provides the 
boost essential at local level. 
So far there have been four calls for proposals under the scheme, in 1990, 1991, 1992 and 
1993. As a result of the calls about 450 applications were received and more ihan 100 
contracts were signed 
Together with the first call for proposals was a call for experts with special knowledge and 
professional experience related to Science Parks. Around 100 were selected, and the list of 
experts was updated and expanded in June 1993. 
43 
Assessment 
The Science Park Consultancy Scheme has helped consolidate and enlarge the Science Park 
movement in Europe, though it has to be said that improving the quality rather than the 
quantity of science parks is the objective. 
Feasibility studies have also helped create a community of experts on science parks, thus 
permitting the exchange of best practice. 
In most cases, the SPCS has provided help with the definition of projects and accelerated 
some of them. In some cases, the conclusions of the experts have generated a redefinition of 
the objectives and structure of the science park. 
Furthermore, the SPRINT "label", i.e. the acknowledgement of the quality of the programme 
and its European dimension, has attracted to the park firms with an international standing 
and increased the interest of external economic operators in the park. 
Recommendations 
The panel considers the feasibility study strand of the SPCS programme to be well-targeted 
and feels that it meets an increasing demand. 
It suggests, however, that the prospects of synergy with DG I (external relations) and with 
the PHARE programme be investigated in order to allow experts used in the SPCS 
programme to work in Central Europe as well. 
In general, SPRINT has become a benchmark of consultancy support for science park 
promoters. This strength must be exploited and be enabled to contribute to the development 
of parks in all EFTA and Central Europe countries. The aim is to be in a position to validate 
a proposal and give promoters and managers access to the SPRINT list of registered experts. 
The prestige of the SPRINT label will certainly help promoters to get the necessary funds for 
the study from regional 
authorities, for example. 
Lastly, the panel recommends that a quality-control system be built into the initiative in order 
to update knowledge of the expertise of a consultant. 
SCIENCE PARK CONSULTANCY SCHEME • STRAND: SUPPORT FOR EVALUATION OF 
EXISTING SCIENCE PARKS 
Objectives 
The objectives of this strand are to help science park promoters and directors to assess the 
impact of the schemes they implement and to understand better how their initiative fulfils the 
objectives mat were initially set for the park. The scheme also aims to define or redefine 
these objectives, formulating a strategy compatible with the economic and technological 
environment, and providing these parks with a number of tools for monitoring their 
performance in the future. The scheme is mainly for parks which are at least three years old. 
44 
Implementation 
The evaluation strand of the SPCS is a cjomplernentary activity to the one described above 
(feasibility studies). It provides financial support covering the costs of employing a team of 
two consultants to carry out the evaluation exercise. The Commission provides • • of 
consultants, but the promoters are fuDy responsible for selecting consultancies ami . rts 
from these lists. 
The work itself is in two stages. The first stage is aimed Bt defining the objectives of the 
science park and the relevant evaluation themes. The second stage is concerned with the 
actual field work needed to collect the required data and to define a new strategy for the park 
and/or organisational changes. 
SPRINT has issued a list of themes for the evaluation. SPRINT is also planning to appoint a 
monitoring committee to monitor the progress of the evaluations and the performance of the 
consultants. 
The scheme , new experimental activity. Six proposals have been approved. The first 
evaluations wiii oe initiated by the end of 1994. 
Assessment 
Science park« have become an important part of regional innovation support infrastructures. 
There are more than 250 science park projects and similar developments in the Comrr. unity 
and many new ones are being planned. On the basis of this extensive stock of experience, 
valuable lessons could be collected through evaluation, to the benefit of both individual parks 
and the concept as a whole. It is hoped that collaboration between the parks, still relatively 
undeveloped, will grow. The rationale of the science park evaluation scheme within the 
SPRINT programme is thererfore sound. On the other hand, it is too early to assess to what 
extent the scheme will be able to meet these needs. 
The current approach to evaluation could be : lightly modified. In particular, the 
spe ilions of the consultancy work pay too little attention to assessing the impact of the 
pa, . JO mdustrial development in the region. This impact ultimately justifies the existence of 
the park. 
The establishment of the rrtonitoring committee for the evaluation may provide an adequate 
mechanism for controlling the quality of the consultancy work, but will this be sufficient to 
learn tix: general lessons from the evaluations and to disseminate this both to future 
consultancy work and to other parts of the Commission and to regional administrations? 
Here again, dissemination of the lessons learned is not properly tackled 
In the long term, better collaboration between science parks may provide opportunities for 
the launch of associations to which the management of these e valuations could be 
transferred. The development of such network of science parks couid be supported by 
SPRINT. 
45 
4. Actions aiming at consultants in general 
One of the acheivements of SPRINT is to have emphasised the role played by consultants 
in the innovation process. Have the various categories of consultants also been inflenced? 
Did the programme have an impact on their overall quality, and on their European 
dimension9 
MANAGING THE INTEGRATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY (MINT) 
HISTORY AND OBJECTIVES 
MINT aims to promote the absorption capacity of SMEs through the use of experienced 
consultants in innovation management. It is a co-ordinated attempt by the Member States 
and the Community, through a decentralised and experimental scheme, to exchange good 
practice and share the results! of a common approach to create awareness and stimulate use 
of innovation and technology management techniques in SMEs. 
MINT was implemented in 1993 in the twelve Member States through the appointment of 
National Contractors suggested by Member State representatives. The National Contractors 
then selected teams of consultants. In 1994 MINT was further implemented in five EFTA 
countries. 
ASSESSMENT 
The consultants often specialise in a particular area of innovation management, for example. 
It must be emphasised that MINT has been managed differently in the various Member 
States according to national and/or regional tendencies, strengths and requirements. In that 
respect MINT is a good example of the subsidiarity principle at work. 
The transnational dimension of the programme is however guaranteed through a number of 
initiatives: common overall guidelines; common workshops for general policy-making, 
transnational evaluation, etc. The MINT Guidebook for Business and Technology 
Diagnostic Tools & Methodologies is a successful publication for the dissemination of tools 
and techniques for technological consultancy throughout the Member States in particular. It 
should, of course, be constantly updated with materia] gained from the programme itself, as 
an example of the dissemination policy described in Part Three of this report. 
Dernonstrating thus the différences from one country to another, in this area, MINT has met 
with difficulties in hs implementation in some Member States, while in others all the 
assignments were completed very rapidly. 
MINT appears to be a typical example of the experimentation process of SPRINT and a 
worthwhile experience, particularly as it makes up one of SPRINTs rare direct SME gauge. 
At present, no in-depth evaluation provides the first conclusions for further assertions. The 
fact that the programme is running roughly 6 months behind schedule (to date about half of 
the total number of assignments (1200) are under way or have been completed) is 
instrumental in explaining this. 
46 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
The panel regards the MINT initiative as an important exercise and a key experiment in 
innovation oonsuhancy; it fits well into the broader context of a global innovation policy. It 
should therefore be continued in order to demonstrate fully the usefulness of such schemes in 
regions or countries in which technological consultancy needs are urgent and not properly 
tackled 
A careful assessment of MINT should provide comparisons between the different methods of 
consulta/ 'specially in the definition phase of the innovation process. 
The : «a! dimension must be reinforced through initiatives such as the regular 
orgs sf contractor workshops, transnational participation in SME workshops and 
tram: consultancy work. This last aspect is fundamental to the creation of a more 
home .* European innovation management market. 
Although a register of tools and methodologies helps to defl andards, attention should be 
given to the criteria for selecting and appointing MINT u militants, so as to guarantee 
minimum quality standards. 
VALUE ANALYSIS, DESIGN, QUALITY 
These three innovation management techniques cor: :mtc to the adoption, incorporation and 
production of innovative vchnologies or services Proper application of such management 
techniques facilitates the sion of companies' organisational structures and strategies often 
necessitated by the introduaion of new technologies. 
SPRINT has promoted the use of these tools by SMEs and for improving the quality of the 
services o^-red by intermediaries and consultants. The degree of exploitation of such 
technique oighry variable across Member Stales and regions. These discrepancies hinder 
the process at technological intégration in the European Union. One of the main objectives of 
SPRINT is to improve knowledge of the vaiue of tnese methods in innovation management 
and most particularly in less-favoured regions. 
The panel feels that the promotion of value analysis, Jity and design is relevant to 
innovation policy. It enhances modern management skills *r,d contributes very effectively to 
the training of consultants and unproving the quality of their services, particularly in LFRs. 
The working groups should be maintained A change in their terms of reference might help 
to achieve the objectives of the promotion programmes, however, the aim is not to select a 
small number of privileged national organisations solely to promote innovation management 
techniques, but rather to maximise the dissemination of ideas emanating from a think tank 
group. 
1. Value analysis 
The promotion of value analysis by SPRINT includes the following activities: 
- Community reports/surveys and brochures (five have been published in total); 
- support for European conferences on value analysis and, where appropriate, for national 
events in less-favoured regions; 
47 
- hamionisation of Community standards of value analysis; 
- one RTO network is dedicated to the development of complementary elements of value 
analysis methodology. 
The panel feels that more effort should be made to promote value analysis through more 
systematic awareness campaigns. 
2. Quality 
SPRINTs activities concerning quality are as follows: 
- a number of RTO networks specialise in developing quality in firms and in quality-related 
schemes for SMEs; 
. a hardback book (1994) reviewing quality measures and initiatives taken by Member 
States of the European Union; 
• a study of how Contract Research Organisations comply with customers' quality 
requirements; 
- lastly, SPRINT supports conferences on the dissemination of quality to firms, 
particularly SMEs. 
Again, the emphasis should be on dissemination of work done. In general, communication of 
activities in terms of value analysis and quality appears to be good, but this best practice 
lead needs to be preserved though new brochures aimed at the general public and the most 
comme« target of SPRINT: the standard SME. 
3. Design 
The European Community Design Prize (ECDP) is a SPRINT initiative that deals directly 
with SMEs, and as such must be maintained and reinforced. The panel welcomes the 
redefinition of the scheme in order to reach those SMEs that are not already using design as a 
technique for improving the quality of their product or services. 
The European Design Guide is an interesting publication. It should be disseminated properly 
through appropriate media. 
5. Schemes aiming at consultants specialising in licensing 
The purchase and sale of licences is an iniportant technology dissemination tool. Such 
transfers are facilitated by specialist consultants, whose activity used to concentrate mainly 
on large firms. But these can now form independent partnerships, and SMEs have therefore 
become the main targets for the consultants. They are a more difficult cUentele to tackle and 
there is a still greater need to support the consultant's work by various means. 
48 
INTER-FIRM MINI NETWORKS (C NETWORKS) 
This was one of the earliest Unes of action of the SPRINT programme. Launched in 19S6, it 
has involved more than 350 organisations such as Technology Licence Brokers, Chambers of 
Commerce, Regional Development Authorities, etc. The aim is to encourage the growth of 
transnational technology transfer networks to assist SMEs in accessing technology 
appropriate to their business sector and to raise awareness of the impact of technology on 
competitiveness. An assessment of this line of action, based on February 1992 data, was 
published in September 1993 (SQW). 
The programme has helped to improve the expertise of intermediaries and to give them an 
international outlook. The best results were obtained in the less-favoured regions. C networks 
demonstrate how SMEs can benefit from transnational collaboration. 
Assessment 
The strength of these networks is that they help create a European reflex in those who 
innovate in the field. The SQW evaluation report has, however, pointed out the need to 
redesign the scheme in the light of experience and has suggested alternative ways of doing 
this. 
A greater concentration on quality, some rethinking of evaluation measures and the 
delegation of greater responsibility to lead partners in network management are some of the 
suggestions made to the panel by participants. The considerable time and effort needed to 
establish networks of this type have created a substantial asset which the panel is convinced 
should be more widely used for disseminating best practice and assisting in the transfer and 
dissemination of technology to SMEs. 
The very recent publication of a best practice guide for managing transnational technology 
transfer networks at European scale is a valuable resource for similar programs. 
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER DAYS (TTDAYS) 
Objectives 
TTDays are one- or two-day events aiming at promoting transnational technology transfer 
between selected firms, by presenting firms in a Member State or a region to the technology 
brokerage cornmuniry in another region or Member State. The accent is on selection and 
information to the brokers about the needs and resources of the various firms taking part, 
well before the actual meeting. About 50 TTDays have been organised in Europe with the 
support of SPRINT, and some 1000 firms have participated indirectly. Originally, TTDays 
were a support measure for inter-firm technology transfer networks. They progressively 
became an efficient tool for transnational technology transfer. It has been dernonstrated that, 
with equal outlay, TTDays generated three times more inter-firm contacts or transfer 
contracts than networks. 
Assessment 
TTDays bave demonstrated their usefulness and match a clearly identified market direct 
linking of SME supply and demand in a number of technological sectors. Numerous 
49 
technology-oriented SMEs have moved closer to European partners and others have either 
sold or bought technology or know-how through transfer contracts (in whatever legal form). 
The second achievement of TTDays is to have enhanced the European dimension of the 
technology broker. Consequently, their ability to tackle business at Member State level and 
not only at national level has grown. This is precisely in line with the general approach of 
SPRINT, which aims, amongst other things, to improve the quality of intermediaries and 
SMEs' regional contacts. 
The panel regards TTDays as an important and necessary tool of the technology transfer 
process. The meetings lead to a large number of exchanges. Their open nature sets them 
apart from networks which often are closed entities for network members only. 
Recommendations 
The panel recommends that TTDays are preserved, even multiplied, while stressing the 
difficulty of selecting the right TTDay organisers. First, these must show that they have a 
large client base. It will therefore always be necessary for the Commission to select the 
organisations to take responsibility for organising a TTDay. 
The panel also considers the inter-sectoral dimension of TTDays to be fundamental. 
Reducing them to events specialising in one technological sector only would be a mistake: the 
inter-sectoral technology dissemination aspect would disappear, and TTDays would then lose 
part of their rationale. Only a few sectors producing a large number of generic technologies 
(such as the electronics and computer science sector or the space sector) could be the subject 
of "specialist'' TTDays, provided that the inter-sectoral nature is preserved as far as demand 
is concerned. 
There are some on-going thoughts on financial procedures suited to licensing transactions 
(fairly similar to TPF). 
6. Schemes aiming at the financial system 
Innovation is an industrial operation which requires not only self-financing and public 
support, but also substantial funding from the financial sector. Hence the importance of 
banks and venture capitalists as partners to the SME. To make banks aware of the specific 
problems of SMEs, to help venture capitalists to set up throughout Europe and to have 
access to the same tools as their Amencan colleagues should have been one of the main 
priorities for a programme such as SPRINT 
TPF (TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE FINANCING) 
Objectives 
The Technology Performance Financing Scheme was launched in 1991 with three objectives: 
1. to facilitate the acquisition of new technology (e.g. hardware, software and ayMyiatH 
services) by firms by making the payment directly dependent on the performance of the 
technology, therefore reducing the financial risk borne by the buyer; 
50 
2. to strengthen the competitive position of European suppliers of innovative technology', 
many of which are New Technology Based Firms (NTBFs), by providing them with a 
powerful marketing tool; 
3. to provide financial mstrtutions with an instrument for project-based financing of 
innovation as well as an opportunity to improve their ability to deal with such projects. 
In practical terms Technology Performance Financing is a financing tool by which a 
financial institution provides funds for the acqusrtion of new technologies or services. The 
financial institution will then receive payments from the acquirer, over a two- to three-year 
period, according to how the tedmology has performed agairist pre<kfined targ 
The Commis: provides financial and technical support for participating financial 
institutions. T mandai support consists partly of subsidies to cover part of the costs of 
the technical appraisal of projects and the administration of the scheme and partly of a 
"safety net" which guarantees, under certain conditions, part of the losses to the financial 
institution resulting from under-performance of the new technology. In other words, if the 
technology performs well, the supplier and the bank will share a premium over the list price; 
if it under-performs, part of the risk will be covered by the Commission's guarantee. 
Operation of the scheme 
Following a call for proposals, ten European commercial banks were selected at the end of 
1991 to take part m the core group of the scheme. 
Concluding a contract with these banks took a long time (in some cases up to two years), 
since TPF was perceived as a very novel product which, in certain countries, required an 
adaptation of banking regulations The actual marketing of the scheme began in 1993 and 
the first three innovation projects to be subsidised by the scheme were decided on in mid-
1994. 
At the end of 1993, in view of the slow uptake of the instrument, SPRINT commissioned an 
interim review of the scheme, carried out by IMO(B), which came to the following 
conclusions: 
lyrhere is a clearly identifiable market need for a scheme such as TPF. Suppliers 
and users of innovative technologie welcome it. Banks fiixi the idea attractive 
2)in spite of the above, the uptake of the scheme was limited for a number of 
- long contract negotiations between the banks and the Commission; 
• insufficient promotion of the sceme; 
•TKI: 
- the purpose of the scheme as currently designed is not clear (i.e. the pursr of 
three objectives at the same time) and it is perceived as being too risky and amplex 
for ordinary commercial banks - even large ones; 
-the project guarantee of75.000 ECU is considered too low for a bank to commit 
resources to it 
51 
Following this assessment, the Commission modified the scheme to make it simpler (bilateral 
instead of triangular relations), more attractive and more flexible, for instance by increasing 
the guarantee available and opening it up to banks outside the core group. Since then three 
banks (Bank of Picardie (F), ING Bank (NL) and Europa Bank (L) have submitted projects 
to the scheme. 
Assessment 
The panel was divided. Some think that the slow start of the programme demonstrates how 
inappropriate it is. Following the panel's recommendations on exit mechanisms, this scheme 
should be abandoned and replaced by another on a different basis altogether but pursuing the 
same overall objective. 
Other members of the panel think the project should be maintained for a further two years 
(taking into account lessons learned during the first phase and applying the modifications 
suggested by the evaluator); the slow start of the programme could be explained as much by 
the lack of enthusiasm of banks for innovation as by the weaknesses of the project, which 
means long starting periods whatever the type of prop 
INVESTMENT FORA 
Objectives 
Investment fora are a type of mini-market bringing together entrepreneurs and European 
investors for a period of one or two days. A large number of financing operations, often for 
recently-established firms, has emerged from these fora. The set of investment fora is 
organised with the help of the European Venture Capital Association (EVCA) together with 
national innovation organisations such as ANVAR, CDTI and ENEA. 
The programme of fora was launched in 1989, and since then, twelve investment fbra have 
been organised, bringing together over 300 firms or entrepreneurs. 
Assessment 
The mid-term evaluation does not provide as much information as was hoped for. It does not 
explain why this line of action was chosen in preference to any other in the context of the 
promotion of transnational investments in potentially high-growth enterprises. The actual 
concept of the fbra is not analysed. Is it really tailored to the market, and what is the size of 
the market? What are the possible alternatives? Why is their success uneven? 
The panel considers that there is a real market for external investment in new firms, but that 
forums appear to be a somewhat isolated scheme. There should be some initiatives upstream 
and downstream of this type of activity which would increase the value of the fora and 
ensure more participants and greater quality'. 
Complementary schemes upstream might include regional fbra and local activities for 
heightening public awareness of innovation financing (though the SPRINT award scheme 
goes in that direction); downstream there could be a NASDAQ type of market which would 
allow investors to withdraw - an exit mechanism - and possibly re-invest in other firms. 
52 
Recommendations 
The panel reccramends an in-depth evaluation of the mvestrnent fbra line of action, to enable 
the relevance of investment fora to venture capital investors to be improved or to ascertain 
the need for a completely new type of action. 
Also, it may sometimes be more advantageous to organise specialised fora in one 
technological sector only, because the objective of these fora is to finance a firm and not to 
support inter-sectoral technology transfer. 
The panel considers that relations between national or regional institutions for the promotion 
of innovation and the EVCA association should be encouraged and reinforced. The ultimate 
objective is to make venture capitalism more aware of technological investment and the 
opportunities which SMEs offer. 
SPRINT initiatives for yjoducing a market of the NASDAQ type into Europe and 
developing securitisation icchniques should be mentioned, even though it is too early to 
assess its impact. 
7. Schemes aiming at the interaction of SMEs with other SMEs (networks) and/or 
large firms 
Experience has shown that other firms have become a major partner for SMEs. For 
example, high-technology firms are the mam technology suppliers for SMEs through 
hardware, software and materials technologies which are manufactured on demand. More 
generally the newly-organised industrial partem multiplies day-to-day' interactions 
between firms *,T? makes them highly inter-dependent This is particularly true of the 
innovation pru 'here experience shows that SMEs integrated into a network succeed 
better and more quickly than those which are not integrated. 
: SPRINT programme has so far neglected this aspect of the problem. Even though 
the TT Days and some EIMS schemes work in that direction, their impact is far from 
adequate, and there are no real SME/large firm networks. 
8. Schemes aimed at regional policies 
Regional authorities and national governments now play a major role in creating an 
infrastructure for supporting innovation in SMEs, particularly by: 
• mjecting financial resources into those SMEs and into public or private innovation 
serviceorganisations, 
- by organising the interactions between these innovation operators; 
• by coordinating the action taken by the various authorities concerned. 
The regions have therefore become major partners for SMEs. Has SPRINT taken this 
into account? 
53 
THE RITTS INmATIVE (Regional Innovation and Technology Transfer Strategies and 
Infrastructures) and REGIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLANS (RTPs). 
Objectives: 
The aim of the RITTS initiative, launched in 1994, is to help regional policy-makers (and/or 
regional development organisations) who wish to have an assessment of their innovation 
policy. The aim is to examine the regional innovation and technology transfer support 
infrastructure, to assess its structure, the relevance and the efficiency of organisations and 
the various public services which build up this infrastructure, and finally to analyse the 
nature and density of these interactions. The aim is also to elaborate strategies in order to 
improve this infrastructure, to reinforce its coherence and its relevance to SME needs. 
Finally, the RITTS exercise should allow experience acquired though the application of such 
policies to be shared. The objectives are far more than study alone and the aim is to develop 
as many links as possible between all the various regional actors. 
The RITTS programme is close to the RTP programme, which aims to draw up regional 
technological plans within the framework of the structural funds. RTPs cover all regional 
RTD resources. The action was launched by DG XVI with SPRINT technical support and 
deals with objective 1 and 2 regions. Methodologies used in the RITTS and RTP initiatives 
are similar because they are based on an analysis of technological demand. However, RTPs 
have a broader scope than RJTTS, and are intended for regions eligible for structural funds 
and to encourage regional SMEs to participate in European research programmes financed 
by the Commission. Furthermore, consultants involved in an RTP exercise may come from 
the same country, whereas in a RJTTS exercise, there is always an international dimension in 
the teams involved, which consist of qualified professionals. 
Implementation 
RTTTS subsidises the costs of employing a consortium of two firms or individual consultants 
chosen from the list of firms of registered experts. Substantial preparatory work is required 
to ensure that the initiative can be implemented successfully. 
The work itself is divided into three stages: the first seeks to define the current state of the 
infrastructure and its relevance to SME demand. The purpose of the second stage is reach a 
consensus on the priorities and measures required to make the infrastructures more 
responsive to the needs of firms. Finally, the third stage is concerned with establishing 
follow-up and evaluation mechanisms and implementing the priority schemes. 
RTTTS is a new scheme launched in 1994 The first 9 studies will be launched in December 
1994. The regions differ in terms of both development and industrial structure. 
Assessment; 
RTTTS has created links with the RTP initiative within the framework of the structural 
funds. This linkage is an important example of the horizontal dimension of the SPRINT 
programme. Interaction with structural funds at both Community and regional level might in 
theory provide a mechanism for influencing the allocation of structural funds to industrial 
development and SMEs where needed, and through this process to improve the effectiveness 
of Community cohesion policy. In these respects the RTTTS is a strategic initiative. 
54 
RTTTS is a new, experimental activity. In order to exploit its potential fully it is important to 
organise the studies in such a way that experience and knowledge are accumulated. The 
accumulation process is also a prerequisite for making RTTTS into a tool for the large-scale 
dissernination of best practice to pohcy-rnakcrs and other regional actors. The other 
prerequisite is an excellent quality of consultancy work. Continuous follow-up and 
evaluation of the studies are therefore desirable: a cornmittee similar to that described in the 
Science Parks assessment could be set up. 
RTTTS itself deserves to be further developed. Sufficient procedural flexibility would help to 
meet the very diverse requirements and conditions of different regions. In the course of time 
RTTTS may change from one type of scheme into a set of alternative approaches and 
procedures. Finally, the interlinkage betweo: RTTTS and the other action lines should be 
developed to make the initiative an efficient dissernination tool for all the knowledge 
developed by SPRINT. 
Schemes aiming at the absorptive capacity of SMEs and their interactions with 
their partners 
SPECIFIC PROJECT ACTION LINE 
Objective : 
Specific Projects, launched in 1989, are large-scale experimental intra-Communrty 
innovation transfer projects whose aim is to adapt and transfer proven technologies from one 
region or sector to another. By implementing industrially-relevant projects, the projects aim 
to demonstrate the whole process of technology transfer and adoption, and achieve active and 
widespread dissemination to other end users. Although the SPAL projects may involve many 
different industrial sectors and technologies, the emphasis is on supporting the modernisation 
of SN -s and traditional industries through projects with an environmental dimension and 
projects with strong social benefits. 
SPAL is an experimental activity whose aim is to improve our understanding of technology 
transfer and adoption processes and their management and to disseminate this knowledge. At 
the same time the specific project are an efficient technology transfer tool in itself. 
Implementation : 
Over 40 technology transfer projects were funded during the definition phase for producing 
project plans for a subsequent implementation phase. 21 projects have gone through to 
inmlementation. More than two hundred partners have been involved. Altogether ECU 27.4 
million were spent in 1987-1994. 
SPAL is dominated by catalytic projects with a strong technology push element and active 
involvement of technology suppliers. User-driven critical demand projects aim to provide 
appropriate solutions to recognised user needs. 
A coniprehensive evaluation of the Action Line was completed in spring 1994 (Technopolis 
group). This evaluation provided a sound basis for the assessment by the panel. 
55 
Assessment 
SPAL fills a large gap at European and national policy levels. In some countries it 
complements the national dissemination activities by introducing a European dement, and in 
others it provides a completely new type of initiative. In a Community context, it has 
extended the focus from R&D to dissemination. 
As an exploratory scheme, SPAL has been a success. It has provided important lessons for 
future dissemination schemes. (These are discussed in detail in the evaluation report) It has 
shown that technology dissemination schemes are both feasible and desirable. On the other 
hand, it has shown that there is no one right model for a dissemination scheme: each project 
needs to be tailored to the specific requirements of the partners and the context. The 
experiences achieved have not been sufficiently exploited by the Commission or the national 
authorities. 
As an effective technology transfer tool, SPAL's success has been more limited. There is 
little doubt that participants have benefited from taking part in the SPAL projects. 
Technology was transferred between them. On the other hand, dissemination of the 
transferred technology to other companies or research organisations was less impressive than 
expected. Wider dissemination to industry seems to require additional measures. Transfer 
between participants is not enough. There seems to be a clear need to tackle the 
dissemination problems with separate arrangements based on a strategy. 
Future action 
It is dear that SPAL should be continued and expanded in the future. The rationale of 
specific technology transfer projects is wdl in line with Community policies. SPAL-type 
schemes focus attention on the utilisation of Community R&D and assists other Community 
objectives, especially cohesion. It provides a transnational dimension for national transfer 
schemes. 
There is, however, room for improvement. Many useful suggestions have been made in the 
SPAL evaluation report In this context we would just like to make a few remarks : 
• A major effort is required to improve the exploitation of good practice at both 
Cornmunity and national level. 
• Both catalytic and critical demand projects should remain key components of SPAL 
• Heavy financial and intellectual involvement of at least some of the partners should be 
an essential element in the SPAL projects. 
• Clustering projects could improve the impact and visibility of SPAL and could also 
help to disseminate what has been learnt. 
• Applying new technology usually requires some R&D. SPAL projects should 
soroetimes allow R&D. 
• The arrangements for disseminating the technology transferred need further 
development 
56 
10. Evaluation of the action taken under SPRINT (see description in part. II,A) 
NETWORKS 
The creation of trans-European networks for innovation and technology transfer has been a 
fundamental tool and a core activity of SPRINT aimed at all three of the programme's 
objectives: 
1. strengthening European innovation capacity 
2. promoting technology dissemination 
3. enhancing cohesion in Europe. 
In the course of the programme, two broad categories of networks have been promoted and 
developed: mini- and macro-networks. The macro-networks are gatherings of representatives 
of national organisations which work on various aspects of innovation and technology 
transfer. The mini-networks bring small groups of companies and organisations together to 
tackle jointly specific problems of particular interest to that group. 
The rationale for creating these networks is the understanding that human contact is the most 
effective and efficient way of promoting innovation by the SMEs which are the ultimate 
targets of SPRINT initiatives. It is also expected that these shared activities will promote 
learning, sharing of experience and development and improvement of the quality of service 
provided by the /participants. 
Macro-networks: implementation and evaluation 
RTAC, EACRO, EVCA, EUROTECH and Til are some of the macro-networks for which 
SPRINT was a catalyst. They create links between representatives of organisations and 
networks that offer support at national level in technology and shared development 
programmes, finance and investment, intellectual property and technology transfer etc. They 
generally aim to share information, set standards, produce directories and guides, organise 
conferences and identify and tackle shared problems with a European perspective. 
Assessment 
By creating an opportunity for representatives to meet, assisting with travel costs and 
providing some logistical support, SPRINT TRIGGERS A Europeanisation effect at the 
level of these organisations. Support for macro-networks of this type is only required in the 
early stages of activity; the networks build up membership, provide membership services and 
become self-supporting. Their relationship with SPRINT then evolves into partnership, this 
allows the programme to keep up close contacts with all actors in the innovation system, to 
gain a detailed knowledge of them, and to consult them. This would also be very valuable for 
the third Activity and could be exploited by all Commission services which deal v.:;: SMEs. 
The panel regards this actions as well-directed and of yood value and recti s that 
niacro-networks should continue to be promoted. As eac twork is represent: of one 
specific feature of innovation, there is a case to be made for uie introduction of a "network of 
networks" share the combined facets of innovation policy can be considered in total. 
The panel also recommends that greater use be made of such networks by other programmes 
aiming to reach through to SMEs. this requires SPRINT to devote some resources to selling 
its networking achievements to other potential users. 
57 
THE EUROPEAN INNOVATION MONITORING SYSTEM (EIMS) 
Objectives 
The general aims of the EIMS are to collect and disseminate information on innovation and 
technology transfer and to organise a permanent and interactive system for producing and 
using this knowledge. 
More precisely, EIMS aims to: 
* Monitor innovation in Europe and evaluate support measures 
* Strengthen the exchange of experience between the Member States and the Commission 
in the field of innovation policy and technology transfer 
* Provide all interested parties with information, analysis and research on the factors 
shaping, promoting and inhibiting innovation at the company level across Europe 
* Reflect the increasing need for reliable information as a foundation for formulating 
innovation policy in the light of the major changes in the innovation environment and 
especially the characteristics and different types of innovation within SMEs. 
Implementation 
EIMS activities are organised in six main areas: 
1. Evaluation 
2. Innovation in firms 
3. Innovation and technology transfer support infrastructures 
4. Regional aspects of innovation (capabilities, infrastructures and strategies) 
5. Innovation financing 
6. Innovation policy. 
After a preliminary phase devoted to the establishment of the network and the work 
procedures, EIMS has been fully operational since 1993. 
Interfaces 
EIMS has the capacity for developing its role as a focal point of best practice in innovation 
and technology transfer within the Community. Basically, the knowledge produced by EIMS 
could be used especially by the Commission departments responsible for regional policy, 
industrial policy and SME policy, and also by the Member States. 
Up to now it seems that specialised EIMS knowledge is not used sufficiently. As well as 
facilitating the evolution of a more effective SPRINT Programme (and of the future Third 
Activity) and to identify new tasks, EIMS also offers the prospect of assisting other 
programmes at Community level, at Member State and regional level, and in other areas, for 
example those covered by PHARE and the EFTA countries. 
PB 
Assessment 
The panel considered that EIMS is very important to the SPRINT Programme. It provides a 
basis for the devdopment of knowledge of both the innovation process in SMEs and of 
policy measures for fostering innovation, h provides mechanisms for disseminating this 
knowledge and adopting best practices. 
Neverthdess, the interraces and the use made of the knowledge by other DGs and Member 
States are so far inadequate. The pand would have appreciated more work on the ultimate 
SPRINT clientele -SMEs-, on the various prerequisites for innovation and on the different 
types of duster etc. 
Because of the experimental, catalytic and mura-disciplinary (technology, management 
financing) character of SPRINT, the panel considered EIMS a very important elemem of 
self-reflection, critical reviews of existing programmes and a basis for developing new 
concepts c ^novation policy. Internal self-analysis of an innovation-promoting programme 
is perceive - as a unique characteristic of SPRINT which should be used within other 
Commission R&D programmes as well. 
59 
ANNEX 2: 
ANALYSIS OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM BY OBJECTIVE 
As mentioned above, systematic action is the only way to make a real impact on an 
environment as complex and interactive as the innovation system. Is the SPRINT programme 
a system, which means does it have an internal logic? To assess its coherence, the panel 
chose to analyse it through two grids: the innovation actors grid (see Annex 1) and the 
objectives grid, used in this annex. 
For the panel, the best grid of objectives is the one defined recently by the work programme 
of the third activity, into which SPRINT will be incorporated. The three objectives of this 
work programme are as follows: 
J. An environment beneficial to innovation and the absorption of technologies 
2. Establishment of an area for the free circulation of technologies in the EU 
3. Supply of appropriate technologies to the SME system 
Links with the innovation policy described in part 1 of the report as a reference basis for this 
evaluation are clear 
- through the idea of innovation environment, the first of these three objectives is 
associated with the overall aims of a local innovation policy; 
- the second stresses the European dimension and aims to remove existing barriers inside 
Europe and to build on the wealth of experimentation brought about through European 
diversity; 
- the third is a difficult yet important aspect of technology dissemination. 
The following plan was selected for analysing the SPRINT system using this grid: 
- for each objective, continue the Part One analysis by assessing what, in die panel's 
opinion, constitutes the rationale and logic of the propsed initiatives (and therefore a 
possible basis for the work of the third activity); 
* assess the extent to which the SPRINT initiatives fit the objectives (point A of each 
box); 
- finally, identify what SPRINT is unable to achieve, other because it disregards the 
objective concerned, or because of a lack of resources, or because the initiative is 
better suited to another programme such as VALUE (point B of each box). 
60 
1. First objective: creation of an environment beneficial to innovation and the 
absorption of technologies 
Rationale: 
An SME's competitiveness depends primarily on its own capacities. But it also depends on its 
environment; available resources vary extensively from one region to another and not only in 
nature but also in quality and quantity. Unlike natural resources in the past this comparative 
advantage is not acquired; it is buildt up in a joint effort between firms and public 
authorities. 
•• To secure this advantage, the most obvious step is to promote the emergence of 
innovation services. Whatever thoir activity sector, SMEs cannot get al^ng without partners 
who complement their internal know-how with the expertise requir or innovation ^o 
illustrate this diversity, the panel has used a hexagon diagram (see Figu >. SMEs are in aie 
centre; on each of the sides are the six main types of partners: other firms (SMEs and large 
firms); technology resource centres (or Research and Technology Organisations -RTOs), the 
various types of consultants (management, marketing, intellectual property); financial 
institutions (banks and capital development); and on the last side, field agents who stimulate 
demand and coordinate the various actions: proximity advisers for innovation and 
departments responsible for innovation policy, both sometimes grouped under RTACs. 
An SME must therefore exist within a highly interactive system where it is both provider and 
recipient, and both client and supplier. In this system, interfaces (intermediaries), locations 
for meetings and negotiations and mechanisms for distributing information and other 
resources all play an essential role. 
The build-up of this infrastructure is the outcome of a number of private and public 
initiatives The result will depend largely on their coherence. 
•• A second prerequisite of success for the SME is a strong absorption capacity. A whole 
range of functions can be identified which allow SMEs to make the most of the resources of 
their environment, particularly in the technological sector. Where they exist, R&D teams play 
the main role. Otherwise, and most frequently, the firm recruits engineers and technicians 
who know the R&D world in particular, and innovation partners in general. 
Schemes designed to engender a favourable environment 
Schemes designed to engender a favourable and accessible environment can be grouped in 
four objectives: 
la. to help local Innovation policies (regional or national) to improve the targeting and 
organisation of their initiatives, 
lb. to improve the quality (through training, publication of the learning module, etc.) 
of technological and managerial partners of SMEs; 
I c. to assist financial partners for the innovative SME; 
Id to change SMEs * attitudes to innovation. 
61 
la. To help local innovation policies (regional or national) to improve the targeting and 
organisation of their initiatives: 
Local innovation policies can play a key role in making a variety of initiatives, all apparently 
quite different, implemented by the various private or public SME partners, into a coherent 
whole. It is therefore a priority to support those responsible for the policies, while increasing 
European cohesion by disseminating best practices. 
A- Those responsible for regional policies (at least most of them) are still feeling their way 
and looking to find successful models from other regions. The following SPRINT initiatives 
include this as a rationale: 
- the RTAC network and its specialised working group 
• the RITTS and RTP projects which put forward to the regions a project for an 
evaluation and a re-definition of their strategy 
- the science park consultancy scheme that helps local policy makers to create a science 
park (technopole) and then to evaluate it (part of the RTTTS) 
B- Except for this last scheme, SPRINTs activity' here is only recent; it is therefore difficult 
to assess to what extent existing needs are tackled. Clearly, it is still exceptional for the 
management of structural funds to be inspired by SPRINTs experience and this programme 
is far from providing a complete set of models for action to regional policy makers. 
lb. Improve the quality (through training, publication of the learning module, etc.) of 
technological and managerial partners of SMEs: 
The jobs of SME partners are relatively new and it seems necessary to improve the 
professional standard of those practitioners, to disseminate advances in methodology and to 
launch pilot projects in which various interaction mechanisms between SMEs and their 
partners are tested. 
A »And therefore: 
-the value analysis, design and quality programmes make the most of European 
experiences so as to offer professionals some training modules; 
- the MINT programme pilots subsidised management consultancy and includes various 
consultation methods and tools, 
- Specific Projects (SPAL) enables the collaboration between RTOs and users (SMEs but 
also public authorities) to be assessed. The nature of the service RTOs render to SMEs is, in 
feet, undergoing radical change, but by no means everyone is affected. For example, a 
number of sectoral resource centres have kept the system of collectively-funded research. It 
is therefore very useful to compare, through pilot schemes, the value of services rendered by 
the various intermediaries to the various categories of firms; 
62 
• the PRISM/FEICRO sub-programme and two recent conferences could become the basis 
for an evaluation of RTO performance. 
B- In spite of this apparent wealth of imtiatives, SPIUNT is a lorig way from fillirig all the 
gaps in the system; for example, nothing is done to improve market analysis or to adapt 
industrial property practices to the needs of an SME.wishing to sell products throughout the 
European market or to work in a European consortium, (others are working on this, but is 
this with the aim of promoting innovation in standard SMEs?) 
lc Financial partners jf he innovative SME 
A- SPRINT was the first to tackle this very difficult problem. 
-Transnational investment fora which bring together investors and entrepreneurs once in 
a year; 
•TPF pilot experiment (Technology Performance Financing) 
-EIMS workshops and studies on the import from the USA of mechanisms considered there 
to be particularly useful to private investment for innovation: NASDAQ type of market, 
securitization, etc. 
B- Because of a lack of terms of reference and resources, SPRINTs action her? has 
remained at the reflection and. experimentation level. This might actually be considered 
sufficient fer a horizontal (strategic) programme, provided that mechanisms are found for 
tackling detected needs for which SPRINT has ready-tested solutions to put forward. DG 
XVIII is therefore taking on the responsibility of supporting the market for growth 
companies (EUROS DAQ) encouraged by the ÉVCA network; another example is DG 
XXIII, which implemented a programme in support of "seed capital" firms. 
However, support for financial intermediaries clearly remains very modest and we hope that 
a more ambitious and systematic action will develop within the third activity (or elsewhere). 
Innovation in SMEs is handicapped more by the lack of financial partners than by European 
technology lagging behind. It is known already, notably thanks to the EIMS, what could be 
done intelligently with public money (for example increased guarantees for "small 
businesses", support for the launch of seed capital, increase of private funds, etc.). The third 
activity could therefore be the framework for new initiatives in support of European venture 
capital firms and experimentation in terms of private financing for innovation. 
Id To change SMEs'attitudes to innovation: 
Most European SMEs are still quite shy of innovation, and most of all of letting a number of 
partners have a hand in a process which is the nucleus of their strategy. This obsession with 
secrecy, this rductance to make thdr capital available and the inability to find partners and 
to make the most of them often lead to failure. 
63 
Indeed, the mere fact of being involved in innovation leads an SME to: 
change its internal organisation, e.g. by deploying most of its active workforce in a 
single project; 
open itself up to external partners and establish itself both upstream and 
downstream of production within an intensely interactive network of companies 
(small and large); 
go international; 
develop a strong capacity for absorption in general, which could well be the 
necessary and adequate prerequisite for creating jobs. 
A- The SPRINT programme has tackled this very important aspect of innovation only 
recently, and furthermore in a modest way: 
through the development of the RTAC network, in its "multi-purpose innovation 
consultant" component, whose main ask is to heighten SME awareness of the 
resources in their environment; 
by networking national or regional programmes for mobilising innovation 
specialists (EUNETmobility initiative, recently launched). 
Only those SMEs which have created an internal innovation and interface "unit" are in a 
position to dialogue with their environment. 
through some aspects of the MINT initiative 
B- Yet these schemes are still recent and modestly funded. Analysis of the specific projects 
followed by experimentation would enable the various aspects of the problem of human 
resources in SMEs to be tackled more directly, and that of their absorption capacity. 
2. Second objective: establishment of an area for the free circulation of technologies in 
the EU (and for applications, for innovative products). 
Rationale: 
To ensure that, during its innovation process, each SME has all the necessary technologies at. 
its disposal. That is the objective, if not the dream, of all programmes oriented towards 
dissemination, exploitation and technology transfer. The problem is intrinsically difficult, as 
is the case whenever a very specialised supply has to match a very personalised demand. 
This is also why a number of interface services developed in the first place, the improvement 
of which was the goal of the first objective. 
This problem already exists in any homogeneous economic space, e.g. in the US or Alsace, 
but it is much more acute in the European market because of the national barriers: cultural 
64 
differences, different languages, laws, etc. are so many obstacles to the free circulation of 
technological knowledge. 
Similariy, the segmentation of *ne European market remains a serious obstacle to the 
dissemination of products. If these products "incorporate" technology (tools, software, 
materials etc.), an extra difficulty is added to technology dissemination. 
But more general :hc innovation process embraces successful commercialisation, and 
nowadays, this means »lablishing oneself in a vast market; but surveys concerning radically 
new products show that getting established in another European country is just as difficult as 
in the US. The States remain the ideal market for the international expansion of a product, 
which is a serious handicap for European SMEs. 
Possible initiatives: 
To combat these various obstacles, to get closer to the free circulation of technologies and to 
contribute to the creation of a real single market of innovative products, a number of 
initiatives should aim at: 
2a. Européanise the various partner ^fSMEs by creating networks: 
2b. Européanise information suppli > SMEs by their various partners: 
2c. Create interaction areas in well ted segments; 
2d. Fight regulatory barriers. 
2a. Européanise the various innovation partners of SMEs by creating networks 
A - SPRINT supports macro-networks having established a European community amongst 
most SME partners; the EACRO network (for contract research organisations); the RTAC 
network (for national policy-makers • support of innovation); the EVCA network (for 
venture capitalists) and the EUROTECH network are now independent. Other partners 
(consultants, technology brokers, ARIST. etc ) are now grouped in Til's network which is 
now no longer officially linked to SPRINT. 
The activity of these networks is modest, but they guarantee a minimum of reciprocal 
knowledge and keep alive the idea of a European community (eg through regular 
conferences); they sustain a "European reflex" Thar efficiency is assessed in Part Three. 
Mini-networks as described in Annes I are more active. 
B - Besides networks of intcrmcdianes, networks of firms seem to become increasingly a 
topic, whatever their nature (SMEs only, large firms and SMEs, etc.). SPRINT has prepared 
the field through initiatives such as TTDays or some EIMS workshop1 and studies; but 
nothing really important was launched. There could be an important sic* here for the third 
activity to fill and one which could benefit from the experience not only of SPRINT, but also 
of EUREKA, CRAFT, etc. 
65 
2b. Européanise information supplied to SMEs by their various partners 
A - SPRINT has only indirectly dealt with this important problem, which is the prime target 
of other programmes such as VALUE. 
- However, the newly-emerging RTAC network may, in the future, bring an important 
contribution: it may encourage, under certain conditions to be defined by the network, 
the various proximity partners of SMEs to make all or parts of their databases 
generally available. 
It should be noted that some SPRINT networks (notably ORT networks) publish 
newsletter. 
B -As the successor to the VALUE programme, the third activity' may find considerable 
scope for action here. 
2c Create interaction areas in precise slots: 
A - This is what mini-networks do; they are alliances grouping a small number of partners 
for co-operative activities: 
- mini RTO networks in the technological sector 
- mini inter-firm networks (transfer of licence) 
• the ^technology transfer day" initiative comes under both this objective and the first 
one (2a.) since each organiser assigns a particular objective to the TTDay which corresponds 
to the local SME demand. A large number of firms seem to have found correspondents and 
European scope for their initiatives 
• the newSPNET project 
• transnational Investment fora 
- finally, the Specific Projects are demonstration activities to determine optimum 
conditions for trans-regional technology transfer, already developed to some extent. 
B - SPRINT pulled out of "thematic networks" which were active in the 1980s The idea 
was taken on by the BRTTE-EURAM programme, from which it received substantial 
funding. Specific third activity projects provide a tool for expérimentation and action in a 
wide-open field. 
66 
2d. Combat regulatory barriers: 
A - Only abortive attempts can be reported on, e.g. an attempt to solve the problem of 
intellectual property. 
B - Considering SPRINTs knowledge of the pattern of innovative SMEs, the programme 
could have become their legitimate spokesman (with DG XXffJ and DG XVI) and drawn 
attention to the barriers they still face, unknown to large firms with diversified human 
resources. 
For example, multinationals (including US and Japanese ones) can cope fairly 
successfully with the segmented European market, whereas SMEs still regard the US market 
as more accessible because it is more homogeneous. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, 
no thought is given to a licensing policy for SMEs. A further example: the third activity* 
could continue the contemplation started by EIMS of a generalised standards system based 
on performance and its outcome, i.e. "pennormative" research to be developed in RTOs. 
These are just a few general examples of areas in which SPRINT, as a horizontal 
programme, could act as a beacon and come up with proposals for vertical national or 
European :-grammes. 
3. Third objective: supply SMEs with appropriate technologies 
Rationale: 
The title for this third objective may lead to confusion. It is not a question of developing 
radically new technological knowledge, whether in SPRINT or in the third activity; that is a 
job for the specific RTD programmes (first activity). The time-consuming and difficult goal 
here is to adapt knowledge developed in a laboratory to the requirements of an innovative 
SME project. The knowledge may also have been tested already by incorporation into a 
commercialised product or process, but in a completely different range of products or sector. 
When these adaptation tasks are conducted collectively, for a range of products or a sector, 
integration time and effort for an SME can be greatly reduced. Such tasks are central to the 
work of various technical centres (RTOs, CRTs, CROs), whether their activity is centred on 
individual projects or joint ventures. 
A - Without insisting too much on this third objective, SPRINT has accumulated some 
experience in this area thanks to: 
some mini RTO networks, but financial support is modest and can only cover the 
extra costs incurred through cooperation; 
some Specific Projects. 
67 
B - This .is merely a fraction of a task which will be growing in importance under the third 
activity. For example, in some countries it will be important to guarantee the launch of 
Technology Resource Centres (TRCs) with specific targets, during the difficult years before 
the SME clientele becomes established. 
More generally, there is a need to redefine completely the services to be provided bt TRCs. 
this could be based on a TRC auditing system. 
68 
ANNEX3: 
N0TE0NTHE1%-RVLE 
INTERACTION WITH THE PROGRAMMES OF THE FIRST ACTIVITY 
In accordance with the Decision of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 April 
1994 on the Fourth Framework Programme, the activities in the field of dissemination and 
exploitation are also to be implemented by the spedfic programmes of the first activity. A 
sum representing an average of 1 % of the total budget of the Fourth Framework 
Programme is allocated to the dissemination and exploitation of results of the research 
programmes. The research programmes implement activities in the field of dissemination 
and exploitation relating to their respective fields of research, in close collaboration with 
the Third Activity. 
This decision opens up a new field of activity for SPRINT-type initiatives. The panel 
perceives this opportunity as highly important in two respects: 
- strengthening the link between RTD and demand/use as an important precondition for 
efficient dissemination and technology' transfer and the 
- improvement of links between SPRINT initiatives and the specific research 
programmes. 
Indeed the application of the 1%-ruIeby the specific programmes should allow at an early 
stage of the projects involvement of all possible users (SMEs, large firms, consumers,, 
financing institutions, standardisation). The spedfic contribution of SPRINT would be to 
emphasize the diffusion of technologies and of know-how towards SMEs and to 
emphasize the needs of these firms in the process of planning R&D programmes. 
Specific contributions of SPRINT-type initiatives might be: 
- use of existing network infrastructure of the third activity by the research programmes; 
- exchanges of experience of approaches, methods, new tools of dissemination and 
exploitation and in the design of mnovation-friendly research programmes; 
- pilot projects for testing, demonstrating and learning new ways of improving 
dissemination in the fields of: 
• the transferability and adaptability of technologies or research results from one 
sector to another or from one technology sector to another (spillover and transfer 
effects); 
69 
* new ways of involving future users and institutions potentially crucial to the 
innovation phase well upstream of the innovation process (financing and/or 
regulatory bodies, etc.); 
• development of new tools for long-term forecasting of demand, new social needs 
and technical and scientific developments as an aid to designing targeted research 
programmes. 
The main functions of the third activity in the use of the "1%" should be: coordination, 
pilot experiments and, more generally, its expertise and its relations with innovation 
infrastructures. The in-depth knowledge of the needs of various types of SMEs that 
SPRINT has gained following its industry-oriented activities should allow for improved 
planning of R&D programmes. 
The panel stresses v portance of careful design of the coordination mechanism 
necessary for the role :,t third activity to be accepted. 
•••••• 
70 
ANNEX 4 
SPRINT EVALUATION PANEL 
List of members: 
1. Robert CHABBAL (F), President 
Adviser to the General Director for research and technology at the Department of 
Research and Higher Education 
Former CNRS General Director 
Former NATO Research Director 
Former OECD Director for Science, Technology and Industry 
2. George ARGYROPOULOS (GR) 
General secretary of the Federation of Greek industries 
Member of the CRAFT think tank group 
3. Paul BRADSTOCK (UK) 
Director of the Oxford Trust, responsible for innovation and new technologies in 
Oxfordshire; Director of the Oxford innovation 
Previously, has held responsiblities in the management of various hi-tech SMEs 
4. Luis CRESPO (E) 
General Director of the Extremadura Development Agency 
Former General Secretary of the Spanish Association for new technologies' 
Former CDU Director 
Member of the VALUE panel and of the SPRINT mdi-term evaluation panel 
5. FriederMEYER-KRAHMER(D) 
Director of the Fraunhofcr Institute for Systems and Innovation Research in 
Karlsruhe. 
Co-ordinator of the SPEAR network on evaluation of socio-economic effects of R&D. 
6. ErkkiORMALA(SF) 
Secretary of the Science and technology Policy Council of Finland 
Chairman of the group of experts for the evaluation of EUREKA 
Vice-president of the OECD working group on innovation policy 
Secretary's office: Danid ROUTIER 
Ricardo Hitec Ltd 
SPRINT Technical Assistance Unit 
71 
ANNEX 5 
MANDATEFOR THE SPRINT FINAL REVIEW PANEL 
1. The panel is composed of persons who are appointed by the Director 
General, DG XIII, and will serve in their personal capacity. Their views 
therefore in no way commit or should be influenced oy their employing 
organisations. 
2. The panel is invited: 
a) to assess the extent to which SPRINT has fulfilled its initia] 
objectives, and its impact with attention to the cost-effectiveness of 
the actions; 
b) to appraise the continued relevance of its rationale and main 
activities in the present Community context having regard to 
current and prospective needs and taking into account the evolving 
policy context, in particular the subsidiarity principle; 
c) to formulate suggestions for possible adjustments and/or 
modifications that could be introduced in order to improve the 
effectiveness of future Community activities in the area presently 
covered by SPRINT, in the light of the above assessments. 
3. The panel members have access to all relevant information necessary to 
perform their task. The secretariat of the panel will be provided by one 
of its members with the logistic support of the Commission services. 
4. Subject to the prior approval of the Commission, the panel members 
may travel within the Community to interview persons about the 
programme and to see work in progress. 
72 
ANNEX 6: 
List of acronyms/Liste des acronymes 
CRO 
CRAFT 
CRT 
EACRO 
EIMS 
EUNET 
EUROSDAQ 
EVCA 
FEICRO 
FWP 
FTP 
JET 
LFR Contract Research Organisations 
Organisation de Recherche sous Contrat 
Cooperative Research Action for Technology 
Action co-operative pour la Recherche technologique 
Centre Régionaux pour la Technologie 
Regional Technological Centres 
European Association of Contract Research Organisations 
Association Européenne d'Agences de Recherche sous Contrat 
European Innovation Monitoring System 
European fellowship Network 
Réseau pour des bourses Européennes 
European Organisation of Securities Dealers and Quotations 
European Venture Capital Association 
Association Européenne de Capital à Risque 
Federation of European Industrial Cooperation Research 
Organisations 
Fédération Européenne d'Organisations de Recherche pour la 
Coopération Industrielle 
Framework Programme 
Programme Cadre 
Technology Performance Financing Scheme 
Plan de Financement de la Technologie selon sa Performance 
Jeunes Entreprises Technologiques 
New Technology Based Firms 
Less Favoured Regions 
Regions moins Favorisées 
MINT Managing the Integration of New Technologies 
73 
NASDAQ 
NTBF 
OCDE 
ORT Gérer l'Intégration des Nouvelles Technologies 
National Association of Securities Dealers and Quotations 
New Technology Based Firms 
Jeunes Entreprises Technologiques 
Organisation pour la Coopération et le Developement Economique 
Organisation for Economie Co-operation and Developement (OECD) 
Organisations de recherche et de technologie 
Research and Technology Organisations 
PME 
R&D 
RTD 
RTTTS 
RTAC 
RTO 
RTP 
SME 
SPAL 
SPCS 
SPNET Petites et Moyennes Entreprises 
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises 
Research and Development 
Recherche et Développement 
Rese h and Technology Development 
Recncrche et Developement des Technologies (RDT) 
Regional Innovation and Technology Transfer Strategies and 
Infrastructures 
Infrastructures et Strategies Regionales de Transfert de Technologies 
et de Soutien à l'Innovation 
Regional Technology Advisory Centres 
Centres régionaux de Conseil en technologie 
Research and Technology Organisations 
Organisations de Recherche et de Technologie 
Regional Technology Plans 
Plans régionaux Technologique 
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises 
Petites et Moyennes Entreprises 
Specific Projects Action Line 
Ligne d'action des Projets Spécifiques 
Science Park Consultancy Scheme 
Programme d'aide au conseil en matière de parcs scientifiques 
Science Park Networking 
Réseaux de Parcs Scientifiques 
74 
SPRINT 
SQW 
TPF .Strategic Programme for /Miovation and Technology transfer 
Programme Stratégique pour l'innovation et le Tranfert de 
Technologie 
Segal Quince Wicksteed (UK consultancy firm) 
Technology Performance Financing Scheme 
Plan de Financement de la Technologie selon sa Performance 
TRC 
TT 
TTDavs 
VALUE Technology Resource Centre 
Centre de Ressources technologiques 
Technology Transfer 
Transfert de Technologie 
Technology Transfer Days 
Journées des Transfert de Technologie 
Valorisation et Utilisation pour l'Europe 
Valorisation and Utilisation for Europe 
TABLE 1 
Innovation needs of various categories of SMEs 
* NEEDS 
COMPANIES 
a. JET(NTBF) 
Strong potential for 
growth 
b. Research 
Intensive Companies 
(R.I.Q 
c. Standard SMEs RTAC 
(Definition Phase) 
-
XX TECHNO­
LOGICAL 
PARTNERS 
(RTO, CRT...) 
XX MANAGEMENT 
HELP 
XX 
X 
X FINANCIAL 
RESOURCES 
XXX 
(+ NASDAQ) 
X 
X R/D SUBSIDIES 
(SBIR type...) 
X 
XX 
; 
(See list of acronyms, annex 6) 
*f TABLE 2 
Operators in Innovation and types of initiative under SPRINT 
Category of 
operator 
Typeof 
Initiative 
Study 
Experiment 
Evaluation 
Networks 
Interaction 
•real CONSULTANTS 
Value analysis 
Design 
Quality 
MINT 
SPAL 
Til 
TTDays RTOs 
EIMS 
SPAL 
Evaluation of 
specific 
projects 
Mini-
networks RTACs 
EIMS 
<* 
RTAC networks SCIENCE 
PARKS 
SPNET (?) 
RITTS park 
SPNET (?) FINANCING 
SYSTEM 
EIMS 
NASDAQ 
TPF 
EVCA 
Fora REGIONS 
EIMS 
SPAL 
RTTTS 
RTP SMEi 
EIMS 
(Clusters, 
NTBF) 
SPAL 
TTDays 
(See Annex 6: list of acronyms) 
/ 
TABLE 3 
Objectives of the SPRINT Programme and tvncs of initiative 
Objective 
Type of initiative 
Study 
Eipe nment 
Evaluation 
Networks 
Interaction areas INFLUENCING 
SPECIALIST 
OPERATORS 
VA.D.Q 
Mirrr 
SPAL 
SPNET (?) 
RTO mini-networks 
RTAC mini-networks INFLUENCING 
INSTRUMENTS AND 
POLICY-MAKERS 
EIMS 
RTACs 
TPF 
SPAL 
regional RITTS 
EVCA -> NASDAQ DISSEMINATION 
TPF (?) 
-
Mini-networks of brokers 
RTO mini-networks 
RTAC mini-net^ "Vs 
TTD;v 
Til EUROPEANISATION 
EIMS 
SPAL 
RTTTS 
TTDays 
All networks 
(See Annex 6: list of acronyms) 
sk TABLE 4 
Programme objectives and Innovation operators 
OPERATORS 
OBJECTIVES 
Influencing specialist 
operators 
Influencing 
instruments and policy-
makers 
Horizontal schemes 
Europe anisatioa 
Technology 
dissemination CONSULTANTS 
MINT 
Mini-networks 
VA-D-Q 
MINT 
Til 
Mini-networks 
TTDays FINANCING 
SYSTEM 
EASD 
TPF 
Euro SDAQ 
(DG XVIII. 
XXIII etc ) 
EVCA 
Fora 
TPF(?) RTOs 
Mini-networks 
SPAL 
SPAL 
DGXII 
EACRO 
Mini-networks RTACs 
RTACs 
RTACs 
RTACs (?) SCIENCE 
PARKS 
Feasibility 
RJTTS park 
DGXV1 
SPNET (?) REGION 
S 
RTACs 
RITTS 
RTPs 
SPAL 
DGXVI SMEs 
Absorption 
capacity (?) 
SPAL 
DG XXIII 
Networks (?) 
TT Days 
TTDays 
(See Annex 6: list of acronyms) 
SME PARTNERS 
CONSULTANTS 
INNOVATION POLICY 
PUBLIC FINANCIAL SUPPORT 
ji 
FINANCIAL SYSTEM TECHNICAL RESOURCE 
CENTRES 
RTO 
ADVISERS IN TECHNOLOGICAL 
INNOVATION 
OTHER SMEs 
FIGURE I 
Bilag B 
Liste over evalueringsreporter om SPRINT-aktiviteter 
SPRINT-midtvejsevaluering 1992 
Evaluering af formidlernetværk 1992-93 
Evaluering af RTO-netværk (forsknings- og teknologiorganisationer) 1994 
Evaluering af specifikke projekter (fase I og TI) 1993-94 
Evaluering af MINT-programmerne 1994-95 
Evaluering af forskerpark-projekterne 1994-95 
Evaluering af Fællesskabets mnovationsundersøgelse (CIS) - fase I 1994 
Evaluering af den præstationsafhængige teknologifinansiering 
(TPF - Technology Performance Financing Scheme) 1994-95 
» 

ISSN 0254-1459 
KOM(96) 130 endelig udg. 
DOKUMENTER 
DA 15 
Katalognummer : CB-CO-96-137-DA-C 
ISBN 92-78-01894-5 
Kontoret for De Europæiske Fællesskabers Officielle Publikationer 
L-2985 Luxembourg