EUROOPAN YHTEISÖJEN KOMISSIO 
•fr -it 
Bryssel, 01.04.1996 
KOM(%) 13u lopull. 
KOMISSION TIEDON ANTO 
NEUVOSTOLLE. EUROOPAN PARLAMENTILLE 
JA TALOUS- JA SOSIAALIKOMITEALLE 
KOSKIEN INNOVAATIOTA JA TEKNOLOGIAN SIIRTOA 
KOSKEVAN STRATEGIAOHJELMAN (SPRINT) 
1989-1994 LOPPUARVIOINTIA 

1. Johdanto 
1.1 SPRINT-ohjelman (innovaatiota ja teknologiansiirtoa koskeva strategiaohjelma) 
1989-1994 päävaiheeseen liittyvä neuvoston päätös 89/286/ETY1, joka tehtiin 
17 päivänä huhtikuuta 1989 ja vahvistettiin ja laajennettiin 20 päivänä joulukuuta 
1993 tehdyllä neuvoston päätöksellä 94/5/ETY2, edellyttää 8 artiklassaan, että 
komissio toimittaa ohjelman päätyttyä kertomuksen ohjelman toteuttamisesta ja 
sen tuloksista Euroopan parlamentille, neuvostolle sekä talous- ja 
sosiaalikomitealle. 
1.2 Komissio nimitti riippumattomista asiantuntijoista koostuvan paneelin tekemään 
arviointityön herra Chabbal puheenjohtajanaan. Paneeli esitti kertomuksensa 
komissiolle 11. marraskuuta 1994. Kertomus esitettiin joulukuussa 1994 
ohjelmakomitealle, joka suhtautui siihen myönteisesti ja antoi tukensa sen 
tärkeimmille havainnoille ja suosituksille. Paneelin arviointikertomus havaintoineen 
on kokonaisuudessaan tämän kertomuksen liitteessä A varustettuna paneelin 
toimeksiannolla ja kokoonpanolla. 
1.3 Kertomusta tehdessään paneeli on ottanut huomioon SPRINT-ohjelman 
väliarviointikertomuksen sekä arvioinnit ohjelman sisältämistä erityisistä 
toimintalinjoista kuten tutkimus- ja teknologiajärjestöjen verkkoihin, konsultointi-
verkkoihin tai erityisiin hankkeisiin liittyvät toimintalinjat (katso liitteen B 
luettelo). Tulosten hyödyntämistä koskevan Value-ohjelman kokemukset sekä 
paneelin tätä ohjelmaa käsittelevä arviointikertomus, joka esitettiin komissiolle 
3. kesäkuuta 1994, otettiin nekin huomioon. Lisäksi paneeli tutki sitä, kuinka 
johdonmukaisesti SPRINT-ohjelma oli saatujen kokemusten perusteella käsitellyt 
innovaatioita ja kuinka johdonmukaisesti ohjelma oli toiminut tutkimuksen ja 
teknologisen kehittämisen, esittely mukaan lukien, toimien tulosten levittämistä ja 
parasta mahdollista hyödyntämistä koskevan erityisohjelman, neljännen 
puiteohjelman kolmannen toimenpidekokonaisuuden, työohjelmassa asetettujen 
tavoitteiden mukaisesti. 
1.4 Käsillä olevan kertomuksen rakenne on seuraava: Osassa 2 on SPRINT-ohjelman 
ja sen pääelementtien yhteenveto. Osassa 3 esitetään ohjelman yleisarvio paneelin 
arviointikertomuksen päähavaintojen ja -päätelmien perusteella. Osassa 4 esitetään 
lopuksi paneelin tekemä SPRINT-ohjelman pääelementtien yksityiskohtainen 
analyysi sekä komission analyysiä koskeva lausunto. 
2. SPRINT-ohielman päätavoitteet ia toimintakeinot 
2.1 SPRINT-ohjelman päävaiheelle oli yllä mainitulla neuvoston päätöksellä asetettu 
seuraavat tavoitteet: 
\ EYVL N:o L 112,25.4.1989, s. 12 
2 EYVL N:o L 6,8.1.1994, s. 25 
lo 
- vahvistaa eurooppalaisten tavaroiden ja palveluiden tuottajien innovaatio-
edellytyksiä vuoden 1992 yhtenäismarkkinat huomioon ottaen 
- edistää uuden teknologian nopeaa omaksuntaa ja innovaatioiden levitystä 
kautta yhteisön koko talousrakenteen 
- parantaa olemassa olevien innovaatioihin ja teknologian siirtoon liittyvien 
toimintakeinojen ja politiikan tehokkuutta ja yhdenmukaisuutta, olivatpa ne 
alueellisia, kansallisia tai koko yhteisön laajuisia 
2.2 Ohjelman puitteissa kehitetyt toimet suunnattiin näiden tavoitteiden 
toteuttamiseksi sellaiseen innovaatiotoimintaan, joka ei perustu ainoastaan 
tutkimukseen ja teknologiaan vaan jolla on myös yhteys johtamistaitoihin ja 
liiketoiminnan käytäntöihin. Tavoitteena oli paitsi soveltaa uusia huipputekniikan 
alojen tutkimustuloksia myös ottaa käyttöön kehittynyttä ja hyväksi 
osoittautunutta teknologiaa perinteisessä teollisuudessa. Erityishuomio 
kohdistettiin pk-yrityksiin, ohjelman tärkeimpään viime käden kohderyhmään. 
2.3 Yllä mainittujen tavoitteitten ja tärkeysjärjestysten mukaisesti sekä viisivuotis­
kaudelle myönnetyn 113 miljoonan ecun talousarvionsa puitteissa SPRINT-
ohjelma keskitti toimintansa kolmelle pääalueelle: 
- innovaatioiden tukipalvelujen ja niitä tukevan yleiseurooppalaisen 
perusrakenteen kehittäminen. Tätä pidettiin erityisen tärkeänä pk-
yrityksille, jotka ovat tyypillisesti suurempia yrityksiä riippuvaisempia 
ulkopuolisesta asiantuntemuksesta innovaatiotoiminnassaan ja teknologian 
hankkimisessaan. Koska tällaisten palveluitten laatu ja saatavuus on 
innovaatioprosessin kannalta ensiarvoisen tärkeää, SPRINT-ohjelma pyrki 
edistämään rajat ylittävää asiantuntemusvaihtoa, yksinkertaistamaan 
Euroopan laajuisia näiden palveluiden välisiä yhteistyömalleja sekä 
luomaan niihin liittyvän organisatorisen perusrakenteen Euroopan tasolla. 
yhteisön sisäisen teknologian siirron ja sen hankkimisen esittely. Ryhdyttiin 
toimiin todellisten yhteisön sisäisten teknologiansiirtohankkeitten 
esittelymahdollisuuksien parantamiseksi sekä parhaiden niihin sisältyvien 
johtamismallien tunnistamiseksi, kehittämiseksi ja esittelemiseksi. 
- innovaatioprosessia koskevan tietämyksen, järjestelmien ja politiikan 
parantaminen niin yhteisön kuin kansallisella ja alueellisella tasolla. 
Tarkoituksena oli osaltaan parantaa innovaatiopolitiikan tehokkuutta ja 
yhtenäisyyttä kokoamalla luotettavaa aineistoa ja tietoa innovaatio­
toiminnasta ja -prosesseista, jalostamalla käsiterakennetta sekä 
tehostamalla kokemusten vaihtoa politiikantekijöiden sekä innovaatioiden 
ja teknologioiden levittämiselle tärkeiden yksiköiden välillä (Euroopan 
innovaatioita tarkasteleva järjestelmä - EIMS). 
2 G 
2.4 Jokaisen yllä mainitun toimintalinjan yhteydessä pantiin toimeen useita hankkeita. 
Tämän kertomuksen liitteessä 1 on paneelin yksityiskohtainen esittely ja analyysi 
kustakin hankkeesta. 
3. Ohjelman vleisarviointi 
31 Yhteisön innovaatioita tukevan ohjelman viitekehys 
Ennen SPRINT-ohjelman arvioinnin aloittamista paneeli katsoi olevan tarpeen 
määritellä yhteisön innovaatio-ohjelman viitekehys. Paneelin mukaan seuraavat 
tekijät on otettava huomioon: 
• ero uuden tiedon luomiseen tähtäävän tutkimuspolitiikan ja soveltajalle 
uudenlaisen tiedon soveltamiseen suunnatun innovaatiopolitiikan välillä 
• innovaatiopolitiikan edellytyksenä oleva systeeminen lähestymistapa, joka 
sisältää innovaatiotoimijoiden moninaisen vuorovaikutuksen edistämisen 
sekä toimenpiteiden täydellisen, täydentävän ja yhdenmukaisen luonteen 
takaamisen 
• pk-yrityksiile suunnatun innovaatiopolitiikan, joka suurelti perustuu pk-
yritysten tarpeeseen, toimeenpano pk-yrityksiä lähellä olevien rakenteiden 
kautta erityisesti alueellisella tasolla. Tämä politiikka korostaa olemassa 
olevan teknologian levittämistä, joka puolestaan on yhteydessä yritysten 
omaksumiskykyyn. 
Komissio yhtyy tähän innovaatiota tukevien ohjelmien kehysehtojen analyysiin ja 
on sitä mieltä, että SPRINT-ohjelma on pääsuuntauksiltaan näiden vaatimusten 
mukainen. 
3.2 Yleiset SPRINT-ohjelmaa koskevat johtopäätökset ia suositukset 
Paneelin yleisjohtopäätös SPRINT-ohjelmasta on myönteinen. Sen mielestä 
neuvoston päätöksen mukaisia tavoitteita on osoitetut voimavarat huomioon 
ottaen toteutettu tehokkaasti ja ohjelma vastaa hyvin innovaatio-ohjelman tehtäviä. 
Vaikka ohjelman toteutuksessa onkin puutteensa, SPRINT on paneelin mielestä 
uudenlainen ja hyvin sovellettu keino auttaa kaikentyyppisiä pk-yrityksiä niiden 
innovaatioprosessissa: luonteeltaan kokeellisena SPRINT-ohjelma on 
mahdollistanut monenlaisten ratkaisumallien testaamisen, ja ohjelman puitteissa on 
voitu luoda kokeilusta, arvioinnista ja tiedon levittämisestä koostuva tuore 
tarkasteluprosessi. Lisäksi SPRINT-ohjelma tarjosi useille innovaatioprosessien 
keskeisille toimijoille Euroopan laajuisen yhteistoiminta- ja vuorovaikutus-
rakenteen, jollaista niillä ei aiemmin ollut. 
3* 
Yhteisön tulevaa politiikkaa ajatellen paneeli pitää innovaatiota ja teknologian 
levittämistä erittäin tärkeänä. Paneelin mielestä on tärkeämpää levittää teknologiaa 
perinteisille aloille kuin luoda massiivisesti uutta teknologiaa, josta olisi hyötyä 
yksinomaan huipputekniikan alalla. 
3.3 Lisäksi paneeli vastaa myönteisesti sille toimeksiannossa esitettyihin kysymyksiin: 
• SPRINT-ohjelma toimi sille 17.4 1989 tehdyssä päätöksessä asetettujen 
tavoitteiden mukaisesti. 
• Innovaatiopolitiikka ja teknologian levittämiseen tähtäävä politiikka ovat 
edelleen tärkeitä, erityisesti perinteisiä aloja koskevina, ja SPRINT-
ohjelman luoma politiikka soveltuu hyvin näihin rajoituksiin ja tavoitteisiin. 
• Vaikka toteutustapoja on parannettava, yleinen toimintaprosessi on 
paneelin mielestä toteutettu terveeltä pohjalta, ja paneeli suositteleekin, että 
prosessin pääpiirteet säilytetään ennallaan. 
3.4 Paneeli piti heikkouksina seuraavia seikkoja: 
• ohjelman toteutustapojen hahmottuvuus 
• tulosten levittäminen 
• ohjelman asema alueellisen ja kansallisen tason innovaatiotoiminnan 
katalyyttina 
• vuorovaikutus komission muiden yksiköiden kanssa. 
3.5 Nämä seikat otetaan lisäksi huomioon seuraavissa paneelin suosituksissa, jotka 
koskevat tulevaa ohjelmaa ja sen toimintamalleja: 
• uusien toimintojen valinnan pitäisi olla avoimempaa 
• ohjelman on syytä kehittää selkeitä mekanismeja toimintojen arviointia, 
uudistamista ja hylkäämistä varten 
• toiminnan kohdistamista pk-yrityksiin on parannettava kehittämällä pk-
yritysten luokitusjärjestelmä innovaatiotarpeiden perusteella 
• välittäjien tukemisen ohella suositellaan suoraa pk-yrityksiin kohdistuvaa 
interventiota joillakin aloilla 
• EIMS-teemat olisi valittava lähemmässä yhteistyössä komission muiden 
asianomaisten yksiköiden kanssa 
4^ 
'9&*r 
• koeohjelmien metodologisia piirteitä, kuten tavoitteitten ja arvioinnin 
määrittelyä, on syytä vahvistaa 
• uusia tulosten levittämiskeinoja on tutkittava ja sovellettava 
• yleisesti ottaen kolmannen toimenpidekokonaisuuden ja muiden yhteisön 
ohjelmien väliset vuorovaikutusmekanismit on otettava käyttöön 
• ohjelman käyttöön osoitetun henkilöstön määrää on lisättävä. 
Komissio on käsitellyt näitä seikkoja soveltuvissa yhteyksissä tutkimuksen ja teknologisen 
kehittämisen, esittely mukaan lukien, tulosten levittämistä ja parasta mahdollista 
hyödyntämistä koskevan erityisohjelman työohjelmaa suunnitellessaan, ja niitä pyritään 
tarpeen mukaan toteuttamaan ohjelmaa toimeenpantaessa. 
4. SPRINT-ohielman pääkohtien yksityiskohtainen analwsi 
Edellä esitetyn ohjelman yleisarvion lisäksi paneeli sovelsi uutta ja kiintoisaa mallia 
arvioidessaan yksityiskohtaisesti ohjelman pääkohtia sekä sen soveltumista 
neljännen puiteohjelman kolmannen toimenpidekokonaisuuden tavoitteiden 
saavuttamiseen. 
4.1 Sovellettujen toimintakeinojen ja menetelmien analyysi 
SPRINT-ohjelman toteuttamismenetelmälle on ominainen seuraava pohdinnan, 
kokeilun, arvioinnin ja levittämisen vuorottelu: 
alkupohdinta 
vahvistus kokeilun ja arvioinnin perusteella 
ihmisistä koostuvien verkkojen rakentaminen makro- tai miniverkkoina, 
jolloin toimenpiteiden määrä moninkertaistuu 
tulosten analysointi sekä saatujen kokemusten tunnistaminen 
valituista tuloksista ja hyvistä toimintamalleista saatujen tietojen 
asianmukainen levittäminen 
Komission mielestä tämä paneelin laatima varsin kaavamainen SPRINT-ohjelman 
metodien kuvaus on perustaltaan sen toimintatapojen mukainen. Metodit eivät 
kuitenkaan ole päämäärä, vaan keino saavuttaa laajempia tavoitteita tehokkaasti 
ottamalla innovaatioprosessissa huomioon kumppanien kokemukset. 
5A 
4.2 Toimiialuokkakohtainen analyysi 
Paneelin mielestä SPRINT-ohjelman piiriin saatujen pk-yritysten innovaatio­
toiminnalle tärkeitten toimijoitten kirjo on laaja. Tästä huolimatta sen mielestä olisi 
kiinnitettävä suurempaa huomiota joukkoon sellaisia välittäjiä kuin konsultit 
henkistä omaisuutta koskevien oikeuksien alalla, tiettyihin tekniikoihin keskittyneet 
teknologiakeskukset, innovatiivisten pk-yritysten rahoittajakumppanit sekä 
alueelliset perusrakenteet. 
Paneeli on lisäksi sitä mieltä, että yhteisön toimenpiteet olisi kohdistettava pk-
yritysten välistä yhteistyötä laajemmalle käsittämään yhteistyö tekniikan tuottajien 
ja käyttäjien, erityisesti pk-yritysten ja suurten yritysten sekä pk-yrityksille 
innovaatiopalveluja tarjoavien toimijoiden välillä. 
Komissio on tietoinen siitä, että ohjelma kattoi vain osan välittäjistä ja pk-yritysten 
yhteistyörakenteista. Tämä johtui pohjimmiltaan käytettävissä olevien voima­
varojen riittämättömyydestä ja tarpeesta keskittyä pienehköön määrään kokeellisia 
ja mallitoimenpiteitä. Toimintaa laajennetaan kolmannen toimenpide­
kokonaisuuden mukaisesti erityisesti kahdella alalla eli aluepoliittisten hankkeitten 
kanssa tehtävään yhteistyöhön sekä innovaatiotoiminnan rahoituskeinoihin liittyen. 
Erityistä huomiota kiinnitetään tutkimukseen liittyvän toiminnan 
systemaattisuuteen sekä yhteisönlaajuisten, erityisesti pk-yritysten innovaatio­
toimintaa kuvaavien tilastojen tekemiseen. 
4.3 Tavoitekohtainen analvvsi 
Paneeli tutki toimintojen soveltuvuutta seuraavien kolmannen toimenpide­
kokonaisuuden työohjelmassa asetettujen tavoitteiden toteuttamiseen: 
• innovaatiotoiminnalle ja teknologian omaksumiselle suotuisan ympäristön 
luominen 
• sellaisen alueen luomisen rohkaiseminen, jossa teknologia voi liikkua 
vapaasti 
• teknologian tarjonnan helpottaminen. 
SPRINT-ohjelman ensimmäiseen tavoitteeseen liittyvät toimenpiteet oli suunnattu 
pk-yrityksiin liittyvissä palveluissa toimivien asiantuntijoiden laatutason 
parantamiseen, parhaitten käytäntöjen levittämiseen politiikan esittelysuunnitelmien 
kautta sekä teknologian leviämisen edistämiseen. Paneelista olisi voitu toimia 
systemaattisemmin eri kokemuksista saatavan opin hankkimiseksi sekä näiden 
kokemusten levittämiseksi paikallisille tai kansallisille politiikan tekijöille. 
Komission mielestä tämä ilmeinen rajoittuminen johtui siitä, että kyseisessä 
vaiheessa välitön kokemusten jakaminen osallistujien ja heidän toiminta-
*Q 
•-••^c-i.-i^tfUKfem^ 
kumppaniensa kesken katsottiin tärkeimmäksi, kun taas tietoa levitettäisiin 
laajemmin myöhemmässä vaiheessa. 
Toisen tavoitteen yhteydessä paneeli korostaa Euroopan laajuisten verkkojen 
myönteistä panosta, jonka SPRINT-ohjelma pani toimeen systemaattisesti. 
Valitettavana paneeli piti sitä, että yritystenväliseUe yhteistyölle ei Euroopan 
tasolla ollut riittävästi foorumeja, ja sitä, ettei näitä verkkoja käytetty 
intensiivisemmin tiedon välittämiseen eri alueilla olevien osallistujien välillä. 
Komissio korostaa, että yhteisön tuki oli alusta lähtien tarkoitettu ainoastaan 
helpottamaan kyseisten verkkojen perustamista, joiden on myöhemmin todistettava 
elinkelpoisuutensa ja saavutettava taloudellinen itsenäisyys. 
Komissio aikoo voimistaa verkkojen yhteistoimintaa kolmannen toimenpide­
kokonaisuuden puitteissa erityisesti edistämällä jakelukeskusverkon laajentamista 
ja tukemalla Euroopan laajuista yhteistyötä olemassa olevien kansallisten 
verkkojen tai hankkeitten välillä. Vastaavia verkkoja aiotaan käyttää myös muihin 
yhteisön ohjelmiin liittyvien aloitteiden yhteydessä. 
Kolmanteen tavoitteeseen liittyen paneeli korostaa, että tavoitteessa ei viitata 
teknologian välittämiseen pk-yrityksille sellaisenaan, vaan tutkimus-ja kehitystyö-
tiedon soveltamiseen innovatiivisten pk-yritysten vaatimusten mukaisesti. Paneeli 
on pannut merkille sen myönteisen panoksen, jolla SPRINT-ohjelma tukee 
teknologiakeskusten (tutkimus- ja teknologiaorganisaatioiden verkot) tai joidenkin 
erityishankkeiden välistä yhteistyötä. 
Komissio aikoo voimistaa toimenpiteitään tällä alalla kolmannen toimenpide­
kokonaisuuden puitteissa erityisesti tukemalla teknologian kelpoisuuden 
vahvistamista ja teknologian siirtoa koskevia hankkeita. 
4.4 Paneelin huomioita SPRINT-ohjelman yksittäisistä toimintalinjoista 
Paneelin yksityiskohtainen mielipide yksittäisistä toimintalinjoista on esitetty 
tiivistelmänä kertomuksen liitteessä 1, ja sen pääkohdat ovat seuraavat: 
Pk-yritysten teknologiakumppaneihin, erityisesti tutkimus- ja 
teknologiajärjestöjen verkkoon, suunnattuja toimia pidetään hyödyllisinä, ja 
niitä on syytä jatkaa ja tehdä niihin joitakin parannuksia. 
Alueellisten teknologisten neuvontakeskusten hyväksi toteutetut 
toimenpiteet ovat tuoneet myönteistä lisäarvoa, ja niitä on syytä jatkaa 
aktiivisesti. 
Paneeli pitää tiedepuistojen tukemista yleisesti hyvänä asiana, ja se 
suosittaa, että pääosasto I:n ja Phare-ohjelman mahdollisia synergiaetuja 
tutkittaisiin ja että puistojen laadun kohentamista korostettaisiin enemmän. 
'/G, 
Paneelilla on myönteinen yleiskäsitys sellaisista toimista, jotka kohdistuvat 
konsultteihin yleensä ja näiden pk-yrityksille antamien neuvojen laadun 
parantamiseen käytettäviin keinoihin, kuten esimerkiksi uuden teknologian 
mukauttamisen hallinnointisuunnitelma, arvoanalyysi sekä suunnittelu- ja 
laatuohjelma, ja paneeli esittää erityisiä suosituksia joitakin menettelytapoja 
koskevien piirteiden parantamiseksi, edelleen nimenomaan tiedon ja 
saavutettujen tulosten levittämiseen ja julkistamiseen liittyvillä aloilla. 
Lisensointiin erikoistuneisiin konsultteihin kohdistuvat toimet, kuten 
yritystenväliset verkot ja teknologiansiirtoa koskevat teemapäivät, ovat 
paneelin mielestä osoittautuneet hyödyllisiksi, ja niiden säilyttäminen ja 
jopa vahvistaminen on tarpeen. 
Rahoitusjärjestelmään kohdistuviin aloitteisiin, erityisesti teknologian 
suoriteperusteisiin rahoitus- ja sijoitusfoorumeihin, liittyvät menettely- ja 
lähestymistavat vaativat uudelleenarviointia. 
Pk-yritysten ja muiden yritysten vuorovaikutusta tukevia toimenpiteitä olisi 
paneelin mukaan voitu kehittää edelleen. 
Alueellisten innovaation ja teknologian siirron strategioiden ja 
perusrakenteiden sekä alueellisia teknologiasuunnitelmia koskevien 
hankkeiden puitteissa tehdyt aluepolitiikkaan suunnatut hankkeet ovat 
tärkeitä, ja niitä on syytä kehittää edelleen. 
Paneeli pitää erityishankkeita koskevan toimintalinjan puitteissa 
tapahtunutta pk-yritysten omaksumiskyvyn vahvistamista esimerkkinä 
onnistuneesta kokeellisesta toiminnasta, jota on syytä jatkaa ja laajentaa 
vastaisuudessa. 
Euroopan laajuisten innovaation ja tiedonsiirron verkkojen luominen 
laukaisi eurooppalaistumiskehityksen, mitä paneeli pitää erittäin 
arvokkaana, ja verkkoja onkin sen mukaan ylläpidettävä toteutettaessa 
neljättä puiteohjelmaa sekä saatettava ne komission muidenkin pk-yritysten 
parissa toimivien palveluyksiköiden käyttöön. 
Paneeli pitää Euroopan innovaatioita tutkivaa järjestelmää hyvin tärkeänä 
osana ohjelmaa, sillä se mahdollistaa analyysin sekä uusien käsitteiden 
kehittämisen. Paneeli esittää, että pk-yritysten tilaa tutkivaa empiiristä 
työtä lisättäisiin. 
4.5 Paneeli esittää, että SPRINT-ohjelmassa kehitettyjä toimenpiteitä jatkettaisiin 
neljännen puiteohjelman tutkimuksen ja teknologisen kehittämisen, esittely mukaan 
tukien, toimien tulosten levittämistä ja parasta mahdollista hyödyntämistä 
8* 
koskevassa erityisohjelmassa ja että tässä ohjelmassa käsitellään kaikkia 
innovaatioprosessin osa-alueita. 
Kuten edellä on mainittu, komissio on tarkoituksenmukaisesti ottanut huomioon 
paneelm suositukset erityisohjelman työohjelmaa laadittaessa. 
Komissio on yhtä mieltä paneelin kanssa siitä, että kaikki innovaatioprosessin osa-
alueet olisi otettava huomioon, mutta korostaa kuitenkin sitä, että tämä on 
saavutettava käyttämällä useita sekä puiteohjelmaan sisältyviä että sen ulkopuolisia 
keinoja ja ottaen asianmukaisesti huomioon sellaisten toimintojen oikeudellinen 
perusta ja varmistamalla Vihreässä kirjassa innovaatiosta suositeltu koordinoitu 
lähestymistapa. 
5. Johtopäätökset 
5.1 Komissio on tarkastellut huolellisesti paneelin kertomusta ja sen mieUpiteitä. 
Komissio pyrkii mahdollisuuksien mukaan toteuttamaan soveltuvissa yhteyksissä 
paneelin suosituksia tutkimuksen ja teknologisen kehittämisen, esittely mukaan 
lukien, toimien tulosten levittämistä ja parasta mahdollista hyödyntämistä 
koskevan erityisohjelman toimeenpanemiseksi. Hanke toteutetaan vuosina 1994-
1998 15 päivänä joulukuuta 1994 tehdyn neuvoston päätöksen 94/917/EY 
mukaisesti. 
5.2 Tämä tiedonanto yhdessä paneelin arviointikertomuksen kanssa esitetään 
Euroopan parlamentille ja Euroopan neuvostolle SPRINT-ohjelmaa koskevan 
17 päivänä huhtikuuta 1989 tehdyn neuvoston päätöksen 8 artiklan mukaisesti. 
Liitteet 
A. Paneelin arviointikertomus 
B. Arviointikertomusten luettelo 
u 
I PANEL EVALUATION OF THE SPRINT PROGRAMME 
Page 
SUMMARY OF THE REPORT 5 
PART ONE 10 
TERMS AND FRAME OF REFERENCE 10 
A TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE GROUP; WORK METHOD 10 
B REFERENCE FRAMEWORK 11 
1 What is innovation? 11 
2. Research policy and innovation policy are 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 17 
A OBJECTIVES 17 
B METHODS AND MEASURES OF THE SPRINT 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 pinners 20 
3. Field consultants 20 
4. Financial partners lor innovative SMEs 21 
5. Local policy-maken 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 system 25 
3. Horizontal schemes 25 
CONCLUSION 26 
PART THREE 
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 27 
A GENERAL APPRAISAL OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM 27 
B PROPOSALS FOR THE COMPOSITION OF THE PROGRAMME 28 
1. A programme such as SPRINT must be flexible and evolutionary 28 
2. Should the programme continue to target intermediaries or should it be 
aimec Àt 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 reflection-cxpennicntation^valuation-disseminanon cycle 33 
2. Reinforce and systematise the interaction between the SPRINT programme 
and its potential partners 34 
3. Increase human resources within the S PRINT programme 35 
D. MISCELLANEOUS 36 
E. CONCLUSION: SUMMARY ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS PUT 
TO THE PANEL 36 
I 
ANNEXES 
ANNEX 1: ANALYSIS OFTHE SPRINTSYSTEMBYTYPE OFINITIATIVE 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 OBJECWES 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 SME's with technologies adapted to their requirements 66 
ANNEX 3: NOTE ON THE IHRULE 68 
ANNEX 4: SPRINT EVALUATION PANEL 70 
ANNEXS: TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE SPRINT FINAL EVALUATION PANEL 71 
ANNEX 6: UST OF ACRONYMS 72 
IlMal»^3and4andEiCir5l 75 
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 Xm/D, 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 policy 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, it 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, it 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 die 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 corning 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; 
O - DISSEMINATION AND ABSORPTION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND 
PRACTICES 
innovation management techniques (MINT, design, quality, etc); 
technology transfer days. 
demonstration projects Cspeetal projects" for innovation transfer); 
W - PROMOTING AWARENESS OF INNOVATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF 
HOW IT WORKS 
"European Innovation 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 actions 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 
dissemination (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-spccialtst 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 (mini-networks for inter-firm technology transfer, Til 
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). 
U) 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 
Ui) 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 
8 
the European Venture Capital Association (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 XVID (Credit and Investments) 
and DG XXIH (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 
systematicalK involved in assisting science parks and similar structures, and has therefore 
made itself ' with those responsible locally. Actions to assist regional policy-makers took 
on more substance at the end of the programme with the launch of Regional Technology 
Plans (RTPs, undertaken in collaboration with DG XVI Regional Policies) and the RJTTS 
initiative (Regional Innovation and Technology Transfer Strategies and Infrastructures) for 
the strategic analysis of regional infrastructure for support to innovation, based on enterprise 
demand and resulting in an action plan accepted by all the 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 uus is one of the major shortcomings of the programme. 
The important role of "specific projects" (21 in all) must be stressed, these being projects for 
the transfer of proven technologies to regions where such technologies are in demand but not 
yet available. This action line made it possible to bring together a number of different actors 
(SMEs, RTOs, consultants, regional interface services, etc.) around common objectives and 
to develop a common language among them • a difficult but vital task. 
Lastly, 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 primarily 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. 
Finally, 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 marginalisation 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 dircctorates-generaJ 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 
PART ONE 
TERMS AND 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 bow 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 far 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 very 
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, arid 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 ailing 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 me. ^PRINT 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 QF 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 of firms, in a context m 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 (1984), 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 
polio, and innovation policy been well understood. At Community' level, SPRINT s been a 
useful focal point for those who have set the tone for the new policies in each Ma..Der 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 levé' to gain a 
dearer picture of the requirements, to compare experiences and to disséminai " best 
practices". 
The panel summarises the 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 to its 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 do so it must bring together a number of financial 
and human resources and combine its internal 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 mnovation policy are two différent things 
Besides research policy, 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 icmcinbcicd 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 it 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. ~ -re is interaction to the extend that awareness of demand brings to light new 
researc reas. 
To summarise, research 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 innovation 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 
size 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 r erefore 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 partners are prepared to work with SMEs (this includes a training policy, in 
particular); 
- the technological 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 v ices and interaction platforms; 
* 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-onented 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 Thcv usually 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 technology dissemination. 
Technology dissemination is an important aspect of innovation policy since it is crucial to 
know bow to incorporate new technological knowledge into products or processes, 
whether originating directly from a laboratory or whether already used in another product 
or sector. ,: IQC- •-.; : ...ioui^ 
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 mnovation 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, expérimentation 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 dissémination 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 innovation 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 mnovation problems of SMEs of all kinds. 
The panel therefore stresses the serious 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 
ANALYSIS OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM 
A. 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 focal 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 in the subject. 
18 
• Many of SPRINTs 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 dissemination 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 
-cently implemented an 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 European areas of interaction 
between operators in national and regional innovation systems. 
-The purpose of some of these networks (macro-networks), such as EACRO, 
RTAC, etc., is to bring the various operators together and to cjsseminate 
information. These also provide a framework for organising major conferences 
from time to time. 
-Other networks (rnini-networks) are targeted more at collective action: the 
adaptation and dissemination of technologies (RTO mini-networks), or technology 
transfer (Inter-firm mint-networks). 
4. Target SMEs partners 
To aim these schemes priim % at SME partners (various types of intermediaries and 
interfaces), and interaction pu:ionns (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 intermediaries 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. 
C. 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 institutions (banks and capital development organisations); 
generalists who stimulate the demand and organise the coherence of the various 
- field innovation consultants and 
- regional authorities responsible for mnovation 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 alue 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 hea ->f RTOs ( 
Rr<-?rch and Technology Organisations). A conference was organised : PRINT in 
1' hich enabled the development of these important SME : artners to be assessed. 
T :îude: 
• sectoral technical centres which mostly conduct collective research protects on 
basic technologies in traditional sectors; 
- CROs (Contract Research Organisations), which have a similar work function 
but are privately owned, and work 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 (testing, analysis, participation in product or process-
based projects etc.) 
The first category was supported b> 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 
EACTO (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 partner* -and 
others), and eventually to help SMEs launch and pilot the definition phase c rxicir 
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 SPRJNTs 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 XVH1 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 RJTTS 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 compétence 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, exp - .race has shown that other firms haw become a major partner for 
SMEs For example, high-technology firms are the riant technology suppliers for 
SMEs through hardware, software and materials technologies which are 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, SPRIN"" could be expected either to give direct support to the creation of 
business network -ME/large firms networks, SME networks, clusters), or to support 
those attempting to develop such networks. 
The SPRINT primme 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. 
- Interaction amongst SME partners: no serious effort has really been made to bring 
together 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 
The various SME partners form a complex entity which SPRINT has succeeded in 
assessing and targeting, except for a few which have been overlooked. Other partners will 
probably come to tight; 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 art 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 EU 
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-bow. 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 to 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 ;f 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 macro- and 
mini-networks, gen—»' conferences, EIMS workshops and the recent information 
campaign on best *s in transnational technology management networks are all 
instrumental in diss • ing lessons learned, there is a major gap: putting together the 
lessons learned from n experience to enable all local or national innovation policy­
makers to benefit from them. 
S PRINTs lack of influence on policy-rnaking 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 ha? 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 disseminauon 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 
learn. 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 op 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 "attractive" 
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 
mnovation 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 specific initiatives such as EIMS studies, thus 
reducing their impact; 
- hence an inadequate 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 sy: cmic nature of SPRINT, whose overall 
effect relies precisely on the diversity and complunentarity 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 meeu 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 analysing the 
programme in the light of the objectives of the Third Activity, and secondly in the 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: 
I. 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) Only then will SPRINT be fully able to play 
Its role of catalyst and stimulate a genuine learning 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 SPRINT-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 MINTs 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 toe contrary, the panel considers that an 
innovation policy under the third activity should combine: 
- z\ observation, demand assessment, identification and dissemination of best practice 
«u%; experimentation project, as is expected by future users both in the Commission 
2u m 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. ,••; 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 
efficient and europeanisation of SME partners instrumental in the innovation process. 
This pr es a leverage of around 100, permitting indirect contact with some 100 000 of 
a total c. JO 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 ^rms and are not willing to make the effort to adapt to SME demand, 
which is often ur ntable. 
here 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, 
TH »ays, 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 andjcept constantly up *a date. 
Furthermore, it is useful to calculate (by category) the number of SMEs which are clients 
of mtermediaries supported by the programme. It is then possible to avoid over-
corjcentration 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, 
œnceming 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 rnini-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 little 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 XVT), 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 policies 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 define the content of their programmes in support of 
innovation in SMEs (What?). SPRINT has been doing this for years through its 
activities in the science park consultancy scheme. 
- The sectoral priorities 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 RJTTS and RTP schemes. The heavy 
response to the RJTTS call for proposals (a quarter of all European regions) also 
shows how much the regions seek advice on the various modes of action, the best 
intervention methods, the new facets of innovation, schemes for fostering a more 
professional approach, etc. 
- helping regions to evaluate their projects from the outside, and at the same time to 
implement permanent self-evaluation mechanisms. This is the basis of the RTTTS and 
RTP projects. The considerable strength of the SPRINT programme here is its ability 
to combine reflection, international comparison, control over a vast network of experts 
and its "supranational" position, which gives the evaluations it can "guarantee" a 
strong credibility. It could even be said that SPRINT could play the same role with 
regional authorities as the OECD has with national authorities. 
The panel feels that 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 
G PROPOSALS FOR SPECIFIC ACTION 
The first recommendation from the panel is that the tools perfected by SPRINT should be 
fully used and should form the basis for the originality and effectiveness of the third 
activity. 
As is pointed out above, however, these tools incorporate some weaknesses that must be 
deah 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 hill 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 
intra-European mobility, does not allow for extensive dissemination 
Hence there 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 (RTTTS 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. 
The 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 XVI (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 from diem. 
DG XXITJ 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 committee 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 RJTTS 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 "jouit 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 be made 
responsible for dissemination or, of course, for following up their own work. 
77ie panel therefore strongly recommends that manpower of the SPRINT system be 
increased. A way should be found to implement this recommendation in the light of 
current European Commission rules with respect to manpower expenditures. Detaching 
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. 
E. CONCLUSION: SUMMARY ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION PUT TO THE 
PANEL 
Lei us answer in order the three questions put to the Committee 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 
c^jectrve). 
The analysis of Part Two and the conclusions of the Part Three provide a generally 
positive answer to this question 
- SPRINTs experimrrtal character enabled a large number of solutions to be tested 
in nearly all explorable paths of innovation support. Thanks to EIMS and the trial-
and-error 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, very 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 single 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. 
39 
ANNEX 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 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 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 partners 
SPRINT grouped the various types of technology supplier under the heading of RTOs. 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 
technologies m traditional sectors; 
- Technological Resource Centres (TRCs), which concentrate on one technology only 
(laser technology, materials technology etc.). Small technical teams in close contact 
with laboratories, and totally dedicated to SMEs (testing, analysis, participation in 
product 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 
thi Une of action was conducted by Segal Quince Wicksteed. Published in March 1994, it is 
b;L .xi 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 
Y ormative (pie-standardisation) analysis". There are technology oriented networks as 
v j$ sectoralry based networks. 
1 scheme is experimental and aims to develop the European technology transfer 
iritiastructure. 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 the 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 in innovation projects for SMEs. The impact on dissemination is 
nc* sable but more difficult to measure. The direct impact on SMEs (SPRINTs ultimate 
target, it should be remembered) can only be measured indirectly, through the increasing 
number of services offered by RTOs. 
Assessment 
This mini-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 
p: ^me 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, h 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 benchmaridngN 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 snared between RTACs is widespread. 
42 
By allowing RTAC representatives to meet up, by contributing to travel expenses and 
providmg adrriimstrative 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 two .types: 
- 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 he, 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 Park 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 subsidising the cost of a panel of foreign expert consultants, the Scheme supports 
promoters - particularfy those in less-developed areas or m regions where there is little 
history of science parks - 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. A* a result of the calls about 450 applications were received and more than 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 sticitgth 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 that 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 coroplernentary activity to the one described above 
(feasibility studies). It provkies financial support covering the costs of employing a team of 
two consultants to carry out the evaluation exercise. The Commission provides a list of 
consultants, but the promoters are fully responsible for selecting consultancies and experts 
from these lists. 
The work itself is in two stages. The first stage is aimed at 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 is a new experimental activity. Six proposals have been approved. The first 
evaluations will be initiated by the end of 1994. 
Assessment 
Science parks have become an important part of regional innovation support infrastructures. 
There are more than 250 science park projects and similar developments in the Community 
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 slightly modified. In particular, the 
specifications of the consultancy work pay too little attention to assessing the impact of the 
park on industrial iievelopment in the region. This impact ultimately justifies the existence of 
the park 
The establishment of the monitoring committee for the evaluation may provide an adequate 
mechanism for controlling the quality of the consultancy work, but will this be sufficient to 
learn the 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, di • talion of the lessons learned is not properly tackled. 
In the long ten 3Xcr collaboration between science parks may provide opportunities for 
the launch of associations to which the management of these evaluations could be" 
transferred. The development of such networks of science parks could 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 
dimension? 
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 material gained from the programme itself, as 
an example of the dissemination policy described in Pan Three of this report. 
Denionstrating thus the differences from one country to another, in this area, MINT has met 
with difficulties in its 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 consultancy; it fits well into the broader context of a global mnovation 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 fbc different methods of 
consultancy, especially in the definition phase of the innovation process. 
The transnational dimension must be reinforced through initiatives such as the regular 
organisation of contractor workshops, transnational participation in SME workshops and 
transnational coasultancy work. This last aspect is fundamental to the creation of a more 
homogenous European innovation management market. 
Although a register of tools and methodologies helps to define standards, attention should be 
given to the criteria for selecting and appointing MINT consultants, so as to guarantee 
minimum quality standards. 
VALUE ANALYSIS, DESIGN, QUALITY 
These three innovation management techniques contribute to the adoption, incorporation and 
production of innovative technologies or services. Proper application of such management 
techniques facilitates the revision of companies' organisational structures and strategies often 
necessitated by the introduction of new technologies. 
SPRINT has promoted the use of these tools by SMEs and for improving the quality of the 
services offered by intermediaries and consultants. The degree of exploitation of such 
techniques is highly variable across Member States and regions. These discrepancies hinder 
the process of technological integration in the European Union. One of the main objectives of 
SPRINT is to improve knowledge of the value of these methods in innovation management 
and most particularly in less-favoured regions. 
The panel feels that the promotion of value analysis, quality and design is relevant to 
innovation policy. It enhances modern management skills and contributes very effectively to 
the training of consultants and improving 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 r. ximise the dissémination of ideas emanating from a think tank 
group. 
1. Value analysis 
The promotion of value a&aiysis 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 
- harrnonisation 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 
common 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 important 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 difficuh 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 lines of action of the SPRlhTT prognunme. Launched in 1986, 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 
œmpetmveness. 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. Trie best results were obtained in die 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 
« gestions 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 dissemiriatinr 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 community in another region or Member State. The accent is on selection and 
mfonnaäon to the brokers about the needs and resources of the various firms taking part, 
weO 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 demonstrated that, 
with equal outlay, TTDays generated three times more inter-firm contacts or transfer 
contracts than networks. 
Assessment 
TTDays have 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. Consequendy, their ability to tackle business at Member State level and 
not only at national level has grown. This is precisely in Hne 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 funduig 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 ErayiatH 
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 Finns (NTBFs), by providing them with a 
powerful marketing tool; 
3. to provide financial msttaitions with an instrument for project-based financing of 
innovation as well as an oprx>rturùty to improve uV • Hrty to deal with such projects. 
In practical terms Technology Performance Fir^.i^og 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 technology has rjerfonned against predefined targets. 
The Commission provides financial and technical support for participating financial 
institutions. The financial support consists partly of subsidies to cover part of the costs of 
the technical appraisal of projects and the adrninistration of the scheme and partly of a 
"safety net" which guarantees, under certain conditions, part of the losses to the financial 
institution resulting from urider-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 in the core group of the scheme. 
Concluding a contract with these banks took a long nmc (in some cases up to two years), 
since TPF was perceived as a very novel product -jch, 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 IM0(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 find 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 sccme; 
- the purpose of the scheme as currently designed is not clear (i.e. the pursuit of 
three objectives at the same time) and it is perceived as being too risky and complex 
for ordinary commercial banks - even large ones; 
- the project guarantee of 75.000 ECU is considered too low for a bank to commit 
resources to iL 
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 proposed initiative. 
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, CDTT and ENEA. 
The programme of fora was launched in 1989, and since then, twelve investment fora 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. 
m 
Recommendations 
The panel recommends an in-depth evaluation of the mvestment {bra line of action, to enable 
die 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 sornctimes be more advantageous to organise specialised fora in one 
technological sector only, because the objective of these fbra 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 introducing a market of the NASDAQ type into Europe and 
developing securitisation techniques 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 arc the main technology suppliers for SMEs through 
hardware, software and materials technologies which are manufactured on demand. More 
generally the newly-organised industrial pattern multiplies day-to-day interactions 
between firms and makes them highly uiter-dependcnt. This is particularly true of the 
innovation process, where experience shows that SMEs integrated into a network succeed 
better and more quickly than those which are not integrated 
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 far from 
adequate, and there are no real SME/large firm networks. 
S. Schemes aimed at regional policies 
Regional authorities and national governments now play a major role in creating an 
infrastructure for supporting mnovation 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 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 INITIATIVE (Regional Innovation and Technology Transfer Strategies and 
Infrastructures) and REGIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLANS (RTPs). 
Objectives: 
The aim of the RUTS 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 RJTTS 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 RITTS exercise, there is always an international dimension in 
the teams involved, which consist of qualified professionals. 
Implementation 
RITTS 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 infirastructures 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. 
RITTS 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; 
RITTS 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 
RITTS is a new, experimental activity. In order to exploit its potential fully it is important to 
organise the studies in such a way that expérience and knowledge are accumulated. The 
accumulation process is also a prerequisite for rnaking RTTTS into a tool for trie large-scale 
dissemination of best practice to pobcyHnakers 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 ccmmittee similar to that described in the 
Science Parks assessment could be set up. 
RITTS 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 
RITTS may change from one type of scheme into a set of alternative approaches and 
procedures. Finally, the irjterlmkage between RITTS and the other action lines should be 
developed to make the initiative an efficient dissernmation tool for all the knowledge 
developed by SPRINT. 
9. 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 mtra-Community 
mnovation 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 SMEs 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 
irnplcnientation. More than two hundred partners have been involved. Altogether ECU 27.4 
million were spent in 1987-1994. 
SPAL is dorninated 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 comprehensive 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 
compléments the national dissemination activities by introducing a European element, 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 dissémination 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 clear that SPAL should be continued and expanded in the future. The rationale of 
specific technology transfer projects is well 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 
Community and national level. 
• Both catalytic and critical demand projects should remaw 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 
sometimes 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 oprjortunhy 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 
earfy stages of activity; the networks build up membership, provide membership services and 
become self-simporting. 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 wit >MEs. 
The panel regards this actions as well-directed and of good value and ^comnv that 
inacro-fietworks should continue to be promoted. As each network is representative . one 
specific feature of innovation, there is a case to be made for the introduction of a "network of 
networks" share the combined facets of innovation policy can be considered in total. 
The panel also recornmends that greater use be made of such networks by other programmes 
aùning 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 arid 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 m 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. 
58 
Assessment 
The panel considered that EIMS is very important to the SPRINT Programme, ft provides a 
basis for the development of knowledge of both the :iovation process in SMEs and of 
policy measures for fostering innovation. It provides mechanisms for disseminating this 
knowledge and adoring best practices. 
Nevertheless, the interfaces and the use made of the knowledge by other DGs and Member 
States are so far inadequate. The panel would have appreciated more work on the ultimate 
SPRINT cUentele -SMEs-, on the various prerequisites for innovation and on the different 
types of cluster etc. 
Because of the experimental, catalytic and multi-disciplinary (technology, management 
financing) character of SPRINT, the panel considered QMS a very important element of 
self-reflection, critical reviews of existing programmes and a basis for developing new 
c rs of innovation policy. Internal self-analysis of an innovation-promoting programme 
is dved as a unique characteristic of SPRINT which should be used within other 
Co? . -tssion 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, h 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: 
1. 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 difficuh 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 the 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, either 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 their activity sector, SMEs cannot get along without partners 
who complement their internal know-how with the expertise required for innovation. To 
illustrate this diversity, the panel has used a hexagon diagram (see Figure 1 ): SMEs are in the 
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 meet<".gs 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 Trie result will depend largely on their coherence. 
•• A second prerequisite of success for *,-*. SME is a strong absorption capacity. A whole 
\ c 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 SMEi. 
Ic . 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 RITTS) 
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 
fact, 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 PFJISM/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 initiatives, SPRINT is a long way from filling 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 for the innovative SME 
A- SPRINT was the first to tackle this very difficult problem. 
-Transnational investment f ora 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, 
sccunazation, etc. 
B- Because of a lack of, terms of reference and resources, SPRINTs action here has 
remained at the reflection and experimentation level. This might actually be considered 
sufficient for a horizontal (strategic) programme, provided that mechanisms are found for 
tackling detected needs for which SPRINT has ready-tested solutions to put forward. DG 
XVTU is therefore taking on the responsibility of supporting the market for growth 
companies (EUROSDAQ) encouraged by the EVCA 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 reluctance to make their 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 fts 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. 
Similarly, the segmentation of the 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 generally, the innovation process embraces successful commercialisation, and 
nowadays, this means etablishing 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 techr >gies 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 partners of SMEs by creating networks: 
2b. Européanise information supplied to SMEs by their various partners; 
2c. Create interaction areas in well defined 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 in support of innovation); the EVCA network (for 
venture capitalists) and the EUROTECH network are now independent. Other partners 
(consultants, technology broken. 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 (e.g. through regular 
conferences); they sustain a "European reflex". Their efficiency is assessed in Part Three. 
Mini-networks as described in Armes 1 are more active. 
B - Besides networks of intermediaries, networks of firms seem to become increasingly a 
topic, whatever their nature (SMEs only, buy; firms and SMEs, etc.). SPRINT has prepared 
the field through initiatives such as TTDay» or some EIMS workshops and studies; but 
nothing really important was launched. There could be an important slot 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 deah 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 new SPNET 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 experimentation 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 o. the pattern of innovative SMEs, the programme 
could have become viteir legitimate spokesman (with DG XXHI and DG XVI) a- ; drawn 
attention to the barriers they still face, unknown to large firms with diversifie: numan 
resources. 
For example, multinationals (including US and Japanese ones) can cope fairly 
successfully with the segmented European market, whereas SMEs stilt 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. "perinormative" 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 programmes. 
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 
ra -iiy new technological knowledge, whether in SPRINT or in the third activity'; that is a 
jc >r the specific RTD programmes (first activity). The time-consuming and difficult goal 
here is to adapt knowledge developed m 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 I 
Technology Resource Centres (TRCs) with specific targets, during the difficult years before 
the SME cUentele 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: 
NOTEONTHEl%-RULE 
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 specific 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%-ruleby 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 specific 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 innovation-friendly research programmes; 
- pilot projects for testing, demonstrating and {earning 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 user 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 SME that 
SPRINT has gained following its industry-oriented activities should allow for improved 
planning of R&D programmes. 
The panel stresses the importance of careful design of the coo ^nation mechanism 
necessary for the role of the 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 mnovation. 
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 CDTT Director 
Member of the VALUE panel and of the SPRINT mdi-term evaluation panel 
5. Frieder MEYERKRAHMER (D) 
Director of the Fraunhofcr Institute for Systems and Innovation Research in 
Karlsruhe. 
Coordinator of the SPEAR network on evaluation of socio-economic effects of R&D. 
6. Erkki ORMALA (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*! office: Daniel ROUTIER 
Ricardo Hitec Ltd 
SPRINT Technical Assistance Unit 
71 
ANNEX 5 
MANDATE FOR 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 initial 
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 Gère: l'Intégration des Nouve _ 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 
RITTS 
RTAC 
RTO 
RTP 
SME 
SPAL 
SPCS 
SPNET Petites et Moyennes Entreprises 
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises 
Research and Development 
Recherche et Développement 
Research and Technology Development 
Recherche et Developement des Technologies (RDT) 
Regional Innovation and Technology Transfer Strategies and 
Infrastructures 
Infrastructures et Strategies Régionales de Transfert de Techrr - <s 
et de Soutien à l'Innovation 
Régional 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 
TRC 
TT 
TTDays 
VALUE Strategic Programme for TAnovaooo 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 
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 
d< NEEDS 
COMPANIES 
a. JET(NTBF) 
; < ng 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 
•r 
< 
X 
X FINANCIAL 
RESOURCES 
XXX 
(+ NASDAQ) 
X 
1 
X R/D SUBSIDIES 
(SBIR type...) 
X 
XX 
(See list of acronyms, annex 6) 
TABLE 2 
Operators in Innovation and types of Initiative under SPRINT 
* Category of 
operator 
Type of 
Initiative 
Study 
Eiperiment 
Evaluation 
Networks 
Interaction 
areas CONSULTANTS 
Value analysis 
Design 
Quality 
MINT 
SPAL 
TII 
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 
RITTS 
RTP SMEs 
EIMS 
(Clusters, 
NTBF) 
SPAL 
TTDays 
(See Annex 6: list of acronyms) 
TABLE 3 
Obtecuvcs of the SPRINT Programme and types of initiative 
-4* | Objective 
Type of initiative 
Study 
Eiperiment 
Evaluation 
Networks 
Interaction areas INFLUENCING 
SPECIALIST 
OPERATORS 
VA.D.Q 
MINT 
SPAL 
SPNET (?) 
RTO mini-networks 
RTAC mini-networks INFLUENCING 
INSTRUMENTS AND 
POL1CY-M ^S 
EIMS 
RTACs 
TPF 
SPAL 
regional RITTS 
EVCA -> NASDAQ DISSEMINATION 
TPF(?) 
Mini-networks of brokers 
RTO mini-networks 
RTAC mini-networks 
TTDays 
Til EUROPEANISATION 
EIMS 
SPAL 
RITTS 
TTDays 
All networks 
(See Annex 6: list of acronyms) 
Oo TABLE 4 
Programme obiectives and Innovation operators 
OPERATORS 
OBJECTIVES 
Influencing specialist 
ope raton 
Influencing 
Instruments and policy­
makers 
Horizontal schemes 
Europeanisattoa 
Technology 
dissemination CONSULTANTS 
MINT 
Mini-networks 
VA-D-Q 
MINT 
Til 
Mini-networks 
TTDays FINANCING 
SYSTEM 
EASD 
TPF 
Euro SDAQ 
(DGXVM. 
XXIII etc ) 
EVCA 
Fora 
TPF(?) RTOs 
Mini-networks 
SPAL 
SPAL 
DG XII 
EACRO 
Mini-networks RTACs 
RTACs 
RTACs 
RTACs (7) SCIENCE 
PARKS 
Feasibility 
RITTS park 
DGXVI 
SPNET (?) REGION 
S 
RTACs 
RITTS 
RTPs 
SPAL 
DGXVI SMEs 
Absorption 
capacity (7) 
SPAL 
DGXX11I 
Networks (?) 
TTDays 
TTDays 
(See Annex 6: list of acronyms) 
SME PARTNERS 
CONSULTANTS 
INNOVATION POLioY 
PUBLIC FINANCIAL SUPPORT 
^ 
FINANCIAL SYSTEM TECHNICAL RESOURCE 
CENTRES 
RTO 
ADVISERS IN TECHNOLOGICAL 
INNOVATION 
OTHER SMEs 
FIGURE I 
Liite B 
SPRINT-ohjelman toimintaa koskevien arviointikertomusten luettelo 
SPRINT-ohjelman väliarviointikertomus 1992 
Välittajäverkkojen arviointi 1992-1993 
Tutkimus- ja teknologiajärjestöjen (RTO) verkkojen arviointi 1994 
Erityishankkeitten arviointi (vaiheet I ja H) 1993-1994 
Uuden teknologian mukauttamisen hallinnointisuunnitelman 
(MINT) arviointi 1994-1995 
Tiedepuistosuunnitelman arviointi 1994-1995 
Yhteisön innovaatiotutkimuksen (CIS) arviointi - I-vaihe 1994 
TPF-suunnitelman (suorituspohjainen teknologiarahoitus-
suunnitelma) arviointi 1994-1995 
ao 

ISSN 1024-4492 
KOM(96) 130 lopullinen 
ASIAKIRJAT 
FI 15 
Luettelonumero : CB-CO-96-137-FI-Ç 
ISBN 92-78-G19Q2-X 
Euroopan yhteisöjen virallisten julkaisujen toimisto 
L-2985 Luxemburg