COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee on the final evaluation of the strategic programme for innovation and technology transfer (SPRINT) 1989-1994
Date: 1996-04-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: action programme, innovation, report, technological change, technology transfer

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  01.04.1996 
COM(96)  130  final 

COMMUNICATION  FROM  THE  COMMISSION 

TO  THE COUNCIL.  THE EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT 
AND  THE ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 

ON THE FINAL EVALUATION  OF 
THE  STRATEGIC  PROGRAMME  FOR  INNOVATION 
AND TECHNOLOGY  TRANSFER 
(SPRINT)  1989-1994 

Introduction 

1.1  The  Council  Decision  89/286/EEC1  of  17 April  1989,  confirmed  and  extended  by 
Council Decision  94/5/EC2  of 20 December  1993, relating to  the  main  phase  of the 
Strategic  Programme 
Innovation  and  Technology  Transfer  1989-1994 
("SPRINT")  required  in Art.  8 that  the  Commission  shall  submit,  on  completion  of 
the programme,  a report  on the programme's  execution  and  results to  the  European 
Parliament,  the Council and the Economic and Social Committee. 

for 

1.2.  The Commission  appointed  a panel  of independent  experts to undertake  this  review 
under  the  chairmanship  of  Mr.  Chabbal.  The  Panel  presented  its  report  to  the 
Commission on the  11th of November  1994. The report was presented  in December 
1994 to  the  Committee  of the  Programme  who  positively  received  and  endorsed  it 
in  its  main  findings  and  recommendations.  The  complete  Panel  Evaluation  Report 
and its findings  are attached  under  Annex A, including the mandate  of the Panel and 
its composition. 

1.3 

In  establishing  the report,  the Panel  has taken  into  account  the  SPRINT  Mid-Term 
Report  and  evaluations  of  specific  action  lines  under  SPRINT,  such  as  for  the 
networks  of research  and technology  organizations, for  consultancy  networks  or  for 
specific  projects  (see  list  in  Annex  B).  The  experience  made  under  the  Value 
Programme  for  the  exploitation  of  results  and  the Panel  Evaluation  Report  for  this 
programme  presented  to the  Commission  on 3 June  1994 were  also  considered.  In 
addition,  the  Panel  examined  the  coherence  of  the  SPRINT  experience  with  the 
approach  to  innovation  and  with  the  objectives  stated  in  the  work  programme  for 
the  Specific  Programme  for  the  Dissemination  and  Optimisation  of  Results  of 
Activities  in the field of RTD,  including Demonstration,  the  3rd  Activity  of the  4th 
Framework Programme. 

1.4  The  present  report  is  organised  as  follows:  Section  2  summarises  the  SPRINT 
programme  and  its main  components.  Section  3  presents  the  overall  assessment  of 
the  programme  in  the  light  of  the  main  findings  and  conclusions  of  the  Panel 
Evaluation  Report.  Finally,  section  4  gives the Panel's  detailed  analysis  of the  main 
elements  of the  SPRINT  Programme  together  with  the  opinion  of  the  Commission 
on this analysis. 

H  Main  objectives  and instruments  of the SPRINT  Programme 

2.1  The  main  phase  of  SPRINT  had  the  following  objectives  assigned  by  the  above 

mentioned  Council Decision: 

1 OJN°L112,  25.4.1989, p. 12. 

2O J N ° L 6,  8.1.1994,  p. 25. 

-—to  strengthen  the  innovative  capacity  of  European  producers  of  goods  and 

services, with a view to the  1992 Single Market; 

- 

- 

to  promote  rapid  penetration  by  new  technologies  and  the  dissemination  of 
innovation throughout  the economic fabric of the Community; 

to  enhance  the  effectiveness  and  coherence  of  existing  instruments  and  policies, 
whether  regional,  national  or  Community-wide,  in  the  field  of  innovation  and 
technology  transfer. 

2.2 

In  order  to  achieve  these  objectives,  the  activities  developed  under  the  programme 
addressed  innovation  activities that  are not  only based  on  research  and  technology, 
but  also  linked  to  managerial  skills and business  practices. Not  only  the  application 
of  new  research  results  in  high-tech  sectors,  but  also  the  introduction  of  advanced 
but  proven  technologies  in  traditional  industries  was  pursued.  A  special  attention 
was paid to  SMEs as the main ultimate target group for the programme. 

2.3 

In line with the  above objectives  and  specific  priorities,  and  endowed  with a budget 
of  Mecu  113  for  a  period  of five years,  SPRINT  concentrated  its  efforts  on  three 
main areas: 

the  development  of  innovation  support  services  and  their  corresponding 
European  infrastructure.  This was  considered  particularly  relevant  for  SMEs, 
which typically rely much more than  large companies  on  outside  expertise  for 
their  innovation  and  technology  acquisition.  Since  the  quality  and  availability 
of  such  services  is  a  crucial  element  for  the  innovation  process,  SPRINT 
attempted  to  promote  the  cross-border  exchange  of  experience,  facilitate 
Europe  wide  cooperation  patterns  between  such  services  and  set  up  a 
corresponding organizational infrastructure  at European level. 

the  demonstration  of  intra-Community  technology  transfer  and  technology 
acquisition.  Here,  activities  were  set  up  to  enhance  the  demonstration 
capability  of  actual  intra-Community  technology  transfer  projects,  and  the 
identification,  development  and  demonstration  of  best  management  practices 
therein. 

the  improvement  of  knowledge  on  the  innovation  process,  systems  and 
policies  at  Community,  national  and regional  levels. This was  to  contribute  to 
the  effectiveness  and  coherence  of innovation  policies,  through  the  collection 
of reliable  data  and  information  about  innovation  activities  and  processes,  the 
refinement  of  the  conceptual  framework  and  the  reinforcement  of  the 
exchange  of  experience  between  policy  makers  and  entities  of  relevance  for 
innovation  and  diffusion  of  technologies  (European  Innovation  Monitoring 
System - EIMS). 

2.4  Within  each  of  the  above  lines,  a broad  range  of  initiatives  was  implemented.  The 
Panel presented  and analysed each of them in detail in Annex  1 of the  report. 

3£> 

HI.  Overall  assessment  of the  programme 

3.1 The frame  of reference  for  a Community Programme for Innovation  Support 

Before  engaging in the evaluation of the  SPRINT Programme  the Panel  considered  it 
necessary  to  define  the  frame  of reference  for  a  Community  Innovation  programme. 
According to them the following  factors  must be kept in mind: 

• 

• 

• 

the difference  between research policy, aiming at the creation  of new  knowledge, 
and innovation policy, oriented towards the application  of knowledge  that  is new 
to the applier; 

the necessary systems approach of innovation policy,  consisting  in stimulating the 
multiple  interactions  between  innovation  actors,  and  guaranteeing  the  complete, 
complementary and coherent  character of the measures; 

the  relevance  of  an  SME  oriented  innovation  policy,  strongly  based  on  the 
demand from  SMEs, being implemented through  structures  close to  these  SMEs, 
in  particular  at  regional  level.  This  policy  lays  emphasis  on  the  diffusion  of 
existing technologies, a process linked to the absorptive  capacity  of firms. 

The  Commission  shares  this  analysis  of  the  frame  conditions  for 
innovation 
supporting  programmes,  and  considers  the  main  orientations  of  the  SPRINT 
programme to have been in line with these requirements. 

3.2  Overall conclusions on SPRINT and  recommendations 

The overall  conclusion  of the Panel  on  SPRINT  is positive.  In its view the  objectives 
of  the  Council  Decision  were  pursued  effectively  given  the  allocated  resources,  and 
the programme corresponds well to the tasks of an innovation programme 

Although  not  exempt  from  imperfections,  SPRINT  is  seen  to  have  been  an  original 
and  veil  adapted  tool  to  assist  SMEs  of  all  types  in  their  innovation  process:  the 
experimental  character  of  SPRINT  did  allow  a large  range  of  solutions  to  be  tested, 
and  an  original  process  of  reflection  -  experimentation,  evaluation  and  diffusion  of 
knowledge  was  set  up  under  the programme.  Furthermore,  a large  number  of  actors 
of  relevance  for  innovation  processes  found  in  SPRINT  a  European  frame  for 
cooperation  and interaction which they lacked before. 

With  respect  to  future  Community  policies,  innovation  and  technology  diffusion  are 
considered  by  the  Panel  to  be  of  highest  priority  .  The  diffusion  of  technologies  to 
traditional  sectors  is  seen  to  be  more  important  than  the  massive  production  of  new 
technologies which would benefit  the high tech sector  exclusively. 

3.3  The Panel also gives a favorable  answer to the questions submitted  in its mandate : 

•  The  SPRINT  programme  did  pursue  the  objectives  set  out  by  the  decision  of 

17.4.1989; 

4q 

•  —Innovation  and  technological  diffusion  policies  are  still  relevant  today,  in 
particular  for  diffusion  to  traditional  sectors,  and  the  policy  set  up  by  SPRINT 
adapts well to these constraints and objectives; 

•  Whilst  improvements  are  necessary  in  the  working  procedures,  the  overall 
working process is considered  as very healthy by the Panel, who  recommends  its 
main characteristics to be kept. 

3.4  Some weaknesses are identified  by the Panel in: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

visibility of the working process of the programme; 

dissemination  of results; 

catalytic role for regional and national scale innovation actions; 

interactions with other services of the Commission. 

3.5  These  points  are  further  taken  up  in  the  Panel's  recommendations  concerning  the 

composition  of a future  programme and its action modes : 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

the choice of new actions should be made more transparent; 

the programme  should  develop  explicit  mechanisms  for  reviewing,  renewing  and 
discarding actions; 

targeting  SMEs would  have to  be improved  by developing  a typology  of SMEs, 
based on terms of innovation  demand; 

besides  support  for  intermediaries,  direct  intervention  in favor  of  SMEs  in  some 
areas is recommended; 

the  choice  of  EIMS  themes  should  be  done  in  closer  association  with  other 
interested  Commission  Services; 

•  methodological  aspects  of  pilot  schemes,  like  definition  of  objectives  and 

evaluation,  should be  strengthened; 

• 

• 

new methods for  dissemination of results should be studied  and  applied; 

interaction  mechanisms  between 
in  general, 
Community programmes should be set in place; 

the  3rd  Activity  and  other 

• 

the statutory staff dedicated to the programme should be increased. 

Whenever  relevant  these  points  have been  addressed  by the  Commission  in the  design  of 
the work  programme  for  the  Specific  Programme  for  Dissemination  and  Optimization  of 
Results  of Activities in the field of RTD  and will be pursued  during  its implementation  as 
appropriate. 

5C? 

IV  Detailed  analysis of the main elements of the SPRINT  programme 

Next  to  the  above  overall  assessment  of the Programme,  the  Panel  did  apply  a  new 
and interesting  model in view to  assess in detail the main elements  of the  Programme 
as  well  as  its  suitability  to  meet  the  objectives  of  the  3rd  Activity  of  the  4th 
Framework  Programme. 

4.1 Analysis of means of action and methods applied 

The  working  method  set  up  by  SPRINT  is  characterized ,by  the  following  cycle 
combining reflection,  experimentation,  evaluation and dissemination : 

• 

• 

First, an initial  reflection 

Second,  confirmation  through experimentation and evaluation; 

•  Then,  building  up  of  human  networks,  in the  form  of  macro  or  mini  networks, 

achieving thus a large multiplication effect  of the measures. 

•  Analysis of the results and identification  of lessons learnt. 

• 

Finally, appropriate dissemination of selected results and good  practices. 

The  Commission  considers  this  rather  formalized  description  of  SPRINT's  methods 
by the  Panel  basically  in  line  with  its  practice.  These  methods  however  are  not  the 
goal,  but  an  approach  to  achieve  wider  objectives  in  an  efficient  way,  taking  into 
account  experiences of the partners in the innovation process. 

4.2  Analysis by categories of actors 

The  Panel  considers  SPRINT  to  have  involved  a wide  range  of  actors  which  are  of 
relevance  for  SME innovation.  However,  in their  opinion,  more  attention  should  be 
paid  to  a  number  of  intermediaries,  such  as  consultants  in  EPR, technology  specific 
Technological  Resource  Centers,  financial  partners  for  innovative  SMEs,  regional 
infrastructures. 

In  addition,  the Panel  considers that  Community  activities  should  extend  their  focus 
beyond  collaboration  between  SMEs  and include the interaction  between  technology 
suppliers  or  users,  in  particular  between  SMEs  and  large  firms,  and  on  the 
collaboration between innovation services for SMEs. 

The  Commission  is  aware  of  the  fact  that  there  was  only  partial  coverage  of 
intermediaries  and  SME  collaborative  structures.  Essentially,  this  was  due  to  the 
limited  resources  available  and  to  the  need  to  concentrate  on  a  limited  range  of 
experimental  and  pilot  activities.  Under  the  3rd  Activity  efforts  will  be  extended  in 
particular  in two fields : co-operation  with  regional  policy initiatives  and  instruments 
for  innovation finance. Special  attention  will be paid to  systematic  efforts  in research 
and in Community-wide statistics on innovation activities, in particular  of SMEs. 

6*3. 

4.3  Analysis by  objectives 

The  Panel  examined  the  activities  with  respect  to  their  suitability  to  meet  the 
objectives laid down in the Work programme of the 3rd Activity : 

• 

• 

• 

creating an environment favoring innovation and technology  absorption; 

favoring  the establishment  of an area for the free circulation  of technologies; 

facilitating  the supply of technologies. 

Measures  undertaken  by  SPRINT  of  relevance  for  the  first  objective  aimed  at 
increasing the quality of specialists in the field of SME related  services, spreading best 
practice  through  policy  demonstration  schemes,  and  favouring  the  diffusion  of 
technologies.  The  Panel  observed  that  more  systematic  efforts  could  have  been 
devoted  to  draw  lessons  from  these  various  experiences  and  to  disseminate  such 
experience to local or national policy makers. 

The  Commission  feels  that  this  apparent  limitation  was  the  result  of  the  fact  that  at 
that  stage  priority  was  given  to  the  immediate  sharing  of  experience  by  the 
participants  and 
their  counterparts,  accepting  that  wider  diffusion  would  be 
undertaken  in subsequent  stages. 

In  relation  with  the  second  objective,  the  Panel  underlines  the  positive  role  of 
European  networks  which  SPRINT  had  implemented  in  a  systematic  way. 
It 
regretted  the  fact  that  not  enough  interfirm  cooperation  platforms  existed  at 
European  level,  and  that  these  networks  have  not  been  used  more  intensively  for 
dissemination  of information  between the various partners of different  regions. 

The  Commission  stresses  that  Community  support  was  from  the  beginning  intended 
only  to  facilitate  the  setting-up  of  such  networks,  which  had  to  prove  later  on  their 
viability and  had to achieve financial autonomy. 

The  Commission  intends to  reinforce  network  cooperation  under  the  3rd  Activity,  in 
particular  by  stimulating  the  extension  of  the  Relay  Centres  network  and  by 
supporting  European  co-operation  between  existing  national  networks  or  initiatives. 
It  is  intended  to  make  best  use  of  such  networks  also  for  initiatives  under  other 
Community Programmes. 

With  respect  to  the  third  objective  the  Panel  underlines  that  this  refers  not  to  the 
provision  of technologies  as such to  SMEs, but to the adaptation  of R&D  knowledge 
to  the  requirements  of  innovative  SMEs.  The  positive  contribution  of  SPRINT'S 
support  for  collaboration  between  technical  centres  (Networks  of  Research  and 
Technology  Organizations) or of some Specific Projects  is mentioned. 

The  Commission  intends to  strengthen  its efforts  in that field under  the  3rd  Activity, 
notably  by  its  support  for  Technology  Validation  Projects  and  Technology  Transfer 
Projects. 

7* 

4.4  Panel observations on the individual action lines of the SPRINT  Programme 

The detailed  opinion of the Panel on individual  action  lines is summarized  in Annex 1 
of the report, the main points of which are the following : 

Actions  aiming  at  SME  technological  partners,  in  particular  the  Network  of 
Research  and  Technology  Organisations,  are  considered  helpful  and  should  be 
continued with some improvements. 

Measures in favour  of the Regional Technology Advisory  Centres  provide  good 
added value and should be actively pursued. 

Support  of Science Parks is in general  approved  by the  Panel,  who  suggests  to 
explore  in  addition  the  synergies  with  DGI  and  the  Phare  Programme  and  to 
put more emphasis on the promotion of the quality of such parks. 

The overall appreciation of the Panel on actions aiming at  consultants  in general 
and at the promotion  of tools that  enhance the  quality  of their  advice to  SMEs, 
such as the schemes for  "Managing the Integration  of New  Technology",  Value 
Analysis,  Design  and  Quality  is  positive,  with  specific  recommendations  to 
improve  some operational  characteristics,  and  here  again  essentially  in the  field 
of dissemination and publication of knowledge and results  achieved. 

Actions  aiming  at  consultants  specialised  in  licensing,  such  as  the  Inter-firm 
networks  and  Technology  Transfer  Days,  have,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Panel, 
demonstrated  their usefulness  and should be conserved  and even  reinforced. 

Initiatives  aiming  at  the  financial  system,  mainly  Technology  Performance 
Financing  and  Investment  Fora,  would  require  a  re-thinking  concerning  the 
tools and  approaches. 

Measures  in support  of the interaction  of SMEs with  other  companies  could,  in 
the opinion of the Panel, have been further  developed. 

Actions  aiming  at  regional  policies  under  the  "Regional  Innovation  and 
Technology  Transfer  Strategies  and Infrastructures"  and  "Regional  Technology 
Plans" initiatives are important and should be further  developed. 

The  strengthening  of  the  absorptive  capacity  of  SMEs  under  the  Specific 
Project  Action  line is  seen  as  an  example  of  successful  exploratory  action  that 
deserves to be continued  and expanded  in the  future. 

The  creation  of  trans-European  networks  for  innovation  and  knowledge 
transfer  triggered  a  Europeanisation  effect  considered  very  precious  by  the 
Panel,  to  be  maintained  under  the  4th  Framework  Programme  and  to  be  made 
available to other Commission services dealing with  SMEs. 

The  European  Innovation  Monitoring  System  is  seen  to  be  a  very  important 
element  of  the  programme,  permitting  analysis  and  the  development  of  new 
concepts. More empirical work on the conditions of SMEs is suggested. 

4.5  The Panel  suggests that the various measures developed  under  SPRINT  be  continued 
under the  Specific  Programme  for  the Dissemination  and  Optimisation  of the  Results 

8o 

of ^Activities  in  the  field  of  Research  and  Technological  Development,  including 
Demonstration  of the 4th Framework Programme, and that this Programme  addresses 
all aspects of the innovation process. 

As mentioned  before,  the  Commission  has taken  into  account,  whenever  this  proved 
appropriate,  the  recommendations  of  the  Panel  in  the  setting-up  of  the  Work 
Programme for the Specific  Programme. 

The  Commission,  while  sharing  the  Panel's  concern  to  see  all  aspects  of  the 
innovation  process  covered,  underlines  that  this  has  to  be  achieved  by  a  variety  of 
instruments within  and  outside  the Framework  Programme,  taking  duly  into  account 
the  legal  basis  of  such  operations  and  assuring  a  co-ordinated  approach  as 
recommended  in the Green paper on Innovation. 

V.  Conclusions 

5.1  The Commission  has carefully  considered  the report  and the opinion  of the Panel. It 
will endeavour  to take up, wherever  possible, the relevant  recommendations  for  the 
implementation  of the  Specific  Programme  for  the  Dissemination  and  Optimisation 
of the Results of Activities in the field of Research  and Technological  Development, 
including  Demonstration,  adopted  by  the  Council  Decision  94/917/CE  of  15 
December  1994 for the period  1994-1998. 

5.2  This communication  together  with  the Panel  Evaluation  Report  is  addressed  to  the 
European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
complying with article 8 of the Council Decision of  17th April  1989 on the  SPRINT 
Programme. 

Appendix 

A. 

B. 

Panel Evaluation  report 

List of evaluation  reports 

9& 

PANEL  EVALUATION  OF THE  SPRINT  PROGRAMME 

SUMMARY  OF THE  REPORT 

PART  ONE 

TERMS AND FRAME OF REFERENCE 

A.  TERMS  OF REFERENCE  OF THE GROUP, WORK  METHOD 

B.  REFERENCE  FRAMEWORK 

1 
2. 
3 

What  is innovanon9 
Research  policy and innovation  policy are two different  things 
Characteristics of an SME-targeted innovation policy 

C.  WHAT IS THE  ROLE OF A EUROPEAN  PROGRAMME  TO 

STIMULATE  INNOVATION  IN SME'S? 

PART  TWO 

ANAL YSIS OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM 

A  OBJECTIVES 

B  METHODS  AND MEASURES  OF THE  SPRINT PROGRAMME 

1. 

2. 
3. 
4. 

First combine reflection  and experimentation, 
evaluation  and dissemination 
Evaluate the actions 
Then build up networks 
Target  SME partners 

C.  COHERENCE  OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM  ANALYSIS  BY CATEGORY 

OF OPERATOR 

Consultants 
Technological  partners 
Field consultants 
Financial partners for  innovative SMEs 
Local policy-makers 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6.  What SPRINT has overlooked 

Page 

5 

10 

10 

10 

11 

11 
12 
13 

15 

17 

17 

17 

17 
18 
18 
18 

19 

19 
20 
20 
21 
21 
22 

D.  • COHERENCE OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM: ANALYSIS BY OBJECTIVES 

1. 

Helping to create an environment beneficial  to innovation in SMEs 

a. 

b. 

c. 

Influencing  specialists 

Influencing  tools and policies 

Disseminating technologies 

2. 

3. 

Europeanising the operators  in the innovation system 

Horizontal  schemes 

E 

CONCLUSION 

PART  THREE 

22 

23 

23 

23 

24 

25 

25 

26 

CONCL USIONS AND  RECOMMENDA TIONS 

'  2 7 

A  GENERAL  APPRAISAL  OF THE  SPRINT  SYSTEM 

B 

PROPOSALS  FOR THE  COMPOSITION  OF THE PROGRAMME 

1. 

2. 

A programme  such as  SPRINT must be flexible  and evolutionary 

Should the programme  continue to target  intermediaries  or should  it be 
aimed at SMEs directly? 

3. 

A new dimension: a privileged relationship  between SPRINT and 

regional  authorities 

C 

PROPOSALS  FOR SPECIFIC  ACTION 

1. 

2. 

Improve the reflection-expcnmcnLation-evaJuation-dissemination  cycle 

Reinforce  and  systematise the interaction  between the SPRINT  programme 

and  its potential  partners 

3. 

Increase human  resources  within the SPRINT programme 

D.  MISCELLANEOUS 

E.  CONCLUSION:  SUMMARY  ANSWERS  TO THE  QUESTIONS  PUT 

TO THE  PANEL 

27 

28 

28 

30 

32 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

36 

I 

ANNEXES 

ANNEX  1: ANALYSIS  OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM BY TYPE OF INITIATIVE 

1. 

Schemes aimed at technological  partners of SMEs 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6 

Schemes aimed at RTACs 

Schemes aimed at science parks 

Schemes aimed at consultants in general 

Schemes aimed at consultants  specialising  in licensing 

Schemes aimed at the financial  system 

39 

40 

41 

42 

45 

47 

49 

7. 

Schemes aimed at the interaction  of SMEs with other  SMEs  (networks) and/or  large 

firms 

52 

8 

9 

Schemes aimed at regional  policies 

Schemes aimed at the absorptive  capacity of SMEs and their  interactions  with their partners 

10.  Evaluation of the action taken under SPRINT 

ANNEX  2: ANALYSIS  OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM ACCORDING  TO OBJECWES 

1 

2 

First objective:  Creation of an environment  beneficial  to innovation and the absorption 

of technologies 

Second objective:  Establishment  of an area  for the free  circulation  of technologies 

in the EU and for application  of innovative products) 

3 

Third objective:  Supply  SME's with technologies  adapted  to their  requirements 

ANNEX  3: NOTE  ON THE 1%RULE 

ANNEX  4  SPRINT EVALUA TION PANEL 

ANNEX  S: TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE SPRINT FINAL EVAL UA TION PANEL 

ANNEX  6: LIST  OF ACRONYMS 

Tables  1. 2,3 and 4 and Figure  1 

52 

54 

56 

59 

60 

63 

66 

68 

70 

71 

72 

75 

3 

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  XITi/D,  comprises  a  set  of  lines  of  action,  the 
overall  objective  of  which  is  to  create  a  climate  favourable  to  innovaDon  around  European 
smalland  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  polies 

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 
It  is  nevertheless  increasingly  vital  for  the  two  policies  to  be  conducted 
enterprises. 
simultaneously  and on the same  footing 

2.2 

Value  added  of  the  European  approach 

Specific 
regional  level.  SPRINT  looked  at the problem  in a  European  context. 

innovation  policies  have  been  introduced  in  the  Member  States,  especially  at 

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  authonties  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  EEMS  programme  (European 
Innovation  Monitoring  System),  which  helps  it  to  identify  the  relevant  actions  which  need  to 
be carried  out,  in particular  for  the  benefit  of  regional  and  national  governments. 

Furthermore,  those  involved  in  innovation  in  the  various  Member  States  have  been  able  to 
add  a  transnational  dimension  to  their  work  by  coming  together,  at  the  European  level, 
thanks  to  the  SPRINT  networks. 

Lastly,  SPRINT  has  contributed 
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. 

to  the  objective  of  European  cohesion 

through 

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 

S P R I NT  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 

(brokers,  research  and  technology  agencies,  regional 

interface 

networks 
organizations,  university-industry 
science  parks  and  regional  infrastructure  for 
innovation 

financing, 

intermediaries) 

innovation; 

II  - 

DISSEMINATION  AND  ABSORPTION  OF  NEW  TECHNOLOGIES  AND 
PRACTICES 

innovation  management 
technology 
demonstration  projects  Ç"special projects"for 

transfer  days. 

techniques  (MINT,  design,  quality,  etc.); 

innovation 

transfer); 

III  - 

PROMOTING  A WA REN ESS  OF  INNO  VA TION  AND  UNDERSTANDING  OF 
HOW  IT  WORKS 

"European 
Innovation  Monitoring 
studies,  workshops  on policies,  etc.). 

System 

"(information 

gathering, 

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 
unproved.  SMEs  were  directly  involved  only  in  pilot  projects  (MINT)  or  promotional  events 
(European  Design  Pnze). 

4 

Results  of  actions:  analysis  according  to  categories  of  actors 

Has  SPRINT  succeeded  or  failed  in  achieving  the  objectives  it  was  given9  These  questions 
need  to be  answered  according  to the  category  of actors  in the  innovation  system 

In the  systemic  model  of the  innovation  process,  the  six  main  types  of partner  who  are  able  to 
bring  to  SMEs  the  varied  skills  which  an  innovation  process  requires  and  to  supplement  their 
internal  know-how  are  as  follows:  consultants,  technological  resource  centres  (technological 
partners),  financial  institutions,  non-specialist  bodies  which  stimulate  demand  and  organize 
the  coherence  of  the  various  actions  (field  consultants  and  regional  departments  responsible 
for  innovation),  and  other  enterprises 

(mini-networks 

technology  brokers 

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 
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). 

technology 

inter-firm 

for 

technical  centres  (involved 

Technological  partners  or  research  and  technology  organizations 

(RTOs).  Among 
U) 
fundamental 
these,  the  sectoral 
technologies 
in  the 
programme.  RTO  minj-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. 

in  traditional  sectors)  benefited  from  one  of  the  main 

in  collective  research  on 

initiatives 

Financial  partners.  These  partners,  comprising  bankers  and  venture  capitalists,  are 
iii) 
of  major  importance.  SPRINT  focused  chiefly  on  the  second  category  by  helping  to  set  up 

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  XVTH  (Credit  and  Investments) 
and  DG  XXIII  (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 

for 

Regional 

(and  national)  services  responsible 

v) 
innovation.  SPRINT  has  been 
svstematicaJly  involved  in  assisting  science  parks  and  similar  structures,  and  has  therefore 
made  itself  felt  with  those  responsible  locally.  Actions  to  assist  regional  policy-makers  took 
on  more  substance  at  the  end  of  the  programme  with  the  launch  of  Regional  Technology 
Plans  (RTPs,  undertaken  in  collaboration  with  DG  XVI  Regional  Policies)  and  the  RTTTS 
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  this  is one  of  the  major  shortcomings  of the  programme 

The  important  role  of  "specific  projects"  (2 I  in  all)  must  be  stressed,  these  being  projects  for 
the  transfer  of  proven  technologies  to  regions  where  such  technologies  are  m demand  but  not 
yet  available.  This  action  line  made  it  possible  to  bnng  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. 

the 
Lastly,  the  European  Innovation  Monitoring  System  (EIMS)  was  considered  by 
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  arc 
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  marginalizarjon  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 
Commission. 

interaction  with  national  authonties  and  with  other  services  of  the 

The  panel  also  feels  that  there  is a  lack  of qualified  staff  for  the  size of the  programme. 

While  recommending  that  intermediaries  remain  the  main  target  of  the  SPRINT  system,  the 
panel  would  like  to  see  regular,  category-specific  reports  on  the  impact  on  SMEs  of  the 
actions  launched  .  The  panel  also  considers  that  some  direct  intervention  gaps  on  SMEs  do 
exist,  and  that  these  could  be  developed  -  for  example  via  carefully  prepared  pilot  actions  -
without  violating  the  principle  of  subsidiarity 

The  panel  stresses  the  importance  of  renewing  Community  actions  by  a  rigorous  process  for 
discarding  actions  going  hand  in  hand  with  and  a  mechanism  for  selecting  new  programmes, 
based  on  consultation  (with  the  other  directorates-general  involved  but  also  with  all  those 
involved  in the  innovation  process) 

The  Commission  must  strengthen  its  contact  role  with  regional  authorities  and  improve  the 
dissemination  of  results  and  studies  derived  from  the  activities  of  the  programme 
Such 
dissemination  means  structuring  the  lessons  learned  and  transforming  "tacit"  knowledge  into 
explicit  information  which  can  be  broadly  disseminated  m written  form. 

Transparency  (visibility),  dissemination  and 
improving  the  SPRINT  system 

interaction  summarize 

the  three  axes  for 

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. 

T E R MS  OF  R E F E R E N CE  OF  T HE  GROUP;  W O RK  M E T H OD 

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  achieved9  Is  there  sufficient  rationale  for  continuing  current 
projects,  taking  into account  economic  trends9  In this  particular  case  a  further  question  needs 
to  be  asked  on  how  to  derive  the  greatest  benefit  from  the  incorporation  of  SPRINT  in  the 
"Third  Activity"  of the  Fourth  Framework  Programme. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  SPRINT  was  not  part  of  the  third  Framework  Programme  and 
that  its  inclusion  in  the  Fourth  Framework  Programme  is  linked  to  the  innovation  concept 
SPRINT  has  so  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  m  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,  and  guaranteeing  that  the 
measures  taken  for  their  benefit  are  complete,  complementary  and  coherent.  The  danger  of 
such  a  policy  is  to  focus  on  one  element  of the  innovation  system  while  ignoring  the  need  for 
others  and  failing  to  sec  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  bv  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  inevestigatc  each  initiative  m  detail,  (even  though  Annex  1 
provides  a  brief  review  of  them  with  an  appreciation),  there  was  no  time  for  detailed 
assessment,  and  moreover,  most  initiatives  were  the  subject  of  separate  evaluation  exercises 
which,  after  having  their  validity  assessed  by  a  few  restricted  public-opinion  polls,  were  a 
source  of inspiration  for  the  panel  in  its general  conclusions. 

11 

The  panel  met  SPRINT  CIT  (Committee  for  Innovation  and Technology  Transfer)  delegates 
separately;  visits  were also paid to national  policy-makers from two  Member  States.  Finally, 
interviewed  along  with 
those  responsible  for  each 
representatives  of three Directorates  with an interest  in SPRINT. 

line  of  action  of  SPRINT  were 

B.  FRAME  OF  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  m  the  field,  very  satisfied  with  the  support  they  get,  and  policy-makers  who  worry 
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  does  not  claim 
as  a  central  objective  the  competitiveness  of firms,  m  a  context  in  which  they  are  abruptly 
exposed 
to 
SPRINT,  of  course,  and  to  the  programme  into  which  it  is  to  be  incorporated:  the  Third 
Activity  of  the  Fourth  Framework  Programme 

change.  This  also  applies 

competition  and 

to  international 

technological 

Ever  since  its  origins  (1984),  the  original  aspect  of  SPRINT  has  been  its  intention  to  aim  at 
innovation  m  SMEs.  particularly 
those  which  do  little  or  no  R&D.  This  is  in  contrast  with 
traditional  policies  which  seek  to  develop  pre-competitive  research  in  industrial  laboratories, 
mostly  within  large  firms.  It  is  only  recently,  in  fact,  that  the  clear  distinction  between  R&D 
policy  and  innovation  policy  been  well  understood  At  Community  level,  SPRINT  has  been  a 
useful  focal  point  for  those  who  have  set  the  tone  for  the  new  policies  in  each  Member  State 
and  region. 

In  terms  of  industrial  policy,  innovation  in  SMEs  is  a  segment  whose 
importance  is 
universally  recognised,  but  one  in  which  it  is  difficult  to  act  : either  because  we  lack  recipes 
or  because  the  SME  target  is  more  diversified  than  the  large  firm  or  laboratory  target,  but 
also  because  it is  tricky  for  public  authonties  to  intervene  in  a  area  very  close  to  the  market, 
such  as  SME  projects.  This  is  why  we  need  to  act  together,  at  a  European  level,  to  gain  a 
clearer  picture  of  the  requirements,  to  compare  experiences  and  to  disseminate  "  best 
practices ". 

The panel  summarises  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 
The  two  concepts  are 
should  not  be  confused  with  R&D. 
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 
important,  but  not  unique,  aspects  of  innovation 

technology 

and 

the  various  forms  of 

technology 

transfer.are 

2.  Research  policy  and  innovation  policy  are  two  different  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  remembered  that  this  confusion,  still  acute  today,  stems  from  the  "linear 
model"  which  describes  the  innovation  system  as  a  pipe:  fundamental  research  results  are 
injected  at  one  end,  and  the  commercial  products  come  out  at  the  other.  This  reasoning 
presupposed  a  direct  and  unavoidable 
link  between  economic  competitiveness  and 
intensive  research.  All  the  experience  of  the  past  20  years  shows  how  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 
fer  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  follow-s: 

- 

to  place  the  SME  within  an  environment  where  all  expertise  and  the  necessary 
knowledge  arc  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  pohcy  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 
to  firms,  at  the  right  time  and  m  the  right 
relevant 
place.  There  is  interaction  to  the  extend  that  awareness  of  demand  brings  to  light  new 
research  areas. 

technologies  must  be  disseminated 

To  summarise, 
to  be  conducted 
simultaneously  and  on  the  same  footing  They  must  also,  of  course,  interact  and  support 
each  other. 

innovation  policy  need 

research  policy  and 

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  m the  current  climate9 

a.  An  SME-ohented 
different  aspects. 

innovation  policy  must  be  all-embracing  and  include  a  number  of 

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  arc  neither  prepared  nor  trained  to  work  with  partners  and  therefore  have 
great  difficulty  in  taking  full  advantage  of  their  environment.  An  innovation  policy  should 
therefore  ensure  that: 

-  SMEs  have  knowledge  of and  access  to  all  the  necessary  partners; 

- 

- 

these  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  m the  innovation  system  via: 

*  promoting  interface  services  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  mto 
consideration  the  wide variety  of  SME  partners.  It  may  therefore  appear  to  be  diffuse. 

it  must  attempt 
the  various  public 
authonties  responsible  for  these  partners,  according  to  their  profession  It  is  therefore 
horizontal; 

to  coordinate  policies  already 

launched  by 

it  will  avoid  becoming  a  substitute  for  such  authonties 
It  will,  for  example,  only 
exceptionally  give  direct  financial  support  to  laboratones  developing  new  technologies 
(this  will  be the  province  of technology  policy,  a  sub-structure  of  RTD  policy). 

c  Innovation  policy 
policy,  which  is  supply-led) 

is  to  be  guided  by  the  demand  from  SMEs  (unlike  exploitation 

This  demand  varies  from  one  category  of  SME  to  another:  without  going  into  detail,  there 
are  three  major  categones 

-  new  SMEs  based  on  a  technological  idea  (NTBFs),  whose  purpose  is  to  commercialise 
a  completely  new  product  Thcv  usuallv  lack  financial  resources  as  well  as  managenal 
skills; 

- 

research-intensive  SMEs  (and  suppliers  of  technology  m  the  form  of  hardware, 
software,  matenais  etc  ), which  are  usuallv  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  arc  pnmanly  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 siimmariscs these  differences 

The  need  to  take  demand  into  account  explains  the  importance  currently  given  to  general 
innovation  advisers,  or  field  agents  (sec annexes  1 and  2). 

d  An SME-ohented 

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  pohcy  since  it  is  crucial  to 
know  how  to  incorporate  new  technological  knowledge  into  products  or  processes, 
whether  originating  directly  from  a  laboratory  or  whether  already  used  in  another  product 
or  sector. 

It  is therefore  desirable  and  even  necessary  that  those  who  are  responsible  for  innovation, 
whether  in  public  institutions  or  pnvate  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  m  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  innovation  policy,  it  must  be  said  that  innovation 
policy  requires  extensive  flexibility  because  of  the  wide  vanety  and  rapid  changeability  of 
situations.  Any  innovation  polio.'  must  at  this  stage,  be  experimental 

C  W H AT  CAN  BE  T HE  ROLE  OF  A  EUROPEAN  P R O G R A M ME  TO 
S T I M U L A TE  INNOVATION  IN  S M E s? 

Since  one of the  first  requirements  for  innovation  in  SMEs  is  face-to-face  contact,  the  role 
and  rationale  of  a  European  programme  needs  to  be  carefully  established  in  view  of  the 
subsidiarity  principle  and  the  extreme  diversity  of  regional  circumstances  One  of 
SPRINTs  achievements  has  been  to  specify-  what  this  policy  could  or  should  not  be,  by 
combining  analysis,  experimentation  and  evaluation. 

According  to  the  panel,  a  European  programme  must: 

- 

echo  the  variety  of  regional  and  national  policies,  stimulate  and  nurture  them;  promote 
collective  reflection  and  any  exchange  of  experience  between  policy-makers  and 
operators  in  the  field  It  must  therefore  increase  the  Community's  economic  and  social 
cohesion; 

16 

- 

study,  evaluate  and  disseminate  a  range  of  best  practices  through  common  guidelines 
and  pilot  demonstration  projects  suggesting  action  models  based  on  analysis.  Establish 
a  common  language; 

-  help  build  up  a  solid  infrastructure  of local  agents,  particularly  interface  services; 

-  give this  infrastructure  a  European  orientatioa, 

- 

feed  it with  European  information,  thus  aiding  the  free  circulation  of  technologies, 

-  accelerate  the  dissemination  and  utilisation  of technology  and  strengthen  the  absorptive 

capacity  of  SMEs; 

- 

- 

increase  the  social  and  economic  cohesion  of the  Community, 

in  line  with  regional  or  national  policies,  this  policy  must  be  honzontal  It  should  be 
coordinated  with  other  honzontal  policies  such  as  those  of  DG  XVI  (support  to  LFRs), 
DG  XXITI  (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  policy  to  influence  all  SMEs 

innovation  policies, 

it  would  be  difficult 

for  a  European 

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  mto 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  appropnate  tool  for  tackling  the  innovation  problems  of  SMEs  of  all  kinds. 

The panel  therefore  stresses  the  scnous  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  addmg  value  to 
the specific  programmes. 

According  to  the  work  programme  of  the  Third  Activity,  its  general  objectives  are  very 
largely  in line with those  set  out  in this reference  framework 

17 

PART  TWO 

ANAL  YSIS  OF THE SPRINT  SYSTEM 

A. 

OBJECTIVES 

SPRINT action  lines could  be described  as a juxtaposition  of schemes adopted  m accordance 
with the objectives  defined  in  1982 and  1989, which can be summansed  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  m terms 
of innovation and technology  transfer, 

c.  in the field of  innovation  and  technology  transfer,  to  increase  the  coherence  and  the 
efficiency  of innovation  tools  and  policies, whether  regional,  national  or  community-
based. 

SPRINT tackled  these objectives  by implementing  a system  of schemes  whose  coherence  we 
will assess  later. 

B.  METHODS AND MEASURES  OF THE SPRINT  PROGRAMME 

The challenge  for SPRINT was to  invent  a working  method  in a  completely  new  area.  Even 
at local level, an innovation  policy is difficult  to conceive and  implement.  At  European  level, 
choices  are  still  more  difficult  because  the  subsidiarity  principle  has  to  be  respected  and 
therefore,  directly  dealing  with  SMEs  is an  exception,  indeed,-it  is  now  recognised  that  for 
the average SME, local schemes are most  effective 

Faced  with  these  difficulties,  the  SPRINT  programme  has  developed  original  working 
methods ever since its launch. 

1.  First of all, combine  reflection  and experimentation, evaluation  and dissemination: 

-  The  EIMS  (European  Innovation  Monitoring  System)  initiative  makes  up  the  first  part  of 
this approach.  It is based on a series  of  studies  and workshops  which  deal  with  the  various 
aspects of innovation policy, and which have enabled to strengthen  the  European  network  of 
experts in the subject. 

18 

-  Many  of  SPRTNTs pilot  schemes  described  below  were  launched  as  a  result  of  this 
reflection  platform.  There  is  a  now  a  well-known  expérimental  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  Tiust  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 
m the  Specific  Projects  Action  Line  (SPAL),  but also  in schemes  such  as  MINT,  TPF, 
SPNET  etc.;  these  systematically  include  SMEs  as  well  as  the  various  types  of  partner 
(intermediaries  and others). 

2.  Evaluate  the  actions 

The  logical  follow-up  to  the  reflection  /  experimentation  cycle  consists  of  assessing  the 
policies  of regional decision-makers.  This is the case with the RITTS  and  RTP  schemes 
recently implemented  and with the consultancy schemes for  science  parks. 

3.  Then  build  up  networks 

The  aim  of  networks  is  twofold 
to  disseminate  best  practice,  particularly  knowledge 
gained  through  SPRINT  pilot  projects,  and  to  launch  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  vanous  operators  together  and  to  disseminate 
information.  These  also  provide  a  framework  for  organising  major  conferences 
from time to time 

-Other  networks  (mini-networks)  are  targeted  more  at  collective  action:  the 
adaptation  and dissemination  of technologies  (RTO  mini-networks),  or technology 
transfer  (Inter-firm  mini-networks) 

4.  Target  SMEf  partners 

To  aim  these  schemes  primarily  at  SME  partners  (various  types  of  intermediaries  and 
interfaces),  and  interaction  platforms  (markets,  fora,  science parks  and  technopoles)  is a 
choice of method. 

Since  the  programme  cannot  directly  influence  some  300  000  SMEs,  it  addresses  a  few 
thousand  SME  partners  and  hopes  for  a  wide  multiplier  effect.  SMEs  are  directly 
involved  in  a  few  pilot  projects  only  to  study  the  practicalities  and  difficulties  of  their 
interactions  with  intermedianes  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 
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. 

structure 

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  svstems  approach  only  can  make  a  real  impact  on  an  environment 
as  complex  and  interactive  as  the  innovation  system.  Is  the  SPRINT  programme  a  system, 
to  analyse  u 
having  an  internal 
successively 

its  coherence, 
through  two  grids:  the  innovation  operators  gnd  and  the  objectives  gnd. 

logic9  To  assess 

the  panel  chose 

The  interconnections  between  these  two gnds  are  summarised  m Table  4 

Analysis  by  category  of  operator 

One  of  the  main  virtues  of  SPRINT  has  been  its  recognition  that  the  innovation  process 
innovation 
relies  on  a  vanety  of  SME  partners  and  its consequent  promotion  of  emerging 
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  (sec  Figure 
1): SMEs  are  m 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  (hanks  and  capital  development  organisations), 

generalists  who  stimulate  the  demand  and  organise  the  coherence  of  the  various 
schemes: 

-  field  innovation  consultants  and 

- 

regional  authonties 

responsible  for  innovation  policy,  and  lastly 

-  other  firms  (SMEs  and  large  firms) 

1.  Consultants 

These  were  the  original  target  of  SPRINT.  Technology-licensing  brokers  were  grouped 
into  "inter-firm  mini-networks",  still  active  today.  The  Til  network,  easily  set  up, 
grouped  them  on  a  wider  European  basis.  More  recently,  SPRINT  launched  a  vast 
operation  for  bringing  together  SMEs  and  management  consultants  (MINT).  They  have 

20 

benefited  from  three original  lines  of action  (value  analysis,  quality  and  design),  thanks 
to  which  European  speciahsts-  have  been  able  to  create  real  communities  (similar  to 
scientific  communities) which developed the knowledge and various  relevant  documents to 
disseminate.  The  creation  of  a  panel  of  consultants  and  managers  of  science  parks  and 
technopoles should also be mentioned. 

By tackling technology  management, the programme neglected  other  types of  consultant. 
such  as  those who conduct  market  analysis  and  those who deal  with  intellectual  property 
problems. 

2.  Technological  partners 

SPRINT  grouped  the  various  types  of technology  supplier  under  the  heading  of  RTOs  ( 
Research  and  Technology  Organisations).  A  conference  was  organised  by  SPRINT  m 
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; 

-  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,  matenals  technology  etc.).  Small 
teams 
developed,  for  instance  in  France,  m  close  contact  with  laboratones  and  are 
totally  dedicated  to  SMEs  (testing,  analysis,  participation  in  product  or  process-
based  projects  etc.) 

technical 

The first category was supported  by SPRINT in the early days; m 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-
Industrial  Cooperation  Research 
network  FEICRO 
Organisations). 

(Federation  of  European 

The  second  category  benefited  a  few  years  ago  from  the  creation  of  the  macro-network 
EACRO  (European  Association  of  Contract  Research  Organisations),  whose  overall 
activity is fairly  intense. 

The third category has been  somewhat neglected 

3.  Field  Consultants  (innovation  & technology  consultants) 

It  is  only  recently  that  the  new  function  of  RTACs  (Regional  Technology  Advisory 
Centres)  has  developed.  It  can  be  descnbed  as  follows:  to  explore  the  SME  system,  to 
diagnose  their  needs,  and  to  offer  SMEs  a  wide  choice  of  technological  partners  (and 
others),  and  eventually  to  help  SMEs  launch  and  pilot  the  definition  phase  of  their 
innovations. 

The  macro-network  of  such  consultants  (RTAC)  was  launched  two  years  ago.  It  is  too 
early  to  assess  its  impact,  but  it  should  be  noted  that  RTAC  working  groups  have  been 
created  and do some useful  work. 

21 

4.  Financial  partners for innovative SMEs 

Innovation  is  an  industrial  operation  which  requires  not  only  self-financing  and  public 
support,  but  also  substantial  funding  from  the  financial  sector.  Hence  the  importance  of 
banks  and  venture  capitalists  as  partners  to  the  SME.  To  make  banks  aware  of  the 
specific  problems of SMEs, to help venture capitalists  to set up throughout  Europe and to 
have  access  to  the  same  tools  as  their  Amencan  colleagues  had  to  be  one  of  the  main 
pnonues  for  a programme such as SPRINT. 

The  nature  of  SPRINTs  action  in  this  new  and  difficult  area  is  expérimental  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  XVHI  and  DG  XXIII,  an  EIMS  type  initiative  is 
adressmg  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  (see 
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  m  creating  an  mfrastructure  for  supporting 
innovation  in SMEs, particularly  by: 

- 

injecting  financial  resources  mto  those  SMEs  and  mto  public  or  pnvate  innovation 
service organisations; 

-  by organising the interactions  between these innovation  operators, 

-  by favouring  coherence of the actions taken  by the various authonties  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  m 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, m fact the majonty  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 matunty. 

-  Action  in  support  of  regional  policy-makers  has  suddenly  become  highly  relevant 
thanks  to  the  launch  of  the  RITTS  and  RTP  (piloted  by  DG  XVI)  schemes.  The 
ambition here is broader,  since  RITTS  or  RTP tackles  the overall  regional  innovation 
infrastructure,  and analyses  and  aims to  redefine  what  should  be  done  to  improve  it. 
The  accent  is  on  the  consensus  which  should  prevail  amongst  the  various  relevant 
administrations  and on the interaction  which  should  be developed  between  the  vanous 
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  accomphshed  by 
consultants  whose  competence  should  be carefully  monitored). 

6.  What  SPRINT  has  overlooked 

The  range  of  SME  partners  dealt  with  by  SPRINT  is  large.  However,  the  panel  considers 
that  there  are  two gaps  m the  programme: 

-  Other  firms:  experience  has  shown  that  other  firms  have  become  a  major  partner  for 
SMEs.  For  example,  high-technology  firms  are  the  main  technology  suppliers  for 
SMEs  through  hardware,  software  and  matenals  technologies  which  are  manufactured 
on  demand.  More  generally  the  newly-organised  industrial  partem  multiplies  day-to 
day  interactions  between  firms  and  makes  them  inter-dependent.  This  is  particularly 
true  of the  innovation  process,  m which  SMEs  integrated  mto  a  network  succeed  better 
and  more  quickly  than  those  which  are  not  integrated.  According  to  arrangements  to  be 
defined,  SPRINT  could  be  expected  either  to  give  direct  support  to  the  creation  of 
busmess  networks  (SME/large  firms  networks,  SME  networks,  clusters),  or  to  support 
those  attempting  to develop  such  networks 

The  SPRINT  programme  has  so  far  neglected 
Even 
though  the  TT  Days  and  some  EIMS  schemes  work  m  that  direction,  their  impact  is 
far  from  adequate,  and  there  are  no  real  SME/large  firm  networks. 

this  aspect  of  the  problem. 

- 

Interaction  amongst  SME  partners:  no  senous  effort  has  really  been  made  to  bring 
together  all  the  vanous  SME  partners  and  reinforce  their  interaction,  apart  from 
S PAL,  even  though  one  has  to  acknowledge  that  such  a  task  would  not  be  easy 

D.  C O H E R E N CE  OF  T HE  SPRINT  SYSTEM  - ANALYSIS  BY  O B J E C T I VE 

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  light;  the  method  which  SPRINT  applies  should  enable  them  to  be 
identified. 

But  this  is  not  enough.  It  is  necessary  to  check  that  the  vanous  objectives  of  a  European 
innovation  policy  are  being  fulfilled,  at  least  where  the  pnme  target  of  "standard"  SMEs  is 
concerned. 

A  detailed  analysis  of the  SPRINT  system  by  objectives  is  included  in  Annex  2.  The  gnd 
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  arc  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  policv 
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 
services"). 
infrastructure  for  field  operators,  particularly 

interface 

implement  a  solid 

The  aim  is  to  increase  the  individual  quality  of  SME  services  through  the  creation  and 
chssemination  of basic  knowledge  and  practical  know-how.  The  following  approaches  are 
identified  m 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  m  which  les s-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 
vanous  expenences.  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 
action 
disseminate  best  practices 
models  based  on  reflection,  and  to  establish  a  common 
SPRINT  uses  the 
EIMS  experimentation/evaluation  system  to  further  that  aim,  as  described  above.  In  this 
context  the  following  initiatives  can  be  identified:  -

through  a  policy  of  demonstration  which  proposes 

language". 

-  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 
be demonstrated  to  local  or  national  policy-makers, 

to 

- 

the MINT  programme,  a  large-scale  management  support  demonstration  scheme; 

-  programmes  for  assessing  the  instrumental  value  of  a  science  park  or 

innovation  policy/infrastructure. 
cost,  they  investigated  a  series  of  local  schemes  and  are  a  powerful 
dissseminating  best  practice, 

regional 
Such  schemes  have  a  number  of  merits:  with  low 
tool  for 

24 

Such  a  companson  of  initiatives  with  objectives  reveals  a  lack  of  instruments  aimed  at 
increasing  the  absorption  capacity  of  SMEs,  by  influencing  the  selection  or  training  of 
their  personnel.  In  particular,  very  little was  done to  increase  human  mobility  from  public 
research  institutions  to companies  or  between  firms. 

These  schemes  analysed  aim  to  disseminate  widely  experiences  which  have  been  tested 
successfully  at  local  level  with  or  without  SPRINT  support.  Here,  SPRINT  can  be 
cnticised  mostly  at  the  level  of  the  dissemination  of  results.  Even  though  macro-  and 
mini-networks,  general  conferences,  EEMS  workshops  and 
information 
campaign  on  best  practices  in  transnational  technology  management  networks  are  all 
instrumental  m disseminating  lessons  learned,  there  is a  major  gap:  putting 
the 
lessons  learned  from  each  experience 
to  enable  all  local  or  national  innovation  policy 
makers  to  benefit  from  them. 

together 

recent 

the 

SPRINTs  lack  of  influence  on  policy-making  is  noticeable  in  that  action  taken  under  the 
structura]  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  onginal  financial 
tool,  TPF  (see  Annex  1, 
paragraph  6). 

•  A  similar  approach  is  to  buy  licences  m  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  m  the 
project  as  real  partners  SPRINT  has  tned  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 
this  type  of  mobility.  SPRINT  has  recently 
programmes  exist  whjch  favour 
launched  a  network  of  people  responsible  for  these  programmes-  This 
is  an 
interesting  effort,  but  is  not  yet  adequate,  since  the  ultimate  aim  of  such  an 
approach  is  to  increase 
the  absorptive  capacity  of  SMEs,  which  requires  far  more 
attention. 

•  Lastly,  the  dissemination  of  explicit  information  should  not  be  neglected  (explicit 
knowledge  in  contrast  to  the  tacit  knowledge  which  is  used  in  the  approaches 
described  above).  This  is the  role  of  databanks  and  other  types  of  technology-watch 
tools extensively  developed  by  the  CORDIS  system  (VALUE  programme). 

In  all  cases,  dissemination  is  a  learning  process 
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 

in  which  the  interested 

learns 

firm 

25 

dissemination  policy  is  to  develop  "learning  products",  it  could  be  said  that  SPRTNT  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  arnved  on  the  innovation  scene.  The  way  thev- work  is 
described  in  more  detail  m  Annexes  1  and  2.  They  are  obviouslv  valuable  tools  for 
developing  a  European  reflex  amongst  operators  m  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 
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  m each  region 

these  networks  have  not  been  used  sufficeintly 

that 

3.  Horizontal 

schemes 

The  purpose  of  a  honzontal  programme  such  as  SPRINT  is  to  provide  a  catalyst  to 
enable  vanous  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  vanous 
needs  of  SMEs.  This 
information  on 
international  markets  for  products  and  services,  industnaJ  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. 

is  true  of  technology, 

resources, 

financial 

There  will  be  further  development  of this  theme  m part  3,  paragraph  C.2  For  a  long  time 
SPRINT  had  no  meaningful  collaboration  with  other  services,  but  has  succeeded  recently 
in establishing  some  significant  links  such  as 

-  a joint  programme  with  DG  XVI  on  RTP.  SPRINTs  experience  is  being  widely 
used by those  responsible  for  the  structural  funds  This  looks  very  promising. 

- 

interaction  with  DG  XVIII  and  DG  XXIII  on  the  problem  of  venture  capital, 

-  making  the  directorate  responsible  for  telematics  aware  of  the  links  needed 

between  science  parks  and  technopoles, 

-  co-operation with  EUROSTAT  on  the  Community  Innovation  Survey, 

- 

links with  DG  III on  sectoral  projects 

This  list  is  not  exhaustive  and  unfortunately  does  not  include  any  RTD  programmes,  nor 
does it include directorates  in charge  of  intellectual  properties  and  standards. 

26 

E.  CONCLUSION 

This  analysis  demonstrates  that  the  SPRINT  programme  is  a  coherent  system  in which  the 
various  lines  of  action  of  an  innovation  pohcy  involve  all  those  active  m  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  saving  this  we  do not  wish  to  conceal  the  defects  of the  SPRTNT  programme,  which  are 
listed  m  Part  Three  of  this  report  - particularly  its  inability  to  descnbe  its  overall  working 
procedures  accurately  although  some  efforts  have  been  made  to  remedy  that 
Each 
operator  sees  m  SPRINT  only  what  mterests  him  or  her,  and  external  observers  descnbe 
it  as  unstructured  and  diffuse  (this  is  very  often  the  impression  given  by  innovation 
programmes,  however).  Interaction  does  take  place  between  the  vanous  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  m  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  T HE  SPRINT  SYSTEM 

The  segment  occupied  by  SPRINT  is  both  onginal  and  essential:  the  development  of  SME 
innovation  policy. 
It  has  also  succeeded  in  developing  appropnate  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  of  the Fourth  Framework  Programme. 
SPRTNT  also  has  its  weaknesses: 
recommendations, 
SPRINT  system  within  the  Framework  Programme 

them  and  has  offered  some 
the 

that  they  would  justify  marginalising 

but  it  is  not  convinced 

the  panel  has  identified 

SPRINT  is  indeed  a  system  in  which  each  mitiative  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  pnvate  and  public 
policy-makers,  in particular  at  regional  level; 

innovation 

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; 

- 

little 

too 
interaction  with  national  governments  and  other  Commission 
departments,  even  though  influencing  other  programmes  is  one  of  the  major 
objectives  of a  horizontal  pohcy. 

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 
implicit  Commission  rules  according  to  which  the  number  of  staff 
suffering  from 
programme 
available  is  proportionate  to  the budget  allocated.  Yet SPRINT  is  an  activity 
whose  impact  derives  no  less  from  the expertise  of  its  staff  than from 
funds 
granted. 

its  budgetary 

To  compensate  for  its  staff  shortage,  SPRINT  relies  on  a  large  network  of  consultants. 
This  is  useful  but  not  sufficient,  because  permanent  staff  are  essential  for  accumulating 
experience  and knowledge  of the overall  system,  for  disseminating  results  and  for  guiding 
and  controlling  consultants. 

One  might  ask  why so  many  initiatives  were  undertaken  with  so  few  staff: 
to  have  done 
less  would  have  reduced  or  undermined  the  systemic  nature  of  SPRINT,  whose  overall 
effect  relies  precisely  on the diversity  and complimentanty of its  initiatives. 

B.  P R O P O S A LS  FOR  T HE  C O M P O S I T I ON  OF T HE  P R O G R A M ME 

The  strength  of  SPRINT  lies  m  the  importance  of  the  segment  it  fills  and  the  general 
approach  it  has  taken.  However,  it  can  only  be  effective  if the  diversity  of  its  initiatives 
precisely  meets  the  needs  of  innovation  operators 
In  Part  Two  of  this  report  (and  m 
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  m the  light  of 
what  concerns  the  operators 
In  doing  so  the  committee  detected  some 
deficiencies  in  the  overall  process  and  had  some  doubts  concerning  particular  Imes  of 
action, but this  is not essential  The panel  idenufies  the following  three  main  issues: 

themselves 

1. 

A programme  such  as  SPRINT  must  be  flexible  and  evolutionary: 

The  environment  changes  fast  New  partners  appear,  other  partners  lose  their  importance 
or  no  longer  need  support  The  demand  from  SMEs  changes  as  the  need  for  innovation 
spreads  to new categones  of  firms 

SPRINT  must  be able  to hand  over  the management  of certain  schemes  to other  operators 
(in  the Commission  or  m  a  Member  Stale)  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 

tc: 

- 

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  m 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  M INT s  future). 

Another  unportant  measure  would  be  to  replace  one  SPRINT  initiative  by  another  pilot 
action  along  the  same  Imes,  using  the  reflection-action-evaluation-dissemination  approach 
of  which  the  panel  so  strongly  approves  For  example,  innovation  financing  is  cunently 
an  unportant  question  of  universal  concern,  and  one  m  which  a  senes  of  tests  should  be 
launched  to  help  find  answers 

These  mechanisms  already  exist  to  some  extent  m  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  remainmg  quite  sunple,  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  mitiative, 
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  vanous  Commission 
programmes  which  would  later  be  likely  to take  over  some  of  the  advanced  schemes  is 
another. These  proposals  also apply  to the choice of  EIMS  themes. 

30 

By  stressing  these  entry/exit  mechanisms,  the  aim  of  the  panel  is  definitely  not  to  reduce 
SPRINT  to  an  experimental  programme.  On  the  contrary,  the  panel  considers  that  an 
innovation  policy  under the third  activity  should  combine: 

-  an  observation,  demand  assessment,  identification  and  dissemination  of  best  practice 
and  experimentation  project,  as  is  expected  by  future  users  both  in  the  Commission 
and  in  regional  and  national  authonties; 

- 

long term  projects. 

2. 

Should  the  programme  continue  to  target  intermediaries,  or  should 
directed  at  SMEs? 

it  be 

SMEs  are,  of  course,  the  ultimate  target,  and  the  ultimate  critenon  for  the  success  of 
SPRINT  is  whether  or  not  it  considers  the  specific  needs  of  the  various  SME  categones 
However,  the  main  approach  of  SPRINT  mitiatives  at  present  is  to  mcrease  the  degree  of 
efficiency  and  europeanisation  of  SME  partners  instrumental  m  the  innovation  process. 
This  produces  a  leverage  of  around  100, permitting  mdirect  contact  with  some  100  000  of 
a  total  of  300  000  potential  SME  clients. 

Ideally  one  should  go  beyond  this  and  contact  SMEs  directly.  This  could  be  done  m  a 
number  of  ways: 

a.  Maintain  SME  participation  in  pilot  schemes  for  testing  the  efficiency  of  vanous 
modes  of  partnership  with  SMEs  It  is  far  from  obvious  that  "intermedianes",  the  current 
name  given  to  SME  partners,  exactly  meet  the  demand  from  SMEs.  SMEs  are  highly 
diversified  and  have  many  different  needs,  moreover,  many  intermediaries  do  business 
mostly  with  large  firms  and  are  not  willing  to  make  the  effort  to  adapt  to  SME  demand, 
which  is often  unprofitable. 

There  are  two  positive  aspects  to  SME  participation  m pilot  schemes: 

-  give  direct  help  to  SMEs  taking  part  m the  scheme  (as  with  MINT,  Specific  Projects, 

'I"1 Days,  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  m the  first  part  of  the  report  ought  to  be  represented,  beanng  m 
mind  that  the  main  target  of  innovation  policy  is  the  standard  SME,  i.e.  firms  which  do 
innovation 
little  or  no  research.  We  recommend 
demand,  be  compiled  and  kept  constantly  up  to  date. 

that  a  classification  of  SMEs,  based  on 

Furthermore,  it  is  useful  to  calculate  (by  category)  the  number  of  SMEs  which  are  clients 
It  is  then  possible  to  avoid  over-
of  intermediaries  supported  by  the  programme. 
concentration  on  service-type  firms  or  institutions,  which  would  aim  only  at  small 
categories  of  SMEs  with  relatively  low economic  weight. 

31 

b.  Use  SPRINT  as  a  tool  for 
operational  programmes. 

identifying  SME  demand  and  as  their  ambassador 

to 

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  m each  sector  which  is  both  exploratory  and  practical.  This  investigation  would 
closely  involve  representative  SMEs  and  regional  authonties  (since  traditional  sectors 
have  strong  regional  affinities).  We  shall  come  to this  m the  third  point  of  this  paragraph, 
concerning  SPRINTs  role  vis-à-vis  the  regions. 

This type  of investigation  may  bring  to  light  as  many  "horizontal"  needs  (e.g.  the  injection 
of  own  resources  mto  new  technology-based  firms)  as  "verticar  needs  (eg 
future 
technologies  for  the  footwear  sector). 

SPRINT  does,  in  fact,  work  m  that  direction  with  RTO  mini-networks,  but  m  a  was 
which  is  too  fragmented  to  be  noticed  by  SMEs  and  especially  for  SPRINTs  advice  to  be 
taken  senously  by  other  programmes,  European  or  regional. 

c.  Beyond  this  experimental  approach  and  "programrrung  consultancy",  the  third  activity 
might  approach  SMEs  from  traditional  sectors  directly  and  m  large  numbers,  offering 
them  the type  of  support  which  local  authonties  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  market9  This  is  a 
debatable  point;  it  is  certain,  however,  that  SPRINTs  already  thorough  knowledge  of  the 
SME  system  (through  its  interface  networks  m particular)  would  help  the  third  activity  to 
succeed  m such  an  undertaking 

But  the  subsidiarity  principle  (and  also  the  real  tendency  SMEs  have  to  be  suspicious  of 
In  any  case,  one  should  be 
partners  which  are  too  distant)  are  opposed  to  this  a  prion. 
wary  of  the  response  to  subsidianty  which  consists  of  forcing  SMEs  to  work  together  m 
international  consortia:  this  may  be  an  interesting  formula  for  the  high-tech  SME  fringe, 
but  it  is  not  necessarily  the  key  to  the  competitiveness  of  European  SMEs  A  more 
realistic  approach  would  be  to  try  to  influence  the  use  of  the  structural  funds  by  regional 
authorities  (or  directly  through  DG  XVI),  by  disseminating  best  practices  which  are 
clearly  demonstrated  and  explained 

Whilst  recommending  that  intermediaries  remain  the  mam  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 
and  that  these  could  be  met  without  violating  the  subsidiarity 

for  a  direct  approach 
principle. 

to  SMEs, 

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  m  an  ideal 
position  for: 

-  helpmg  local  authonties  define 

the  content  of  their  programmes  m  support  of 
innovation  in  SMEs  {What7).  SPRINT  has  been  doing  this  for  years  through  its 
activities  m the  science  park  consultancy  scheme. 

-  The  sectoral  prionties  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  m  support  of 
innovation  m  SMEs  and/or  for  technology  dissemination  {How7).  This  has  already 
begun  under  the  "strategy"  heading  of  the  RITTS  and  RTP  schemes  The  heavy 
response  to  the  RITTS  call  for  proposals  (a  quarter  of  all  European  regions)  also 
shows  how  much  the  regions  seek  advice  on  the  vanous  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  RJTl'S  and 
RTP  projects.  The  considerable  strength  of  the  SPRINT  programme  here  is  its  ability 
to  combine  reflection,  intemationaJ  companson,  control  over  a  vast  network  of  experts 
and  its  "supranationaT  position,  which  gives  the  evaluations  it  can  "guarantee"  a 
It  could  even  be  said  that  SPRINT  could  play  the  same  role  with 
strong  credibility. 
regional  authonties  as  the  OECD  has  with  national  authonties. 

The  panel  feels  that  this  support  for  regional  innovation  policies  deserves  encouragement 
it  is  perfectly  m  line  with  two  principles  of  all  Community 
particularly  because 
programmes: subsidiarity  and  cohesion 

C.  P R O P O S A LS  FOR  S P E C I F IC  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  onginality  and  effectiveness  of  the  third 
activity. 

As  is  pointed  out  above,  however,  these  tools  incorporate  some  weaknesses  that  must  be 
transparency 
dealt  with.  Targets  for  improvement  can  be  summarised  in  three  words: 

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  m  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  desenption  of  each  expenence  m  order  to  allow 
managers  (from  regional  organisauons,  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 
ideas  which  are 
appeared  attractive  at  first.  In  fact,  the  innovation  area  is  full  of 
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  m the  European  arena 

(c)  Cunently, 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 
require  elaborate 
is  a  strong  analogy  here  with  technology  dissemination 
presentation  work.  There 
innovation  processes  are  a  technology  m their  own  nght,  and  their  dissemination  follows 
the  rules  set  out  in  Part  Two 

it  can  be  utilised  directly,which  will  usually 

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  m  the 
experiment.  The  permanent  staff  of  SPRINT  m charge  of  these  projects  can  apply  to  new 
projects  of  the  3rd  activity  a  substantial  amount  of  expenence  accumulated  m  earlier 
projects  .This  is, however,.  Besides  a  rather  special  case  and  considermg  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  m  written  form.  One  good 
example  is  the  recent  campaign  on  "Best  practices  m  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  m  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  m  question  would  be  not  only  transfer  projects  (SPAL), 
but also the innovation  policy  evaluation  exercises  (Ril'l'S  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  summanes  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  S P R I NT  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  mitiatives  which  arc  better  targeted  at  new  categones  of  SME. 

The  best  example  of  cooperation  between  SPRINT  and  another  DG  is  the  jomt  RTP 
scheme  with  DG  XVI  (see  Annex  1,  Chapter  1.8).  This  cooperation  could  prove 
particularly  fruitful:  if  the  results  of  SPRINT  arc  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  them. 

DG  XXIII  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. 
inspire  and  evaluate  the  vanous 
It  should  also 
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. 

the panel  suggests  that  interaction  mechanisms  be negotiated  between 

To summarise, 
thé  third  activity  and  each  Commission  programme 
development  of  innovation  in  SMEs 

likely  to contribute  to the 

* 

Interaction  with  the local  and  regional  authonties 

responsible  for 

innovation. 

In  paragraph  B3 we stressed  the appropnateness  of such  an  interaction;  it had a  head  start 
with  the  launch  of  the  R J I lS  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  m the context  of  specific  projects.  Some  of 
these  could  take  the  form  of  "joint  ventures"  between  the  third  activity  and  a  regional 
authonty.  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  m SMEs 

Similar  steps  should  strengthen  SPRINT  contacts  with  national  policy-makers  responsible 
for  innovation  in  SMEs  m the Member  States. 

3. 

Increase  human  resources  within  the SPRINT  programme: 

As  already  stated,  SPRINT  Imes  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  rnini-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. 

therefore  strongly  recommends 

that  manpower  of  the  SPRINT  system  be 
The  panel 
increased.  A  way  should  be found 
in  the  light  of 
to  implement 
current  European  Commission  rules  with  respect  to  manpower  expenditures.  Detaching 
expehs  from  regional  and/or  national  organisations 
is  an  initiative  which  could  be 
taken 

this  recommendation 

systematically. 

D. 

M I S C E L L A N E O US 

During  its  work, the  panel  tackled  vanous  problems  for  which  there  was  no  time  to  go  mto 
details  but  which  might  be  of  interest  to the  third  activity.  These  mclude: 

- 

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. 
to  a  world  dimension, 

industrial  competitiveness,  consideration  could  be  given 
ecological  and  socio-economic  aims, 

- 

support  from  the  third  activity  for  innovation  and  technology  transfer  policies  m 
Central  and  Eastern  Europe 

E.  CONCLUSION: 
PANEL 

SUMMARY  ANSWERS 

TO  THE  QUESTION  PUT  TO  THE 

Let  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  m  very  ambitious  terms:  1)  to  strengthen  the  innovative 
capacity  of  European  firms,  2)  to  promote  the  innovation  process  and  the  penetration  of 
new  technologies  and  3)  to  improve  the  efficiency  and  coherence  of  innovation  and 
technology  transfer  policies  throughout  the  Member  States  and  the  regions  (cohesion 
objective). 

The  analysis  of  Part  Two  and  the  conclusions  of  the  Part  Three  provide  a  generally 
positive  answer  to this  question 

-  SPRINTs  experimental  character  enabled  a  large  number  of  solutions  to  be  tested 
in  nearly  all  explorable  paths  of  innovation  support.  Thanks  to  EIMS  and  the  tnal-
and-error  method  enabling  the  internal  aspects  of  the  various  Imes  of  action  to  be 
specified,  the  Commission  now  has  m  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  m  bringing  all  those  involved  m 
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,  m  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  pnonty  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,  m  a  area  m  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? 

Vanous  cnticisms  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  satisfactonly 

However,  the  panel  regards  SPRINTs  overall  approach  as  a  very  healthy  one  and 
recommends  that  its  main  charactensties  be  retained 

The  coherence  of  the  "SPRINT  system"  must  above  all  be  preserved 
in  the  new 
organisation:  the  mam  value  of  these  iniuatives  lies  m  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  hirnselfTherself  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  arc  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  m 
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  policv 
may have on SMEs. 

*  *  *  *  • 

39 

ANNEX  1: 

ANALYSIS  OF  T HE  SPRINT  SYSTEM  BY  TYPE  OF  O P E R A T OR 

Comments  on  the  individual  schemes 

As  mentioned  above,  systematic  action  is  the  only  way  to  make  a  real  impact  on  an 
the  SPRIbiT 
environment  as  complex  and  mteractive  as  the  innovation  system 
programme  a  system9  Has  it  an  internal 
the  panel 
chose  to  analyse  it  through  two  gnds 
the  innovation  operators  gnd,  used  m  this  annex, 
and  the  objectives  gnd,  used  m Annex  2. 

logic?  To  assess  its  coherence, 

Is 

In  the  following  pages  the  evaluations  of  each  lme  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  SPRTNT) 
e.  the  panel's  assessment 
f  assessment  of  future  prospects 

The  panel's  comments  take  mto account  the evaluation  reports  earned  out  at  the  request  of 
the  Commission  for  six  of the  activities 

One  of  the  main  virtues  of  SPRTNT  since  its  beginnings  has  been  its  recognition  that  the 
mnovation  process  relies  on  a  variety  of  SME  partners  and  its  consequent  promotion  of 
services.  Whatever  the  sector  of  activity,  SMEs  cannot  work 
emerging  innovation 
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  authonties  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 
unportant  SME partners to be assessed. They include: 

-  sectoral  technical  centres  which  mostly  conduct  collective  research  projects  on  basic 

technologies in traditional  sectors; 

-  Technological  Resource  Centres  (TRCs),  which  concentrate  on  one  technology  only 
(laser  technology,  materials  technology  etc.).  Small  technical  teams  m  close  contact 
with  laboratones,  and  totally  dedicated  to  SMEs  (testing,  analysis,  participation  m 
product  or process-based  projects  etc ) developed, particularly  m 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  R TO  (OR RA)  NETWORKS 

Launched  in  1987, this line of action  includes  over 60 individual  RTO  networks  with  a total 
of about  300 members  which  have been or still  are supported  by  SPRINT.  An evaluation of 
this line of action  was conducted  by  Segal  Quince Wicksteed.  Published  in March  1994, it is 
based on data dating back to  1991 and  1992. 

Sectoral  RTOs are the main target  for this action, but universities, CROs (Contract  Research 
Organisations)  and  enginecnng  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 
jomt  technology  research  project  to a jomt  scheme  for  disseminating  a  proven  technology  or 
"prenormative  (pre-standardisation)  analysis".  There  are  technology  oriented  networks  as 
well as sectorally based networks. 

transfer 
The  scheme  is  experimental  and  aims  to  develop  the  European  technology 
infrastructure. 
Its  overall  impact  is considered  to  be  very  positive.  About  one  half  of  all 
European  RTOs have been contacted.  80 % of the networks would  not  have existed  without 
SPRINT support, and half of them will continue network  activities  after  SPRINT  support  is 
ended at a slower pace, however. 

The most striking changes  in the attitude  of RTOs  involve  the  increased  number  of  schemes 
they  can  conduct  and  the  quality  of  their  action,  those  RTOs  located  in  the  less-favoured 
regions  had  the  oprx>rtunity  to  acquire  competencies  in  disciplines  such  as  consultancy, 
testing  and  participation  in  innovation  projects  for  SMEs.  The  impact  on  chssemination  is 
noticeable  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 
programme  offers  ways  of  tackling  the  crucial  issue  of  adoption  of  new  technologies  by 

41 

SMEs,  and  improves  the  quality  and  relevance  of  RTO  services  in  the  Member  States.  The 
programme  has  by  no  means  exhausted  all  possible  paths  of  action  and  should  be 
maintained, taking  into account the changes  suggested  by the SQW evaluation  report. 

N E T W O RK  OF  E U R O P E AN  A S S O C I A T I ON  OF  C O N T R A CT  R E S E A R CH  O R G A N I S A T I O NS 
(EACRO) 

EACRO  is  an  association  of  contract-research  professional  organisations  (CROs)  from 
Community  and  EFTA  Member  States,  ft 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  définition  phase 

Depending  on the country,  this  RTAC  function  may  be  attached  to that  of  an  RTO,  or  it  may 
be  quite  separate.  For  those  in  favour  of  the  second  approach,  RTO  representatives  tend  to 
suggest  their  own  technologies  rather  than  the  best  solution 

Most  often,  these  centres  (sometimes  consisting  of  no  more  than  two  or  three  people)  are 
grouped  in  regional  networks  (in  France,  RDTs  or  Réseau  de  Diffusion  de  la  Technologie) 
whose  function  is to bring  some order  to a  profession  which  is still  ill-defined 

RTAC  NETWORKS 

This  network  is  an  association  of  some  150  regional  centres  for  technology  consultancy  all 
over  Europe.  It  aims  to  disseminate  information  amongst  all  its  members  for  the  benefit  of 
its clients, particularly  SMEs 

Annual  conferences  are  organised  and  sub-groups  meet  up  in  order  to  solve  common 
problems  on  a  European  basis.  The  network  has  published  a  Who's  Who  guide  along  with  a 
guide  to  innovation  support  instruments  in  the  various  Member  States.  The  network  is  also 
currently  working  on  topics  such  as  classification  of  client  firms  and  on  measurements  and 
methods  of  "internal  benchmarking"  with  the  aim  of  improving  the  working  efficiency  of 
RTACs.  Since  RTACs  actively  work  with  SMEs  in  their  own  regions,  the  impact  on  SMEs 
of experience  shared  between  RTACs  is  widespread. 

42 

By  allowing  RTAC  representatives  to  meet  up,  by  contributing  to  travel  expenses  and 
providing'administrative 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  mteraction  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 
universitv,  and where  "high-tech" firms decide to take  root (sometimes  thev- 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 descnbed  above, 

in both  cases, the  "incubator"  function  has  developed  extensively  in order  to help start  up 
new technology firms. 

In practice, policy-makers tend to combine the two functions,  particularly  smce the defects  of 
the  linear model have been shown up. 

SCIENCE  PARK  CONSULTANCY  SCHEME (SPCS) - STRAND:  FEASIBIIJTY  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  -  particularly  those  in  less-developed  areas  or  in  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.  As  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  hst  of 
experts was updated and expanded  in June 1993. 

43 

Assessment 

The Science  Park  Consultancy  Scheme has hdped  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 m 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 svnergy  with  DG  I  (external  relations)  and  with 
the  PHARE  programme  be  investigated  in  order  to  allow  experts  used  m  the  SPCS 
programme to work in Central  Europe as well. 

In  general,  SPRINT  has  become  a  benchmark  of  consultancy  support  for  science  park 
promoters. This  strength  must  be exploited  and  be enabled  to  contribute to  the  development 
of parks in all  EFTA and  Central  Europe countries. The aim  is to be in a position to validate 
a  proposal and give promoters and managers access to the SPRINT  list of registered  experts 
The prestige of the SPRINT label will certainly help promoters to get the necessary  funds  for 
the study from  regional 
authorities, for example. 

Lastly, the panel  recommends that a quality-control system be built into the initiative  in order 
to update knowledge of the expertise of a consultant. 

SCIENCE  PARK  CONSULTANCY  SCHEME  -  STRAND:  SUPPORT  FOR  EVALUATION  OF 
EXISTING  SCIENCE  PARKS 

Objectives 

The objectives  of  this  strand  arc  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  complementary  activity  to the  one  described  above 
(feasibility  studies). It provides financial support covering the costs of employing a  team  of 
two  consultants  to  carry  out  the  evaluation  exercise.  The  Commission  provides  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 évaluation. 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  arc  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 
The  current  approach 
specifications  of the  consultancy  work  pay  too  little  attention  to  assessmg  the  impact  of  the 
park oo industrial development  in the region.  This impact ultimately justifies  the existence  of 
the  part 

to  evaluation  could  be  slightly  modified. 

In  particular, 

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,  dissemination  of the lessons learned is not properly  tackled. 

In  the  long term,  better  collaboration  between  science  parks  may  provide  opportunities  for 
the  launch  of  associations  to  which  the  management  of  these  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  lnflenced9 
Did  the  programme  have  an  impact  on  their  overall  quality,  and  on  their  European 
dimension9 

MANAGING  THE  INTEGRATION  OF  N EW  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  m Part Three of this  report. 

Demonstrating 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 
mstrumental  in explaining this. 

46 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The  panel  regards  the  MINT  initiative  as  an  important  exercise  and  a  key  experiment  in 
mnovatioa consultancy; it fits well into the broader  context of a global  mnovation  policy.  It 
should therefore be continued in order to dernonstrate fully the usefulness  of such schemes in 
regions  or  countries  in  which  technological  consultancy  needs  are  urgent  and  not  properly 
tackled. 

A careful  assessment of MINT should provide comparisons between the different  methods of 
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  consultancy  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  Stales  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  modem  management  skills  and  contributes  very effectively  to 
the training of consultants and  improving the quality of their services, particularly  m LFRs. 

The working groups  should  be maintained.  A change  in their  terms  of  reference  might  help 
to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  promotion  programmes,  however, the  aim  is  not  to  select  a 
small number of privileged  national  organisations  solely to  promote  innovation  management 
techniques,  but  rather  to  maximise  the  dissemination  of  ideas  emanating  from  a  think  tank 
group. 

1. Value  analysis 

The promotion of value analysis by SPRINT includes the following  activities: 

-  Community  reports/surveys and brochures (five have been published  in total); 

-  support  for  European  conferences  on value  analysis  and, where appropriate,  for  national 

events in less-favoured  regions; 

47 

-  harmonisation of Community standards of value analysis; 

-  one  RTO  network  is  dedicated  to  the  development  of  coniplementary  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  m 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  aissemination  of  quality 
particularry SMEs. 

to  firms, 

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 difficult  clientele 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 SPRINT programme.  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 
technology 
appropriate  to  their  business  sector  and  to  raise  awareness  of the  impact  of  technology  on 
competitiveness.  An  assessment  of  this  line  of  action,  based  on  February  1992  data,  was 
published in September  1993 (SQW). 

in  accessing 

The programme  has  helped  to  improve  the  expertise  of  intermediaries  and  to  give  them  an 
international  outlook. The best results were obtained in the less-favoured  regions. C networks 
demonstrate how SMEs can benefit from transnational  collaboration. 

Assessment 

The  strength  of  these  networks  is  that  they  help  create  a  European  reflex  in  those  who 
innovate  in  the  field.  The  SQW  evaluation  report  has,  however,  pointed  out  the  need  to 
redesign  the  scheme  in  the  light  of  expenence  and  has  suggested  alternative  ways  of  doing 
this. 

A  greater  concentration  on  quality,  some  rethinking  of  evaluation  measures  and  the 
delegation  of greater responsibility to lead  partners  in network  management  are  some of the 
suggestions  made  to the  panel  by  participants.  The  considerable  time  and  effort  needed  to 
establish  networks  of this type  have created  a substantial  asset  which  the  panel  is  convinced 
should  be more widely  used  for  disseminating  best  practice  and  assisting  in  the transfer  and 
dissemination of technology  to SMEs. 

The  very  recent  publication  of  a  best  practice  guide  for  managing  transnational  technology 
transfer  networks at European  scale is a valuable  resource for similar programs. 

TECHNOLOGY  TRANSFER  DAYS  (TTDAYS) 

Objectives 

TTDays  are  one- or  two-day  events  aiming  at  promoting  transnational  technology  transfer 
between  selected firms, by presenting  firms  in a  Member  State or a  region to the  technology 
brokerage  exxnmunity  in  another  region  or  Member  State.  The  accent  is  on  selection  and 
nrformation  to  the  brokers  about  the  needs  and  resources  of  the  various  firms  taking  part, 
well before  the  actual  meeting  About  50  TTDays  have  been  organised  in  Europe  with  the 
support  of  SPRINT,  and  some  1000 firms have  participated  indirectly.  Originally,  TTDays 
were  a  support  measure  for  inter-firm  technology  transfer  networks.  They  progressively 
became an efficient  tool for transnational  technology transfer.  It has been  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.  Consequently,  their  ability to tackle  business  at  Member  State  level  and 
not  only  at  national  level  has grown.  This  is  precisely  in  line  with  the  general  approach  of 
SPRINT,  which  aims,  amongst  other  things,  to  improve  the  quality  of  intermedianes  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  II Day  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  i  I Day. 

The  panel  also  considers  the  inter-sectoral  dimension  of  TTDays  to  be  fundamental 
Reducing them to events specialising  m one technological  sector only would  be a mistake: the 
mter-sectoral technology dissemination  aspect  would disappear,  and TTDays  would then lose 
part  of their  rationale.  Only a  few  sectors  producing  a  large  number  of genenc  technologies 
(such as the electronics and computer  science sector or the space sector) could  be the subject 
of "specialist" TTDays, provided  that  the  mter-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  industnal  operation  which  requires  not  only  self-financing  and  public 
support,  but  also  substantial  funding  from  the  financial  sector.  Hence  the  importance  of 
banks and  venture capitalists  as partners  to the SME  To make banks  aware  of the  specific 
problems  of  SMEs,  to  help  venture  capitalists  to  set  up  throughout  Europe  and  to  have 
access  to  the  same  tools  as  their  Amencan  colleagues  should  have  been  one  of  the  main 
priorities for a programme such as  SPRINT 

T PF  (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  associated 
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 

to  strengthen  the  competitive  position  of  European  suppliers  of  innovative  technology, 
2. 
many  of  which  are  New  Technology  Based  Firms  (NTBFs),  by  providing  them  with  a 
powerful marketing tool; 

to  provide  financial  mstitutions  with  an  instrument  for  project-based  financing  of 

3. 
innovation as well as an opportunity to improve their ability to deal with such projects. 

In  practical  terms  Technology  Performance  Financing  is  a  financing  tool  by  which  a 
financial  institution  provides  funds  for  the  acqusrtion  of  new technologies  or  services.  The 
financial  institution  will then receive payments from the acquirer,  over  a two- to  three-year 
period, according to how the technology has performed  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  under-performance  of  the  new  technology.  In  other  words,  if  the 
technology performs  well, the supplier and the bank will share a premium over the hst 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  time  (in  some  cases  up  to  two  years), 
smce  TPF  was  perceived  as  a  very  novel  product  which,  in  certain  countries,  required  an 
adaptation  of  banking  regulations.  The  actual  marketing  of  the  scheme  began  in  1993  and 
the  first  three  innovation  projects  to  be  subsidised  by  the  scheme  were  decided  on  in  mid-
1994. 

At the end of  1993, in view of the slow uptake of the  instrument,  SPRINT  commissioned  an 
interim  review  of  the  scheme,  earned  out  by  IM0(B),  which  came  to  the  following 
conclusions: 

l)There is a clearly identifiable  market  need for a scheme such as TPF. Suppliers 
and users of innovative technologic welcome it. Banks find the idea attractive 

2)In spite of the above, the uptake of the scheme was limited for  a number of 
reasons: 

- 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  t o it 

51 

Following this assessment, the Commission modified  the scheme to make it simpler  (bilateral 
instead of triangular  relations), more attractive and more flexible,  for  instance by  increasing 
the guarantee  available  and opening  it up to banks  outside the core group.  Since  then  three 
banks (Bank of Picardie (F), ING Bank  (NL) and Europa  Bank  (L) have submitted  projects 
to the scheme. 

Assessment 

The  panel  was  divided.  Some think that  the slow start  of the programme  demonstrates  how 
inappropriate  it  is. Following the panel's  recommendations  on exit  mechanisms,  this  scheme 
should be abandoned and replaced by another on a different  basis altogether  but pursuing the 
same overall  objective. 

Other  members  of  the panel  think  the  project  should  be maintained  for  a  further  two  years 
(taking  mto  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 penods whatever the type of proposed initiative. 

I N V E S T M E NT  F O RA 

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  mnovation organisations  such as ANVAR, CDTI 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  m the  context  of  the 
promotion  of  transnational  investments  m  potentially  high-growth  enterprises.  The  actual 
concept of the fora  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  fora  and  local  activities  for 
heightening  public  awareness  of  innovation  financing  (though  the  SPRINT  award  scheme 
goes  in that direction); downstream  there could  be a NASDAQ  type  of  market  which  would 
allow investors to withdraw - an exit mechanism - and possibly re-invest in other firms. 

52 

Recommendations 

The panel recommends  an in-depth evaluation of the mvestment fora line of action, to enable 
the  relevance  of investment  fora  to  venture  capital  investors  to  be  improved  or  to  ascertain 
the need for a completely new type of action. 

Also,  it  may  sometimes  be  more  advantageous  to  organise  specialised  fora  in  one 
technological  sector only, because the objective  of these fora is to finance a  firm  and  not  to 
support  mter-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  mitiatives  for  introducing  a  market  of  the  NASDAQ  type  mto  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  mam  technology  suppliers  for  SMEs  through 
hardware,  software  and  matcnals  technologies  which  are manufactured  on demand.  More 
generally 
interactions 
between  firms  and  makes  them  highly  inter -dependent.  This  is  particularly  true  of  the 
mnovation  process, where expenence  shows that  SMEs  integrated  mto a network  succeed 
better and more quickly than those which arc not  integrated. 

industrial  partem  multiplies  day-to-day 

the  newly-organised 

The  SPRINT  programme  has  so  far  neglected  this  aspect  of  the  problem.  Even  though 
the  TT  Days  and  some  EIMS  schemes  work  m that  direction,  their  impact  is  far  from 
adequate, and there are no real  SME/large firm networks. 

8. Schemes  aimed  at  regional  policies 

Regional  authorities  and  national  governments  now  play  a  major  role  in  creating  an 
infrastructure  for  supporting  innovation  m SMEs, particularly  by: 

- 

injecting  financial  resources  mto  those  SMEs  and  into  public  or  private  innovation 
service organisations, 

-  by organising the interactions between these mnovation  operators; 

-  by coordinating the action taken by the vanous 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 RITTS initiative, launched  in  1994, is to help regional policy-makers  (and/or 
regional  development  organisations)  who  wish  to  have  an  assessment  of  their  innovation 
policy.  The  aim  is  to  examine  the  regional  innovation  and  technology  transfer  support 
infrastructure,  to  assess  its  structure,  the  relevance  and  the  efficiency  of  organisations  and 
the  various  public  services  which  build  up  this  infrastructure,  and  finally  to  analyse  the 
nature  and  density  of  these  interactions.  The  aim  is  also to  elaborate  strategies  m order  to 
improve  this  infrastructure,  to  reinforce  its  coherence  and  its  relevance  to  SME  needs. 
Finally, the RITTS exercise should allow experience acquired though the application  of such 
policies to be shared. The objectives  are  far  more than  study alone and the aim  is to develop 
as many links as possible between all the vanous  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  mitiatives 
are  similar because they are based  on  an  analysis  of technological  demand.  However,  RTPs 
have a broader  scope than  RTTTS, and  arc  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 RTTTS exercise, there is always an  international  dimension m 
the teams involved, which consist of qualified  professionals. 

Implementation 

RJTTS subsidises the costs of employing a consortium  of two firms or individual  consultants 
chosen  from  the  list  of firms of  registered  experts.  Substantial  preparatory  work is  required 
to ensure that the initiative can be implemented  successfully. 

The work  itself  is  divided  into three  stages-  the  first  seeks  to define  the  current  state  of  the 
infrastructure  and  its relevance to SME demand. The purpose of the  second  stage  is reach a 
consensus  on  the  priorities  and  measures  required  to  make  the  infrastructures  more 
responsive  to  the  needs  of  firms.  Finally,  the  third  stage  is  concerned  with  establishing 
follow-up and evaluation mechanisms and implementing the priority schemes. 

RTTTS is a new scheme launched  in  1994  The first 9 studies will be launched  in  December 
industrial  structure. 
1994.  The  regions  differ 

in  terms  of  both  development  and 

Assessment: 

RTTTS  has  created  links  with  the  RTP  initiative  within  the  framework  of  the  structural 
funds.  This  linkage  is  an  important  example  of  the  horizontal  dimension  of  the  SPRINT 
programme. Interaction with structural  funds  at both  Community and  regional  level might in 
theory  provide  a  rnechanism  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 pohcy. In these respects the RTTTS is a strategic initiative. 

54 

RTTTS is a new, experimental  activity. In order to exploit its potential  fully  it is important  to 
organise  the  studies  in  such  a  way  that  experience  and  knowledge  are  accumulated.  The 
accumulation process  is also a prerequisite  for making RTTTS into a tool for the large-scale 
&ssentinafion  of  best  practice  to  policy-makers  and  other  regional  actors.  The  other 
prerequisite  is  an  excellent  quality  of  consultancy  work.  Corrtinuous  follow-up  and 
evaluation of the studies are therefore  desirable: a conimittee similar to that  described  in the 
Science Parks assessment could be set up. 

RTTTS itself deserves to be further  developed  Sufficient  procedural  flexibility would help to 
meet the  very  diverse requirements  and  conditions of different  regions. In the course  of time 
RTTTS  may  change  from  one  type  of  scheme  into  a  set  of  alternative  approaches  and 
procedures.  Finally,  the  interlinkage  between  RTTTS  and  the  other  action  lines  should  be 
developed  to  make  the  initiative  an  efficient  dissemination  tool  for  all  the  knowledge 
developed  by SPRINT. 

Schemes  aiming  at the  absorptive  capacity  of SMEs  and  their  interactions  with 
their  partners 

SPECIFIC  PROJECT  ACTION  LINE 

Objective  : 

launched 

in  1989,  arc 

large-scale  experimental 

Specific  Projects, 
irrrra-Community 
innovation  transfer  projects  whose aim is to adapt  and transfer  proven technologies from one 
region  or  sector  to another.  By  implementing  industnaily-relevant  projects,  the  projects  aim 
to demonstrate the whole process of technology transfer  and adoption, and achieve active and 
widespread  oUssemination 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 
irnplcrnentation.  More than  two  hundred  partners  have  been  involved.  Altogether  ECU  27.4 
million were spent in  1987-1994. 

SPAL  is  dominated  by  catalytic  projects  with  a  strong  technology  push  element  and  active 
involvement  of  technology  suppliers.  User-driven  cntical  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 
complements the national dissemination activities by introducing a European  element, and in 
others  it  provides  a  completely  new  type  of  initiative.  In  a  Ccjmmunity  context,  it  has 
extended the focus from R&D to dissemination. 

As an  exploratory  scheme,  SPAL has  been a success. It has  provided  important  lessons  for 
future  dissemination  schemes. (These are discussed  in detail  in the evaluation  report.)  It has 
shown  that  technology  dissemination  schemes are both  feasible  and  desirable.  On the  other 
hand, it has shown  that there is no one right model  for a dissemination  scheme: each  project 
needs  to  be  tailored  to  the  specific  requirements  of  the  partners  and  the  context.  The 
experiences  achieved  have not been  sufficiently  exploited  by the Commission  or the  national 
authorities. 

As  an  effective  technology  transfer  tool,  SPAL's  success  has  been  more  limited.  There  is 
little  doubt  that  participants  have  benefited  from  taking  part  in  the  SPAL  projects. 
Technology  was  transferred  between  them.  On  the  other  hand,  dissemination  of  the 
transferred  technology to other companies or research  organisations  was  less impressive than 
expected.  Wider  dissemination  to  industry  scans  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-tvpe 
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 
Cx>mmunity and national level. 

•  Both catalytic and critical demand projects should remain key components of SPAL. 

•  Heavy financial and  intellectual  involvement  of at  least  some of the partners  should  be 

an essential element in the SPAL projects. 

•  Clustering  projects  could  improve  the  impact  and  visibility  of  SPAL  and  could  also 

help to disserninate what has been Icamt. 

•  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  mnovation  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 disseniination 
3.  enhancing cohesion  in Europe. 

In the  course  of the programme,  two  broad  categories  of  networks  have  been  promoted  and 
developed:  mini- and macro-networks. The macro-networks are gatherings  of  representatives 
of  national  organisations  which  work  on  various  aspects  of  innovation  and  technology 
transfer.  The  mini-networks  bring  small  groups  of  companies  and  organisations  together  to 
tackle jointly specific problems of particular  interest to that group. 

The rationale  for  creating these networks  is the understanding  that human  contact  is the most 
effective  and  efficient  way  of  promoting  innovation  by  the  SMEs  which  are  the  ultimate 
targets  of  SPRINT  initiatives.  It  is  also  expected  that  these  shared  activities  will  promote 
learning,  sharing  of  experience  and  development  and  improvement  of  the  quality  of  service 
provided  by the participants 

Macro-networks: implementation  and  evaluation 

RTAC,  EACRO,  EVCA,  EUROTECH  and  Til  are  some of the  macro-networks  for  which 
SPRINT  was  a  catalyst.  They  create  links  between  representatives  of  organisations  and 
networks  that  offer  support  at  national  level  in  technology  and  shared  development 
programmes, finance and  investment, intellectual  property  and  technology  transfer  etc. They 
generally  aim  to  share  information,  set  standards,  produce  directories  and  guides,  organise 
conferences  and identify' and tackle shared problems with a European  perspective. 

Assessment 

By  creating  an  opportunity  for  representatives  to  meet,  assisting  with  travel  costs  and 
providing  some  logistical  support,  SPRINT  TRIGGERS  A  Europeanisation  effect  at  the 
level of these  organisations.  Support  for  rnacTO-oetworks of this type  is  only  required  in the 
early stages of activity; the networks build  up membership, provide membership  services and 
become  self-supporting.  Their  relationship with  SPRINT  then  evolves  into  partnership,  this 
allows the programme to keep  up close contacts  with  all  actors  in  the  innovation  system,  to 
gain a detailed knowledge of them, and to consult  them. This would also be very valuable  for 
the third  Activity and could  be exploited  by all  Commission  services  which  deal  with  SMEs. 
The  panel  regards  this  actions  as  well-directed  and  of  good  value  and  recommends  that 
macro-networks  should  continue  to  be  promoted.  As  each  network  is  representative  of  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 recommends that greater use be made of such networks  by other  programmes 
aiming to  reach  through  to  SMEs. this  requires  SPRINT to devote  some  resources  to  selling 
its networking achievements to other potential  users. 

57 

THE  EUROPEAN  INNOVATION  MONITORING  SYSTEM  (EIMS) 

Objectives 

The general  aims of the ELMS are to collect  and a^serninate 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 

m the field of innovation policy and technology  transfer 

•  Provide  all  interested  parties  with  information,  analysis  and  research  on  the  factors 
shaping,  promoting  and  inhibiting  innovation  at  the  company  level  across  Europe 

•  Reflect  the  increasing  need  for  reliable  information  as  a  foundation  for  formulating 
innovation  policy  in  the  light  of  the  major  changes  in  the  innovation  environment  and 
especially the characteristics  and different  types of innovation within  SMEs. 

Implementation 

EIMS activities are organised  in six main areas: 

1.  Evaluation 
2.  Innovation in firms 
3.  Innovation and technology transfer  support  infrastructures 
4.  Regional aspects of innovation  (capabilities, infrastructures  and  strategies) 
5.  Innovation financing 
6.  Innovation policy. 

After  a  preliminary  phase  devoted  to  the  establishment  of  the  network  and  the  work 
procedures, EIMS has been fully  operational  since  1993. 

Interfaces 

EIMS has the capacity  for developing  its  role as a focal  point  of best  practice  in  innovation 
and technology transfer  within the Community.  Basically, the knowledge produced  by  EIMS 
could  be  used  especially  by  the  Commission  departments  responsible  for  regional  policy, 
industrial pohcy 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 EFT A countries. 

58 

Assessment 

The panel considered that EIMS is very important to the SPRINT Programme,  h  provides  a 
basis  for  the  development  of  knowledge  of  both  the  innovation  process  in  SMEs  and  of 
pohcy  measures  for  fostering  innovation.  It  provides  mechanisms  for  disseminating  this 
knowledge and adopting 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  clientele  -SMEs-,  on  the  various  prerequisites  for  innovation  and  on  the  different 
types of cluster etc. 

Because  of  the  experimental,  catalytic  and  rrmra-disciplinary  (technology,  management 
financing)  character  of  SPRINT,  the  panel  considered  EIMS  a  very  important  element  of 
self-reflection,  critical  reviews  of  existing  programmes  and  a  basis  for  developing  new 
concepts  of innovation  pohcy.  Internal  self-analysis  of an  innovation-promoting  programme 
is  perceived  as  a  unique  characteristic  of  SPRTNT  which  should  be  used  within  other 
Commission  R&D programmes  as well. 

59 

ANNEX  2: 

ANALYSIS  OF  THE  SPRINT  SYSTEM  BY  OBJECTIVE 

As  mentioned  above,  systematic  action  is  the  only  way  to  make  a  real  impact  on  an 
programme 
environment  as  complex  and  mteractive  as  the  innovation  system.  Is  the  SPRINT 
the  panel 
a  system,  which  means  does  it  have  an  internal  logic?  To  assess  its  coherence, 
chose  to  analyse 
the  innovation  actors  gnd  (see  Annex  1)  and  the 
objectives  gnd,  used  in this  annex. 

it  through 

two  gnds: 

For  the  panel,  the  best  gnd  of  objectives  is  the  one  defined  recently  by  the  work  programme 
of  the  third  activity,  mto  which  SPRINT  will  be  mcorporated.  The  three  objectives  of  this 
work  programme  are  as  follows. 

1. 
2. 
3. 

An  environment  beneficial  to  innovation  and  the  absorption  of 
Establishment  of  an  area for  the free  circulation  of  technologies 
Supply  of  appropnate 

technologies  to  the  SME  system 

technologies 
in  the  EU 

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  mnovation  environment,  the  first  of  these  three  objectives  is 
associated  with  the overall  aims  of  a  local  innovation  policy; 

the  second  stresses  the  European  dimension  and  aims  to  remove  existing  barriers  inside 
Europe  and  to build  on  the  wealth  of  experimentation  brought  about  through  European 
diversity; 

- 

the third  is a difficult  yet  important  aspect  of technology  dissemination. 

The following  plan was  selected  for  analysing  the  SPRINT  system  using  this  grid: 

- 

for  each  objective,  continue  the  Part  One  analysis  by  assessing  what,  in  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); 

- 

identify  what  SPRINT  is  unable  to  achieve,  either  because  it  disregards  the 
finally, 
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 
absorption  of  technologies 

to 

innovation  and 

the 

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  m 
nature  but  also  in  quality  and  quantity.  Unlike natural  resources  in the  past,  this  comparative 
advantage  is  not  acquired,  it  is  buildt  up  m  a  joint  effort  between  firms  and  public 
authonties. 

**  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  m  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 
vanous 
financial 
institutions  (banks  and  capital  development),  and  on  the  last  side,  field  agents  who  stimulate 
innovation  and 
demand  and  coordinate 
departments  responsible  for  innovation  policy,  both  sometimes  grouped  under  RTACs. 

types  of  consultants  (management,  marketing, 

the  vanous  actions:  proximity  advisers 

intellectual  property); 

for 

An  SME  must  therefore  exist  within  a  highly  interactive  system  where  it  is  both  provider  and 
recipient,  and  both  client  an& supplier.  In  this  system,  interfaces  (intermedianes),  locations 
for  meetings  and  negotiations  and  mechanisms  for  distributing 
information  and  other 
resources  all  play  an  essential  role. 

The  build-up  of  this  infrastructure 
mitiatives.  The  result  will  depend  largely  on  their  coherence 

is  the  outcome  of  a  number  of  pnvate  and  public 

••  A  second  prerequisite  of  success  for  the  SME  is a  strong  absorption  capacity  A  whole 
range  of  functions  can  be  idenuficd  which  allow  SMEs  to  make  the  most  of  the  resources  of 
their  environment,  particularly  m 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  m particular,  and  mnovation  partners  m  general 

Schemes  designed  to  engender  a  favourable  environment 

Schemes  designed  to  engender  a  favourable  and  accessible  environment  can  be  grouped  in 
four  objectives: 

J a. 

lb. 

Ic  . 
Id. 

to  help  local  innovation  policies  (regional  or  national)  to  improve  the  targeting  and 
organisation  of  their  initiatives. 
to  improve 
of  technological  and  managena  I partners  of  SMEs; 
to  assist  financial  partners  for  the  innovative  SME; 
to  change  SMEs'attitudes 

the  quality  (through  training,  publication  of  the  learning  module,  etc.) 

innovanon. 

to 

61 

la.  To  help  local  innovation  policies  (regional  or  national) 
organisation  of  their 

initiatives: 

to  improve 

the  targeting  and 

Local  innovation  policies  can  play  a  key  role  in making  a  variety  of  initiatives,  all  apparently 
quite  different,  implemented  by  the  vanous  pnvate  or  public  SME  partners,  mto  a  coherent 
whole.  It  is  therefore  a  priority  to  support  those  responsible  for  the  policies,  while  increasing 
European  cohesion  by disseminating  best  practices. 

A-  Those  responsible  for  regional  policies  (at  least  most  of  them)  are  still  feeling  their  way 
and  looking  to  find  successful  models  from  other  regions.  The  following  SPRINT  initiatives 
include  this  as  a  rationale: 

- 

- 

the RTAC  network  and  its  specialised  working  group 

the  RITTS 

and  RTP  projects  which  put  forward  to  the  regions  a  project  for  an 

evaluation  and  a  re-definition  of  their  strategy 

-  the  science  park  consultancy  scheme  that  helps  local  policy  makers  to  create  a  science 

park  (technopole)  and  then  to evaluate  it  (part  of the  RTTTS) 

B-  Except  for  this  last  scheme,  SPRINTs  activity  here  is  only  recent;  it  is  therefore  difficult 
to  assess  to  what  extent  existing  needs  are  tackled  Clearly,  it  is  still  exceptional  for  the 
management  of  structural  funds  to  be  inspired  by  SPRINTs  expenence  and  this  programme 
is  far  from  providing  a  complete  set  of  models  for  action  to  regional  policy  makers 

lb.  Improve 
technological  and  managerial  partners  of  SMEs: 

the  quality  (through 

training,  publication  of  the  learning  module,  etc)  of 

The  jobs  of  SME  partners  arc  relatively  new  and  it  seems  necessarv 
to  improve  the 
professional  standard  of  those  practitioners,  to  disseminate  advances  m  methodology  and  to 
launch  pilot  projects  m  which  vanous  interaction  mechanisms  between  SMEs  and  their 
partners  are  tested 

A  -And  therefore: 

-  the  value  analysis,  design  and  quality  programmes  make 
experiences  so as  to offer  professionals  some  training  modules, 

the  most  of  European 

-  the  MINT  programme  pilots  subsidised  management  consultancy  and  mcludes  vanous 
consultation  methods  and  tools. 

-  Specific  Projects  (SPAL)  enables  the  collaboration  between  RTOs  and  users  (SMEs  but 
also public  authonties)  to be  assessed  The  nature  of  the  service  RTOs  render  to  SMEs  is,  in 
feet,  undergoing  radical  change,  but  by  no  means  everyone  is  affected.  For  example,  a 
number  of  sectoral  resource  centres  have  kept  the  system  of  collectively-funded  research.  It 
is  therefore  very  useful  to  compare,  through  pilot  schemes,  the  value  of  services  rendered  by 
the  various  intermedianes  to the  various  categories  of  firms; 

62 

-  the  PRISM/FEICRO  sub-programme  and  two  recent  conferences  could  become  the  basis 
for  an  evaluation  of  RTO  performance. 

B- 
In  spite  of this  apparent  wealth  of  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  m  a  European  consortium,  (others  are  working  on  this,  but  is 
this  with  the  aim  of promoting  innovation  in standard  SMEs?) 

Ic  Financial  partners  for  the  innovative  SME 

A-  SPRINT  was  the  first  to  tackle  this  very  difficult  problem. 

-Transnational 

investment 

fora  which  bring  together  investors  and  entrepreneurs  once  m 

a  year; 

- T PF pilot  experiment  (Technology  Performance 

Financing) 

-EIMS  workshops  and  studies  on  the  import  from  the  USA  of  mechanisms  considered  there 
to  be  particularly  useful  to  pnvate  investment  for  innovation:  NASDAQ  type  of  market, 
secuntization,  etc. 

B-  Because  of  a  lack  of  terms  of  reference  and  resources,  SPRINTs  action  here  has 
remained  at  the  reflection  and  expenmcnlation  level.  This  might  actually  be  considered 
sufficient  for  a  honzontal  (strategic)  programme,  provided  that  mechanisms  are  found  for 
tackling  detected  needs  for  which  SPRINT  has  ready-tested  solutions  to  put  forward.  DG 
XVIII 
the  market  for  growth 
companies  (EUROSDAQ)  encouraged  by  the  EVCA  network,  another  example  is  DG 
XXIII,  which  implemented  a  programme  m support  of  "seed  capital"  firms. 

taking  on  the  responsibility  of  supporting 

is  therefore 

However,  support  for  financial  intermedianes  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 
for  "small 
businesses",  support  for  the  launch  of  seed  capital,  mcrease  of  pnvate  funds,  etc.)  The  third 
activity  could  therefore  be  the  framework  for  new  initiatives  m  support  of  European  venture 
capital  firms  and  experimentation  in terms  of pnvate  financing  for  innovation 

intelligently  with  public  money  (for  example 

increased  guarantees 

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  its  internal  organisation,  e.g.  by  deploying  most  of  its  active  workforce  m  a 
single  project; 

itself  up 

open 
itself  both  upstream  and 
downstream  of  production  within  an  intensely  interactive  network  of  companies 
(small  and  large); 

to  external  partners  and  establish 

go  international, 

develop  a  strong  capacity  for  absorption  m  general,  which  could  well  be  the 
necessarv1 and  adequate  prerequisite  for  creating  jobs. 

A-  The  SPRINT  programme  has  tackled  this  very  important  aspect  of  innovation  only 
recently,  and  furthermore  m a  modest  way: 

through  the development  of the RTAC  network, 
consultant"  component,  whose  main  ask  is to heighten  SME  awareness  of  the 
resources  m their  environment; 
by  networking  national  or  regional  programmes  for  mobilising  innovation 
specialists  (EUNETmobility 

initiative,  recently  launched). 

in  its  "multi-purpose-innovation 

Only  those  SMEs  which  have  created  an  internal  innovation  and  interface  "unit"  are  m  a 
position  to dialogue  with  their  environment 

through  some  aspects  of the  Af/A^T/mtiative 

B-  Yet  these  schemes  are  still  recent  and  modestly  funded  Analysis  of  the  specific  projects 
followed  by  experimentation  would  enable  the  vanous  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  onented  towards 
dissemination,  exploitation  and  technology  transfer.  The  problem  is  mtrinsically  difficult,  as 
is  the  case  whenever  a  very  specialised  supply  has  to  match  a  very  personalised 
demand. 
This  is  also  why  a  number  of  mterface  services  developed  m 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  bamers:  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 
m  the  US.  The  States  remain  the  ideal  market  for  the  international  expansion  of  a  product, 
which  is a  senous  handicap  for  European  SMEs. 

Possible  initiatives: 

To  combat  these  vanous  obstacles,  to  get  closer  to  the  free  circulation  of  technologies  and  to 
contnbute  to  the  creation  of  a  real  smgle  market  of  innovative  products,  a  number  of 
initiatives  should  aim  at: 

2a. 
2b. 
2c. 
2d. 

the  vanous  partners  of  SMEs  by  creating  networks; 
information  supplied  to  SMEs  by  their  vanous  partners; 

Européanise 
Européanise 
Create  interaction  areas  in  well  defined 
Fight  regulatory 

bamers. 

segments; 

2a.  Européanise 

the  various  innovation  partners  of SMEs  by  creating  networks 

supports  macro-networks  having  established  a  European  community  amongst 
A  -  SPRINT 
most  SME  partners;  the  EACRO  network  (for  contract  research  organisations),  the  RTAC 
(for  national  policy-makers  m  support  of  innovation);  the  EVCA  network  (for 
network 
venture  capitalists)  and  the  EUROTECH 
network  are  now  independent  Other  partners 
(consultants,  technology  brokers,  ARIST,  etc  )  arc  now  grouped  in  T i l '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 
regular 
knowledge  and  keep  alive 
conferences);  they  sustain  a  "European  reflex"  Their  efficiency  is assessed  m  Part  Three. 

the  idea  of  a  European  community  (e.g. 

through 

Mini-networks  as  described  m Anncs  1 arc  more  active 

B  -  Besides  networks  of  intcrmcdiancs,  networks  of  firms  seem  to  become  increasingly  a 
topic,  whatever  their  nature  (SMEs  only.  Large  firms  and  SMEs,  etc.).  SPRINT  has  prepared 
the  field  through  initiatives  such  as  TTDays  or  some  EIMS  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  expenence  not  only  of  SPRINT,  but  also 
of  EUREKA,  CRAFT,  etc. 

65 

2b.  Européanise 

information  supplied  to SMEs  by  their  various  partners 

A  -  SPRINT  has  only  indirectly  dealt  with  this  important  problem,  which  is  the  pnme  target 
of other  programmes  such  as  VALUE. 

-  However,  the  newly-emerging  RTAC  network  may,  in  the  future,  bnng  an  unportant 
contribution:  it  may  encourage,  under  certain  conditions  to  be  denned  by  the  network, 
the  vanous  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  groupmg  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  II  Day  which  conesponds 
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 
conditions  for trans-regional  technology  transfer,  already  developed  to  some  extent. 

to  determine  optimum 

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  of  the  pattern  of  innovative  SMEs,  the  programme 
could  have  become  their  legitimate  spokesman  (with  DG  XXHI  and  DG  XVT)  and  drawn 
attention  to  the  bamers  they  still  face,  unknown  to  large  firms  with  diversified  human 
resources. 

For  example,  multinationals  (including  US  and 

fairly 
successfully  with  the  segmented  European  market,  whereas  SMEs  still  regard  the  US  market 
as  more  accessible  because  it  is  more  homogeneous.  Furthermore,  as  previously  mentioned, 
no. thought  is  given  to  a  licensing  policy  for  SMEs.  A  further  example:  the  third  activity 
could  continue  the  contemplation  started  by  EIMS  of  a  generalised  standards  system  based 
on  performance  and  its outcome,  i.e.  "pennormative"  research  to  be developed  m  RTOs. 

lapanese  ones)  can  cope 

These  are  just  a  few  general  examples  of  areas 
programme,  could  act  as  a  beacon  and  come  up  with  proposals 
European 

programmes. 

in  which  SPRINT,  as  a  horizontal 
for  vertical  national  or 

3.  Third  objective:  supply  SMEs  with  appropriate  technologies 

Rationale: 

It  is  not  a  question  of  developing 
The  title  for  this  third  objective  may  lead  to  confusion. 
radically  new  technological  knowledge,  wnether  m  SPRINT  or  m  the  third  activity;  that  is  a 
job  for  the  specific  RTD  programmes  (first  activity)  The  time-consuming  and  difficult  goal 
here  is  to  adapt  knowledge  developed  m  a  laboratory  to  the  requirements  of  an  innovative 
SME  project.  The  knowledge  may  also  have  been  tested  aJready  by  incorporation  mto  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  rs  centred  on 
individual  projects  or joint  ventures 

A  - 
experience  in this  area  thanks  to: 

Without  insisting  too  much  on  this  third  objective,  SPRTNT  has  accumulated  some 

some  mini  RTO  networks,  but  financial  support  is  modest  and  can  only  cover  the 

extra  costs  incurred  through  cooperation, 

some Specific  Projects. 

67 

B -  This  is merely a fraction of a task  which  will  be growing  in importance  under  the third 
activity.  For  example,  in  some  countries  it  will  be  important  to  guarantee  the  launch  of 
Technology  Resource  Centres  (TRCs) with specific  targets,  during  the difficult  years  before 
the SME clientele becomes established. 

More generally, there  is a  need  to redefine completely  the  services  to  be  provided  bt  TRCs. 
this could be based on a TRC auditing system. 

* * * ** 

68 

ANNEX  3: 

NOTE  ON  THE  1%-RULE 

INTERACTION 

KITH  THE  PROGRAMMES  OF  THE  FIRST 

ACTIMTY 

in  accordance  with  the  Decision  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  26  Apnl 
1994 on  the  Fourth  Framework  Programme,  the  activities  m 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  relatmg  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  unportant  m two  respects: 

strengthening  the  link  between  RTD  and  demand/use  as  an  important  precondition  for 
efficient  dissemination  and  technology  transfer  and  the 

improvement  of 
programmes. 

links  between  SPRINT 

initiatives  and 

the  specific 

research 

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 
to 
emphasize 
emphasize  the needs of these  firms  m the  process  of planning  R&D  programmes. 

the  diffusion  of  technologies  and  of  know-how 

towards  SMEs  and 

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 

learning  new  ways  of 

improving 

dissemination  in the  fields  of: 

• 

the  transferability  and  adaptability  of  technologies  or  research  results  from  one 
sector  to  another  or  from  one  technology  sector  to  another  (spillover  and  transfer 
effects); 

69 

*  new  ways  of  involving  future  users  and  institutions  potentially  crucial  to  the 
innovation  phase  well  upstream  of  the  innovation  process  (financing  and/or 
regulatory bodies, etc.); 

*  development  of  new  tools  for  long-term  forecasting  of  demand,  new  social  needs 
and  technical  and  scientific  developments  as  an  aid  to  designing  targeted  research 
programmes. 

The  main  functions  of the  third  activity  in  the  use  of  the  " 1 %"  should  be:  coordination, 
pilot  experiments  and,  more  generally,  its  expertise  and  its  relations  with  innovation 
infrastructures.  The  in-depth  knowledge  of  the  needs  of  various  types  of  SMEs  that 
SPRINT  has  gained  following  its  industry-oriented  activities  should  allow  for  improved 
planning of R&D programmes. 

The  panel  stresses  the  importance  of  careful  design  of  the  coordination  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. 

Gecrge ARGYHOPOULOS  (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 m 
Oxfordshire,  Director of the Oxford  mnovation 
Previously, has held responsibliues m the management  of vanous  hi-tech  SMEs 

4. 

Luis CRESPO  (E) 

General  Director of the Extrcmadura  Development Agency 
Former General  Secretary of the Spanish  Association  for  new technologies" 
Former CDTI  Director 
Member of the VALUE panel and of the SPRTNT mdi-term  evaluation  panel 

5. 

Friedcr MEYER-KRAHMER  (D) 

Director of the Fraunhofcr  Institute for  Systems and  Innovation  Research in 
Karlsruhe. 
CcK>rdinator 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's  office: 

Daniel  ROUTIER 
Rjcardo Hitec Ltd 
SPRINT Technical  Assistance Unit 

71 

ANNEX  5 

MANDA  TE FOR  THE SPRINT  FINAL  REVIEW  PANEL 

1. The  panel  is  composed  of  persons  who  are  appointed  by  the  Director 
General,  DG XIH, and will  serve  in their personal  capacity.  Their  views 
therefore  in no way  commit  or  should  be  influenced  by 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 oi 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  oi 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 m progress. 

72 

ANNEX  6: 

List  of acronyms/Liste  des  acronymes 

CRO 

CRAFT 

CRT 

EACRO 

EIMS 

EUNET 

Contract  Research  Organisations 
Organisation  de Recherche sous  Contrat 

Cooperative Research Action for  Technology 
Action co-opérative 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 

EUROSDAQ 

European  Organisation of Securities  Dealers and  Quotations 

EVCA 

FEICRO 

FWP 

FTP 

JET 

LFR 

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 
Régions moins Favorisées 

MINT 

Managing the Integration of New Technologies 

73 

Gérer l'Intégration des Nouvelles Technologies 

NASDAQ 

National Association of Securities Dealers and  Quotations 

NTBF 

OCDE 

ORT 

PME 

R&D 

RTD 

RTTTS 

RTAC 

RTO 

RTP 

SME 

SPAL 

SPCS 

SPNET 

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 

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 Technologies 
et de Soutien  à  l'Innovation 

Regional  Technology  Advisory  Centres 
Centres  régionaux  de Conseil en technologie 

Research  and Technology  Organisations 
Organisations de Recherche et de Technologie 

Regional Technology  Plans 
Plans régionaux  Technologique 

Small and Medium-sized  Enterprises 
Petites et Moyennes  Entreprises 

Specific  Projects  Action Line 
Ligne d'action  des Projets  Spécifiques 

Science Park  Consultancy  Scheme 
Programme d'aide au conseil en matière de parcs 

scientifiques 

Science Park  Networking 
Réseaux de Parcs  Scientifiques 

74 

SPRINT 

SQW 

TPF 

TRC 

TT 

TTDavs 

VALUE 

Strategic Programme  for /TVhovation and  Technologv'  transfer 
Programme Stratégique pour l'innovation  et le Tranfert  de 
Technologie 

Segal Quince Wicksteed  (UK consultancy firm) 

Technologv' Performance  Financing Scheme 
Plan de Financement  de la Technologie selon sa  Performance 

Technologv' Resource Centre 
Centre de Ressources  technologiques 

Technologv- Transfer 
Transfert  de Technologie 

Technologv' Transfer  Days 
Journées des Transfert  de Technologie 

Valorisation  et Utilisation pour  l'Europe 
Valorisation  and  Utilisation  for  Europe 

TABLE 1 

Innovation  needs of various  catceories  of SMEs 

NEEDS 

COMPANIES 

RTAC 
(Definition  Phase) 

TECHNO -
LOGICAL 
PARTNERS 
(RTO,  CRT...) 

MANAGEMENT 
HELP 

FINANCIAL 
RESOURCES 

R/D  SUBSIDIES 
(SBIRtype...) 

*. 
JET (NTBF) 
Strong  potential for 
growth 

b.  Research 
Intensive  Companies 
(R.I.C) 

c.  Standard  SMEs 

XX 

XX 

See list of acronyms, annex 6) 

X 

XX 

XX 

XXX 
(+ NASDAQ) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

TABLE 2 

Operators in  Innovation  and  types of initiative under  SPRINT 

Category of 
operator 

Type of 
initiative 

Study 

*! 

Experiment 

Evaluation 

Networks 
Interaction 
areas 

CONSULTANTS 

RTOi 

RTACs 

SCIENCE 
PARKS 

FINANCING 
SYSTEM 

REGIONS 

SMEs 

Value analysis 
Design 
Quality 

MINT 

SPAL 

EIMS 

EIMS 

-

EIMS 
NASDAQ 

EIMS 

EIMS 
(Clusters, 
NTBF) 

SPAL 

SPNET (?) 

TPF 

SPAL 

SPAL 

Evaluation of 
specific 
projects 

RITTS park 

RITTS 
RTP 

Til 
TTDays 

Mini-
net works 

RTAC networks 

SPNET (?) 

EVCA 
Fora 

TTDays 

(See Annex 6: list of acronyms) 

TABLE  3 

Objectives  of the SPRINT  Programme  and  types  of  initiative 

Objective 

INFLUENCING 
SPECIALIST 
OPERATORS 

INFLUENCING 
INSTRUMENTS  AND 
POLICY-MAKERS 

Type of initiative 

Study 

VA, D, Q 

EIMS 

DISSEMINATION 

EUROPEANISATION 

Experiment 

Evaluation 

MINT 
SPAL 
SPNET (?) 

RTACs 
TPF 
SPAL 

regional  RITTS 

TPF (?) 

Networks 
Interaction  areas 

RTO mini-networks 
RTAC  mini-networks 

EVCA -> NASDAQ 

Mini-networks of brokers 
RTO mini-networks 
RTAC mini-networks 
TTDays 
Til 

(See Annex 6: list of acronyms) 

EIMS 

SPAL 

RITTS 

TTDays 
All networks 

OPERATORS 

OBJECTIVES 

Influencing  specialist 
operators 
Influencing 
instruments and  policy 
makers 
Horizontal  schemes 

TABLE 4 

Programme objectives  and  Innovation  operators 

CONSULTANTS 

FINANCING 
SYSTEM 

RTOs 

RTACs 

SCIFNCE 
PARKS 

REGION 
S 

MINT 
Mi ni-networks 
VA - D - Q 

EASD 

Mini-networks 
SPAL 

RTACs 

Feasibility 

RTACs 

SMEs 

Absorption 
capacity (?) 
SPAL 

SPAL 

DGXII 

RITTS park 

RITTS 
RTPs 
SPAL 

DGXVI 

DGXVI 

DG XXIII 

MINT 

TPF 

Euro SDAQ 
(DG XVIII. 
XXIlletc) 
EVCA 
Fora 

CX5 

Europeanisation 

Til 

EACRO 

RTACs 

SPNET (?) 

Networks (?) 
TTDays 

TT  Days 

Technology 
dissemination 

Mini-networks 

TPF(?) 

Mini-networks 

RTACs (?) 

TTDays 

(See Annex 6: list of acronyms) 

SME PARTNERS 

CONSULTANTS 

INNOVATION  POLICY 
PUBLIC FINANCIAL  SUPPORT 

•a 

TECHNICAL  RESOURCE 
CENTRES 
RTO 

FINANCIAL  SYSTEM 

ADVISERS  IN TECHNOLOGICAL 
INNOVATION 

OTHER SMEs 

FIGURE! 

Appendix B 

List of evaluation  reports on SPRINT activities 

•  SPRINT mid-term evaluation 

•  Evaluation of Intermediaries networks 

1992 

1992-93 

•  Evaluation of Research and Technology Organizations (RTO) networks 

1994 

•  Evaluation  of Specific Projects (Phase I and II) 

1993-94 

•  Evaluation of the Managing the Integration of New Technologies (MINT)  Scheme 

1994-95 

•  Evaluation of the Science Park  Scheme 

1994-95 

•  Evaluation of the Community Innovation  Survey (CIS)-Phase  I 

1994 

•  Evaluation of the Technology Performance  Financing (TPF) Scheme 

1994-95 

ISSN  0254-1475 

COM(96) 130 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

15 

Catalogue number  :  CB-CO-96-137-EN-C 

ISBN 92-78-01897-X 

Office  for Official  Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg 

21