Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

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/EEC [1] of 17 April 1989, confirmed and extended by
Council Decision 94/5/EC [2] of 20 December 1993, relating to the main phase of the
Strategic Programme for 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.

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.

2 OJN°L6, 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;

**4 q**

   - —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;

    - in general, interaction mechanisms between the 3rd Activity and other
Community programmes should be set in place;

   - 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

**8 o**

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. Panel Evaluation report

B. List of evaluation reports

_**9&**_

**PANEL EVALUATION** **OF** **THE SPRINT PROGRAMME**

Page

SUMMARY **OF** THE REPORT 5

PART ONE 10

_TERMS AND FRAME OF REFERENCE_ _10_

A. TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE GROUP, WORK METHOD 10

B. REFERENCE FRAMEWORK 11

1 What is innovanon [9] 11

2. Research policy and innovation policy are two different things 12
3 Characteristics of an SME-targeted innovation policy 13

C. WHAT IS THE ROLE OF A EUROPEAN PROGRAMME TO

STIMULATE INNOVATION IN SME'S? 15

PART TWO

_ANAL_ _YSIS_ _OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM_ _1_ 7

A OBJECTIVES 17

B METHODS AND MEASURES OF THE SPRINT PROGRAMME 17

1. First combine reflection and experimentation,

evaluation and dissemination 17

2. Evaluate the actions 18
3. Then build up networks 18
4. Target SME partners 18

C. COHERENCE OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM ANALYSIS BY CATEGORY

OF OPERATOR 19

1. Consultants 19
2. Technological partners 20
3. **Field consultants** 20
**4.** **Financial partners** for innovative SMEs 21
**5.** **Local** **policy-makers** 21
**6.** **What SPRINT has** overlooked 22

**D.** - **COHERENCE OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM: ANALYSIS BY OBJECTIVES** 22

**1** . Helping to create an environment beneficial to innovation in SMEs 23

a. Influencing specialists 23

b. Influencing tools and policies 23

c. Disseminating technologies 24

2. Europeanising the operators in the innovation system 25

3. Horizontal schemes 25

E CONCLUSION 26

PART THREE

_CONCL USIONS AND_ _RECOMMENDA TIONS_ _'_ _2 7_

A GENERAL APPRAISAL OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM 27

B PROPOSALS FOR THE COMPOSITION OF THE PROGRAMME 28

1. A programme such as SPRINT must be flexible and evolutionary 28

2. Should the programme continue to target intermediaries or should it be
aimed at SMEs directly? 30

3. A new dimension: a privileged relationship between SPRINT and

regional authorities 32

C PROPOSALS FOR SPECIFIC ACTION 32

1. Improve the reflection-expcnmcnLation-evaJuation-dissemination cycle 33

2. Reinforce and systematise the interaction between the SPRINT programme

and its potential partners 34

3. Increase human resources within the SPRINT programme 35

D. MISCELLANEOUS 36

E. CONCLUSION: SUMMARY ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS PUT

TO THE PANEL 36

### **_I_**

**ANNEXES**

ANNEX 1: _ANALYSIS OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM BY TYPE OF INITIATIVE_ _39_

1. Schemes aimed at technological partners of SMEs 40

2. Schemes aimed at RTACs 41

3. Schemes aimed at science parks 42

4. Schemes aimed at consultants in general 45

5. Schemes aimed at consultants specialising in licensing 47

6 Schemes aimed at the financial system 49

7. Schemes aimed at the interaction of SMEs with other SMEs (networks) and/or large firms 52

8 Schemes aimed at regional policies 52

9 Schemes aimed at the absorptive capacity of SMEs and their interactions with their partners 54

10. Evaluation of the action taken under SPRINT 56

ANNEX 2: _ANALYSIS_ _OF_ _THE SPRINT SYSTEM ACCORDING TO_ _OBJECWES_ 59

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

of technologies 60
2 Second objective: Establishment of an area for the free circulation of technologies

in the EU and for application of innovative products) 63

3 Third objective: Supply SME's with technologies adapted to their requirements 66

ANNEX 3: _NOTE ON THE 1%RULE_ 68

ANNEX 4 _SPRINT_ _EVALUA TION_ _PANEL_ 70

ANNEX S: _TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE SPRINT FINAL EVAL_ _UA_ _TION PANEL_ 71

ANNEX 6: _LIST OF ACRONYMS_ 72

**Tables 1.** **2,3** **and 4 and** Figure 1 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
**enterprises.** **It is nevertheless** increasingly vital for the two policies to be conducted
**simultaneously and on the same** **footing**

**2.2** **Value added of the European approach**

_Specific_ **innovation** policies have been introduced in the Member States, especially at
**regional level. SPRINT** looked **at the** problem in a European context.

In order to do this, the programme set out to demonstrate the relevance of certain tools
**(networks, common** projects, **financial** instruments, fora, consultation, etc.) with, **as** the
**ultimate objective, their adoption by** national and regional 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 to the objective of European cohesion through the
dissemination of proven technologies from particular countries to other regions, especially to
those suffering from a "development gap", thanks in particular to the "specific projects" for

innovation transfer.

In line with regional or national innovation policies, a Community innovation policy needs to
be "horizontal", i.e. implemented so as to ensure that there is some consistency in the actions
undertaken by the various Commission directorates-general with regard to innovation among

SMEs

3 SPRINT objectives and methods applied

SPRINT actions can be classified according to the three initial objectives of the programme

/ - _DEVELOPMENT_ _OF A PAN EUROPEAN INFRASTRUCTURE_ _TO SUPPORT_

_INNOVATION_

_networks (brokers, research and technology agencies, regional_ _interface_
_organizations,_ _university-industry_ _intermediaries)_
_science_ _parks_ _and regional infrastructure for_ _innovation;_
_innovation_ _financing,_

_II -_ _DISSEMINATION_ _AND ABSORPTION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES_ _AND_

_PRACTICES_

_innovation management techniques_ _(MINT,_ _design,_ _quality,_ _etc.);_
_technology transfer days._
_demonstration projects_ _Ç"special_ _projects"for_ _innovation_ _transfer);_

_III_ - _PROMOTING A WA_ _REN ESS_ _OF_ _INNO VA_ _TION AND UNDERSTANDING_ _OF_

_HOW_ _IT WORKS_

_"European_ _Innovation_ _Monitoring_ _System_ _"(information_ _gathering,_
_studies, workshops on policies,_ _etc.)._

In response to the complex nature of the innovation system, SPRINT itself was bound to be
systemic in nature and its actions were bound to be diversified. This explains the profuse
aspect which is a feature of the programme.

The programme gradually adopted an approach which was both pragmatic and considered,
building up in-depth knowledge of the mechanisms which underly innovation and technology
dissemination. This approach comprises a cycle which produces in turn reflection (what is to
be done, what initiative should be launched? - the European Innovation Monitoring System),
experimentation (the various actions in the programme other than the EIMS), evaluation and
dissemination (proven and evaluated good practices).

These actions are for the most part aimed at SMEs' partners (various types _of_ intermediary
and interface) and interaction platforms (capital and technology markets, fora, science parks
and technopoles). The programme thus targeted several thousand intermediary bodies, on
the assumption that the service to several hundreds of thousands of SMEs would be
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 given [9] These questions
need to be answered according to the category of actors in the innovation system

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

_i)_ _Consultants,_ Thanks to the launch of a large number of networks, the programme
has made it possible to stimulate the work of the main types of non-technological experts,
especially technology brokers (mini-networks for inter-firm technology transfer, Til
Technology, Innovation and Information macro-network, organization of technology transfer
days), experts in the field of technology management (MINT initiative for the strategic
review of SMEs) and specialists on science parks and similar structures (feasibility and
evaluation studies). Lastly, the programme set out to promote certain techniques of
innovation management such as quality, value analysis and industrial design. The field was
broadly covered in spite of some gaps (consultants specializing in market studies or
intellectual property problems).

_**U)**_ _**Technological partners**_ _or research and technology organizations_ _(RTOs)._ Among

these, the sectoral technical centres (involved in collective research on fundamental

technologies in traditional sectors) benefited from one of the main initiatives in the
programme. RTO 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.

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

the European Venture Capital 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

_v)_ _Regional_ _(and national) services responsible for_ _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.

Lastly, the European Innovation Monitoring System (EIMS) was considered by the
evaluation panel to be the linchpin of a construction based on consideration and identification
of the most suitable actions It is primarily policy-makers in the Member States who arc
targeted in the six main areas of EIMS analysis (evaluation, innovation in firms, innovationsupport 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 interaction with national authonties and with other services of the

Commission.

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

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

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

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

Transparency (visibility), dissemination and interaction summarize the three axes for
improving the SPRINT system

Overall, the SPRINT programme represents a remarkable and highly articulated set of
actions, and it has proved to be a very effective means of support for national and regional
innovation policies, while respecting the principle of subsidiarity.

10

**PART ONE**

_TERMS AND FRAME OF REFERENCE_

A. TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE GROUP; WORK METHOD

Our committee was asked by the Commission to produce an evaluation report on the
SPRINT programme. Some of the questions asked are common for this type of exercise:
have initial objectives been achieved [9] Is there sufficient rationale for continuing current
projects, taking into account economic trends [9] 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,**
**those responsible for each line of action of SPRINT were interviewed along** **with**
**representatives of three Directorates with an interest in SPRINT.**

**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 international_ _competition_ _and technological_ _change._ This also applies to
SPRINT, of course, and to the programme into which it is to be incorporated: the Third
Activity of the Fourth Framework Programme

Ever since its origins (1984), the original aspect of SPRINT has been its intention _to_ _aim_ _at_
_innovation_ _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_ _should not be confused_ _with R&D._ The two concepts are
complementary, but there is a great deal of innovation without any specific R&D effort and
research by no means always leads to innovation.

The _dissemination_ _of technology_ and the various forms of technology transfer.are
important, but not unique, aspects of innovation

2. Research policy and innovation policy are two different things

Besides research 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_
_relevant technologies must be disseminated_ _to firms,_ at the right time and m the right
place. There is interaction to the extend that awareness of demand brings to light new
research areas.

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

3. Characteristics of an SME-targeted innovation policy

As stated above, the aim of innovation policy is to boost the success of innovative projects
in SMEs. What form should this policy take m the current climate [9 ]

a. _An_ _SME-ohented_ _innovation policy must be_ _all-embracing_ _and include a number of_
_different_ _aspects._

All models describing the innovation system stress its systemic and interactive nature. The
size of SMEs prevents them from having all the necessary in-house expertise, however,
and often they 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 to coordinate policies already launched by the various public
authonties responsible for these partners, according to their profession It is therefore
_horizontal;_

- 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_ _is_ _to be guided by the demand from SMEs_ (unlike exploitation
policy, which is supply-led)

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

1 5

_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 WHAT CAN BE THE ROLE OF A EUROPEAN PROGRAMME TO

STIMULATE INNOVATION IN SMEs?

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 policies,_ _it_ _would be difficult for a European_
_innovation policy to influence all_ _SMEs_

After having highlighted the frame of the reference, part two of this report analyses the
whole range of SPRINT initiatives, _regarded as a system_ which must respond globally
and in detail to the broad objectives of an innovation policy. Part Three is a general
appreciation, followed by recommendations for enabling the SPRINT system to adapt to
rapidly-evolving tasks once it has been incorporated 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 communitybased.

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 structure_ in which
_human resources_ are a key element. Because of insufficient permanent staff, SPRINT has
relied on a network of consultants. We shall come back to this in Part Three of the report.

_**The interconnections of**_ _**the**_ _**action modes**_ _**with**_ _**the categories of operator and**_ _**then with**_
_**the objectives are summarised in Tables 2 and 3.**_

_C._ `COHERENCE OF THE` `"SPRINT` `SYSTEM":` `ANALYSIS BY CATEGORY`

```
OF OPERATOR

```

As mentioned above, a 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,_
_**having**_ _an internal_ _logic_ _[9]_ _To assess_ _its_ _coherence,_ _**the**_ _panel chose to analyse_ _u_
_successively through two_ _grids:_ the innovation operators gnd and the objectives gnd.

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
relies on a vanety of SME partners and its consequent promotion _of emerging_ _innovation_
_services._ Whatever the sector of activity, SMEs cannot work without partners with
expertise conducive to innovation and complementary to the internal know-how of the
firm. To illustrate this diversity, the panel uses the so called hexagon diagram (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 technical teams
developed, for instance in France, m close contact with laboratones and are
totally dedicated to SMEs (testing, analysis, participation in product or processbased projects etc.)

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 macronetwork FEICRO (Federation of European Industrial Cooperation Research
Organisations).

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

The third category has been somewhat neglected

3. Field Consultants (innovation _&_ technology consultants)

It _is_ only recently that the new function of RTACs (Regional Technology Advisory
Centres) has developed. It can be 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.

**2 1**

**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-today 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 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.

 _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. COHERENCE OF THE SPRINT SYSTEM - ANALYSIS BY OBJECTIVE

The various SME partners form a complex entity which SPRINT has succeeded in
assessing and targeting, except for a few which have been overlooked. Other partners will
probably come to 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 implement_ _a solid_
_infrastructure for_ _field_ _operators, particularly interface_ _services")._

The aim is to increase the individual quality of SME services through the creation and
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_
_disseminate_ _best practices through a policy of demonstration_ _which proposes_ _action_
_models based on reflection, and to establish a common language"._ SPRINT uses the
EIMS experimentation/evaluation system to further that aim, as described above. In this
context the following initiatives can be identified: 

- TPF, which aims to establish a new _mechanism_ of interaction between banks and the
suppliers and users of technology;

- specific SPAL projects in which pan-European experiences allow _model initiatives_ to
be demonstrated to local or national policy-makers,

- **the** MINT programme, a _large-scale management_ support demonstration scheme;

- programmes for assessing the instrumental value of a _science park or_ _regional_
_innovation policy/infrastructure._ Such schemes have a number of merits: with low
cost, they investigated a series of local schemes and are a powerful tool for
dissseminating best practice,

**24**

Such a 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 the recent information
campaign on best practices in transnational technology management networks are all
instrumental m disseminating lessons learned, there is _a major_ _gap:_ _putting together the_
_lessons learned from each experience_ to enable all local or national innovation policymakers to benefit from them.

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 mininetworks 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
programmes exist whjch favour this type of mobility. SPRINT has recently
launched a network of people responsible for these programmes- This is an
interesting effort, but is not yet adequate, since the ultimate aim of such an
approach is _to increase the absorptive capacity of SMEs,_ which requires far more
attention.

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

In all cases, dissemination is _a learning process in which the interested firm learns to_
_learn._ In the long run it is more efficient for the firm to learn to detect and rapidly master
new technologies than to supply it with tailor-made technologies. If the challenge for a

**25**

dissemination policy is to develop "learning products", it could be said that 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 that these networks have not been used sufficeintly for disseminating
information, not only top-down information, but information exchanged between two
nodes of a network on what is being produced, invented or disseminated m each region

**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 is true of technology, financial resources, 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.

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.

2 6

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 THE 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:_ _the panel has identified them and has offered_ _some_
_recommendations,_ _but_ _it is_ _not convinced that they would justify_ _marginalising_ _the_
_SPRINT system within the Framework_ _Programme_

SPRINT is indeed a system in which each 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 innovation
policy-makers, in particular at regional level;

     - to create real European communities of experts in professional circles in which
they did not previously exist, thus fostering the cohesion of innovation practice,
tools and skills

Some weaknesses which emerged during the evaluation must also be mentioned:

     - the inability to publicise its general approach, resulting in a low profile for the
programme or even a reputation for being diffuse,

**28**

      - poor dissemination of results from specific initiatives such as EIMS studies, thus
reducing their impact;

      - hence an inadequate catalytic effect on regional or national innovation schemes;

     - too little interaction with national governments and other Commission
departments, even though influencing other programmes is one of the major
objectives of a horizontal 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
suffering from implicit Commission rules according to which the number of staff
available is proportionate to the budget allocated. _Yet_ _SPRINT_ _is an_ _activity_ _programme_
_whose impact derives_ _no_ _less from_ _the_ _expertise of_ _its_ _staff than from_ _its_ _budgetary_ _funds_
_granted._

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

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

B. PROPOSALS FOR THE COMPOSITION OF THE PROGRAMME

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 themselves 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:

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.

**3 0**

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 it be
directed at SMEs?

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
**little or no research.** _**We**_ _recommend that a classification of SMEs, based on_ _innovation_
_**demand, be**_ _compiled and kept constantly up to date._

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

3 1

b. Use SPRINT as a _tool for identifying SME demand_ and as their _ambassador_ to
operational programmes.

For example, after selecting about fifteen traditional sectors (textile, footwear, furniture,
three or four agri-foodstuffs sectors, structural steelwork etc.) or "high-tech" sectors a
systematic investigation might be carried out, providing a more precise vision of the needs
of SMEs 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 market [9] 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
partners which are too distant) are opposed to this _a prion._ In any case, one should be
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 for a direct approach to SMEs,_
_**and that these could be**_ _met without violating the subsidiarity_ _principle._

**32**

3. A new dimension: SPRINT as the contact point for regional authorities

Historically speaking, while aiming to cover the entire range of innovation operators, the
various SPRINT initiatives first concentrated on consultants, then on technological
partners, and thereafter on financial partners and proximity advisers (RTACs). But the
increasingly important role of regional policies for supporting innovation in SMEs tends
to create a preferential relationship between those responsible for these policies and
SPRINT.

This new dimension of the SPRINT system should be considered a priority, but on the
condition that all the implications are assessed. The experience acquired by SPRINT and
the double approach of EIMS and experimentation places the third activity m an ideal
position for:

 - helpmg local authonties _define the content of their programmes_ m support of
innovation in SMEs _{What_ _[7]_ _)._ 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 _{How_ _[7]_ _)._ 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
strong credibility. It could even be said that SPRINT could play the same role with
regional authonties as the OECD has with national authonties.

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

_C._ PROPOSALS FOR SPECIFIC ACTION

The first recommendation from the panel is that the tools perfected by SPRINT should be
fully used and should form the basis for the onginality and effectiveness of the third
activity.

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

**33**

_(visibility),_ _dissemination and interaction._ These key words have already appeared in the
proposals for entrance/exit mechanisms.

**1.** **Improve the reflection - experimentation - evaluation** - dissemination cycle.

The panel considers this global approach to be very effective, and particularly well-suited
to the diversified and changing environment of innovation 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
appeared attractive at first. In fact, the innovation area is full _of_ ideas which are
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 it can be utilised directly,which will usually require elaborate
presentation work. There is a strong analogy here with technology dissemination
innovation processes are a technology m their own nght, and their dissemination follows
the rules set out in Part Two

Some of the knowledge acquired through an experimental project (MINT, Specific
Projects, etc.) is still tacit and can only be disseminated by those who took part 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 SPRINT programme and
its potential partners

- _Interaction with other Commission_ _departments_

This is a delicate subject However it is worth the effort, because one of the major
objectives of an innovation policy is to mobilise all available resources from vertical
programmes for new 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. It should also inspire and evaluate the vanous
departments responsible for exploiting the " 1 % " allocated to exploitation in each specific
programme of the first activity. The experience that SPRINT has acquired, and its ability
to assess SME demand, should also be exploited by all those whose terms of reference
include support for innovative SMEs.

_To summarise,_ _the_ _panel suggests that interaction mechanisms_ _be_ _negotiated_ _between_
_thé_ _third activity_ _and_ _each Commission programme likely_ _to_ _contribute_ _to the_
_development of innovation_ _in SMEs_

 - _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 l S 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.

_The panel therefore strongly recommends_ _that manpower of the SPRINT system be_
_increased._ _A way should be found to implement this recommendation_ _in the light of_
_current European Commission rules with respect to manpower expenditures._ _Detaching_
_expehs_ _from regional and/or national organisations_ _is an initiative which could be_
_taken_ _systematically._

D. MISCELLANEOUS

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.
industrial competitiveness, consideration could be given to a world dimension,
ecological and socio-economic aims,

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

_E._ _CONCLUSION:_ _SUMMARY_ _ANSWERS_ _TO THE QUESTION_ _PUT TO THE_
_PANEL_

_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 tnaland-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 THE SPRINT SYSTEM BY TYPE OF OPERATOR

Comments on the individual schemes

As mentioned above, systematic action is the only way to make a real impact on an
environment as complex and mteractive as the innovation system _Is the_ _SPRIbiT_
_programme a_ _system_ _[9]_ _Has_ _it_ _an internal_ _logic?_ _To assess_ _its_ _coherence,_ _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.

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
emerging _innovation_ _services._ Whatever the sector of activity, SMEs cannot work
without partners with expertise conducive to innovation and complementary to the internal
know-how of the firm. To illustrate this diversity, the panel used the so called hexagon
diagram (see figure 1). SMEs are in the centre, on each side of the hexagon are the six
main types of SME partner:

. - _other firms_ (SMEs and large firms),

 _Technology Resource Centres_ (RTOs, or Research and Technology Organisations),

 - various types of _consultancy_ (management, marketing, intellectual property),

 _financial institutions_ (banks and capital development organisations);

and on the last two sides of the hexagon, we have generalists who stimulate the
demand and organise the coherence of the various schemes:

**-**
_**field innovation consultants;**_

**-**
_**regional 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 RTO (OR RA) NETWORKS

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

Sectoral RTOs are the main target for this action, but universities, CROs (Contract Research
Organisations) and 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.

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

The most striking changes in the attitude of RTOs involve the increased number of schemes
they can conduct and 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

4 1

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 R K O F EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION O F C O N T R A C T RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS

(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 current approach to evaluation could be slightly modified. In particular, the
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_

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 lnflenced [9 ]

Did the programme have an impact on their overall quality, and on their European
dimension [9 ]

MANAGING THE INTEGRATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY (MINT)

HISTORY AND OBJECTIVES

MINT aims to promote the absorption capacity of SMEs through the use of experienced
consultants in innovation management. It is a co-ordinated attempt by the Member States
and the Community, through a decentralised and experimental scheme, to exchange good
practice and share the results of a common approach to create awareness and stimulate use
of innovation and technology management techniques in SMEs.

MINT was implemented in 1993 in the twelve Member States through the appointment of
National Contractors suggested by Member State representatives. The National Contractors
then selected teams of consultants. In 1994 MINT was further implemented in five EFTA
countries.

ASSESSMENT

The consultants often specialise in a particular area of innovation management, for example.
It must be emphasised that MINT has been managed differently in the various Member
States according to national and/or regional tendencies, strengths and requirements. In that
respect MINT is a good example of the subsidiarity principle at work.

The transnational dimension of the programme is however guaranteed through a number of
initiatives: common overall guidelines; common workshops for general policy-making,
transnational evaluation, etc. The _MINT_ _Guidebook for Business and Technology_
_Diagnostic Tools_ _&_ _Methodologies_ is a successful publication for the dissemination of tools
and techniques for technological consultancy throughout the Member States in particular. It
should, of course, be constantly updated with material gained from the programme itself, as
an example of the dissemination policy described 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 to firms,
particularry SMEs.

Again, the emphasis should be on dissemination of work done. In general, communication of
activities in terms of value analysis and quality appears to be good, but this best practice
lead needs to be preserved though new brochures aimed at the general public and the most
common target of SPRINT: the standard SME.

3. Design

The European Community Design Prize (ECDP) is a SPRINT initiative that deals directly
with SMEs, and as such must be maintained and reinforced. The panel welcomes the
redefinition of the scheme in order to reach those SMEs that are not already using design as a
technique for improving the quality of their product or services.

The European Design Guide is an interesting publication. It should be disseminated properly
through appropriate media.

5. Schemes aiming at consultants specialising in licensing

The purchase and sale of licences is an important technology dissemination tool. Such
transfers are facilitated by specialist consultants, whose activity used to concentrate mainly
on large firms. But these can now form independent partnerships, and SMEs have therefore
become the main targets for the consultants. They are a more 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 in accessing technology
appropriate to their business sector and to raise awareness of the impact of technology on
competitiveness. An assessment of this line of action, based on February 1992 data, was
published in September 1993 (SQW).

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

Assessment

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

TPF (TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE FINANCING)

Objectives

The Technology Performance Financing Scheme was launched in 1991 with three objectives:

1. to facilitate the acquisition of new technology (e.g. hardware, software and 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**

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

3. to provide financial mstitutions with an instrument for project-based financing of
innovation as well as an opportunity to improve their ability to deal with such projects.

In practical terms Technology Performance Financing is a financing tool by which a
financial institution provides funds for the acqusrtion of new technologies or services. The
financial institution will then receive payments from the acquirer, over a two- to three-year
period, according to how the 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 mid1994.

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 toit

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 N T** **F O R A**

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 the newly-organised industrial partem multiplies day-to-day 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.

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
1994. The regions differ in terms of both development and industrial structure.

Assessment:

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

Specific Projects, launched in 1989, arc large-scale experimental 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
environment as complex and mteractive as the innovation system. _Is the SPRINT_ _programme_
_a_ _system,_ _which means does_ _it_ _have an internal_ _logic?_ _To assess its_ _coherence,_ _the panel_
_chose to analyse it through two gnds:_ the innovation actors gnd (see Annex 1) and the
objectives gnd, used in this annex.

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._ _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 appropnate_ _technologies to the SME system_

Links with the innovation policy described in part 1 of the report as a reference basis for this
evaluation are clear:

   - through the idea of 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);

  - finally, identify what SPRINT is unable to achieve, either because it disregards the
objective concerned, or because of **a** lack of resources, or because the initiative is
better suited **to** another programme such as VALUE (point B of each box).

6 0

1. First objective: creation of an environment beneficial to innovation and the
absorption of technologies

Rationale:

An SME's competitiveness depends primarily on its own capacities. But it also depends on its
environment; available resources vary extensively from one region to another and not only 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 types of consultants (management, marketing, intellectual property); financial
institutions (banks and capital development), and on the last side, field agents who stimulate
demand and coordinate the vanous actions: proximity advisers for innovation and
departments responsible for innovation policy, both sometimes grouped under RTACs.

An SME must therefore exist within _a highly interactive system_ where it is both provider and
recipient, and both client _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 is the outcome of a number of pnvate and public
mitiatives. The result will depend largely on their coherence

- • A second prerequisite of success for the SME is _a strong absorption_ _capacity_ A whole
range of functions can be 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._ _to help local innovation policies_ (regional or national) to improve the targeting and
organisation of their initiatives.
_lb._ _to improve the quality_ (through training, publication of the learning module, etc.)
_of technological and_ _managena I_ _partners of SMEs;_
_Ic_ _._ _to assist financial partners for the innovative SME;_
_Id._ _to change_ _SMEs'attitudes_ _to_ _innovanon._

6 1

_la._ _To help local innovation policies (regional or national) to improve the targeting and_
_organisation_ _of their_ _initiatives:_

Local innovation policies can play a key role in making a variety of initiatives, all apparently
quite different, implemented by the 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 the quality (through training, publication_ _of the learning module, etc) of_
_technological_ _and managerial partners of SMEs:_

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 the most of European
experiences so as to offer professionals some training modules,

- **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;

-TPF pilot experiment _(Technology Performance_ _Financing)_

-EIMS workshops and studies on the import from the USA of mechanisms considered there
to be particularly useful to 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 is therefore taking on the responsibility of supporting the market for growth
companies (EUROSDAQ) encouraged by the EVCA network, another example is DG
XXIII, which implemented a programme m support of "seed capital" firms.

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 intelligently with public money (for example increased guarantees 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

_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;

open itself up to external partners and establish itself both upstream and
downstream of production within an intensely interactive network of companies
(small and large);

go international,

develop a strong capacity for absorption m general, which could well be the
necessarv [1] 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,_ in its "multi-purpose-innovation
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).

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._ _Européanise_ _the vanous partners of SMEs by creating_ _networks;_
_2b._ _Européanise_ _information supplied to SMEs by their vanous_ _partners;_
_2c._ _Create interaction areas_ _in_ _well defined_ _segments;_
_2d._ _Fight regulatory_ _bamers._

_2a._ _**Européanise**_ _**the various innovation partners of SMEs by creating**_ _**networks**_

A - _SPRINT_ _supports_ _macro-networks_ having established a European community amongst
most SME partners; the _EACRO network_ (for contract research organisations), _the_ _RTAC_
_network_ (for national policy-makers m support of innovation); the EVCA network (for
venture capitalists) and the _EUROTECH_ network are now independent Other partners
(consultants, technology brokers, ARIST, etc ) arc now grouped in Til's network which is
now no longer officially linked to SPRINT

The activity of these networks is modest, but they guarantee a minimum of reciprocal
knowledge and keep alive the idea of a European community (e.g. through regular
conferences); they sustain a "European reflex" Their efficiency is assessed m Part Three.

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.

6 5

_**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 to determine optimum
**conditions for trans-regional** technology transfer, already developed to some extent.

**B** - **SPRINT pulled out of** "thematic **networks"** which were active in the 1980s. The idea
**was taken** **on** **by the BRTTE-EURAM programme, from which it received substantial**
**funding. Specific third** activity projects **provide a** tool **for** experimentation and action in a
**wide-open** **field.**

6 6

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

These are just a few general examples of areas in which SPRINT, as a horizontal
programme, _could act as a beacon and come up with proposals for vertical national or_
_European_ _programmes._

3. Third objective: supply SMEs with appropriate technologies

Rationale:

The title for this third objective may lead to confusion. It is not a question of developing
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 - Without insisting too much on this third objective, SPRTNT has accumulated some
experience in this area thanks to:

some _mini RTO networks,_ but financial support is modest and can only cover the
extra costs incurred through cooperation,

**some** _**Specific**_ _**Projects.**_

**67**

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

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

*** * * * ***

68

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 links between SPRINT initiatives and the specific research

programmes.

Indeed the application of the 1%-ruleby the specific programmes should allow at an early
stage of the projects involvement of all possible users (SMEs, large firms, consumers,
financing institutions, standardisation) The specific contribution of SPRINT would be to
emphasize the diffusion of technologies and of know-how towards SMEs and to
emphasize the needs of these firms m the process of planning R&D programmes.

Specific contributions of SPRINT-type initiatives might be:

- use of existing network infrastructure of the third activity by the research programmes;

- exchanges of experience of approaches, methods, new tools of dissemination and
exploitation and in the design of innovation-friendly research programmes,

- pilot projects for testing, demonstrating and 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**

CRO

CRAFT

CRT

EACRO

EIMS

EUNET

```
EUROSDAQ

EVCA

```

FEICRO

FWP

**FTP**

JET

**LFR**

**ANNEX** 6:

_List of_ _acronyms/Liste_ _des acronymes_

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

European Organisation of Securities Dealers and Quotations

European Venture Capital Association
Association Européenne de Capital à Risque

Federation of European Industrial Cooperation Research
Organisations
Fédération Européenne d'Organisations de Recherche pour la
Coopération Industrielle

Framework Programme
Programme Cadre

Technology Performance Financing Scheme

**Plan de** Financement de la Technologie selon sa Performance

**Jeunes** Entreprises Technologiques
**New** Technology Based Firms

Less Favoured Regions
Régions moins Favorisées

**MINT** Managing **the** Integration of New Technologies

NASDAQ

NTBF

OCDE

ORT

PME

R&D

RTD

RTTTS

RTAC

RTO

RTP

SME

SPAL

SPCS

SPNET

**73**

Gérer l'Intégration des Nouvelles Technologies

National Association of Securities Dealers and Quotations

New Technology Based Firms
Jeunes Entreprises Technologiques

Organisation pour la Coopération et le Developement Economique
Organisation for Economie Co-operation and Developement (OECD)

Organisations de recherche et de technologie
Research and Technology Organisations

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

SQW

TPF

TRC

**TT**

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

TTDavs Technologv' Transfer Days
Journées des Transfert de Technologie

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

NEEDS

COMPANIES

*. JET (NTBF)
Strong potential for
growth

b. Research

Intensive Companies
(R.I.C)

c. Standard SMEs

**TABLE 1**

**Innovation** **needs** **of various catceories of SMEs**

TECHNO  

FINANCIAL

RESOURCES

XXX

(+ NASDAQ)

X

X

MANAGEMENT

HELP

**XX**

**X**

**X**

RTAC

(Definition Phase)

**XX**

LOGICAL

PARTNERS

(RTO, CRT...)

**XX**

R/D SUBSIDIES

(SBIRtype...)

X

XX

**See** list of acronyms, annex 6)

TABLE 2

**Operators** in Innovation and types of initiative under SPRINT

FINANCING

SYSTEM

EIMS

NASDAQ

TPF

EVCA

Fora

SCIENCE

PARKS

       

SPNET (?)

RITTS park

SPNET (?)

RTACs

**EIMS**

**RTAC networks**

RTOi

**EIMS**

**SPAL**

**Evaluation** **of**

**specific**
**projects**

**Mini-**

**net works**

REGIONS

EIMS

SPAL

RITTS

RTP

SMEs

EIMS

(Clusters,

NTBF)

SPAL

TTDays

*** !**

Category of

operator

Type of
initiative

Study

Experiment

Evaluation

Networks

Interaction

areas

CONSULTANTS

**Value analysis**
**Design**
**Quality**

**MINT**

**SPAL**

**Til**

**TTDays**

(See Annex 6: list of acronyms)

TABLE 3

**Objectives** of **the** SPRINT Programme and types of initiative

Objective

Type of initiative

Study

Experiment

Evaluation

Networks

Interaction areas

(See Annex 6: list of acronyms)

INFLUENCING

SPECIALIST

OPERATORS

VA, D, Q

MINT

SPAL
SPNET (?)

RTO mini-networks

RTAC mini-networks

INFLUENCING

INSTRUMENTS AND

POLICY-MAKERS

EIMS

RTACs

TPF

SPAL

regional RITTS

EVCA -> NASDAQ

DISSEMINATION

TPF (?)

Mini-networks of brokers

RTO mini-networks

RTAC mini-networks

TTDays

Til

EUROPEANISATION

EIMS

SPAL

RITTS

TTDays
All networks

**TABLE** **4**

**Programme objectives** **and** **Innovation operators**

CONSULTANTS

**MINT**

**Mi ni-networks**

**VA - D - Q**

**MINT**

Til

Mini-networks

TTDays

FINANCING

SYSTEM

**EASD**

TPF

Euro SDAQ
(DG XVIII.
XXIlletc)

EVCA

Fora

TPF(?)

RTOs

Mini-networks

SPAL

SPAL

DGXII

EACRO

Mini-networks

RTACs

RTACs

RTACs

RTACs (?)

SCIFNCE

PARKS

Feasibility

RITTS park

DGXVI

SPNET (?)

REGION

S

RTACs

RITTS

RTPs

SPAL

DGXVI

SMEs

Absorption
capacity (?)

SPAL

DG XXIII

Networks (?)
TTDays

TT Days

CX5

OPERATORS

OBJECTIVES

Influencing specialist

operators
Influencing
instruments and policymakers

Horizontal schemes

Europeanisation

Technology
dissemination

**(See** **Annex** **6:** **list** **of** **acronyms)**

## SME PARTNERS

##### CONSULTANTS

_**•a**_

##### INNOVATION POLICY PUBLIC FINANCIAL SUPPORT FINANCIAL SYSTEM

##### OTHER SMEs

##### TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTRES **RTO** ADVISERS IN TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION

**FIGURE!**

**Appendix B**

**List of evaluation reports on SPRINT activities**

- SPRINT mid-term evaluation 1992

- Evaluation of Intermediaries networks 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