INOV & COL LEARNING

download report

Transcript INOV & COL LEARNING

4th Intl. Conf. on Technology Policy and Innovation
Curitiba, 28-31 August 2000
Towards a University Agenda on
Engineering Policy
and the
Management of Technology
Pedro Conceição and Manuel Heitor
CENTER FOR INNOVATION, TECHNOLOGY AND POLICY RESEARCH, IN+
Instituto Superior Técnico, Technical University of Lisbon
http://in3.dem.ist.utl.pt
Background: trends for the University ?
Conceicão & heitor (1999)
• Valorization of
human
and
intellectual
capital?
Codified knowledge
(“software”)
Tacit knowledge
(“wetware”)
Challenges and … Opportunities...
TRADITIONAL MECHANISMS TO PROMOTE
UNIVERSITIES and R&D IN SOCIETY
1.
Intellectual Property Protection
issues:
economic impact negligible
promotes institutional integrity
requires adaptation and flexibility
2.
Technology Infrastructures and Science Parks
issues:
emphasis local development
have not promoted U-I linkages
The model: “american university” as reference
TRADITIONAL MECHANISMS TO PROMOTE
THE ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN SOCIETY
The trend: a process of “institutional convergence”
The result: universities today, despite their long historical
I
inheritance, are relatively new institutions…
… with a complex set of incentive structures and
organizational features (Rosenberg & Nelson, 1996)
The threat: institutional integrity
The analysis: “standard”, linear model has been implicit in
m
most studies
The knowledge gap
(Scope: EUROPEAN REGIONS)
Edudation / training
for last 10 years
New
technologies
Education / training
acquired for more
than 10 years
2000
Existing
technologies
2010
2000
2010
2010: 80% of technologies with less than 10 years,
while 80% of working force has acquired training with more than 10 years
QUESTION
Which trends for advanced education
and research in engineering schools,
in a way to contribute for the challenges
faced by engineering and technology to
enhance innovation?
Our Argument...
The scope:...
the globalized “learning society”!
Knowledge Institutions
Learning Organisations
Intellectual Property
Learning Networks
The need for institutional renewal,
…promoting diversity with institutional integrity,
(Conceicão & Heitor, 1999)
…making use of partnerships!
(Conceicão, Gibson, Heitor & Sirilli, 2000)
BUT, understanding research (R&D; R&T; R&L),
promoting research for creative teaching,
and integrating technology, policy and management!
The CONTEXT
OCDE: “FUTURES”, Hannover 2000
EC: “IPTS - Futures Report”, 2000
1.
Technological change: accelerating
2.
The “new” economy: “the big boom”
3.
Social Dynamics: complexity and diversity
4.
“Governance”: a new model!
Technological Change:
materials, IPTS(1999)
10 000 BC
5000 BC
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE
GOLD
COOPER
0
BRONZE
IRON
1000
1500 1800
1900
METALS
POLYMERS
1980
AL-LITHIUM ALLOYS
DUAL PHASE STEELS
STEELS
ALLOY
STEELS
IVORY
COMPOSITES
MICROALLOYED STEELS
RUBBER
WOOD
BAKELITE
POTTERT
GLASS
CERAMICS
10000 BC
5000 BC
ALLOYS
REFRACTORIES
PORTLAND
CEMENT
0
1000 1500 1800
FUSED
SILICA
1900
HIGH MODULUS
POLYMERS
COMPOSITES
CERAMIC COMPOSITES
METAL-MATRIX
COMPOSITES
KEVLAR
CERAMICS
SUPERCONDUCTORS
TOUGH ENGINEERING
CERAMICS
CERMETS
1940
POLYMERS
HIGH TEMPERATURE
POLYMERS
EPOXIES
POLYESTERS
NYLON
CEMENT
2020
CONDUCTING
POLYMERS
SUPER ALLOYS
TITANIUM
ZINCONIUM
ETC
2010
NEW SUPER ALLOYS
DEVELOPMENT SLOW
MOSTLY QUALITY
CONTROL AND
PROCESSING
PAPER
STONE
FLINT
2000
SURFACE
ENGINEERING
LIGHT
ALLOYS
BRICKS (with STRAW)
1990
METALS
GLASSY METALS
CAST IRON
SKIN
FIBRE
GUMS
1960
1940
1960
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
Technological Change:
telecommunications
Technological Change:
perspectives
The Convergence: telecommunications and computers ...
The QUESTION : scope and scale
TECHNOLOGIES
•more technologies to
produce each product
PROCESSES
PRODUCT
TECHNOLOGY
•more products produced from
a given technology
Source: von Tunzelmann (1999))
PROCESSES
PRODUCTS
Emerging interactions...
Source: BIPE
from
to
information
technologies
materials
biotechnologies
energy
information
technologies
Telematics
Automation
Computers
Semiconductors
Superconductors
Biosensors
Biochips
Photovoltaic
applications
materials
Computer based
design of new
materials
New alloys
Ceramics and
composits
Bio-leaching
Biological ore
processing
Power lasers
biotechnologies
Instrumental analysis
of dna sequences
Membranes
Biocompatible
materials
Recombin. DNA
New drugs
Enzymatic Synthesis
Batteries
Pacemakers
Artificial Heart
energy
Supervision of
energy processes
Robotics
Security systems
Photovoltaic
materials
Fuel cells
Superconductors
New energy biomass
New reactors
Nuclear fusion
The importance of Technology in corporate
development

Case study: Innovation in Italy (Evangelista & Sirilli, 1997)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Not relevant
Little relevant
Very relevant
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
93-95
96-98
The convergence of sectors is emerging, with the growing
importance of technology in corporate development
The structure of the “new” economy
Technology replaces employment
Industrial
era
Knowledge
era
I- Recession
Economy without employment
Services
Demand Deficit
Services
Indústry
Value creation
Indústry
Entrepreneurial economy
Agriculture
Agriculture
II- Growth
Technology creates
new industries and opportunities
THE ISSUE
…1
The evidence:
•“The major source of economic growth in developed
countries has been science-based technology”,
Kuznets (1966)
•“The explosion in knowledge creation was
concentrated in a few regions, and led to similarly
concentrated distribution of income”,
World Bank (1999)
•The most daunting problem is that of “spiritual
inequality”, Fogel (1999)
Regional diversity in Western Europe
Fonte: Sixth Periodic Report DG XVI 1998
THE ISSUE
…2
A specific issue: EUROPEAN DIVERSITY
•“With some notable exceptions, the regional
developmment debate in Europe has been dominated by
exogeneous models to such an extent that development
tends to be conceived as something that is introduced
to, or visited upon, less favoured regions, LFRs, from
external doors…
• …this kind of regional policy did little or nothing to
stimulate localised learning, innovation and indigeneous
development within LFRs”,
Henderson & Morgan (1999)
Innovation in EU
source: Community Innovation Survey, OCT-PT
Share of Innovative Firms in Services
100%
80%
Ireland
Austria
60%
Luxembourg
Germany
UK
Netherlands
France
40%
Portugal
Finland
20%
Sweden
Norway
Belgium
0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Share of Innovative Firms in Manufacturing
100%
The ISSUE
•
...concluding
The need to consider engineering research and teaching in a broader
context, leading to innovation:
–Promoting value, by exploiting change
–Understanding institutional
development
–Integrating systems of competence building and social
cohesion
OUR GOAL: to discuss the emergence of a university
agenda on engineering policy and the management of
technology
advanced education and research in
engineering policy and management of technology...
Which specific driving forces?
1. Productivity
2. The knowledge-based industries
3. Resouces
4. Scale vs intensity
5. Industrial structure
6. Institutional development
7. The regional dimension
8. Sustainable development
9. Social capital for the inclusive development
advanced education and research in
engineering policy and management of technology...
Which relevant topics?
1. Advanced Research Methods for decision support and
policy analisis
2. Management of technology and innovation
3. Organizational design and institutional development
4. Technology policy (environment; industrial;
communications)
1. Productivity
Decomposition of GDP per Hour Worked into Effects of Working Hours, Labor Force
Participation and GDP Per Capita, 1997
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Japan
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
EU-14
GDP per hour
worked as a %
of the OECD Average
Effect of
working
hours
GDP per person
Effect of
Effect of labor force
employed as a % unemploy- as a % of the working
of the OECD Average
ment
age population
(1)
(2)
(3)=(1)+(2)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)=(4)+(5)+(6)
(8)=(3)+(7)
96
102
128
97
92
93
123
105
75
108
106
82
121
69
126
56
84
93
94
36
100
120
103
0
-4
-5
2
0
0
-9
-5
-4
5
-11
10
-26
8
-17
2
13
-3
0
2
-9
-1
-5
96
98
123
98
92
94
113
100
71
113
96
92
95
77
109
58
97
89
94
38
91
118
98
-1
3
-3
-2
1
-7
-6
-3
-2
-4
-5
4
2
1
4
0
-14
-3
3
0
0
3
-4
2
-2
-19
2
9
2
-9
-4
-11
-12
-1
6
-4
3
12
1
-13
6
12
-8
3
9
-4
0
1
-1
2
1
0
-2
2
1
-3
2
4
2
-1
-4
1
2
-4
1
-1
-2
-2
0
1
2
-22
2
11
-5
-17
-4
-12
-18
-5
14
0
2
12
2
-26
-1
17
-9
0
10
-8
97
100
101
100
103
88
97
96
58
95
91
106
96
79
122
60
71
88
111
29
92
128
90
Source: Ark and McGuckin (1999).
Effect of working age
Total effect
population as a % of labor force
of the total population participation
GDP per person
as a %
of the OECD Average
2. Knowledge-based industries
OECD(2000)
Average annual real value added growth of knowledge based
year)
share
(1985
industriesAverage
Annual
Real Value
Added Growth of Knowledge Based Industries (1985-share year)
14
Korea
12
10
8
Portugal**
6
UK*
Denmark
4
Spain***
Japan
Mexico
Austria
Greece*
Italy
Germany
NL*
Belgium
Canada
US
France
Sweden***
2
Norway
Denmark
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
in Business Sector
Valuevalue
Added ofadded
Knowledge
Industries (share
year 1996 industries
except: *1995;**1993;
***1994)
ShareShare
in business
sector
inBased
knowledge
business
(share
year 1996)
3. RESOURCES
Expenditure by Manufacturing Firms on Innovation
80%
Ireland
Share of Innovative Firms
Germany
Austria
Netherlands
60%
UK
Sweden
Norway
France
40%
Finland
Portugal
Belgium
20%
0%
0
0,02
0,04
0,06
Expenditure in Innovation (Share of Turnover)
0,08
Perspectives for “change”:
Public vs private R&D expenditures
0,1
France
Public R&D Expenditures per capita
FR
Netherlands
0,075
Germany
Denmark
Poland
Finland
Norway
D
US
Japan
JP
USA
Korea
Canada
UK
0,05
France
UK
UK
US
Netherlands
Canada
Germany
P97
Czech Rep
Finland
Denmark
Ireland
0,025
P95
ES
Japan
Norway
Sweden
Spain
Portugal
SE
Ireland
IR
Sweden
Belgium
New Zealand
Hungary
Spain
Portugal
P81
Mexico
Turkey
0
0
0,125
0,25
0,375
Private R&D Expenditures per capita
0,5
4. Scale vs Intensity
R&D Expenditure (OECD)
0,04
Sweden
0,035
Intensity- Share of GDP spent on R&D
0,03
Japan
Finland
US
France
0,025
the Netherlands
Germany
Denmark
0,02
0,015
UK
Belgium
Ireland
Austria
Italy
0,01
Portugal
Spain
0,005
Greece
0
100
1000
10000
100000
Scale- Total Expenditure in R&D ($PPP; logarithmic scale)
1000000
5. THE INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE
35
EU-13
Portugal
40
30
35
25
30
20
25
15
20
15
10
10
5
0
5
1983
1987
1991
1995
0
YEAR
Food, beverages & tobacco
Textiles, apparel & leather
Wood products & furniture
Paper, paper products & printing
Chemical products
Non-metallic mineral products
Basic metal industries
Fabricated metal products
Other manufacturing, nec
1983
1987
1991
YEAR
1995
5. Industrial structure: Dynamics
0,18
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Italy
Japan
Korea
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
USA
0,17
0,16
0,15
0,14
0,13
0,12
0,11
0,1
0,09
0,08
0,07
0,06
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992
6. Institutional Development
Market Regulation and Employment Protection
Nicoletti, Scarpetta & Boylaud; OECD (2000)
7. The regional dimension:
technology and innovation gap
1. Input: HUMAN AND MATERIAL RESOURCES
2. output: SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL CAPACITIES
3. determining factors :
• international cooperation
• sme`s: support services
networks
• FDI: integration in local economies
• transports, communications, energy infrastructures
… BUT, ALSO, INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS
7. The regional dimension:
technology and innovation gap …cont.
Most development programmes stand on their ability to
build “social capital”: a relational infrastructure for collective
action
This requires a shift in development studies:
• from state-led or market-driven processes,
regardless time, space or milieu
• to institutional perspective, looking at the
quality of institutional networks
7. The regional dimension:
technology and innovation gap …cont.
INSTITUTIONAL NETWORKS to mediate:
•mediate information exchange
• knowledge creation
•capacity for collective action
•potential for interactive learning
•efficacy of voice mechanisms
Henderson & Morgan (1999)
9. Social capital for inclusive development
OECD(2000)
Norway
Finland
Sweden
Denmar k
Canada
Australia
Netherlands
US
UK
Switzerland
Iceland
Japan
Ireland
Korea
Spain
Austr ia
Belgium
Germany
Italy
France
Portugal
Mexico
Turk ey
0
10
20
30
40
A Measure of Trust
50
60
70
POLICY ISSUES
•
THE CONTEXT:
increase importance of knowledge for development
•
THE CHALLENGE:
how to promote the learning society?
Towards an Agenda for innovation and technology policy:
1. the framework: interactive nature of innovation
2. balancing innovation and diffusion
3. wetware/software interaction
4. the inclusive development
5. the institutional development
… debate
…challenges and opportunities for a
University Agenda on:
Engineering Policy
and the
Management of Technology !
KNOWLEDGE AND INNOVATION
Creation and distribution
of knowledge
Economic growth and
development
Technological innovation
and development
•
PROCESSES:
complex and diversified
•
INVESTMENT:
education; R&D; learning-by-doing
•
AGENTS:
state, firms, universities, schools
Perspectives for “change”
Building the conceptual framework
•…Systems of Innovation and Competence Building!
•The notion of localised technological change:
• a joint process of production, learning and communication
• a fully endogenous, with strong interdependence between
specialisation and diversification
• important, but limited role of demand
• based on mix of generic and tacit knowledge
•The science base:
” …the aim of policy should be to create a broad and productive science
base, closely linked to higher education…”, Pavitt (1998)