1
Instituto de Gestión de la Innovación y del Conocimiento
The articulation of the Spanish Food Innovation System: measurement of the impacts fostered by the Spanish Food Technology Programme.
Fernando Jiménez Fernando Jiménez SáezSáezDr. Elena Castro Dr. Elena Castro MartínezMartínez
Montreal 2004
Measuring the Impacts of Science
2
Instituto de Gestión de la Innovación y del Conocimiento
What do we mean by articulation?
Articulation reflects the relationships between the different elements of the Innovation System (National/Regional/Sectoral)
Why is this interesting?– It is an objective of both the National R&D Plan and
the National Technology Food Programme
– Relationships are a key element for the existence and of any Sectoral (National/Regional) Innovation System
– There is a need for new indicators in the Economics of Technical Change
3
Instituto de Gestión de la Innovación y del Conocimiento
Main Research Question
How can we measure the capacity of a nationwide R&D Public Policy to promote relationships among the Innovation System agents? This means: Reproducible Based on both qualitative and quantitative
information Dynamic explanation Impact evaluation
4
Instituto de Gestión de la Innovación y del Conocimiento
The lack of coherence: where and why
Policy design: it follows a linear model approach, technology push approach.
Policy objectives: some follow a neoclassical approach (market failure) some others a structuralist-evolutionary approach (institutions)
Policy implementation: tools are used again in a neoclassical fashion
Impact evaluation of the policy: so far, it is non existent
Hence: we find several problems in assessing the articulation fostered with this policy
5
Instituto de Gestión de la Innovación y del Conocimiento
The analytical framework for articulation
Public Research
Institutions
Firms in the FBS
R&D Projects
PETRI Actions Concerted Projects
The SFTP
Bilateral Contracts
6
Instituto de Gestión de la Innovación y del Conocimiento
Approaches to the topic
• Callon’s Techno-economic approach: observation between and within units of analysis– Advantages: characterisation of interactions among
units of analysis useful to structurally characterise economic sectors and networks
– Drawbacks: not easily reproducible
• Network Analysis: quantitative observation of units of analysis before and after – Advantages: indicator based on relationship variables– Drawbacks: not dynamic measure
7
Instituto de Gestión de la Innovación y del Conocimiento
Our approach
• Economic evaluation of outputs– Statistical descriptive analysis: input and output variables– Bibliometric analysis of publications: scientific results
• Structural analysis of relationships– Monitor and trace trajectories: analysis of relationship
tools– Characterisation of interactions: role of interface
structures
• Programme’s Management Evaluation– Personal interview to the Programme’s managers: role of
the main interface structure managing the NFTP
8
Instituto de Gestión de la Innovación y del Conocimiento
The data
Quantitative data from the Programme’s tools
Quantitative data from publications (FSTA
Database)
Quantitative data from bilateral contracts
between CSIC research groups and firms from
the Spanish Food and Beverage Sector
Qualitative data from interviews with
researchers participating in the SFTP
9
Instituto de Gestión de la Innovación y del Conocimiento
Some results so far (1)Regarding the Economic Evaluation of outputs
0%
100,00 %
40 ,4 1%
4,89 %
16 ,8 1%
0%
30,00 %
16 ,6 7%
55 ,9 8%
33,20 %
14 ,6 7%
1,16 %
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
20% d e m e nor pr odu cció n 2 º 20 % 3e r 2 0% 4 º 20 % 20% de m a yor pr oduc c ión
Gr upo s d e p rod ucc ión
Acu
mul
ado
Artículos internacionales
Patentes registradas
Tesis doctora les realizadas
10
Instituto de Gestión de la Innovación y del Conocimiento
N ú m e r o t o ta l d e P ro y e c t o s d e I+ D
7 , 06 , 05 , 04 ,03 , 02 , 01 ,00 , 0
N ú m e r o to ta l d e P r o y e c to s d e I+ D
Fr
ec
ue
nc
ia
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
D e s v . t í p . = 1 , 6 9
M e d ia = 2 ,3
N = 6 2 , 0 0
N ú m e r o t o ta l d e A c c io n e s P E T R I
3 ,02 , 01 , 00 , 0
N ú m e r o to ta l d e A c c io n e s P E T R I
Fre
cu
en
cia
6 0
5 0
4 0
3 0
2 0
1 0
0
D e s v . t í p . = , 6 1
M e d ia = , 3
N = 6 2 , 0 0
N ú m e r o to ta l d e P r o y e c to s C o n c e r ta d o s
2 ,0 01 , 5 01 , 0 0, 5 00 , 0 0
N ú m e r o t o t a l d e P ro y C o n c e r ta d o s
Fre
cu
en
cia
6 0
5 0
4 0
3 0
2 0
1 0
0
D e s v . tí p . = ,5 6
M e d ia = , 2 4
N = 6 2 , 0 0
N ú m e r o to t a l d e C o n tra to s
4 0 , 0
3 5 , 0
3 0 , 0
2 5 , 0
2 0 , 0
1 5 , 0
1 0 , 0
5 , 0
0 , 0
N ú m e r o to ta l d e C o n t r a to s
Fre
cu
en
cia
3 0
2 0
1 0
0
D e s v . t íp . = 7 , 2 0
M e d ia = 5 , 7
N = 6 2 ,0 0
Some results so far (2)Regarding the Economic Evaluation of outputs
11
Instituto de Gestión de la Innovación y del Conocimiento
Analysis of relationships: articulation (1)
TABLE 1. COEFFICIENTS MATRIX OF ROTATED COMPONENTS. ANALYSIS 1 Component*
1 2 3 4 5 6
International articles .856 .170 .308 .102
Total financial subsidy to R&D Projects .852 .201 .223 .142 .199
Total number of R&D Projects .834 .311 -.175 .145
Doctoral thesis from R&D Projects .833 .117 .330
Trained Personnel .755 .121 .263 .161
Submitted patents .729 .114 .144 -.177 -.152
Total number of Contracts .195 .938 .147 .100
Total number of Contracts Type 2 (R&D Contracts) .132 .913 .158
€ invested in Contracts Type 1 (Technology support) .158 .857 .315
Total number of Contracts Type 1 (Technology support)
.152 .804 .394 -.209
€ invested in Contracts Type 2 (R&D Contracts) .272 .695 .432
Average size research group for PETRI Actions .853
Total financial subsidy to PETRI Actions .326 .354 .798 .149 .116
Total number of PETRI Actions .362 .348 .663 .120 -.105
Average size research group for Concerted Projects -.182 -.124 .854
€ loan in Concerted Projects .161 .166 .139 .831 .268 .206
Total number of Concerted Projects .115 .353 .133 .750 .127 .372
Average size research group for R&D Projects .341 -.444 .289 -.469
€ invested in Contracts Type 4 (Others) .127 .965
Total number of Contracts Type 4 (Others) .127 .965
€ invested in Contracts Type 3 (licences and patents) .169 .115 .169 .764
Total number of Contracts Type 3 (licences and patents)
.276 .112 .105 -.106 .751
Research group average of age -.378 .245 -.189 .242 .399
Extraction method: Principal components analysis. Rotation method: Normalisation Varimax with Kaiser.
Rotation converged alter 8 iterations.
* Coefficients of factors with absolute value less than 0,1 have been removed.
Factor analysis
12
Instituto de Gestión de la Innovación y del Conocimiento
Analysis of relationships: articulation (2)
TABLE 2. COEFFICIENTS MATRIX OF ROTATED COMPONENTS. ANALYSIS 2
Component*
1 2 3 4 5
Total number of Contracts .947 .182 .128
Total number of Contracts Type 2 (R&D Contracts) .924 .149
€ invested in Contracts Type 1 (Technology support) .864 .119 .342
Total number of Contracts Type 1 (Technology support) .795 .439 -.175
€ invested in Contracts Type 2 (R&D Contracts) .724 .373 -.118 .229
Doctoral thesis from R&D Projects .898
Total financial subsidy to R&D Projects .223 .887 .189
International articles .204 .843 .277 -.208
Trained Personnel .141 .835
Submitted patents .131 .643 -.344
Average size research group for PETRI Actions .867 .147
Total financial subsidy to PETRI Actions .390 .340 .770 .111
Average size research group for Concerted Projects -.115 -.172 .894
€ loan in Concerted Projects .200 .253 .103 .849
Average size research group for R&D Projects -.449 .397 .293 -.468 .136
Research group average of age -.103 .910
Extraction method: Principal components analysis. Rotation method: Normalisation Varimax with Kaiser.
Rotation converged alter 8 iterations.
* Coefficients of factors with absolute value less than 0,1 have been removed.
Factor analysis
13
Instituto de Gestión de la Innovación y del Conocimiento
Analysis of relationships: articulation (4)Cluster analysis
14
Instituto de Gestión de la Innovación y del Conocimiento
Some results so far (4)
• Regarding the Evaluation of Articulation
– Few articulation has been found. Mismatch between industry needs and research groups interests. Only specific cases under specific circumstances
– Few continuity in collaborations between firms and research groups after having collaborated in the NFTP
– No trace of research results transfer in the medium run
• Regarding the Evaluation of the Management Structure
– Lack of both human and financial resources
– Lack of co-ordination among three different management structures
– Same managerial style applied to the heterogeneous scientific community
15
Instituto de Gestión de la Innovación y del Conocimiento
Some conclusions
•In the specific case of the SFTP very little articulation has been found, despite the initial and promising expectations of researchers.
WHY?
•Funding has been one of the barriers (Relationship tools)
… BUT
•There are other barriers: communication, bureaucracy, etc. The role of the Interface Structure is key to overcome these barriers.
•The lack of coherence between policy formulation and policy implementation make difficult the analysis of articulation.
The methodology to structurally evaluate a R&D Public Policy of a peripheral region, like Spain, must count on both the assessment of the “Relationship Tools” and the role of the “Interface Structures”.
16
Instituto de Gestión de la Innovación y del Conocimiento
INGENIO - UPVCamino de Vera s/n46022 ValenciaEspaña
Montreal, 17th-18th June 2004