1. How much innovation can you
get out of R&D programmes?
Wolfgang Polt Nicholas S. Vonortas
Joanneum Research George Washington University
& Athens University of Economics
and Business
“Turning Knowledge Into Practice”
Berlin, October 23-24 2007

2. Identifying Innovation Impact of R&D
• Prime concern for RTDI policy makers around the world,
but especially in Europe in view of the ‘European Paradox’
(good in research, lagging in innovation)
• This concern has influenced RTDI policy for the last 10-15
years and has resulted among others in
– Increasing emphasis on collaborative programmes (mainly
fostering industry-science relations)
– Asking for more innovation output from R&D programmes
• This trend can be observed both on the EU level as well as
in Member States

3. Identifying Innovation Impact of R&D Programmes
The INNOVATION IMPACT & IMPLORE Projects
• INNOVATION IMPACT and IMPLORE are two projects
launched by DG Enterprise to improve the understanding of the
innovation impacts of R&D programmes
– INNOVATION IMPACT tries to identify innovation impacts of the
largest collaborative R&D programme in Europe – the EU’s FP for RTDI
– IMPLORE looks into the R&D programmes of individual countries to
identify programme characteristics that are most conducive for
innovation impact
• Surveyed extensively FP5/6 projects, programme managers and
policy makers, programme participants and experts

4. Main findings from
INNOVATION IMPACT & IMPLORE
• Overall impact of the programmes on innovation
• Types of innovation triggered by the programmes
• ‘Additionality’ of the innovation
• Factors influencing innovation impact (on the
project and on the programme level)

5. Reported overall impacts on innovation
• We find (surprisingly) high overall impacts on innovation:
– A great majority of FP participants report at least some form
of commercializable output
– A majority of programme managers report innovation
impacts to be high or very high from their programmes
• …even as the hierarchy of project goals had not changed
and goals related to ‘direct commercialisation’ still are not
the most important ones for participants

6. Innovation Impacts on the Project Level
research & services &
industry education consultancy total
New or improved products 53% 31% 43% 50%
New or improved production processes 39% 23% 29% 36%
New or improved services 40% 54% 68% 48%
Implementation of field trials 45% 42% 42% 44%
New or improved standards 25% 58% 25% 26%

7. Innovation Impacts on the Programme Level
" In ta n g ib le " kn o w le d g e o u tp u ts
" T a n g ib le " kn o w le d g e o u tp u ts
Im p r o v e d in n o v . p e r f. P a r ticip a n ts
N e w o r im p r o v e d p r o ce sse s
N e w o r im p r o v e d p r o d u cts
E n h a n ce d co m p e titiv e n e ss o f p a r ticip a n ts
N e w o r im p r o v e d se r v ice s
P a te n ts, lice n se s, co p y r ig h t, o th e r IP R
Im p r o v e d tu r n o v e r p a r ticip a n ts
N e w sta r t- u p co m p a n ie s o r sp in - o ffs
N e w o r im p r o v e d sta n d a r d s, r e g u la tio n s o r p o licie s
E n h a n ce d co m p e titiv e n e ss e co n o m y
Im p r o v e d in n o v .p e r f.e co n o m y
Im p r o v e d tu r n o v e r e co n o m y
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Share of programme managers reported a „very high“ or „high“ impact

8. Types of Innovation (I)
• Firms do not consider the FP primarily as a channel for
developing outputs that could be immediately
commercializable. The dominant objectives for
participation were reported to be
– “access to complementary knowledge and skills”
– “keeping up with state-of-the-art technological development”
– “explore different technological opportunities”
• FP projects tend to be viewed by participating
organizations as vehicles for exploring new areas. In
contrast, self-funded cooperative R&D projects which are
primarily used by the respondents for technology
exploitation (closer to the market).

9. Types of Innovation (II)
• Compared to cooperative R&D projects funded exclusively with own
internal funds, FP projects were reported, on average, to be
characterised by:
- longer term R&D horizon
- greater interest in peripheral (read new area) technologies
- more explorative nature
- lower degree of flexibility and higher administrative burden
• Compared to the average R&D project, FP projects were reported, on
average, as:
- more complex
- more long-term oriented
- riskier from a scientific and technical point of view
- similar in terms of commercial risk

10. Additionality
• Substantial input additionality – but only among smaller
firms. Participation in FP4 and/or FP5 was associated with a
significant jump in R&D intensity between 2000 and 2004
among firms of up to 100 employees.
• Higher Risk (Sci/Tech, commercial), novelty of technology
area, and new combination of partners (newcomers) increase
the chance of output additionality
• Reported output additionality is not different between FPs and
not markedly different between instruments.
Differences reported between thematic areas in terms of
output additionality. Higher in new areas (e.g. NANO)

11. Policy insights (I)
• Directly commercialisable output is not a core objective of
the Framework Programme. Yet we find significant impact
on innovation. Caution should be exercised in extensively
modifying the Programme to further enhance direct
innovation impact.
• Keep funding instruments simple. Maintain instrument
continuity. Deep changes increase costs of Programme
administration without demonstrably significant benefits.

12. Policy insights (II)
• Rather than focusing too much on differences among
instruments applied horizontally across all thematic areas, pay
closer attention to the needs of the broad thematic areas and
associated markets, and the needs of participating
organizations.
• The individual FP R&D project is a single research instance
among many for participating organizations. Do not expect
huge (additional) impacts either on innovation or on the
‘behaviour’ of large participating organizations.
• Promote projects that are risky, technically complex, and in
new areas.