1 Comments from related national RTD programs ICE 2003 Roadcon roadmapping session Wednesday Dipoli Mika LAUTANALA Chief Technology Adviser PO Box 69, Helsinki Tel GSM

2 Innovation system Resources and funding in 2001 Private Basic researchApplied researchBusiness R&D Business development Marketing Internationalisation R&D at companies 3,284 The figures represent the total extent of each organisation in million euros in In parenthesis the share that is funded from the State budget. The funds of Tekes, the Academy of Finland and Innofin are funded entirely from the State budget. Business Angels 380 Public Finnvera 332 (44) Universities 834 (364) Academy of Finland 184 Ministries, TE-Centres, sectorial research 287 (209) Tekes 386 VTT 214 (68) From abroad 115 Innofin 5 (4) Finpro 55 (30) Venture capitalists: Private 287 Industry Investment Ltd 38 (42) Sitra 64

3 R&D input in some OECD countries Sources: OECD, Main Science and Technology Indicators database, Statistics Finland (Finland 2002) and Statistiska centralbyrån (Sweden 2001, estimate). USA Japan Germany Sweden Great Britain France Austria FINLAND Denmark OECD total Percentage of GDP est. Canada Israel Iceland South Korea Singapore China Norway

4 Competitiveness by country Source: The World Competitiveness Yearbook Ranking by IMD USA FINLAND Luxembourg Netherlands Singapore Denmark Switzerland Canada Hong Kong Ireland Sweden Germany Norway France Japan

5 Competitiveness scoreboard * Based on earlier competitiveness index of micro economy Total ranking WEF Total growth competitiveness IMD Total competitiveness WEF Current competitiveness 1999* USA FINLAND Luxembourg Netherlands Singapore Denmark Switzerland Canada Hong Kong Ireland Sweden Iceland Germany France Japan Sources: The World Competitiveness Yearbook (IMD) and The Global Competitiveness Report (WEF)

6 Competitiveness comparison Ranking by the science and technology factor IMDUNDP Sources: The World Competitiveness Yearbook (IMD), The Global Competitiveness Report (WEF) and Human Development Report (UNDP) Techno- Scienti- logical fical infrastructure Science and technology WEF USA Sweden FINLAND Iceland Australia Canada Denmark Norway Singapore Netherlands Ireland Switzerland Germany Japan France

7 Real Estate and Construction Cluster Real Estate Building Construction Building material and product INFRA Building Services ProBuild

8 Global Megatrends in RECC The end users (companies and consumers) are becoming more and more global  real estate business has to become international (global) business  the whole RECC value chain has to harmonize globally standards, codes and even products  the whole RECC value chain has to network globally  real estate and construction business has to be more transparent  need of knowledge and data grows dramatically  information and communications technology (ICT) becomes core of the RECC business  innovation management will become the driving force of business network in RECC

9 RECC STRATEGY The New Mission The new mission of the Real Estate and Construction Cluster: Real Estate and Construction Cluster provides the infrastructure and the platform for: global success of all businesses and well-being of the society The cluster itself measures the benefits the value network offers to the end user

10 Technology programmes on construction Sara Value Added Wood Chain Rembrand Infra CUBE Vera Healthy Building ProBuild SamBa Stone Divan FinnSteel Environmental tech. construction Wood construction Simulation Industrialised Building Construction

11 Development of the AEC/FM Processes Efficient Use of the Information Networks Information Sharing Implementation of ICT in the Value Chain Life Cycle Information Management SYNERGY Vera Program Target Information Networking in the Construction Process The target is to promote the implementation and use of ICT and networks as the enabling technologies to re-engineer the design, construction and FM processes

12 Vision Programme organisation Grants Loans Capital loans Research funding Programme Manager Tekes preparation co-ordination decisions Private development projects Publid research projects Synergy Networking Funding Steering Board Lauri Ratia, chair Mika Halttunen Markku Hautanen Kari Inkinen Erkki KM Leppävuori Juhani Sormaala Mika Lautanala SARA programme

13 Porter Value Chain Cost based competition Business process driven by lowest cost User needs neglected Does not promote innovations Suboptimization

14 Value Network Performance and quality based competition Business process driven by customer perceived value User needs control the process Encourages to innovations Total optimisation Transparency and partnering

15 Process orientation Manu- facturing ContractingDesign Trans- portation Sub- contracting

16 Programme budget

17 Thank You!