1. 1 Master in Engineering Policy and Management of Technology S & T Policy BENCHMARKING INDUSTRY-SCIENCE RELATIONSHIPS OCDE – March 2002 Anabela Piedade Gilson Leal Roda Nuno Jorge David

2. 2 Master in Engineering Policy and Management of Technology The Report Goals Analyses the changing role of industry-science relationships (ISR) in national innovation systems. Analyses the changing role of industry-science relationships (ISR) in national innovation systems. Proposes a conceptual framework for assessment of ISR. Proposes a conceptual framework for assessment of ISR. Presents indicators on international differences in ISR configuration and intensity. Presents indicators on international differences in ISR configuration and intensity. Identifies good practices for ISR improvement. Identifies good practices for ISR improvement.

3. 3 Master in Engineering Policy and Management of Technology Conceptual framework for assessing Industry-Science Relationships

4. 4 Master in Engineering Policy and Management of Technology ediaries (e.g. Fraunhofer in Germany) Public seed capital funds (e.g. I-Source in France) Government policy incubators, science parks, clusters, intermediaries Conferences, expos & specialised media Informal contacts within professional networks Flow of graduates to industry Co-publications Mobility of researchers Joint labs Spin-offs Licensing Research contracts Co-operative Research Centres (e.g. CRCs in Australia) Formal mechanisms for Industry-Science Relationships: the tip of an iceberg

5. 5 Master in Engineering Policy and Management of Technology Conferences, expos & specialised media Informal contacts within professional networks Flow of graduates to industry Co-publications Mobility of researchers Joint labs Spin-offs Licensing Research contracts Degree of codification Appropriability HighLow High Low Know-how & expertise Exclusive patents Scientific papers Infratechnologies Prototypes Formal mechanisms for Industry-Science Relationships: Knowledge flows

6. 6 Master in Engineering Policy and Management of Technology Availability of Benchmarking Indicators

7. 7 Master in Engineering Policy and Management of Technology Pilot Study on France and The United Kingdom – The Benchmarking Process

8. 8 Master in Engineering Policy and Management of Technology Comparative ISR indicators

9. 9 Master in Engineering Policy and Management of Technology ISR policy objectives and instruments in France and the United Kingdom

10. 10 Master in Engineering Policy and Management of Technology Pilot Study on France and The United Kingdom – Concluding Remarks Developing a benchmarking culture The ISR policy instruments together constitute a system; the efficiency of a particular instrument needs to be considered within this broader framework. This comparison between ISRs in France and the United Kingdom has shown that different combinations of actions can be used to build integrated policy instruments. In this context, it is important to promote a benchmarking culture among all stakeholders. Developing benchmarking indicators The existing indicators in this area are particularly ill suited for meaningful international comparisons. In addition, they are not sufficient to inform a policy- oriented discussion; relevant information is often held by the research institutions and there is a need to collect and aggregate such information in order to draw clearer national pictures. Significant indicators should exploit data on patenting, licensing, spin-offs, co-publications between industry and university, citation of industry papers by academics, labour mobility and financial flows. Data from the Community Innovation Surveys (CIS) can also provide useful indicators of interactions between public research institutions and industry.

11. 11 Master in Engineering Policy and Management of Technology Questions for debate What are the most important bottlenecks in ISRs: low demand from the private sector, low quality or share of publicly funded industry-relevant research, obstacles to researchers’ mobility, lack of entrepreneurship in the research community? Are more intensive ISRs always more effective? How far should universities and public labs be allowed or pushed to develop their commercialisation activities? What safeguards should be in place to ensure that publicly funded research institutions do not strengthen their linkages with industry at the expense of their main missions (generation and diffusion of knowledge through free research and education, mission-oriented research to serve public interest, impartial scientific expertise)?