International cooperation of Competence Research Centres - Vinnova

ColofonWant to know more?IWT-studies are published by the Monitoring& Analysis Department of IWT Flanders. Theauthors take responsability fo their viewpointsin the studies.RedactionJoeri De Vos (Lay-out and administration)Corien Struijk, Tom Schamp (Editors)Contact the authors:Patries BoekholtTechnopolis BVHerengracht 1411015 BH AmsterdamThe NetherlandsT:+31 20 535 2244F:+31 20 428 9656info.nl@technopolis-group.comPublished by: IWT FlandersPublication date: June 2010Copyright: The non-commercial use of thematerial in this publication is free, on conditionof source quotation.

LIST OF CONTENTSList of Contents 1Executive summary 51 Introduction 72 Emergence of international co-operation in S&T policy 113 Internationalisation in CRC programmes 173.1 The role of internationalisation in CRC programmes 183.2 Barriers 184 The characteristics of CRCs 214.1 Type of centres 224.2 Thematic focus 234.3 Size of the CRCs 234.4 Focus on academia and industry 255 Internationalisation in the practice of CRCs 275.1 Actual co-operations 285.2 Drivers (needs and opportunities) 335.3 Barriers to co-operation 405.4 The effects of international collaboration 416 Conclusions 436.1 International co-operation strategies 446.2 The role of CRC-CRC co-operation 446.3 Factors of success for international collaboration 456.4 Some examples of good practice 466.5 Barriers for international collaboration 486.6 Effects of international collaboration 486.7 Possible roles for a COMPERA type network and recommendations for further actions 49Appendix A 51Appendix B 52Appendix C 57Appendix D 58Appendix E 60List of contents ▌3

4 ▌

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe stimulation of international co-operation in researchand innovation receives more and more policysupport in the EU countries. A selection of nine partnersfrom the COMPERA ERA-NET have commissionedthis study on the needs and opportunities of the individualCompetence Research Centres (CRCs) in relationto international co- operation and the barriers thatexist at the level of the funding agencies and Ministriesin order to respond to these needs.For CRCs the drivers to engage cross-border collaborationscome from the centre’s stakeholders facing variousinternational challenges, from developments withinscience and technology that ask for critical massand excellence and from the European, national andregional policy making bodies that see the potentialfor opening up to international partnerships.In the nine reviewed countries a clear trend can be seenthat stimulating international positioning of the CRCshas become an integral part of the CRC-programmes.A strong international positioning and visibility is seenas an important element of a CRC’s competitive position.A clear and explicit international strategy at theCRCs-programme level does help to push the internationalisationactivities a step forward and allows thecentres to overcome practical barriers such as allowingsome forms of cross-border funding. The Swedishand Austrian competence centre programmes aregood examples where explicit internationalisation incentivesfrom the funding agencies Vinnova and FFGhave helped centres to integrate international co-operationinto their operations.The CRC-managers do see the potential merits of CRC-CRC co-operation in terms of focusing on a particulargeographical area (with strong competences in a thematicdomain or strong markets) and working togetherwith another CRC in that area to link the individualmembers of these CRCs (universities, research institutesand companies). The CRC managers are in principlevery customer focused and their first considerationis whether a link with another CRC brings eitheradditional scientific and technological expertise ormarket access to their companies. As time and managementmeans are scarce (the key barriers accordingto the survey) this should be a focused effort ratherthan a more general networking activity.Nevertheless there still are considerable barriers. Arrangingpublic funding for foreign partners to workwithin one or more CRCs is still difficult in mostcountries. Another barrier is the difficulty many CRCmanagersand their stakeholders have to identify theright foreign partners and build up a trust relationshipwith them. Whereas the survey amongst 72 EuropeanCRCs showed that the settling of Intellectual Property(IP) is perceived as a large barrier, the case studiesshowed that the CRCs experienced in international cooperationhave found ways to tackle IP issues.There is a clear pattern in all studied cases consideringthe development cycle CRCs undergo in termsof engaging into international co-operation. While justestablished CRCs are mostly engaged with building uptrust locally, the most advanced CRCs can already benefitfrom their international reputation to attract partners.Any policy support for internationalisation shouldtake account of these development stages and notdefine international co-operation as a goal in itself, butas a means to create added value to the CRC stakeholders.Internationalisation thus becomes an integralpart of the CRC’s research and business strategy.The case studies of individual centres also demonstratethat good practices have been developedthroughout Europe. The cases provided examples ofcentres that have foreign partners (including companies)engaged in the centre’s governance structuresand research programming, where long term allianceswith foreign universities and research institutes havebeen established and regulatory bottlenecks havebeen circumvented by solid partnership contracts.This study leads to the following recommendations tostimulate international co-operation in CRCs:1. Funders of CRC programmes should establish clearguidelines as to what level of international involvementof foreign partners in a CRC is on the onehand expected and acceptable;2. CRCs that have a certain maturity should be askedto define more explicit internationalisation goalsand develop activities to achieve this. This couldbe integrated in their performance indicators. However,this international co-operation should not becomea goals in itself but a means to create addedExecutive summary ▌5

value for the stakeholders of the CRC;3. National and regional CRC-programme managerscould develop a flexible ‘internationalisation’ packagethat CRC-managers can apply to in a competitivemode. The Vinnova ‘globalisation grant’ couldbe an example of such a scheme. As internationalisationactivities are different for each CRC and invarious development stages, the types of activitiesfunded should be defined flexibly;4. As a European CRC-programme network provide adissemination platform for CRCs on a thematic basisand link these with existing national platformsfor CRCs and thematic cluster initiatives to makethe activities and competence areas of CRCs morevisible;5. Use the COMPERA type network to provide moreactive broker services to CRC-managers seekingspecific partners in other countries. This could involvethe support of a more active CRC-CRC collaboration,for instance through CRC-management exchangeprogrammes where CRC-managers selecta desired partner region or CRC to visit;6. Explore as ERA-NET potential exchanges of experienceand possible bilateral co-operation agreementswith similar CRC-programmes in for instancethe US, Canada and Australia;7. Develop more explicit links between the nationalCRC-programme and existing national services foracquiring EU-funding, export support and agenciesresponsible for attracting foreign investments tomatch their activities with the specific needs of theCRCs;8. Develop short and focused CRC-managementtraining modules on topics such as “how to involveforeign companies in my CRC-organisation’, “goodpractice in IPR management”. Given that time constraintswere a major bottleneck these trainingmodules short be very professionally organised.They could build on the experiences of ‘peers’: themanagers of CRCs that have shown to be successfulin their international co-operation activities.6 ▌Executive summary

1INTRODUCTIONThe main mission of COMPERA is to develop usefulmechanisms that foster co-operation betweenthe CRC-programme managersPolicy makers and CRC managersfind it very important that the CRCsopen up internationallyThis study is aimed to understandthe international collaborationactivities of CRCs betterThe specific background, sectoral specialisation andinternational experience influence the likelihood fora CRC to engage in international collaborationIntroduction ▌7

1INTRODUCTIONThis report provides the results of a study on internationalisationof Competence Research Centres (CRCs),conducted on behalf of COMPERA.COMPERA, an ERA-NET set up with support from the EuropeanCommission, has 16 partners in 12 countries 1 .The objective of the ERA-NET scheme is to step up theco-operation and coordination of research activitiescarried out at national or regional level in the MemberStates and Associated States through the networkingof research activities conducted at national or regionallevel, and the mutual opening of national and regionalresearch programmes. In the case of COMPERA thefocus of co-operation is on Competence ResearchCentre (CRC) managers. The COMPERA definition ofCRCs is “structured, long term Research TechnologicalDevelopment and Innovation (RTDI) collaborations instrategic important areas between academia, industryand the public sector” 2 .The main mission of COMPERA is to develop usefulmechanisms that foster co-operation between the CRCprogrammemanagers. COMPERA is targeted towardsthe creation of a sustainable network of programmesthat are funding Competence Research Centres.It should lead to a strategic decision-making of programmeowners and managers at pan-European levelwith regard to Competence Research Centres. Thesecentres aim to bridge the gap between technologicaland economic innovation by providing a collective environmentfor academics and industry and sufficientcritical mass. Their activities are multiple: pooling ofknowledge, creation of new knowledge by performingdifferent types of research, training and disseminationof knowledge.Most of the COMPERA partners are STI agencies thatfoster CRCs. Other partners are technology associations,STI departments and regional development organisations.The variety in partners mainly concernsthe geographic scope (national versus regional) andthe organisational position (ministry, regional developmentagency or STI agency). Nevertheless, the goalsof the partners are similar, namely closing the gap betweenresearch and successful application. The part-1 See Appendix A for an overview2 Presentation Frank Monteny, CRC Conference Düsseldorf, 3 February2009.ners use a variety of approaches and measures, rangingfrom competence centres in a specific thematicfield, to bottom-up generic programmes.Nine of the COMPERA partner organisations are participatingand have funded this study:• IWT, Flanders (Belgium)• FFG, Austria• Vinnova, Sweden• InnoBasque, Basque Country (Spain)• Enterprise Estonia, Estonia• Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology,Slovenia• VDI TZ, Germany• Invest Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland (UnitedKingdom)• Generalitat Valenciana, Valencia, (Spain)Policy makers and CRC managers find it very importantthat the CRCs open up internationally. This studyis aimed to understand the international collaborationactivities of CRCs better, their motivations, rationalesas well as the barriers and opportunities for this collaboration.This report is based on a set of research activities tounderstand international co-operation between:• A general overview on the debate on internationalisationof R&D and deriving from that a typology ofinternational collaborations;• A survey and interviews in the COMPERA communityon the needs, opportunities and barriers forcross-border collaboration between CRCs;• Eight case studies of competence centres thatserve as an illustration for good practices in internationalcollaboration.In the Swedish case, VINNOVA asked us not to sendout a survey but to re-use information it had collectedvia an expression of interest for its new Global Linksprogramme. Sweden does not therefore form part ofthe survey analysis, but we refer to the VINNOVA materialas appropriate in the study.The study looked at different levels of stakeholdersthat all influence the outlook towards international collaboration.At the centre of the study are the individual8 ▌Introduction

CRCs and their management bodies. They representthe community of public and private research performerswho perform collaborative research in their differentlocalities. These individual research performersor participants of the CRC research are another layer.Their specific background, sectoral specialisation andinternational experience influence the likelihood for aCRC to engage in international collaboration.In many COMPERA countries individual CRCs are partof a broader CRC programme, implemented throughvarious agencies that interact with the individual CRCs.Finally, public funders of CRC programmes mostly setthe rules of the game, which could be either very favourableto cross-border co-operation or (unintentional)restrictive.Figure 1 illustrates these levels and their (potential)interactions. While the focus of the study will be on themiddle levels of the CRC programmes and individualCRCs, the role and influence of the other stakeholdersneed to be taken into account in the generic study andthe cases.The selection of case studies is based on desk study,the interviews with programme managers, and thesurvey. The programme managers gave relevant suggestionsin which cases might be most interesting,the survey retrieved information on the amount of cooperationsof each CRC, and gave insight in what wereconsidered best practices according to the CRC managers.The following set of criteria were used to selectcase studies:Figure 1: Different levels of stakeholder involvement around CRCsCountry A• the number of co-operations;• the visibility of the co-operations to the programmemanagers;• a good geographical spread;• a mix of virtual and physical CRCs;• a mix of regional and national CRCs;• a mix of different instruments• a mix of EU co-operations and co-operations withthird countries (i.e. extra-EU co-operation)• the extent to which CRCs are internationalised.However, the CRC needs at least to have some internationalco-operations, to serve as a good case.In every participating country, we found CRCs withpotential for a case study. The selection of cases wasbased on geographical spread, the number of co-operations(survey) and the visibility to the programmemanagers (interviews); Appendix C gives an overviewof the selected case studies. The full results of thecase studies are given separately in a final Chapter aseach contains a quite varied story about its developmentand the international collaboration activities.The report is structured as follows. Chapter 2 discussesthe emerging discussion on international cooperationin science and technology policy and the(external) drivers behind this trend. Chapter 3 elaborateson internationalisation in CRC programmes inthe COMPERA - group and some CRC programmes inother non-EU countries. Chapter 4 provides characterisationsof the CRCs based on a survey of CRC-manag-Country X, Y, ZNational & RegionalFunding AgenciesNational & RegionalFunding AgenciesCRC ProgrammesCRC ProgrammesCompetence ResearchCentresCompetence ResearchCentresPublic sectorparticipantsPrivate sectorparticipantsPublic sectorparticipantsPrivate sectorparticipantsIntroduction ▌9

2EMERGENCE OF INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION INS&T POLICYWell co-ordinated research programmes couldbe achieved through better joint programmingbetween ministries and agencies across EuropeIn the arena of public-private co-operation,cross-border co-operation on the programmeand centre level face more political barriersthan in fundamental and ‘societal’ researchEuropean countries increasinglyhave a highlevel internationalisationstrategy in placeThe emergence of internationalisation in CRCs in Europe is rathersimilar to the developments in Australia, Canada and the USAEmergence of international co-operation in S&T policy ▌11

2EMERGENCE OF INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION INS&T POLICYInternational co-operation in research policy is a discussionwhere the European Commission has played adominant role, particularly in the context of the Lisbonagenda and the European Research Area. The ERAGreen Paper 1 particularly suggested more well-coordinatedresearch programmes and priorities acrossmember States and also a wide opening of ERA tothe rest of the world. The well-coordinated researchprogrammes could be achieved through better jointprogramming between ministries and agencies acrossEurope. The ERA-NETs were meant to facilitate thisprocess. For CRCs this could for instance mean theco-design of CRC programmes between two or morecountries, with access to each other’s programmesand centres for all potential partners. In the summer of2008 the Commission published a Communication onJoint Programming 2 . Joint Programming is portrayedas “a voluntary process for a revitalised partnershipbetween the Member States based on clear principlesand transparent high-level governance.” The Communicationmade a plea for more intensive use of Jointprogramming and to move beyond the compartmentalisedresearch landscape. The document states: ”themultitude of national procedures complicates crossborderprogrammes and discourages internationallyoriented research actors from accessing researchfunding across borders.”The focus of the ERA discussion is on public-public collaborationand fundamental science, but the door iskept open to include public-private co-operation andapplied research as well. Today’s spotlight of Europe’sJoint Programming discussion on is on tackling SocietalChallenges, such as Ageing Society, Alzheimer’sdisease, Food for a growing world population and Waterscarcity. In the arena of public–private co-operation,the joint programming and international collaborationpolicy debate is less clear and national industrial andstrategic interests come to the surface in platformssuch as the “High Level Group for Joint Programming”set up by the EU Member States. The CRCs are also inthis arena and the COMPERA study so far shows that1 The European Research Area: New Perspectives; Commissionof the European Communities, Brussels, COM (2007) 161 final,4.4.2007.2 Towards Joint programming in Research: Working together to tacklecommon challenges more effectively, Commission of the EuropeanCommunities, Brussels COM (2008) 468 final, 15.7.2008.cross-border co-operation on the programme level andthe centre level face more political barriers (see Chapter2) than fundamental and ‘societal’ research.A related discussion is that of ‘opening up’ of nationalprogrammes. If states allow participants from othercountries to participate, while funding is arranged inthe country of origin, administrative barriers for crossborder collaboration would diminish. This process isstill far from reality. The ERA Expert Panel ‘ OptimisingResearch programmes and Priorities concludedthat obstacles and limits for more trans-national collaborationare twofold 3 . Some arguments are basedon the overestimation of the benefits of collaboration(e.g. due to the expected increased transaction costsresulting from the collaboration), others are based onthe regional perspective of the member states and thelimits of current legislation.A study 4 for DG Research by Optimat Ltd &VDI/VDE-IT based on a survey of over 300 European RTD programmesfound the following four most prevalentbarriers to the inclusion of trans-national elements innational and regional programmes:1. National or regional policy for science and innovationis based on improving national or regionalscientific and technological capacity to addressown priorities; this is particularly the case in largereconomies;2. Sufficient volume of high quality proposals is receivedfrom national applicants. Fear of evenlarger ‘oversubscription’ to national or regional programmeslimits the enthusiasm for opening themup to non-residents;3. Often, the (national/regional) programmes do nothave any explicit criteria that encourage trans-nationalactivities. Without these explicit incentives toinvolve foreign partners, users are less inclined toinvolve them;4. The legal constitution for public funding of the researchprogramme as a general rule forbids thetransfer of funds to non-residents. The study also3 ERA Expert Group, Optimising Research programmes and Priorities,EC DG RTD, 2008.4 Optimat Ltd and VDI/VDE/IT, Examining the Design of NationalResearch Programmes, Study for EC DG Research, December2005.12 ▌Emergence of international co-operation in S&T policy

points out that on this issue there seems to be alack of understanding from programme managerswhether this is genuinely a legal constitutional barrieror the consequence of governance designed bypolicy makers.These are mostly issues at the level of R&D programmes.Chapter 3 and 4 will discuss how this appliesto specifically CRC programmes and centres.In addition to the debate on internationalisation ofR&D programmes, the European Commission has alsobeen instrumental in promoting the internationalisationof clusters. The European Cluster Alliance wasestablished in 2006 and aims at becoming the singleplace at EU level for elaborating new ideas and practicaltools for improving cluster policy in Europe and forfostering European co-operation at policy level that willfacilitate the further development of more competitiveworld-class clusters in Europe 5 . Several cluster relatedINNO-Nets have been formed for this purpose, connectingregions, innovation agencies and member statesto exchange practices and develop common policies.The focus of their work is on cluster policy rather thanCRCs as centres. The 2009 Entrepreneurship andInnovation work programme (EIP) list transnationalcluster co-operation as one of the intended topics forINNO-NET establishment.There are a number of external trends that form driversfor increased international S&T collaboration andwhich have triggered the policy debate 6 .• The emergence of the BRIC countries and particularlyChina as a country with a large research andtechnological development capacity that is becomingrecognised for meeting high international qualitystandards• The increased political debate and urgency of globalchallenges such as climate change, health issuesand sustainable energy resources• The globalisation of R&D, which is not a new phenomenon,but it is becoming more visible particularlyin industrial research and also in the worldwide mobility of researchers• Particularly in Europe, general demographic developmentsand the decreasing share of graduates inscience and engineering have made the shortageof research talent very urgent; STI collaboration can5 See: http://www.proinno-europe.eu/6 Boekholt, P. Edler, Jakob et al., Drivers of International Collaborationin Research, Report for EC DG Research, Technopolis, Amsterdam,September 2009.be used to attract talent from partner countries• The increased policy debates and ambitions in Europeto provide more critical mass and internationalprofile to research excellence, in which partneringwith the best plays a big role. The discussion on theEuropean Research Area and the position Europeshould play in the global arena has also spurredmore discussion on the topic.An extensive study was done on behalf of DG Researchon the role of internationalisation in S&T policies in EUand non-EU countries. European countries increasinglyhave a high-level internationalisation strategy inplace, sometimes as part of a general globalisationstrategy. Examples are Germany, and the Republic ofIreland. Others are in the process of defining such astrategy. The DG Research study found that despitethis enormous interest in strategy building, many ofthese strategies do not appear to be direct drivers ofpolicy action at present, and strategy developmentand implementation remains more of a promise thana reality in most of the European countries 7 . The policydrivers highlighted by these internationalisation strategiesare broadly similar from country to country. Ingeneral, the most important drivers as documented inthe literature are: strengthening (domestic) researchexcellence through access to existing excellence andfacilities abroad, to increase the attractiveness of domesticsystems to overseas researchers (inward mobility),preparing the ground for domestic innovationsto be marketed abroad, and to contribute to the solutionof global challenges. However, countries are alsoat least in principle aware of the risks of engaging ininternational activities, such as those around IPR issues,‘brain drains’ or the outward relocation of keycompanies to other countries.There is some evidence that governments are less activelypursuing outward technology links for domesticfirms than they are attempting to attract inward investmentand mobility. Policy makers continue to struggleto find a balance between the promotion of beneficialinternationalisation and firmly embedding both domesticand inwardly mobile companies and researchorganisations within the national research and innovationsystem. Only limited data is available about the‘openness’ of nationally funded research and technologydevelopment programmes to overseas partners.That data which does exist suggests that the shareof the budgets that are spent on international activi-7 Ibid.Emergence of international co-operation in S&T policy ▌13

ties within national programmes is still low even wherethey are open in principle. There is some evidencethat universities and research institutes may be moreready and willing to internationalise than are companies,suggesting that universities and institutes couldplay an important role in linking different national researchand innovation systems.Some European countries are adopting explicit internationalisationstrategies. Finland’s Science and TechnologyPolicy Council adopted such a strategy 8 alreadyin 2004. This has led the Finnish Academy to extendthe scope of its international funding and TEKES to‘mainstream, internationalisation activities into itstechnology programmes’. In Sweden, VINNOVA adoptedan internationalisation strategy in 2009, aimingto strengthen Swedish research and competitivenessthrough increased European and global co-operation,including the development of focused bi- and multilateralprogrammes with countries of interest and internationalisationof its technology programmes 9 . Thisis reflected in a specific ambition to internationalise itsCRC programme in the future.Our literature review suggests that internationalisationin CRC type programmes also occurs outside Europe.In the Australian Co-operative Research Centres,CRCs are “encouraged to engage globally. Co-investmentwith international organisations is particularlyencouraged” 10 . Furthermore, rules underlying the programme,address obligations including: compliancewith relevant national, and, if relevant international,research integrity, ethics codes and guidelines. Thereare CRCs with international partnerships. The CRCCare for instance, co-operates with a similar organisationin China, but partnerships are mostly formed atthe level of individual members. Although the CRC programmeis not very explicit in its strategy towards internationalisation,the individual CRCs succeed in havinginternational partners. Several CRCs co-operate withforeign partners. International co-operation is howevernot a core activity of CRCs: a limited number of partnersare included per CRC and the partners are notcore members of the CRCs.International collaboration in Australia also takes8 Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland, Internationalisationof Finnish Science and Technology, Helsinki: Ministry ofEducation, 20049 VINOVA, VINNOVAs Internationella Strategi, VP 2009:2, StockholmVINNOVA, 200910 Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research,2009. Programme guidelines. Co-operative research centresprogram.Figure 2: Australia: the Global Carbon Capture SequestrationInstitute.The Global Carbon Capture and Storage Instituteis a new initiative aimed at accelerating theworldwide commercial deployment of large-scaleCCS. It was set up mid 2009. The Australian Governmenthas committed AUD100m (€62.5m)annual funding for the Global CCS Institute. Thisshould ensure the ongoing success of the institute.GCCSI has international support, with morethan 20 national governments and over 80 leadingcorporations, non-government bodies andresearch organisations signing on as foundationmembers or collaborating participants 1 . The goalof the GCCSI is to “draw together information,knowledge and expertise to (..) play a pivotal rolein facilitating the development and deploymentof safe, economic and environmentally sustainablecommercial-scale CCS projects”.There is a broad base of international interest incarbon capture storage, because the G8 countrieshave committed to the development of 20large-scale CCS projects, to be in operation by2020. This provides a base of confidence to takeCCS forward thus limiting the risk of setting upof such a large-scale centre. The Global CCS Instituteaims to play a vital role in developing thepartnerships needed to make demonstration projectsa reality. GCCSI puts particular importanceon capacity building activities in emerging marketeconomies. A practical goal of the institute isto realise demonstration projects. The projects ofGCCSI are thus highly applied and the number ofresearch institutions limited.Already a range of organisations is working incollaboration with the GCCSI. Close collaborativepartnerships are already established (sometimesinvolving financial commitments) with large internationalorganisations first, such as the InternationalEnergy Agency (IEA), Carbon SequestrationLeadership Forum (CSLF), World Bank, and TheClimate Group. Once these partnerships are inplace, the Global CCS Institute will begin buildingstrategic alliances with other stakeholders.1 The impressive list of (foundation) members of GCCSI isdownloadable at: http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/downloads/The-Global-CCS-Institute-Foundation-and-Legal-Members.pdfThe Global CCS Institute14 ▌Emergence of international co-operation in S&T policy

shape outside the CRC programme. Recently theAustralian Global Carbon Capture Storage Institute(GCCSI) was set up . This institute was set up as aninternational centre, including many national agencies,companies and a small number of knowledgeinstitutes. The GCCSI demonstrates the current trendtowards internationalisation (see Figure 2).In Canada, a stronger focus on internationalisationrecently emerged. To broaden the collaborative scopeand increase the scale of opportunity on a global scale,the Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) has expandedits international focus and extended its reachto the international science and business community.To this end, the NCE has developed the InternationalPartnership Initiative (IPI), allocating $3.5m to this initiative.This is used to provide the CRCs with additionalsupport to develop and enhance linkages with equivalentorganisations in the rest of the world. The Networksof Centres of Excellence Program is launchinga pilot initiative to expand the international reach ofthe Networks of Centres of Excellence of Canada. TheInternational Partnership Initiative is to provide theexisting NCEs with additional support to develop andenhance linkages with the best centres of excellencearound the world. The NCE IPI supports the partneringof Canadian Networks and Centres with foreign organisationsto address issues in areas of mutual strategicimportance. The partnerships are expected to operateat the level of CRCs and not at the individual level.The Canadian IPI aims primarily at human resourcesand acquiring new sources of knowledge through internationalco-operation. The goals of IPI are to enablethe Networks and Centres to 11 :• Raise Canada’s profile on the world stage and ensurethat Canada is part of international cuttingedgeinitiatives;• Provide a richer training environment to develophighly qualified people with skills and awarenesscritical to Canadian productivity, economic growth,public policy and quality of life;• Stimulate or reinforce partnerships with foreignorganizations to develop large coordinated andconcerted efforts leading to economic and socialimpact;11 The IPI-website has been updated at the end of this study.We have implemented the most recent version of December9, 2009. http://www.nce-rce.gc.ca/Competitions-Competitions/PilotPrograms-ProgrammesPilotes/InternationalPartnership-ParternariatsInternationaux_eng.asp• Enhance the sharing and dissemination of knowledge,resources and technology to Canada.Furthermore, in the programming documents of thecentres of excellence there is attention to internationalcollaboration. A goal of the Centres Of Excellence ForCommercialization And Research programme is “todevelop relationships with major international centresand research programs, and brand Canada as the hostof internationally recognised centres of excellence.” 12Unfortunately, no assessment or evaluation of the internationalisationof the NCE programme was found.The US Engineering Research Centers (managed byNSF) seem up to the last few years hardly involved inexplicit internationalisation activities, although ERCevaluation studies and strategic Programme documentssuggest that international collaboration worldwideshould be part of the Next Generation ERC programme.Generation Three of the ERC that has startedin 2008 does indeed state as an aim that ERCs willpartner with foreign universities. An eligibility requirementfor ERC proposals is that “At least one but nomore than three foreign universities are required to bepartners in research and education and post-awardtheir support must be provided by foreign governmentsor other non-NSF sources. This means that theprogramme itself will not fund the foreign partners.According to NSF it is at this moment too early to assessin how far this internationalisation requirementis successful or not 13 . A first review of the progress ofthe new centres is to take place in December 2009 sothere has been no inventory yet of the internationalactivities. Information at this stage suggest that one ofthe largest difficulties is to ensure that the partner organisationoutside the USA receives research fundingfrom their national funders for the defined collaborativework.From these comparisons with non-European CRC-programmeswe can learn that it is often only in the secondor third generation of these programmes that theexplicit internationalisation requirement is emergingas an integral part of the programme. Mostly the partnershipspromoted are with individual partners (mostlyforeign universities and public research centres) withthe exception of the Canadian NCE. In these examples12 The Networks of Centres of Excellence programme consistsof 4 sub-programmes: the Networks of Centres of Excellence,the Centres of Excellence for Commercialisation and Research,the Business-Led NCEs and the International Research and DevelopmentInternship programme.13 Telephone discussion with Lynn Preston, Deputy DivisionDirector, ERC programme.Emergence of international co-operation in S&T policy ▌15

we also see that funding of the foreign partners isnot included in the national programme: it should bematched by funding coming from the country of originof the foreign partner.Thus the emergence of internationalisation in CRCs inEurope is rather similar to the developments in Australia,Canada and the USA. Internationalisation cameon the agenda only recently. In Canada and Australia,however, international co-operations are not explicitlymentioned as an indicator of the success of a CRC.Furthermore, no evaluations of the internationalisationwere found. Little is known from existing literatureyet on the effects of these international collaborationactivities nor on the way the programme managesthese specific internationalisation tasks.16 ▌Emergence of international co-operation in S&T policy

3INTERNATIONALISATION IN CRC PROGRAMMESThe attitude towards internationalisation atCRC programme level is generally positiveInternationalisation at the CRC programmelevel is emergingEven while internationalisation isnot explicitly stated in the goals ofthe programme, the CRC-programmemanagers support increased internationalactivitiesthere are a number of barriers at the programme level thathamper the internationalisation of CRCsInternationalisation in CRC programmes ▌17

3INTERNATIONALISATION IN CRC PROGRAMMES3.1 The role of internationalisation inCRC programmesAccording to our interviews with CRC programme managers,national or regional ministries and agenciesoften do not have an explicit internationalisation strategy. In these cases, the programme officers do nothave a guiding internationalisation policy to build thestrategy of their CRC programme on. As a result, theCRC programmes are not specifically aimed at internationalisation;CRCs are aimed to boost the nationalor regional competitiveness. Therefore, internationalisationis not a goal in itself. Figure 3 summarises thestrategies towards internationalisation. Despite thedeficiency of strategies for internationalisation, the attitudeat programme level towards internationalisationis generally positive. In Flanders for instance, the innovationagency IWT is very open to international cooperation,and both formal and informal internationalco-operation is encouraged.Obviously, countries with a more explicit internationalisationstrategy, offer more possibilities for internationalpartners. Countries with a more explicit internationalisationpolicy are Germany, Austria and recentlySweden. In the strategy of the Swedish VINN ExcellenceCentre programme it is pointed out that the CRCsshould lead to international competitive environmentsthat attract foreign R&D. This stronger internationalfocus is reflected in the openness of the programme;international partners can join a centre on equal basisas national entities. An international dimension isalso taken up as an evaluation criterion. In Germany,the national policy argues that the Kompetenznetzeshould be opened up for foreign involvement, in orderto boost the competitiveness of the German networks.In Austria, opening up the CRC programme is a generalpolicy goal. As a result, the Austrian Kplus programmeis already opened up to some extent, i.e. the share offunded international partners may not be higher than25%. In the Austrian COMET programme internationalisationhas even become an evaluation criterion forevaluation of proposals.CRC-programme management rarely co-operates internationallyin a formal way. Within the COMPERA network,we did not find co-operations such as joint CRCsother than the activities within the framework of COM-PERA. However, there is co-operation in more informalways. These informal co-operations are aimed at jointlearning and include mutual visits, such as joint visitsof the Swedish, Austrian, Norwegian and Estonian CRCprogrammes. This kind of co-operation is taking placeon a rather ad hoc basis.Concluding, internationalisation at the CRC programmelevel is emerging, but is not a general feature yet. Especiallyin countries where the CRCs are in the phaseof establishment, internationalisation is relativelyunimportant. The newer programmes are strongly focussedat the national and regional level, in order toget the CRCs established. In countries where internationalisationplays a larger role in the strategy –suchas in Austria and Sweden - the CRC programmes areopen for international partners. The case studies alsoshow that while internationalisation is not always veryexplicitly stated in the goals of the programme; theprogramme managers support it when CRCs engagein for instance EU-programme activities. As the EuropeanFramework Programme funds EU-projects, crossborderfunding is not a policy issue.3.2 BarriersThere are a number of barriers at the programme levelthat hamper the internationalisation of CRCs.• Absence of policy incentives to co-operate internationallyA number of the interviewed programme managersindicated, in some cases there is limited support tointernationalise the CRC programmes, at the highestpolicy level. An absence of a sense of urgencyfor internationalisation is the main reason. Becausethe goals of CRC programmes are oriented at thenational level – i.e. boosting local innovativeness –the programmes are primarily focussed on nationalissues. The absence of a push towards internationalisationfrom the highest policy level stems fromthe political undesirability to let tax funds flow toother countries, or from a fear of losing competitiveadvantage (see below).• FundingIt is difficult to find funding for actual co-opera-18 ▌Internationalisation in CRC programmes

Figure 3: Summary of national and regional internationalisation strategiesCountry Summary Strategy and Programming Possibilities for international partiesAustriaMinistries and agencies do not have a clear policy for internationalisation.However, there is a common idea that internationalisationis important. The programmes are open to some extent (inthe past Kplus) or fully open for international partners in today’sKplus: the total contribution of funded internationalpartners cannot be higher than 25%; no restrictionsfor non-funded partners. COMET: international partnersare treated equally as Austrian parties.programme.Basque Country The CRC programme in the Basque Country is mostly aimed at International parties cannot take part.oriented basic science. No explicit strategies towards internationalisationexist.FlandersThe strategic research centres are publicly funded CRCs that aim atthe development of knowledge that should lead to valorisation. TheCompetence Poles are strongly aimed at strengthening the (competitive)position of the companies in each particular field. InternationalisationCompetence Poles: foreign actors can have accessto the activities and results in the Competence Poleand become in most cases a member; direct fundingonly via subcontracting.is encouraged, but in an informal and implicit way.EstoniaThe CRCs are aimed at enhancing the international competitivenessof the entrepreneurs, through enhancing the co-operation inInternational partners join a centre on equal basisas national entitiesstrategic R&D activities. Internationalisation plays a small role inthe CRC programme.Germany Internationalisation has priority at the highest policy level. In thenational strategy, the Kompetenznetze and Cluster initiatives areseen as good instruments to boost the internationalisation of GermanNetworking model: foreign partners can be memberof the networks but, as a general rule, thisdoes not include public funding.research and innovation.Northern Ireland The CRC programme is focussed on the establishment of excellentCRCs. Internationalisation is not an explicit route in this strategy.The programme is not opened up for internationalparties.Recently the programme has been changed drastically; as a resultthe CRCs have only just started. Therefore there is not much attentionfor international co-operation.NorwayInternationalisation is important in the national research strategy.International co-operation is a criteria for evaluating a successfulCRC. CRCs are also expected to make it attractive for internationalcompanies to perform R&D in Norway. The CRC programme doesnot at present foresee formal co-operation in the form of joint callswith other countries.Calls are open to foreign partners in the centreconsortium, both research institutions and corporatepartners. The host institution must howeverbe Norwegian and potential for value creation inNorway is the major criteria for selection of newcentres.SloveniaThe CRC programme is focussed on the establishment of excellentCRCs. The strategy towards internationalisation is to take part inAs internationalisation is organised in EU projects,this is not an issue.EU programmes. There is also specific attention for mobility of researchers(Marie Curie).SwedenSwedish internationalisation policy at the governance level is relativelywell developed. In Sweden there is a broad range of CRCs.VINN Excellence: international partners are treatedequally as Swedish parties.This is also reflected at the lower level; CRC programmes (e.g. VINNExcellence) see international co-operation instrumental to attractforeign R&D investments, and to develop markets.ValenciaThe goal of the CRC programme is to enhance regional competitiveness:boosting R&D and Innovation in enterprises. Internationalisationis encouraged by several measures at CRC level. Thesemeasures are aimed at making the Valencian companies take partin foreign programmes. Also, inward researchers mobility is stimulated.International parties cannot take part.Interviews Technopolis Group & COMPERA information sheetsInternationalisation in CRC programmes ▌19

tions. In several countries funding of foreign partnersis against regulations. In most countries it isnot possible to use national funding or EuropeanStructural Funds (SFs) for international partners.Programme managers whose CRCs were fundedwith Structural Funds indicated that it was not allowedto fund activities outside their region/country.Other programme managers indicated that forStructural Fund activities each partner has to gothrough an application process in their own regionor country. Moreover, it is in nearly every countryconsidered politically undesirable that national orregional funding flows abroad. This means that it isdifficult to set up multinational funded CRCs and orprojects, unless very detailed agreements are setup that regulate the funding flows. Therefore, multinationalfunded CRCs, or co-operations betweenCRCs are mostly part of bilateral agreements thattake a lot of time to establish.• Fear of losing competitiveness advantageOne reason for the lack of support for internationalisationis that internationalisation can be seen asa threat for the partners. As foreign actors can benefitfrom the co-operations, internationalisation canbe perceived as a loss of IPR and competitive advantage.This is for instance the case in countries,where a lead position in specific technological fieldsis assumed and in this context, no or only little potentialbenefits of international co-operation is anticipated.Co-operation would then lead to undesiredspillovers to competitors. This contributes to thelack of resources to establish actual co-operations.This same issue plays at the level of individual CRCs.CRCs are very careful in choosing their partners. TheCRCs often have a mechanism, such as internationaladvisory boards that are carefully selected becausethey are afraid to share too much knowledge.Individual actors also play a role in this. Especiallylarge companies do not want to co-operate withother large companies that can be a potential competitor.For smaller companies, this is often a driverto involve international companies. Internationalcounterparts are often not direct competitors.the actors involved. The different stakes of theactors involved make it difficult to come to an optimalsolution. Companies, research institutes,universities try to maximise their individual benefits,whereas the policy makers try to defend thenational interests. Moreover, legal issues makeIPR negotiations an even tougher job. In mostcases CRCs do not represent a legal body, so theycannot make agreements, nor sign contracts.National differences in the focus of the CRCs canalso be an obstacle. In Flanders for instance, theCompetence Poles work much closer to the marketthan the CRCs in Sweden and Norway. Therefore,the Flemish CRC programme only seeks forco-operations with an impact at company level. Asa result many other CRCs are not suitable as cooperationpartners.• PracticalVery practical reasons such as the proximity to suitablepartners form a barrier. Practical issues suchas travel expenses and time can make it more difficultto establish contacts and actual co-operations.This is for instance the case for CRCs in NorthernIreland; travelling from Northern Ireland to continentalcountries often takes one day. Internationalvisits, meetings abroad and other internationalactivities take quite an effort, are time consumingand rather expensive.• Different national framework conditionsNational differences in the governance of theCRCs can hamper internationalisation. IPR regulationsare often different from country to country,meaning that IPR rules have to be reconsidered.Seemingly, it is hard to find a situation that fits all20 ▌Internationalisation in CRC programmes

4THE CHARACTERISTICS OF CRCsA CRC can be shaped in many forms: it canbe a ‘physical’ centre a ‘virtual’ centreor a combination of bothThe CRCs focus on a broadrange of technologicaldomainsThe share of private investmentsvaries largelybetween countriesThe case studies confirm that there is no clearrelationship between the absolute size of a CRCand its international activityThe characteristics of CRCs ▌21

4THE CHARACTERISTICS OF CRCsA survey amongst all CRC managers associated tothe participating COMPERA partners 1 was conductedto obtain insight in the current practice of CRCs. Thischapter gives an overview of the types of CRCs that respondedto the survey, and what national differencesexist.In total, we received 74 responses to the survey 2 . Onethirdof the total amount of responses comes fromGerman networks (see Figure 4); other large contributionsto the survey are Austria (20%), the Valenciaregion (14%) and Estonia (12%). Not all surveys werefully completed (54 out of 74). The main reason for thiswas that not all questions were applicable to the situationof the respondents. A number of CRCs were juststarted up or in the process of starting up; questionsabout actual co-operations or results of co-operationsdid not yet apply to them. Several respondents pointedout that they did not belong to the target group, as theywere a loosely connected association or cluster: theycould not answer several questions.Figure 4: Country/region of residence of the CRCs in the sample,giving the absolute number of respondents, and the share of thetotal sample.Nrth. Ireland (3)4%Valencia (10)14%Austria (15)20%Basque Country (5)7%Belgium (7)9%many CRCs have the structure of a ‘virtual centre’, referringto those centres where the research is carriedout at various locations, most often in the researchsites of one of the participating players. In addition,combinations of this approach occur, where a part ofthe research is carried out at a central location, while ashare of the research is outsourced to the partners.The most frequently occurring structures in the COM-PERA sample are the physical centres (43%) andmixed-type centres, combining physical and virtual aspects(43%) 3 . A relatively small share of CRCs is virtual(14%). The virtual centres are mostly found in Germanyand Flanders. The German sample consists of network-likestructures. In Flanders, there are two types ofCRCs in the sample. The first type is the “CompetencePoles”; these Competence Poles are designed to accumulateknowledge for a relevant industry in Flanders,in order to facilitate innovation. The Competence Polesare designed to foster valorisation 4 of knowledge by(open) innovation. The second type is the strategic researchcentres; these centres aim to produce strategicresearch, and bring excellent research to the interfacewith industry. The Competence Poles in Flanders areoften virtual centres; they have no laboratory and thecompetences are accumulated at the locations of thetheir members, the strategic research centres are eitherphysical (IMEC) or a combination of both (IBBT).The Valencian CRCs are most often physical CRCs(78%). The Swedish CRCs tend to be physical centres.Germany (25)34%Technopolis Survey; n=74Estonia (9)12%4.1 Type of centresA CRC can be shaped in many forms. The CRC can bea ‘physical’ centre, i.e. a centralised centre, where themajority of the research is carried out and the researchis bundled on one of more specific locations. But also1 i.e. Austria, Basque Country, Flanders, Estonia, Germany, NorthernIreland & Valencia. Sweden supported this study, but SwedishCRC managers were not surveyed because a similar surveywas conducted recently by VINNOVA.2 Appendix B.1 elaborates on the response rate and Appendix B.2shows the list of respondents. The earlier survey of centres byVINNOVA included responses from 33 CRCs.3 In the survey the centres have been asked to characterise theirown organisation as virtual, physical or a combination.4 The translation of research into commercial products and processesor products and processes that have societal added value.22 ▌The characteristics of CRCs

Figure 5: Structure of the centre per country (absolute number in the graph)100%90%80%4.38 3191270%60%2650%40%30%1.482720%10%4.3 733 350%Average Austria BasqueCountryFlanders Estonia Germany NorthernIrelandValenciaTechnopolis Survey; n=70Physical Virtual Combination4.2 Thematic focusThe CRCs focus on a broad range of technological domains.Figure 6 shows the range of thematic focus ofthe CRCs. Production technologies is the largest fieldof application of the CRCs. Other fields that are oftenaddressed by the CRCs are ICT, life sciences, materialtechnologies, nanotechnology and environment.The other themes addresses by the CRCs are smaller.A rest category (3%) consists of more specialisedthemes, such as mechatronics, construction and sensortechnology.Figure 6: Thematic focus of the CRCs.Product Development& Design1%Productiontechnologies16%Transport4%Environment9%Agricultural2%Services4%Food3%Other: Construction, Sensor technology,Metrology & Mechatronics3%Life Sciences13%Energy6%InformationTechnology14%Chemistry4%Nanotechnology10%MaterialsScience11%Technopolis Survey; n=74, multiple answers possibleFigure 7 (next page) displays the thematic focus percountry. It shows that there are large thematic differencesof the respondents per country. In Estonia forinstance, more than 50% of the focus is on ICT andlife sciences, but the large differences are to a largeextend explained by the differences in response rate.Estonia and Northern Ireland show deviating thematicfocus, but the number of responses in these countrieswere rather small. When the samples of a country arelarger, it seems that the countries all have CRCs aimingat the same thematic issues.4.3 Size of the CRCsWe have asked the CRC managers for the public researchbudgets and the total research budgets, includingprivate investments. The average annual researchbudget of CRCs is €7.9m; 76% of its research budgetis acquired through public channels, 24% is a contributionof private investments by the industry and researchinstitutes. There are striking exceptions in thesize of the budget of the different CRCs (see Figure8).The most apparent anomaly is the budget of the FlemishCRCs. As indicated in paragraph 3.1 there are twotypes of centres, Competence Poles (CP) and StrategicResearch Centres (SRC). The Strategic Research Centresreceive a much larger public budget in comparisonwith the Competence Poles so we have describedthem separately. Whereas the public funding quotain Austria officially ranges from 45%-60%, the privateThe characteristics of CRCs ▌23

Figure 7: Thematic focus per country.100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%ServicesProductiontechnologiesTransportEnvironmentAgriculturalFoodMaterials ScienceNanotechnologyChemistryInformationTechnologyEnergyLife Sciences0%AustriaBasqueCountryTechnopolis Survey; n=74, multiple answers possibleFlanders Estonia Germany NorthernIrelandValenciaFigure 8: Annual average research budget per CRC, per country (k€).700006000058500587005000040000300002000010000012025102643643 4724Average Austria BasqueCountry5664 63371980 3069Flanders: CPFlanders:SRC40562457 3507105812333 3100Estonia Germany NorthernIreland61793476ValenciaTechnopolis Survey; n=57Public Budget (k€)Total Budget (k€)24 ▌The characteristics of CRCs

share in the total research budget is much smaller, accordingto the CRC-managers in the survey.The share of private investments varies largely betweenthe countries. In Germany, the public contributionto the CRCs is less than 50% of the funding. As saidbefore, the German sample consists primarily of network-likestructures. Many of the networks only receivesmall public budgets; they acquire private funding viamembership fees and payments for services. In Flanders,the private contributions are remarkably small.This is due to the large public budgets of the strategicresearch centres, they acquire only 1% of their budgetfrom private sources; the Competence Poles receive30% of their funding from private sources.The average number of partners of the surveyed CRCsis 59. Geographic differences are visible. The FlemishStrategic Research Centres have a large numberof partners (250 on average). The surveyed FlemishCompetence Poles have a smaller number of partners;20 on average 5 . In Valencia the total numbers of partnersis also very high. This is mainly caused by AIJU,this CRC has over 500 partners. Seemingly, thesepartnerships are very loose; the partner list consists ofa very high number of SMEs.There is a weak correlation between the amount offunding of the CRC and the number of partners. Institutionswith a large amount of funding tend to have5 Data from IWT suggest that the full set of Competence Poles have100 members o n averageFigure 9: Average number of CRC partners per country (national and international).300many partnerships, but also the smaller CRCs oftenhave large partnerships (see Appendix D.1). The associationAIJU for instance has a lower budget thanaverage, but still ranks among the CRCs with the mostpartners.The small number of case studies confirms that thereis no clear relationship between the absolute size ofa CRC and its international activity. Relative size is relatedto the thematic area in which a CRC operates(some have very narrow focus, others much broader)and the public funding mechanisms available in theircountry or region.4.4 Focus on academia and industryIn the survey we asked the CRC managers to indicatewhat share of the activities aimed for a specific typeof actor. To make a clearer distinction between the actorsgroups we grouped the categories into researchinstitutions (universities, public and private researchinstitutes), companies (SMEs and large firms) and arest category (consisting of government, NGOs, etc). IfCRCs aim mostly at research partners, this indicatesthat the CRCs aim to develop (academic) knowledgeproduction. If the activities of the CRC are more aimedat industry, this indicates that the CRC is more orientedtowards valorisation through technology transferand more applied science.On average, the CRCs tend to have the strongest fo-25025020015013510073685046282013260Average Austria BasqueCountryTechnopolis Survey; n=70Flanders CPFlandersSRCEstonia Germany NorthernIrelandValenciaThe characteristics of CRCs ▌25

cus on the industry, 55% of the activities are aimedat companies (see Figure 10, next page). About 40%of the activities of CRCs are aimed at research institutions.There are large national differences with regardto the focus on research institutes or industries. Austrian(70%), Estonian (69%), Valencian (65%) and Flemish(57%) CRCs are more focused on industry, whereasthe Basque country (58%) and Northern Ireland (59%)have stronger focus on research institutions.From the case studies we learn that there are hugedifferences in terms of the focus on more applied researchthat address technological issues for specificcompanies, to more medium term research with a focusof 3-5 years from the market to a focus on basicresearch with a time to market of more than 5 years.Many centres combine these research types: e.g. ViFhas the whole range of research types and separatesits direct contract research work outside of the CRCframework. Questor has a specific unit for technologytransfer and commercialisation activities that is alsoseparated from the medium to long-term research activities.The AIDICO Centre from Valencia, with a usercommunity mostly in a non-R&D environment, is muchmore centred on applied research and innovation activities.Given that the Centres each have a differentcombination of the whole range of activities we cannotdifferentiate the results in terms of ‘applied’ versus‘fundamental’ research focused CRCs.Figure 10: The average share of focus on actors (research, industry and other institutions) per country100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%Average Austria BasqueCountryBelgium Estonia Germany NorthernIrelandValenciaResearch institutes Companies Other (NGOs, Government, Hospitals)Technopolis Survey; n=Austria: 12; Basque Country: 4; Flanders: 4; Estonia: 6; Germany: 14; Northern Ireland: 2; Valencia: 7.26 ▌The characteristics of CRCs

5INTERNATIONALISATION IN THE PRACTICE OF CRCsAlmost half of CRCs have a strategytowards internationalisation76% of the surveyed CRCs indicatethat they co-operate internationallyThe most active CRCs haveinternational co-operatonas an integral part of theircore strategy and in theirgovernance structure.... the preferred partner is a specific research performingorganisation that adds complementary knowledge and expertiseand /or fills a specific gap in the value chainInternationalisation in the practice of CRCs ▌27

5INTERNATIONALISATION IN THE PRACTICE OF CRCsThis chapter discusses to what extent CRCs are activein international co-operations. Furthermore, it elaborateson the drivers of international co-operation andthe barriers that hamper international co-operation ofthe CRCs.5.1 Actual co-operations5.1.1 StrategiesThe importance of internationalisation in the CRC programmesis ranging from high to not important at all.Almost half of the CRCs (47%) responding to the surveyhave a strategy towards internationalisation of somesort. We requested a copy of the strategy towards internationalisationof CRCs; only 4 CRCs were able tosend us a strategy. A similar response was found in thesurvey of VDI TZ on internationalisation practices andstrategies of clusters around the world 1 ; about half ofthe respondents indicated that they had a strategy paper;but none of the strategies was made available.However, in most cases these are not explicit strategies(not formalised or codified) and most of the strategiesare tacit. Moreover, several CRCs indicate that thestrategy is for internal use only. The strategies are notvery detailed and aim at an operational level: the strategiessum up straightforward goals. Typical goals areto connect to other players in the world and to extendthe networks of the CRCs. Aim of these connections isto benefit from mutual learning, and to define projectproposals. One of the strategies aims at making use ofthe Marie Curie programme.Despite the absence of a larger number of explicitstrategies, many of the CRCs of the COMPERA countrieshave international co-operations of some sort:76% of the surveyed CRCs indicate that they co-operateinternationally. However, CRCs with an internationalisationstrategy have a stronger international focus.As Figure 11 shows, a larger share of the CRCs withan internationalisation strategy do actually co-operateinternationally (80%) than the CRCs without strategy(71%). Of this group of CRCs that do co-operate internationally,the number of co-operations is higher, if the1 B. Hausberg, S. Stahl-Rolf, J. Steffens, 2008. Entwicklung vonKompetenzclustern und –netzen zu internationalen Kompetenznetzen:VDI TZ, Düsseldorf.CRC has an internationalisation strategy. The Swedishsurvey indicates that VINN Excellence Centres typicallyreach out internationally through a scientific committee,mobility and brand-building measures.Figure 11: The share of CRCs with and without actual co-operations(a) and the average number of co-operations (b), set out againsthaving a strategy or not.100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%30252015105Share of CRCs withinternational co-operations80%CRC withstrategy240CRC withstrategyTechnopolis Survey; n=6471%CRC withoutstrategyAverage number of co-operationsThe case studies confirm this result: even the mosthighly internationalised CRCs do not always have anexplicit internationalisation strategy. Nevertheless, themost active ones have international co-operation as anintegral part of their core strategy and/or in their governancestructure (particularly BalticNet-PlasmaTec,ViF, Questor, GigaHertz). Internationalisation does notdepend on the fact whether there is a codified interna-17CRC withoutstrategy28 ▌Internationalisation in the practice of CRCs

tionalisation strategy or not. In all cases the CRC-manageror director understood the necessity for movingthe centre a step further up the development ladderthrough international collaborations. Nevertheless, anexplicit declaration of international ambitions in thecentre’s mission and dedicated actions by the CRCmanagementhelp to underpin the internationalisationof the stakeholders.5.1.2 Typology: modes of co-operationsThere are a number of ways in which the CRCs canco-operate. Based on the limited pool of literature 2 oninternationalisation and the praxis of CRCs, we havecompiled a typology specially aimed at CRCs. This wasalso used to design the survey.The CRCs that co-operate use a several modes of internationalco-operation. The most often used modeof c0-operation is cross-border research programmeswith multi-national interests (see Figure 12); 61% ofthe CRCs that co-operate internationally take part incross-border research programmes. CRCs are involvedin multi-national research projects, for instance in EUresearch projects, or in multilateral or bilateral researchprogrammes. A second form of collaborationis through the mobility of people. Often, CRCs withFigure 12: The modes of operation of international co-operations of COMPERA CRCs70%60%50%40%61%56%52%43% 43%international co-operation have at least one foreignresearcher in their organisation, or have sent a researcherabroad; 56% of the CRCs with internationalactivities use mobility of foreign actors. Many countriesoffer possibilities for mobility of researchers intheir research policy; in addition the EU’s Marie Curieprogramme offers similar possibilities. It can be assumedthat these programmes are used for mobility ofresearchers between CRCs. The other modes of operationoccur less. In order of occurrence the other modesof co-operation include opening up of research programmes,bilateral co-operation between CRCs, allowingfull participation of foreign actors, networkingof CRCs, joint activities in third countries and brokerageand partnering of individual members from CRCs.The case studies support this range of collaborationmodes used in practice.Active international membership in CRCs has a largerimpact for the case studies than in the wider populationof CRCs. In the case of Questor (Northern Ireland)both research centres and industry are members withfull voting rights. The same holds true for ViF (bothcompanies and universities) and GigaHertz (for companiesonly). In BalticNet-PlasmaTec membership ismore non-committal but its international membership41%35%30%24%20%10%0%Cross-borderresearchprogrammeswith multi -national interestsMobility offoreign actors(researchers)between CRCsSurvey Technopolis Group; n=54Bilateral co -operation withforeign CRCsOpening up of aspecific researchprogramme toparticipants ofother countries,i.e. allowingforeignparticipants in anationalprogrammeAllowing fullparticipation offoreign actors inthe CRCJoint activities inthird countries(Non -EUcountries)Networks of The brokerageCRCs: co - and partnering ofoperation individualbetween the members frommanagement of CRCs in differentCRCs in various countriescountries2 A study of VDI sets out a broad toolbox of internationalisationmeasures. See: VDI, 2008. Entwicklung von Kompetenzclusternund –netzen zu internationalen Kompetenznetzen, pp.19-21.Internationalisation in the practice of CRCs ▌29

(20 organisations) has some influence on the strategicdirection of the network as they are members of theGeneral Assembly.In the VINNOVA CRC survey, bilateral projects and EUprojectsare mentioned as the most important modesof operation for international co-operation. This is inline with the results of our survey, as these are crossborderresearch projects. Mobility of researchers andnetwork activities is also in the VINNOVA survey thenext most important mode of operation (see AppendixE.2).A study of VDI TZ 3 that discussed internationalisationpractices worldwide identified a somewhat broaderrange of potential activities aimed at fostering internationalisation,mainly because the study focuses onthe internationalisation of clusters: there is focus oninstruments that are not strictly forms of S&T co-operationbut that are likely to result in co-operation. Fordifferent world regions, VDI TZ ranked the most oftenused instruments and also assessed the perceivedbenefit of the instruments. One of the main outcomesis that the most often used instruments are not necessarilythose that are considered as most useful.In the German sample of the VDI TZ study, the most oftenused instruments are communication instruments(rank 1), According to the study, the second most oftenused instrument is the identification of gaps in thevalue chain (2). After that, several typical instrumentsfollow, that fit within the results of our study on modesof co-operation, such as the development of internationalclusters and networks (3) and being linked intointernational networks (4). The mobility of studentsranks also high (5). Taking part in cross-border programmes(EU projects (8)) and opening up of nationalprogrammes (10) are on the following ranks.In Sweden, international activities focused on networkingwith academics abroad, mobility schemes and ina small minority of cases international industrial partnerships.In our survey, we also asked whether the differentmodes of operation are open to all actors. Most of themodes of co-operation are open to all actors, exceptthe mobility of foreign actors and the full participationof foreign actors. Mobility of foreign actors is mostly allowedfor researchers from public research institutes.Following our interviews, this might have two reasons.Figure 13: Average number of international co-operations per CRC7,06,05,85,04,04,84,53,03,22,02,0 1,9 1,81,01,20,0Cross-borderresearchprogrammeswith multinationalinterestsMobility offoreign actors(researchers)between CRCsBilateral cooperationwithforeign CRCsAllowing fullparticipation offoreign actors inthe CRCJoint activitiesin third countries(non-EUcountries)Networks ofCRCs: cooperationbetween themanagement ofCRCs invarious countriesOpening up of aspecific researchprogramme toparticipants ofother countriesInternationalbrokerageservicesSurvey Technopolis Group; n=543 B. Hausberg, S. Stahl-Rolf, J. Steffens, 2008. Entwicklung vonKompetenzclustern und –netzen zu internationalen Kompetenznetzen:VDI TZ, Düsseldorf.30 ▌Internationalisation in the practice of CRCs

The interviewees state that individual researchers fromlarge foreign companies are considered with caution,due to confidentiality issues. Secondly, as the researchat CRCs is more basic science compared to industrialresearch, researchers from companies are consideredless suitable to work at the CRCs. Companies are moreoften welcomed to take part in well defined researchprojects and to contribute to (projects of) the CRCs.In this case, the companies can function as usefulsources of knowledge, or as potential customer for theknowledge developed.The survey asked the CRC managers how many cooperationsthey had, per mode of operation. As aforementionedcross-border research programmes is themost frequently used mode of collaboration. On average,the CRCs that co-operate internationally have 5.8cross-border research projects (see Figure 13). Mobilityof researchers is also often used as a way to cooperate;the CRCs have an average of 4.8 mobility cooperations.Bilateral co-operations with foreign CRCsexist on average 4.5 times per CRC. The other modesof operation are used significantly less frequent. Theopening up of a specific research programme to participantsof another country is a mode of operation thatmany CRCs use, but only with a limited number of occurrences:programmes can be opened up only once.5.1.3 Determinants of the degree of internationalisationFrom our survey we have ran a number of comparativeanalyses in search of aspects that might determine thedegree of internationalisation 4 . We use the number ofco-operations per CRC as an indicator of the degree ofinternationalisation.• Size of CRC. We have determined the relation betweenthe budget of CRCs and the average numberof co-operations. The correlation between budgetand number of co-operations is very small: it is notvery likely that there is a relation. Furthermore, theslope of the relation is insignificant: larger CRCs donot have more co-operations (see Appendix D.2).The case studies would confirm this: amongst themost internationally active CRCs were both largeand small centres.• Type of CRC. Physical centres tend to be more international.The share of having international co-4 Please note that we do not assume that the relations are causal:we do not have theoretical and statistical evidence to assumethey are.operations or not is higher for physical CRCs (84%)than virtual CRCs, or a combination of both. Also,when physical CRCs are co-operating, they have ahigher number of co-operations. The small numberof case studies does not allow a generalisation onthis matter, as a majority were physical or a combinationof physical and virtual.Figure 14: The share of CRCs with and without actual internationalco-operations (a) and the average number of international cooperations(b), set out against the type of CRC.The share of CRCs with and withoutinternational co-operation100%252015105090%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%Physical Virtual Combination22,2International co-operationsNo International co-operationsAverage number of co-operations per CRC,if co-operating19,617,3Physical Combination VirtualSurvey Technopolis Group; n=49• Geographic location The degree of internationalisationdiffers from country to country. The averageshare of CRCs that co-operate internationally is76% (see Figure 15). The region where internationalco-operation occurs the most is Valencia. Allof the surveyed CRCs have developed internationalco-operation of some kind. A large share (82%) ofAustrian CRCs also has one or more internationalco-operations. This does however not tell that theInternationalisation in the practice of CRCs ▌31

Figure 15: The share of CRCs with and without actual international co-operations, set out against the country of residence.Does your CRC have one or more international co-operations?AverageValenciaAustriaBelgiumGermanyNorthernIrelandBasqueCountryEstonia0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%YesNoSurvey Technopolis Group; n=70CRCs in these countries are more internationalised:the picture gets rather inconsistent when analysingthe number of co-operations per CRC. The averagenumber of co-operations per CRC is fluctuatinglargely per country; no trends exist (see Figure 16).The average number of co-operation of the FlemishCRCs is remarkably high. One of the strategicresearch centres claims to have more than 300co-operations (primarily joint-programmes, mobilityof researchers and CRC-CRC co-operations), thusboosting the average of the Flemish CRCs 5 .5 It is however plausible that the strategic research centre has amuch higher number of co-operation as it is very large in termsof funding, human resources, projects, and it has an outstandingreputation. For comparison purposes: when ignoring the 311 cooperationsof the strategic research centre, the average numberof co-operations per CRC is 19.From the case study we have learned that a relativeperipheral location in relation to European marketsand key research centres can provide a stronger driverfor active internationalisation activities. This was forinstance brought up in interviews for the case studiesof BalticNet-PlasmaTec in Greifswald and Questor inBelfast.CRCs with focus on industry tend to have a higher averagenumber of international co-operations. Figure 17shows the average number of international co-operationsof CRCs with focus on research actors, industry ora combination of both. It appears that CRC with focuson industry have averagely 20 co-operations; thosefocussing on research institutes have averagely 12international co-operations. The correlation betweenfocus on industry/research institute and the number32 ▌Internationalisation in the practice of CRCs

Figure 16: The average number of international co-operations per co-operating CRC (b), set out against the country of residence1009290807060504034302010272215192570Average Valencia Austria Belgium Germany NorthernIrelandBasqueCountryEstoniaSurvey Technopolis Group; n=50Average co-operations per CRC, if co-operatingof co-operations is however weak, primarily becauseonly 8 CRCs focus on research institutes, see AppendixD.3 for an explanation. Nevertheless, the CRCs withfocus on industry have more co-operations on average.CRCs are often set up on the interface betweenscience and industry; where only a couple of researchinstitutes cover the whole field of research, a largernumber of companies (ranging from multinationals toSMEs) cover the industrial area. It is plausible that theco-operation projects with industrial parties abroadare smaller bi- or multi-lateral projects with industrialprojects. Moreover, especially when SMEs are largelyinvolved in the CRC, it is well possible that there is alarger need for international collaborations 6 , whereasthe research institutes are much more embedded inan international arena, thus having a need for fewerco-operations 7 .VINNOVA’s internationalisation study found that existinglinks were largely researcher-to-researcher. Theyfocused on Europe and the USA, followed at a considerabledistance by China and Japan. The number ofactual and desired links outside these countries weresmall.6 Possibly a large number of smaller projects.7 Possibly with larger budgets.Figure 17: Average number of international co-operations of CRCswith focus on industry, research or both252015105012Focus on researchinstitutes (n=8)5.2 Drivers (needs and opportunities)The previous chapter showed that in most countries,the CRC programmes do not explicitly stimulate theinternationalisation of CRCs with strategies or programmingdocuments that steer towards internationalisation.Nevertheless, CRCs do find their nationalprogramme officers supportive of internationalisation(see Figure 18). Apparently, the support in informal17Both (n=16)20Focus on industry(n=25)Survey Technopolis Group; n=49We considered a CRCs focused on research partners, when atleast 60% of their activities are aimed at research actors, i.e.universities and research institutes. Similarly, the group “CRCswith focus on industry” dedicate at least 60% of their activitiesat actors from industry, i.e. SMEs and large companies. The restcategory “Both” consists of those CRCs that have dedicate notmore than 60% of their activities to one group of actors.Internationalisation in the practice of CRCs ▌33

and implicit ways of the programme officers is perceivedto be strong. This is again confirmed in the casestudies where explicit or implicit government supportis given to the internationalisation activities. In the Valenciancase of AIDICO internationalisation, and particularachieving access to European funding, is part ofthe remit of the organisation. In BalticNet-PlasmaTecinternationalisation was built in from the very start ofthe initiative, as was the case with Questor in Belfast.In other cases the international collaboration activitiesemerged over time but were not hampered by the lackof government support.Figure 18: CRC managers’ comments to the statement “Our national(or regional) CRC funding organisation is very supportive ofinternational co-operation of our CRC.”50%45%40%35%30%25%20%15%10%5%0%34%Totallyagree43%Survey Technopolis Group; n=6921%1% 0%Agree Neutral Disagree Totallydisagree5.2.1 Drivers of international co-operationsFrom the literature and experiences with CRC programmeswe identified a range of drivers for internationalco-operations. These are:• New market opportunities. Co-operation with organisationsthat establish a route to explore newmarkets. Cross-border user-producer interactioncan lead to innovations that guarantee new sustainablesupply and demand relationships. Especiallywhen taking into account the supply chain ofindustries (e.g. the automotive or microelectronicsindustry), co-operations could lead to new supplydemandrelations.• New funding sources. Finding foreign partners thatare willing to invest in the CRC is a way to enlargethe available budget. For some programmes –suchas the EUs Marie Curie programme or FrameworkProgrammes – co-operations are a requirement tobe eligible for funding.• Become involved in international developmentprojects. International development projects canbe a secondary goal of a countries research policy.• Become more attractive as location for researchcentres for multinationals. International co-operationleads to higher visibility and is an indicator forsuccess. A higher international network and higherprestige will attract excellent research centres andcompanies.• Raising the quality of the work undertaken. Internationalco-operation is a way to gain knowledge frominternational partners.• Increase critical mass. An increasing the number offoreign partners makes the relative importance ofthe CRC higher, and thus increases the competitiveadvantage of the CRC.• New and additional sources of thematic knowledge.The inclusion of foreign partners is a way toexplore new sources of knowledge.• Access to human capital. In many countries, thereis a deficit of required scientific personnel. This canbe a reason to attract foreign researchers, in orderto find enough, well-equipped researchers.• CRCs might be interested in co-operations with otherCRCs in order to gain strategic knowledge on thegovernance of CRCs.The survey asked the CRC managers to value theabove-mentioned drivers. Opening up new marketopportunities is the most important driver for internationalco-operation, 95% of the managers call thisan important or very important driver. New additionalsources of knowledge (92%), increase of attractiveness(91%), and becoming involved in developmentprojects (91%) are also mentioned as very important orimportant drivers. However, nearly all of the identifieddrivers are seen as important (see Figure 19); 80% ofthe CRC managers see all the drivers as important orvery important, except the drivers to find new sourcesof knowledge on how to run a CRC (65%). Interesting isalso the deviation in some answers.The case studies give a more consistent picture of thekey drivers:• In the majority of cases the important driver behindseeking international collaboration is to findcomplementary knowledge and expertise that willstrengthen the portfolio of research and knowledgethat can be offered to the local members;• In a small number of cases (AIDICO, BalticNet-PlasmaTec)an important driver is finding additionalR&D resources outside the own region, particularlyfrom the European Commission. These cases tend34 ▌Internationalisation in the practice of CRCs

to be the government-induced type CRC initiativesrather than the industry driven CRCs;• In the more industry driven cases (ViF, GigaHertz,Questor) the search for foreign industry partnersfollows business logic: it is beneficial for the localindustrial partners to have major foreign firmsinvolved for strategic alliance and business opportunities.In the case of ViF and Gigahertz themembership of foreign companies fulfil the specificrole in the value chain and provide the technologicalknowledge that are connected to their parts ofthe value chain. Here vertical co-operations haveproved to work best;• Improving attractiveness of a centre and/or a networkis a more indirect driver that needs a long-termapproach. The Basque case of biomaGUNE showsthat in emerging sectors this can be achieved ina relatively short time, while other centres neededmore than 5-8 years to become more visible for foreignpartners and researchers;• Although the creation of market opportunities isthe most frequently mentioned driver, it has proveddifficult to establish clear examples of business opportunitiesdirectly stemming from participation inthe CRC: most R&D activities in CRCs are far fromcommercialisation phases thus translation of CRCresearch into innovation does not occur within theCRC-organisation. Exceptions are activities in Questorand AIDICO that are geared to commercialisationand SMEs.The CRC managers were asked in the survey with whattype of actors they would wish to co-operate. Despitethe fact that new market opportunities are valuatedas most important driver, other research institutes areseen as the most favoured type of partner; 60% of theCRC managers indicate that they see this type of partneras very important to co-operate with (see Figure20). About 50% of the CRC managers want to co-operatedirectly with companies. Co-operations betweenCRCs is favoured to a lesser extent. Only 26% of theCRC managers gives co-operation high priority.The CRC managers were asked how important internationalco-operation is to their own stakeholders. If wefocus in at the level of the members of a CRC, the academicresearch groups are perceived to be the groupfor which co-operation is most crucial (see Figure 21).58% of the CRC managers indicated that for academicresearch groups, co-operation is very important, and33% regard it as important. A second group of stakeholdersfor whom collaboration is important are SMEsfollowed by large companies. As an interviewee statedCRCs are important for SMEs to find partners, becauseFigure 19: Drivers for international co-operationNew market opportunitiesNew and additional sources of thematic knowledgeBecome more attractive as a location for research centresand multinationalsBecome involved in international development projectsNew funding sourcesIncrease critical massOpportunities to raise quality of the work undertakenAccess to / training of qualified human capitalNew sources of knowledge on how to manage acompetence centreSurvey Technopolis Group; n=680% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Very important Important Unimportant Very unimportantInternationalisation in the practice of CRCs ▌35

Figure 20: The importance of different types of international co-operation partnersWith foreign researchinstitutesWith foreigncompaniesWith foreign CRCs0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Survey Technopolis Group; n=68Very important Important Unimportant n/aFigure 21: The importance of international co-operation to the partners of CRCsAcademic researchgroupsLarge companiesSMEsPublic researchinstitutesPrivate researchinstitutesNGOs0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Survey Technopolis Group; n=64Very important Important Unimportant Very unimportant N/Athey have smaller strategic departments. Furthermore,large companies are often already internationalised.Nevertheless, the CRC managers think that co-operationis of importance for the large companies.According to CRC managers, motivations for internationalco-operations via CRCs are threefold for universitiesand research institutes. First of all, universitiescan become more attractive to co-operate with. Internationalco-operation via a CRC is a way to increase thereputation and visibility of academic research groups,36 ▌Internationalisation in the practice of CRCs

the same lines:• Expanding the network with a number of specific‘preferred’ partners• Developing better opportunities for human mobility• Taking better advantage of the network in EU-programmesThe popularity of planned modes of co-operations issimilar to the ones that the CRCs now have. Cross-borderresearch programmes with multi-national interestis the most common mode of operation nowadays andis likely to be so in near term future. Bilateral co-operationwith foreign CRCs is the most favoured plannedmode of co-operation. Currently, bilateral co-operationwith CRCs is the third popular mode of co-operation.From the case study we derived that co-operation withforeign CRCs is an interesting activity for the CRCs intheir search for the right partners. Actual co-operativeprojects are often carried out at individual actor level.Only opening up of specific research programme scoressignificant lower in the planned modes of co-operationthan in the currently used modes; 43% already openedup a specific programme and therefore do not plan todo so in near term future.5.2.2.2 Selection of co-operationsSeveral aspects determine whether a co-operationsuits a CRC or not. In the survey the CRC managerswhere asked to rank the most important determinantsfor co-operations. They could rank them by givingpoints: 7 points where given to the most importantcriterion, and 1 point to the least important criterion.Figure 23 shows the outcome of this question; the averagevalues are displayed.By far the most important determinant is the thematicfocus of a potential partner. The CRC only want toco-operate with partners that are at close cognitiveproximity: on average this selection criteria scored5.8 points. This first selection criterion is followed bya number of criteria: key companies, key universities,excellence of the targeted country and the potentialmarket opportunities. These criteria are based on theperceived quality of the potential partner. CRCs with astronger focus on companies (and more applied science)value the criteria key companies, and potentialmarket opportunities higher. Those CRCs that have astronger focus on knowledge transfer have more attentionfor the criteria key research institutions andexcellence of science .Geographical proximity is notso important compared to the other selection criteria.The excellence of the research and industrial partnersis favoured above the geographical proximity of the potentialpartners.From case studies the dominant view is that the preferredpartner is a specific research performing organisationthat adds complementary knowledge and expertise(both for universities and for industrial) and/or fillsa specific gap in the value chain (industrial partners).CRC-managers are mostly concerned with developinga well-balanced research portfolio, often addressingFigure 23: Selection criteria for international co-operations765,82544,78 4,76 4,644,3932,6621,3110Sector /technologicalthemesSurvey Technopolis Group; n=66Key companies inthe CRCKey universities /researchinstitutes in theCRCExcellence ofscience in thetargetedcountriesPotential marketopportunities inthe targetedcountriesGeographicalproximityOtherdeterminant(specified below)38 ▌Internationalisation in the practice of CRCs

multi-disciplinary themes that need a combination ofscientific and technological backgrounds.In the category ‘other determinants’ general frameworkboundaries were mentioned as a criterion to selectco-operation partners in the survey. This includesthe (political) stability in the country of potential cooperations,as well as the local co-operation rules forthe potential partners.Although geographical proximity is not among themost important selection criteria for co-operations,the CRCs have several geographical preferences forco-operations (see Figure 11). Most importantly, thekey geographical focus is on other EU countries; 88%of the CRCs aim at co-operations within the EU. Remarkably,geographical proximity plays a role whenselecting partners, as 71% of the CRCs put their focuson neighbouring countries. A smaller number of CRCshave a focus outside the EU. About 46% of the CRCs,focus on the US for their co-operations. Also a mix ofnational and regional CRCs aims for Asian countries.Spanish CRCs often focus on South-American partnersto co-operate with: five Spanish CRCs have a focus onSouth-America, against only one CRC from anothercountry. Obvious reason for this is cultural proximity.A similar cultural proximity is observed for countries inEastern Europe that focus more frequently on co-operationwith non-EU countries in the former USSR. Focuson Mediterranean and African countries occur in arange of CRCs with various nationalities. Appendix D.4shows the preferred geographic focus per country.The respondents in the VINNOVA Survey had a similargeographical focus (see Appendix E.4). The main focusis on Europe (81%). In the Swedish sample there ismore focus on the USA and Canada (73 respondentsindicate co-operations with these parts are of main interest).A group of secondary importance is Japan (39)and China (36). The rest of the world is perceived tobe less important, such as South East Asia (20), India(20) and Australia and New Zealand (17).5.2.2.3 Policy needsThe VINNOVA survey asked the sample of CRCs whichpolicy support they desire (see Appendix E.3). The surveyshowed that the CRC have a need for economicsupport that is especially aimed at international co-operation.The current structure of the programmes andsubsidies does not allow the CRCs to dedicate funds tointernational co-operations (see section 6.3). Not surprisingly,the need for economic support is mentionedby 41% of the respondents as the most importantneed. The second largest need also links to availabilityof resources: 22% of the CRCs need co-financing andsupport to EU projects. Support to establish relationswith other players and funding institutes is mentioned11%.Figure 24: Geographical directions of international co-operations100%90% 88%80%70%71%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%EU -wideSurvey Technopolis Group; n=66Neighbouringcountries46%32%18%Non-EU: US Non-EU: Asia Non-EU:South-America14%Non-EU:Mediterraneancountries (incl.North Africa,Middle East)9%Non-EU:countries informer USSR3%Non-EU: AfricaInternationalisation in the practice of CRCs ▌39

Figure 25: Barriers to international co-operation of CRCsConstraints in budgetand/or timeDifficulties findingrequired partnersIPR RegulationsNational programme regulationsdo not allow internationalco-operationDistance /time zone barriersPrivate sector members arenot willing to co-operateAcademia are not willingto co-operateLanguage barriers0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Survey Technopolis Group; n=66Large barrier Barrier Small barrier Not at all a barrier5.3 Barriers to co-operationIn addition to the barriers that are identified at programmelevel (see 3.1), the survey analysed the existenceand importance of barriers at CRC level (Figure11).• As was already identified at programme level: acquiringfunding for international co-operations isa difficult hurdle to take. Constraints in time andmoney are seen as the most important factor hamperingthe development of international co-operations:85% of the CRCs experience this is a (large)barrier or to co-operations. For only 3% of the surveyedCRC managers funding is not a barrier.• Finding required partners is the second most importantfactor hampering international co-operations.Apparently it is not easy to find the rightpartners in terms of research topics, with sufficientscientific quality, and who are willing to participatein co-operations.• The danger of spilling knowledge through internationalco-operation, thus losing a competitive advantagealso plays an important role at the level ofCRCs. IPR regulations are an obstacle to deal with;two-thirds of the CRCs see this as a large barrier.• The practical barrier of proximity that was alreadyidentified at programme level is confirmed to be aproblem for individual CRCs as well. Distance ortime zone barriers exist for 48% of the CRCs.• National programme regulations that do not allowco-operations are also a (large) barrier for 47% ofthe CRCs. On the other hand almost 30% of respondentssay that national programme regulations arenot considered a barrier at all. It is remarkable thateven respondents in countries that have a climateconducive to internationalisation, still appear tohave large problems with programme regulationswhen trying to set up co-operations.• The willingness of members to co-operate and issueswith language are only moderate barriers.Apparently, it does not often happen that partnershamper the internationalisation, and if so, theseare mostly private sector members. For private sectormembers, co-operations with potential marketcompetitors form a threat. Therefore, larger companieswill not always tolerate co-operation withother large companies. Language does not seemto be problematic; English is a common languagein research and business.• The barriers to internationalisation we identified atthe programme level are very similar to those retrievedfrom the individual CRCs. The most notablehurdle to take to foster international co-operationsis acquisition of funding. At programme level, nobudget is available to fund co-operations, becauseof a lack of financial incentives from national policymakers.• Fear of losing competitive advantage is again ashared barrier at programme and CRC level. IPRregulations hamper the co-operations at CRC level,while national programmes are often not opened40 ▌Internationalisation in the practice of CRCs

up because of the fear to spill competitive advantage.In addition, the political decision to protectnational programmes and to exclude foreign partnersis a barrier identified at programme level andat the level of individual centres.The VINNOVA Survey identified a similar set of barriersto the establishment to global links. The most oftenmentionedbarrier is a lack of economic resources(84% of the surveyed CRCs mention this barrier). Aclosely linked barrier is that the funding that the CRCsreceive is not to be spent on global links (27%). Alsoproblems with the bureaucracy of EU projects, andthe demanding eligibility criteria exist (24%). Generalissues, such as a lack of time and priority in the CRCand bureaucracy are regularly mentioned (see AppendixE.5 for a full overview of barriers).5.4 The effects of international collaborationThe case studies reveal that in most CRC cases it is tooearly to assess the effects of international co-operation,as this has only been a recent development in thelife cycle of the centre. Across all cases no benchmarking,monitoring or evaluation is done systematically toassess the progress or effects of internationalisation.The most internationally active CRCs do have a numberof indicators on which they assess the success of theirinternational collaborations:• The increase in the number of partners due to thelarger international coverage of the CRC. ViF andQuestor can see a direct link between their internationalcollaborations and the increase of (local)membership;• The increase in visibility and reputation, whichleads to a more prominent position in European activities(e.g. leading EU-consortia, organising internationalsymposia), attracting foreign researchersto the centre or in the network;• New market opportunities for the member companiesthrough their networking activities and strategicalliances. These type of effects are hardly monitoredby the CRCs, but did come out as anecdotalevidence from the company interviews conductedin the case studies;• New funding sources, particularly international(EU) funding and a higher level of member fees asa result of broadening the membership.Internationalisation in the practice of CRCs ▌41

42 ▌Internationalisation in the practice of CRCs

6CONCLUSIONSAn internationalisation strategy could help the CRC tobecome more selective in their choice of partners andtype of collaboration that would add value to the localmembersthe internationalisation strategiesof CRCs follow a development cycleCRCs in different stagesneed to address differenttypes of barriersa supportive national policy framework gives the centresan additional push to international co-operationConclusions ▌43

6CONCLUSIONS6.1 International co-operation strategiesInternationalisation at the CRC programme level isemerging, but is not a general feature in CRC programmesyet. Especially in countries where the CRCsare in the phase of establishment, internationalisationis still relatively unimportant. The newer programmesare strongly focussed at the national and regional level,in order to get the CRCs established. In countrieswhere internationalisation plays a larger role in theCRC strategy – such as in Austria and Sweden - theCRC programmes are open for international partners.The case studies show that while internationalisationis not always very explicitly stated in the goals of theprogramme, it is supported by the programme managerswhen CRCs engage in for instance EU-programmeactivities, where cross-border funding is not an issue.The survey found that the majority of CRCs do not havea codified internationalisation strategy. The most CRCsin our case study sample do not have an explicit internationalisationstrategy either. However the mostactive ones have international co-operation as anintegral part of its core strategy and/or in its governancestructure (BalticNet-PlasmaTec, ViF, Questor, GigaHertz).Internationalisation does not depend on thefact whether there is a codified internationalisationstrategy or not. In all cases the CRC-manager or directorunderstood the necessity for moving the centre astep further up the development ladder through internationalcollaborations.An internationalisation strategy could help the CRC tobecome more selective in their choice of partners andthe type of collaboration that would add value to thelocal members. Pushing internationalisation as a goalin itself does not seem a sensible way forward. TheCRC-managers that have been successful in achievingsuccesses have been cautious about what partners toinvolve and have devoted time to trust building withthose partners. Thus too large international networksin relation to the size of the CRC and its local networkwill face the problem of not being able to embed theforeign partners in more strategic alliances with theCRC.A clear and explicit international strategy at the CRCsprogrammelevel (e.g in Sweden, Austria) does help topush the internationalisation activities a step forwardand allows the centres to overcome practical barrierssuch as allowing some forms of cross-border funding.6.2 The role of CRC-CRC co-operationWhile the survey showed that bilateral co-operationwith foreign CRCs is high on the agenda, the case studiesclearly show that CRC-management and partnersare in search of specific partners (research organisations,industry) that bring a particular technologicalexpertise, take a specific position in the value chainand have proven to deliver high quality work. Workingwith other more networked CRC-centres is not high onthe agenda, with some exceptions of finding a similarpartner to enter into EU-projects with. Due to the networkednature of the CRCs, it is also considered difficultto find a similar CRC organisation with a similar/orcomplementary thematic focus. The thematic focus ofeach of the cases is highly dependent on the expertiseof the partners involved and also shifts in the courseof the time.The CRC-managers do see the potential merits of CRC-CRC co-operation in terms of focusing on a particulargeographical area (with strong competences in a thematicdomain or strong markets) and working togetherwith another CRC in that area to link the individualmembers of these CRCs (universities, research institutesand companies). The CRC managers are in principlevery customer focused and their first considerationis whether a link with another CRC brings eitheradditional scientific and technological expertise ormarket access to their companies. As time and managementmeans are scarce (the key barriers accordingto the survey) this should be a focused effort ratherthan a more general networking activity.A clear example of where co-operation between CRCmanagementwas beneficial can be found in the Questorcase where participation in the US NSF-programmefor industry/university CRCs formed a valuable learningground how to organise the governance of the CRCand to open the centre for strategic alliances with foreignpartners. Nevertheless, today the need for such44 ▌Conclusions

CRC-CRC collaboration is seen as less urgent for Questor.6.3 Factors of success for internationalcollaborationA conclusion that can be drawn from the cases (VIF,Questor, GigaHertz) that have active partnership fromforeign companies is that governance models are chosenwhere the foreign companies have a say in the researchprogramming, can acquire the benefits from theresearch that is conducted, but are considered to contributeto the research funding in cash or in kind. Thisreduces the sensitivities of national/ regional fundinggoing directly to private sector members abroad.There is a clear pattern in all cases considering thedevelopment cycle they undergo in terms of engaginginto international co-operation. This life cycle is graphicallyillustrated in Figure 26 below. CRCs in the firstdevelopment phase are occupied by building up thecentre locally, ensuring to get the partners on board,building trust relations and working methods. TheseCRCs do not yet have international collaboration highon their agenda. The focus is mainly on developing aworking mode with local partners, perhaps becausethe markets are very national or the the industrialpartners want to have a tight control over their internationalco-operation directly and not through the CRC.There are cases where international collaborationwas built in from the very start, such as Questor andBalticNet-PlasmaTec. However, in both cases one cansee that this collaboration is held at low key in the firstfew years. It is only after a few years of building criticalmass that these foreign relations are truly activated.A next step up is to establish international relationshipswith single foreign partners, often through theEuropean research programmes or other cross-borderprogrammes such as Interreg. In more science orientedCRCs, such as biomaGUNE, researcher mobility isa mode of collaboration that appears to have a relativelylow threshold. Finding the appropriate partnerswas put forward as a barrier by many interviewees. TheFigure 26: Life cycle of internationalisation at CRCsEuropean programmes are a good way of exploring potentialworking relations with partners. The cases ofAIDICO and ELIKO are good examples of centres in thisphase of development. It is only the centres with somematurity (e.g. Questor), or operating in sectors thathave a strong tradition of international S&T co-operation(e.g. ViF, GigaHertz) that are able to engage in longterm strategic relationships with particular universitiesor research organizations or R&D-oriented companies.They take part in the governance structure of the CRCsand have an active contribution to the strategic orientationof the CRC. One can see a development wherethe CRC starts to coordinate large European consortiain their field. Once the centre has grown in criticalmass and gained international reputation through thework it has conducted, it builds up such a strong reputationthat international partners will ask to join theCRC. The CRC will have led international symposia onthe research topic and be recognized as a key playerin the field in Europe at the least. In the sample of thecase study perhaps only ViF fits in that category in thevery specific niche in which it is operating. In each ofthese development phases the set of needs of CRCmanagersare different. CRC-programmes could providea different type of support in different phases.The support of CRC-programmes and CRC-CRC co-operationcould be different in different phases.In the first phase when partners are mostly buildingpartnerships locally, creating awareness of the importanceof international networking, the advantages ofhaving international partners on board and providingCRCs with a clear mission to have at least 1-3 foreignpartnerships at the end of their launching phase (say3-5 years) would be beneficial to prepare the mind setof the CRC-management. A general rule is difficult toestablish here as some technological domains are sointrinsically international that one should expect internationallinkages from the start. CRCs that work withpredominantly industries that are part of an internationalvalue chain should from the outset look howthe CRC-cluster can hook up with key players abroad.DevelopandstabilisetheCRC locallyDevelopfirstcollaborationswith singleforeign partnersStrategicallianceswith a numberof selectedpartnersAttractpartnersand researchersby reputationConclusions ▌45

A CRC-programme manager could also provide incentivesfor the starting CRC to attract foreign researchersto the CRC and to advertise posts internationally insteadof only locally. With more foreign staff the internationaloutlook will become more obvious.The second phase where the local CRC has becomemore stable and trust has been built between the localpartners, CRC-programme managers could supportthe CRC by stimulating bilateral partnerships withkey partners, for instance financed through EuropeanFramework Programme funding. Schemes or organizationsthat help identifying potential partners, appropriatecalls in the Framework Programme and supportthe proposal preparation could be mobilised bythe CRC-programme. Such organizations or nationalservice providers often already exist in countries soit a matter of creating a link with other governmentagencies or service providers rather than developing aCRC-dedicated effort. CRC-funding organizations suchas Innovation Agencies in two or more countries coulddevelop dedicated Interreg programmes that can supportCRC-type organizations to come with proposals forcross-border cluster initiatives.When in the third phase the CRC is well establishedand has built a pool of competences and research andinnovation outputs it is likely that the CRC will look formore strategic partnerships with key players in theirdomain. This could involve the permanent membershipof the individual foreign partners in the CRC, itcould also mean a strategic link with similar CRC-initiativesto form an agenda-building platform in Europe.The European Technology Platform initiative is a goodexample where individual partners but also CRC-typeorganizations that represent a wider stakeholder grouphave together develop strategic research agenda’s toinfluence the programming of the European Commission’sFramework Programme. CRC-programme managerscould help individual CRC-managers to set upgovernance, funding and IP structures that help thecloser involvement of international partners in theCRC. It could also support a CRC to market and brandthe centre better at international events. CRC-CRC cooperationcould support the partner searching processas well as lead to a certain division of labour betweencentres in terms of building up state-of-the-art knowledgein specific domains.In the fourth phase when a CRC has already establishedinternational reputation support could be geared to internationalmarketing, the support of benchmarking acentre or cluster with similar CRCs in other countries.6.4 Some examples of good practiceThe case studies have showed that there is no single‘good practice model’ for international collaborationas too much is dependent on the particular context ofthe CRC, the sector it works with and the scientific andtechnological focus areas. In addition as describedabove CRCs in different stages need to address differenttypes of barriers. International collaborationneeds experience and time for trust building so shouldbe seen as an activity that needs to be developed intime. So good practice in international collaboration islinked with good practice in overall management of theCRC.Examples of good practices can be found in the AustrianViF for instance:• Experience: the experiences gained in internationalco-operation since 2005 have shaped ViF’s cooperationstrategy as well as its implementation;• Research capacities and capabilities: ViF did notstart from scratch when it became a COMET K2-centre in 2008 but it could move on from what itspredecessor, a K-plus-centre and a K-ind-centrehad achieved;• A clear and efficient model for including new partners:the standard co-operation agreement providesthe rules and the framework for any new partnership.These rules make sure, the consortiumcan be expanded while at the same time protectingthe interests of already existing partners.The Questor case is also interesting from a viewpointof CRC-management and international collaboration:• The deliberate decision to include foreign academicpartners that have a complementary expertisebase, thus improving the added value of the centrefrom the perspective of the members• The research programming and selection processes,which is on the one hand very user oriented(member choose the topics) and provides equalopportunities to the foreign academic partners totake part in the activities.• The opportunities that are provided for local companiesto develop strategic alliances with foreignand non-local companies• A well thought through IPR and commercialisationframework that is satisfactory to the members46 ▌Conclusions

• The linkages that have been established with NSFand the additional opportunities this offers in termsof partnerships and in terms of learning from bestpracticeshow to manage collaborative researchcentresFor CRCs in the first stages of development, enteringthe international collaboration arena through EU-programmesshows to be an appropriate first step to getacquainted with foreign partners, to adjust to culturaldifferences, learn the specific management aspects ofcross-border collaboration, etcetera. Thus activities ofmost CRCs to help their partners to enter into internationaland cross-border programmes can be consideredas good practice. The cases in Valencia and theBasque regions, Eliko in Estonia and BalticNet-PlasmaTecin Germany, but also the more internationallyadvanced CRCs are all examples where applying forEU-funding provided a first stepping stone for internationalcollaboration.For Centres that operate in the third developmentstage, incentives to help them shape the internationalresearch arena can be helpful. GigaHertz has benefitedfrom a small ‘globalisation grant’ from VINNOVA,which has allowed it to set up the European Radio andMicrowave Interest Group (EuRaMIG). This has a coregroup of 16 European university, institute and industryresearch groups but is open to anyone in Europe researchingin radio and microwaves. The chairman ofthe GigaHertz Steering Board chairs EuRaMIG, whoseprimary purpose (apart from networking the researchcommunity) is to influence the direction of the FrameworkProgramme through generating consensus androad maps.The ‘globalisation grant’ that was used in the GigaHertzcase (see 7.3) is part of the Global Links programmethat was launched by VINNOVA in September 2008,aiming to fund 10-20 ‘strong research and innovationmilieus’ that involved university-industry co-operationin R&D and that had at least two years funding remainingin one of the Swedish centre-based R&D fundingschemes 1 . The purpose of the programme was to establisha process for research and innovation milieusand for VINNOVA to work more systematically with internationalchallenges.Short-term impact goals were:• 10-20 strong R&I milieus in Sweden to have during1 Vinnova, Strategies for global links for strong research and innovationmilieus, 15-5-2008.2009 produced strategies for internationalisationand be contributing to the strengthening of theirglobal competitiveness and attractiveness.• R&I milieus wanting to work more strategically oninternationalisation to have been afforded the opportunitythrough the programme to exchange experiencesand learning in this work.Longer-term impact goals were:• 10-20 strong R&I milieus in Sweden to have builtup competence and working methods which providethe capability to exploit internationalisation ina more strategic fashion operationally.• Some of VINNOVA’s efforts to be adapted to effectivelystimulate R&I milieus’ capacity to work strategicallywith international collaborations and globallinks.The programme was very permissive in what it wouldfund. Examples of activities mentioned in the Call forProposals were• Systematic benchmarking of Swedish R&I milieusin relation to global equivalents. This means actualbenchmarking of entire milieus rather than individualresearch groups or companies. A key aspect isassessment of the R&I milieus’ own attractivenessas partners for both investment and recruitment.• Overall strategies and action plans adopted by theplayers in the respective R&I milieus for global positioning,branding work and establishment of linksto global players with complementary skills, knowledge,technology and other resources.• Swedish players’ (R&D financiers, researchers,companies, regions etc) capacity to take co-ordinatedand proactive action in the development of strategicglobal alliances. Amongst other things, thereis a great need to strengthen the collaboration andpresence outside of Europe and North America.Special support efforts may be needed here (funding,competence development, IP strategies, exportpromotion, investment promotion etc.).• Marketing of Swedish R&I milieus on a global market.• Efforts to support young, knowledge-intensive companies’international alliances and exports.• An enhanced focus on integration of an internationalperspective in R&D programmes and projectsfrom the outset. Not least of all, value addedthrough participation in the EU’s Framework Pro-Conclusions ▌47

grammes needs to be given a greater role in theplanning of R&D activities.The total grant under the first phase of this schemeis 10 MSEK (about € 1.1 m) to at least ten R&D milieus(approx. € 0.11m per milieu). Various elements ofsuch a scheme could be an interesting ‘accompanyingmeasure’ for any CRC programme.6.5 Barriers for international collaborationThere are a number of barriers at the programme levelthat hamper the internationalisation of CRCs as waspointed out in our interviews with policy makers:• Absence of policy incentives to co-operate internationally• Funding• Fear of losing competitiveness advantage if foreigncompetitors are involved• Different national framework conditions• Practical reasons such as the proximity to suitablepartners form a barrier.• The case studies that included interviews withstakeholders from industry pointed out that thefear of losing competitive advantage is not a majorconcern for them. Companies are more and moreused to working in a networked model and goodcontractual agreements ensure that a fair treatmentof the results of the collaborative work canbe arranged.The survey amongst all CRCs gave a clear top-3 interms of barriers: 1) budget and time constraints, 2)difficulties in finding the right partners and 3) IPR regulations.Difficulties with national programme regulationscame next. The case studies that were chosenpartly because they were already very active in internationalcollaboration put forward different types of barriers.Funding for foreign partners is indeed an issue formany of the cases. However, this is a bigger bottleneckfor CRCs who work with foreign SMEs than with largecompanies who are expected to fund a considerablepart of the research themselves. In the cases with astrong political support for cross-border collaboration(Austria, Sweden, Northern Ireland, the Nordic area)a limited level of funding for foreign partners was notconsidered a major issue.Most CRCs in the case studies do indeed have problemsfinding the right partners, except for those thatwork in very specific niche areas with larger playerssuch as in the automotive and in the micro-electronicscases where the user community is quite well known.This is a barrier where a network of CRCs could addvalue to provide more transparency on who is who andto conduct more active brokerage activities. However,real co-operation takes place between people whohave developed trust between each other and have aninterest in the expertise the other party can add. Sobrokerage can contribute mostly to first contacts onwhich co-operation can be built.The survey shows that IPR is a major bottleneck. However,the cases with active involvement of foreign companiesdo not report any major issues on this front,as they have dedicated professional resources to settlethese issues and provide good contractual frameworks.It seems the disseminating good practice toCRC-managers on how to settle IPR and contractual arrangementsin an international collaborative setting isan issue where more can be done by a COMPERA-typenetwork. Centres that have experience with involvingR&D-companies from abroad (ViF, GigaHertz, Questor)have developed in-house expertise to deal with thecontractual and IPR side of managing internationalcollaboration. They have understood the importanceof on the one hand clear and transparent contractualarrangements, while on the other side the flexibilityand expertise to draw up case-by-case IPR agreementsfor specific projects and companies.6.6 Effects of international collaborationAs stated in Chapter 5 the case studies reveal that inmost CRC cases it is too early to assess the effects ofinternational co-operation, as this has only been a recentdevelopment in the life cycle of the centre. Acrossall cases no benchmarking, monitoring or evaluation isdone systematically to assess the progress or effectsof internationalisation. Four effects were reported inthe case studies:• The increase in the number of partners due to thelarger international coverage of the CRC. ViF andQuestor can see a direct link between their internationalcollaborations and the increase of (local)membership;• The increase in visibility and reputation, whichleads to a more prominent position in European activities(e.g. leading EU-consortia, organising inter-48 ▌Conclusions

national symposia), attracting foreign researchersto the centre or in the network;• New market opportunities for the member companiesthrough their networking activities and strategicalliances. These type of effects are hardly monitoredby the CRCs, but did come out as anecdotalevidence from the company interviews conductedin the case studies;• New funding sources, particularly international(EU) funding and a higher level of member fees asa result of broadening the membership.6.7 Possible roles for a COMPERAtype network and recommendationsfor further actionAn obvious role for a COMPERA-Type network is tokeep promoting, within their national and regional policyarena’s, the importance of internationalisation intoday’s globalised world. In that sense the companiesattached to the CRCs are often much further aheadon the internationalisation agenda, compared to thenational policy makers. The study shows that a supportivenational policy framework gives the centres anadditional push and helps overcome specific budget issues.However it is neither a major bottleneck for thosecentres that have, from their own strategic objective,decided to enter into collaborative agreements, nor isit a sufficient condition for CRCs to become more activeon this front.This leads to the following more concrete recommendation:1. Funders of CRC programmes should establish clearguidelines as to what level of international involvementof foreign partners in a CRC is on the onehand expected and acceptable;2. CRCs that have certain maturity should be asked todefine more explicit internationalisation goals anddevelop activities to achieve this. This could be integratedin their performance indicators. However,this international co-operation should not becomea goals in itself but a means to create added valuefor the stakeholders of the CRC;3. National and regional CRC-programme managerscould develop a flexible ‘internationalisation’ packagethat CRC-managers can apply to in a competitivemode. The Vinnova ‘globalisation grant’ couldbe an example of such a scheme. As internationalisationactivities are different for each CRC and invarious development stages, the types of activitiesfunded should be defined flexibly;As was described above CRCs go through certain developmentstages. Any policy support to internationalisationshould take into account at which phase in thisdevelopment a CRC is situated and what particularbottlenecks are likely to occur.As second role that is related to one of the major bottlenecksthat came up in various stages of the CRC developmentis the difficulty in finding appropriate partnerorganisations, irrespective of their geographicallocation. This might not be the case for CRCs operatingin narrow and well defined niches, but certainly inemerging domains, domains with a broad disciplinaryknowledge basis and domains where the key industrialactors are not yet concentrated in a limited set of largecompanies. Providing more transparency in the competencebase of various centres, by thematic area and bysector would be a simple first step for a COMPERA-typenetwork to undertake. This would need to be followedup by much more active dissemination and brokeragetype of actions to bring together the right people andorganisations. Supporting CRCs to enter into Europeanprogrammes is another route that could be actively followedand here a COMPERA-type network could alsosupport partner search.The more concrete recommendations that derive fromthis are:4. As a European CRC-programme network provide adissemination platform for CRCs on a thematic basisand link these with existing national platformsfor CRCs and thematic cluster initiatives to makethe activities and competence areas of CRCs morevisible;5. Use the COMPERA type network to provide moreactive broker services to CRC-managers seekingspecific partners in other countries. This could involvethe support of a more active CRC-CRC collaboration,for instance through CRC-management exchangeprogrammes where CRC-managers selecta desired partner region or CRC to visit;6. Explore as ERA-NET potential exchanges of experienceand possible bilateral co-operation agreementswith similar CRC-programmes in for instancethe US, Canada and Australia;7. Develop more explicit links between the nationalCRC-programme and existing national services foracquiring EU-funding, export support and agenciesConclusions ▌49

esponsible for attracting foreign investments tomatch their activities with the specific needs of theCRCs;Thirdly the study also shows that good practice in internationalcollaboration is closely linked with experienceand overall governance and management skills in thecentres. The example of Questor showed that experiencefrom the American NSF-programme formed aninspiration to set up governance and managementpractices in Northern Ireland. Given the variations indevelopment stages of CRC-programmes and CRCcentres across the European countries and regions,support of management learning could help to spurgood ideas, also in the area of international collaboration.This is not the same as building fixed CRC-CRCalliances, but more customised management supportbetween peers in the wide CRC community on commonissues such as designing the research programme procedures,dealing with contractual issues with foreignpartners, and monitoring the effects of internationalcollaboration.8. Develop short and focused CRC-managementtraining modules on topics such as “how to involveforeign companies in my CRC-organisation’, “goodpractice in IPR management”. Given that time constraintswere a major bottleneck these trainingmodules should be very professionally organised.They could build on the experiences of ‘peers’: themanagers of CRCs that have shown to be successfulin their international co-operation activities50 ▌Conclusions

APPENDIX A: COMPERA PARTNERSA.1 COMPERA Partners contributingto this studyThe following table shows the COMPERA partners thatsupported this study and the people that have providedvaluable inputs and comments on the study.Country Persons OrganistionAustriaBasque CountryOtto StarzerAnna TropperOihana Blanco MendizabalXabier MaidaganFFGInnobasqueEstonia Harri Faiman Enterprise EstoniaFlandersTom SchampCorien StruijkGermany Silke Stahl-Rolf VDI TZNorthern-Ireland Claire Griffin Invest northern IrelandSloveniaNataša KomolecAlec MihelicSweden Mattias Lundberg VINNOVAValenciaConcha Ginestar PeiroEduardo Tomás DoladoIWTMinistry of Higher Education, Scienceand TechnologyGeneralitat ValencianaAppendix A: COMPERA Partners ▌51

APPENDIX B: RESPONSE TO THE SURVEY ANDINTERVIEWSB.1 Response rates per countryWe have calculated the response rates per country(Figure A.1). The average response rate of all the respondentsis 52%; this includes the e-mail addressesthat were not working, or that have been changed 1 .This is a rather high response rate for a survey. A typicalresponse rate for a survey is about 25-35%. The involvementof national programme officers is probablythe reason for the remarkable high response.Countries and regions with a very high response rateare Estonia, Austria, the Basque Country and Valencia.The average response rate is lowered by Germanyand Northern Ireland. Especially the German rate pullsthe average down, because the population of potentialrespondents was a lot larger than that of other countries.Germany had a population of almost 100 potentialrespondents; other countries ranged from 6 to 19potential respondents. The rather low response ratein Germany can partly be explained by the nature ofpotential respondents: Germany does not have a CRCprogramme, but a cluster programme.1 We have calculated the response rate by dividing the total amountof responses by the number of potential respondents that wesend an invitation to the survey.Figure A.1: Response rates per country (respondents/potential respondents). Above each bar the number of respondents per countryis indicated.100%90%80%70%15 591060%50%40%74730%2520%310%0%AverageResponseAustriaBasqueCountryBelgium Estonia Germany NorthernIrelandValenciaSloveniaTechnopolis Survey52 ▌Appendix B: Response to the survey and interviews

B.2 Respondents to the surveyThe following CRC managers filled in the survey.CRC Name CountrySoftware Competence Center Hagenberg GmbH Klaus Pirklbauer AustriaKompetenzzentrum für wissensbasierte Anwendungen und Systeme ForschungsAnita GriesserAustriaund Entwicklungs GmbHalpS – Center for Natural Hazard Management Eric Veulliet AustriaKompetenzzentrum - Das virtuelle Fahrzeug, Forschungsgesellschaft Gerhard ZrimAustriambH (Mobility SVT/ViF)Research Center Pharmaceutical Engineering GmbH Simone Gritzner AustriaResearch Centre Applied Biocatalysis Markus Michaelis AustriaCOMET K2 Centre for "Integrated Research in Materials, Processing and Reinhold EbnerAustriaProduct Engineering"ACCM – Austrian Competence Centre for Mechatronics Schatz Gerald AustriaPolymer Competence Center Leoben GmbH Martin Payer AustriaCEST GmbH – Center for Electrochemical Surface Technology Otto Groh AustriaFTW – Forschungszentrums Telekommunikation Wien Wolrad Rommel AustriaCTR Carinthian Tech Research AG Dr. Werner Scherf AustriaKompetenzzentrum Holz GmbH (Wood K plus) Boris Hultsch AustriaAustrian Center of Competence for Tribology Pauschitz Andreas AustriaONCOTYROL - Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine GmbH Philipp Unterholzner AustriaCIC biomaGUNE Alfonso Egaña Basque CountryCIC energiGUNE Jose M. Castellanos Basque CountryCIC marGUNE Elixabete Maidagan Basque CountryCIC microGUNE Carlos Luri Basque CountryCIC bioGUNE Alfonso Egaña Basque CountryFlanders' PlasticVision Geert Scheys BelgiumIBBT Marie Claire Van de Velde BelgiumFlanders InShape Maka De Lameillieure BelgiumFMTC Marc Engels BelgiumFlanders' FOOD Erwin Lamot BelgiumVITO Dirk Fransaer BelgiumVIB Rudy Dekeyser BelgiumIMECC OÜ - Innovative Manufacturing Engineering Systems Competence Jüri RiivesEstoniaCentreCompetence Centre for Cancer Research Ltd. Riin Ehin EstoniaELIKO Competence Centre Indrek Ruiso EstoniaSoftware Technologies and Applications Competence Center Jaak Vilo EstoniaEngineeringIMECC - Innovative Manufacturing Systems Competence CentreJyri RiivesEstoniaEstonian Nanotechnology Compatence Centre Ilmar Kink EstoniaCRC of reproductive medicine and -biology Andrus Tasa EstoniaCompetence Centre on Reproductive Medicine and Biology, new centre, Andres SalumetsEstoniarecently established at 26.6.2009CC of Food and Fermentation Technologies Urmas Sannik EstoniaLogistik-Initiative Hamburg Gernot Lobenberg GermanyAGeNT-D Dr. Sven Rodt GermanyAppendix B: Response to the survey and interviews ▌53

CRC Name CountryCluster Mechatronik & Automation e.V. Heiko Bartschat GermanyBIOKON e.V. Dr. Sabine Wortmann GermanyNetwork of Competence for Industrial Plasma Surface Technologies IN-PLASGerrit von BorriesGermanyFraunhofer IZM Harald Pötter GermanyKompetenznetzwerk Mechatronik BW e.V. Bastian Obermiller GermanyKompetenznetzwerk Mechatronik BW Schiek, Volker GermanyNanoBioNet e. V. M. Monzel GermanyNetwork for Innovative Closed Loop recycling Technologies Verena Fennemann MBA GermanyI-KON e.V. Adolf Brockmann GermanyBioProfil "Funktionelle Genomanalyse" Dr. Corinna Morys-Wortmann GermanyDLR H.P. Monner Germanyedacentrum Andreas Voerg GermanyMikrosystentechnik-Netwzerk Rhein-Main Richard Jordan GermanyVirtual Dimension Center (VDC) Christoph Runde GermanyBioCon Valley Heinrich Cuypers, PhD GermanyAGIT mbH Ulrich Schirowski GermanyBalticNet-PlasmaTec e.V. Alexander Schwock GermanyGIQS e.V. Maren Bruns GermanydeENet Jan Kallok GermanyLaboratory of Nano and Quantum Engineering Fritz Schulze Wischeler GermanyICT cluster Dr. Jörg Woidasky GermanyMeasurement Valley Claudia Trepte GermanyThe QUESTOR Centre Wilson McGarel Northern IrelandECIT Godfrey Gaston Northern IrelandCentre of Excellence in Novel Oral Dosage Forms Jim McIlroy Northern IrelandInstituto Tecnológico de Informática Carolina Quintá Goy ValenciaAIDO - Technological Institute of Optics, Colour and Imaging Isabel Ferrando ValenciaTextile Research Institute (AITEX) Rosa López ValenciaINESCOP V. Barrantes Romero ValenciaITC Yolanda Reig Otero ValenciaAIJU Jaime Vilaplana ValenciaAIDICO - Technological Institute of Construction Margarita Lecha Taitot ValenciaAinia technological centre Julio Carreras ValenciaInstituto de Biomecánica de Valencia Ana Cruz Garcia Belenguer ValenciaAIMPLAS Valentín Polo Ramírez ValenciaTechnopolis Survey54 ▌Appendix B: Response to the survey and interviews

B.3 Interviewed COMPERA Partners(or programme managers)Country Name OrganisationAustria Otto Starzer FFGBasque Country Xabier Maidagan InnobasqueEstonia Harri Faiman Estonia EnterpriseFlanders Corrien Struijk IWTGermany Silke Stahl-Rolf VDI TZNorthern-Ireland Claire Griffin and Nigel Carr Invest Northern IrelandSlovenia Darja Piciga Ministry of Higher Education, Science and TechnologySweden Matthias Lundberg VINNOVAValencia Concha Ginestar Peiró Generalitat ValencianaB.4 Interviews for the case studiesCase Interviewee OrganisationAIDICO Paula Zamora AIDICOAIDICO Margarita Lecha AIDICOAIDICO Maria del Rey AIDICOBalticNet-PlasmaTec Alexander Schwock BalticNet-PlasmaTecBalticNet-PlasmaTec Marko Häckel Neoplas/ former head TTO at Leibniz Plasma ForschungBalticNet-PlasmaTec Marcin Holub Scezin UniversityBalticNet-PlasmaTec Eugene Stamate Risø National LaboratoryBalticNet-PlasmaTec Henrik Zimmermann NeoplasControlBalticNet-PlasmaTec Sebastian Spreeberg NeoplasControlCIC biomaGUNE Manuel Martins-Lomas CIC biomaGUNECIC biomaGUNE Maria Aguirre BIOBASQUECIC biomaGUNE Charles kelly King's College LondonCIC biomaGUNE Annemarie Pucci Kirchhoff Institute of Physics, HeidelbergELIKO Prof. Giorgio Cannata Head of the Mechatronics and Automatic Control Laboratory,University of Genova (Italy)ELIKO Andres Kull ELVIOR OÜELIKO Indrek Ruiso ELIKOFMTC Mark Engels FMTCFMTC Freek Couttenier AGORIAGigaHertz Jan Grahn GigaHertzGigaHertz Ulf Gustavsson EricssonGigaHertz Klas Yhland SPGigaHertz Rik Jos NXPGigaHertz Franz Dielacher InfineonQuestor Wilson McGarel QuestorQuestor John Toner Williams Industrial Services LtfQuestor Clifford Henry Northern Ireland Environment AgencyQuestor Geoff Wilcox British PetroleumAppendix B: Response to the survey and interviews ▌55

Case Interviewee OrganisationQuestor Brian Bone Northern Ireland Environment AgencyViF Gerhard Zrim ViFViF Aldo Ofenheimer ViFViF Hans-Herwig Priebsch ViFViF Anton Fuchs ViFViF Raimund Almbauer Graz University of TechnologyViF Josef Affenzeller AVL ListViF Stefan Volkwein University of Konstanz56 ▌Appendix B: Response to the survey and interviews

APPENDIX C: SELECTION OF CASESC.1 Selected casesFMTC GigaHertz CIC bioma-GUNECountry Belgium Sweden Basque CountryELIKO Virtual VehicleCompetenceCentreAIDICO BalticNet-PlasmaTecQuestorEstonia Austria Valencia Germany NorthernIrelandVirtual vs. physical Physical -no survey- Physical Combination Physical Physical Virtual (network)Governance: Regionalvs. nationalDifferent instruments Bilateralco-operation,networks ofCRCs andMobilityPartners in- and outsideEUCombinationRegional National Regional National National Regional Regional Regional- no survey -probably fullparticipation-EU-partners At least 1co-operationextra EUCross-borderresearchprogramme,MobilityCross-borderprogrammes,opening up,mobility andnetworkingOpening up,bilateral cooperationsand mobilityCross-borderprogrammes,mobility,bilateral cooperation,networks,brokerageEU Partners EU partners EU partners EU and non-EU partnersAll types ofinstrumentsincluded.EU partners,IndiaCross-borderprogrammes,mobility,bilateral cooperation,networks,brokerageSeveral non-EU co-operationsExtent of internationalisation/DecisivefactorsMany foreignpartners, butVIB has a localfocusThe SwedishCRCs arerelativelyfocussed towardsinternationalisationBecauseof regionalpolicy not veryinternationalisedMost internationalCRC ofEstoniaThe COMETprogrammehas an internationalfocusAIDICO isinternationalisedtoa limitedextend, buthas interestingextra-EUactivitiesHighly internationalised(50% ofpartners isforeign)Broad rangeof co-operations,interestinglinksoverseasAppendix C: Selection of cases ▌57

APPENDIX D: ADDITIONAL ANALYSESD.1 The relation between the numberof partnerships and the amountof funding (k€)There is weak statistic proof that the number of partnershipscorrelate with the amount of funding (R=0.32)The slope (disambiguation) of this line is 0.004, whichmeans that per m€, 4 more partnerships are to be expected.60050040030020010000 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000X-axis: amount of funding (k€); Y-axis: number of partnershipsD.2 No relation between the numberof international co-operation andamount of funding (k€)Considering the following graph, there is barely statisticproof that the number of partnerships correlatewith the amount of funding (R=0.02) The slope (disambiguation)of this line is 0.00004, which meansthat per €100m additional funds, 4 more partnershipsare to be expected. We therefore conclude that thenumber of co-operations do not relate to the amountof funding.60D.3 Research vs. Industrial focus ofCRCs and the influence on thedegree of internationalisation• In order to determine whether there is a correlationbetween the types of CRC, i.e. CRCs aimed atresearch actors and CRCs aimed at industry, wehave calculated the correlations and the slope ofactual the correlation between the share of activitiesaimed at industry and the number of co-operations.In our survey we asked the CRCs to indicatewhat actors they dedicated their time to; this isthe indicator for the degree to which the CRCs areaimed at industry or research partners. Furthermorewe have asked how many co-operations theCRCs have, this indicates the degree of internationalizationof CRCs.• The figure below shows the number of co-operationsset out against the share of activities aimedat industry (a) and research institutes (b). It showsthat CRCs with a stronger focus on industry have ahigher number of co-operations: the trend line suggestsa positive trend of an increase of 1.6 co-operationsper 10%. The statistic evidence is howeverrather weak (R=0.23).Number of co-operations7060504030201000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% of activities aimed at industry504030201000 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000X-axis: amount of funding (k€); Y-axis: number of internationalco-operations58 ▌Appendix D: Additional analyses

D.4 Geographic focus per country; thepercentage indicate the share ofCRC managers that prefer cooperationswith this region.n= NeighbouringcountriesEU-wideNon-EU:MediterraneancountriesNon-EU:AsiaNon-EU:USNon-EU:countriesinformerUSSRNon-EU:AfricaNon-EU:South-AmericaAustria 12 92% 100% 8% 17% 25% 0% 0% 8%Basque Country 4 50% 100% 0% 75% 75% 0% 0% 75%Flanders 5 60% 80% 0% 40% 60% 0% 0% 0%Estonia 6 83% 100% 0% 17% 50% 33% 0% 0%Germany 15 73% 67% 13% 33% 47% 7% 0% 20%Northern Ireland 2 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0%Valencia 9 44% 89% 56% 22% 33% 0% 22% 44%Survey Technopolis GroupAppendix D: Additional analyses ▌59

APPENDIX E: VINNOVA STUDY ON GLOBAL LINKSVINNOVA conducted a survey amongst a number ofCRCs. The main goal of the survey was to gain insighton how VINNOVA should continue its work on internationalisation.The analysis is based on 91 responses.E.1 Thematic focusHealth25ICT20Product & material17Environment & Energy14Transport5Security4Social Sciences4Services2VINNOVA Global links survey0 5 10 15 20 25 3060 ▌Appendix E: VINNOVA study on global links

E.2 Modes of Co-operationBilateral R&D projectsEU-projectsMobility of researchersBenchmarks, comparative analysesNetwork activities (seminars, fairs, conferences)63%59%54%49%49%Marketing, increasing visibility32%Company-based links26%Training and coursesInternational Advisory BoardEstablish administrative resources for …13%12%17%Other4%VINNOVA Global links survey0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%E.3 Policy needs of CRCsSpecific economic support for buildingup global links41%Co-financing and support to EU-projects22%Establishment of relations with otherfunding institutions in the world11%Other economic support8%Legal support3%Other11%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%VINNOVA Global links surveyAppendix E: VINNOVA study on global links ▌61

E.4 Geographical focusEurope81USA and Canada73Japan39China35IndiaRest of South-East AsiaAustralia, New-Zealand172020Other Asia (Russia, Israel, …)South-America1414Other countries (South Africa, etc)90 20 40 60 80 100VINNOVA Global links surveyE.5 Barriers to internationalisationLack of economic resourcesCurrent funding not suitable to establish linksEU projects too demanding/bureaucraticLack of time / priorityBureaucracyShort duration of projectsHigh demand for co-financingAbsence of identified co-operationCultural/Structural problemsInvolved industry is not interestedLacking perception of attractivenessThere is no reward for working with global linksOther10%9%9%8%4%2%1%7%27%24%22%20%84%VINNOVA Global links survey0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%62 ▌Appendix E: VINNOVA study on global links

IWT MISSIONWant to know more about the IWTand the M&A unit?IWT wants to stimulate innovation in Flanders:• By giving various organizations - particularlySME’s – financial support to assistthem in their innovation endeavors;• By stimulating companies, knowledgecenters, universities and other innovationactors to cooperate;• By advising the Flemish government oninnovation policy issues.M&A’s mission is to support IWT and itsstakeholders to establish and improve theeffectiveness and efficiency of their innovationtasks.Contact us:EllipsgebouwKoning Albert II-laan 35 bus 16B-1030 BrusselTel:+32(0)2 432 42 00Fax: +32 (0)2 432 43 99info@iwt.beof visit our website: www.iwt.be

Patries Boekholt, Jon van Til, Erik Arnold, Tommy Jansson, Ruta Rannala, Miriam Ruiz Yaniz, Brigitte Tiefenthaler areconsultants of theTechnopolis Group Netherlands.Herengracht 1411015 BH Amsterdamwww.technopolis-group.comEllipsgebouwKoning Albert II-laan 35 bus 16B-1030 BrusselTel:+32(0)2 432 42 00Fax: +32 (0)2 432 43 99info@iwt.bewww.iwt.be