innoviews outcome

The concept of learning networks is relatively new and refers to networks where structures have been formally established to increase participants’ innovative capability.

Since the 1990s, it has been increasingly recognised that IPR such as patents, trademarks, design registration and copyrights are an essential feature of an innovative economy. The crucial question from a public policy perspective concerns the effect of strengthening patent protection on the rate of innovation. The underlying rationale behind IPR public policy is that they stimulate invention and innovation through a temporary monopoly while ensuring disclosure of technical information. Thus, on the one hand the inventor gains temporary protection that allows time to market and commercialise the invention in order to recover the research and development cost. On the other hand, society at large gains by inventions being disclosed earlier than otherwise and thus stimulating further inventive activity.

One of the most promising fields where "industry-science relationship" policy interventions are best able to respond to the modern view of innovation, is in the promotion of linkages through the "human resources mobility" channel. First, because a large part of knowledge is embodied in human beings and therefore cannot really be transferred without the movement of people themselves. Second, because the key asset in innovative companies in the knowledge economy, is its human capital: innovation will only flourish if the firm’s personnel is well qualified, skilled and innovation-oriented. And third, because companies do not innovate in isolation : increasing inward and outward personnel flows is one major way to foster the openness of European firms. The frontiers between "fundamental research" in public research organizations and “applied research” carried out in firms laboratories becomes increasingly irrelevant and it is being recognized that the successful combination of knowledge (and not only the use of R&D and technology), wherever its source, is the key for innovation.

The funding requirements for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) form the largest and the fastest growing sector of existing and new businesses in the European Union and in the accession candidate states of central Europe. Guarantees for the financing of innovative projects are an interesting mechanism, because it is in this area of activity that obtaining funding is perceived as, and is in fact, the most difficult. This situation is caused by the lack of an historical trading record, the lack of suitable collateral cover in the form of tangible assets and very often the lack of experience or track record by the entrepreneur or project proposer. This situation leads to a failure by traditional funding providers to create and practice a risk assessment regime that takes account of the needs of SMEs operating in an increasingly competitive commercial environment.

Creating spin-off companies from public research is a policy priority in all Member States. The rationale is to exploit dormant opportunities in public research, to develop new economic activities in knowledge-intensive sectors, and to create high quality jobs. Spin-off policies proceed at the macro, meso and micro levels, aiming (1) to adapt the national legal and statutory framework; (2) to optimise the regional innovation systems; and (3) to restructure public research institutes, universities and curricula.

Recent benchmarking exercises of the European Commission indicate that business R&D is a weak point in most Member States and in Europe as a whole. Fiscal policy is an important policy instrument to stimulate R&D expenditure, however it is also a complex policy area, with different types of tax incentives closely related to the fiscal, administrative and economic structures of each country. The workshop served therefore as a trans-national platform for policy makers to review the specific policy tools at hand, and to compare these with direct support measures.

In the context of global knowledge-based competition, innovation policy is a fundamental tool for Candidate countries to achieve a successful catching up process. There are many obstacles to overcome. Candidate countries (CC) have to cope with a heavy legacy from the Past weighting as much on mentality as on factors such as the industrial structure. Characterised by weak 'supply' and 'demand' for R&D and innovation, CC have not yet developed fully-fledged innovation policy.

The workshop explored how the impact of Lifelong learning (LLL) policies on innovation and competitiveness can be monitored and enhanced. The objective was to foster a process of ‘policy learning’ in which participants draw practical policy lessons from experience in other EU Member States, and translate this into concrete policy improvements.

On 27 and 28 November 2002, a policy workshop took place in Luxembourg, with the participation of 35 policy-makers and experts from 15 European countries, as well as European Commission representatives from the Enterprise and RTD General Directorates. The workshop took stock of the experience made with trans-national policy learning in innovation under the Trend Chart, compares this experience with other initiatives of transnational policy learning at the Union and national levels, and draws lessons on ways and means to make transnational learning in innovation policy more effective.

The European Innovation Scoreboard of the Trend Chart project attracts considerable interest from the policy world, the research community and the media. The Trend Chart Policy Workshop held on 24 and 25 February in Luxembourg was an occasion to take stock of three years of experience and to present and discuss short and medium term options how to improve the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) and its effectiveness as a policy guide.