FEED BACK after the 2nd MEETING 1st  and  2nd  March  2012  

Brussels  

EUROTECH MEETING: RECCOMENDATIONS

15–17 October 2011, Gothenburg and Borås – Sweden

•  The  output  of  the  work  had  Posi:ve  general  opinion  towards  the  objec4ves  of  the  group.    

•  We  were  asked  to  focus  on  two  main  issues:    1.  new  business  models  for  RTOs  and  new  business  models  for  RTO-­‐developed  technology    2.  Expanding  the  horizon  of  RTOs,  plain  in  the  field  of  Business  beyond  Technology  

•  A  requirement  to  define  a  sound  Innova:on  process  for  RTOs  was  pointed  out.    

•  The  presenta:on  of  our  WG  was  very  connected  to  other  two  ini:a:ves  also  presented  during  the  mee:ng:    

•  Deep  benchmarking  exercise  among  the  biggest  RTOs  in  several  perspec4ves,  coordinated  by  FhG.    

•  TTO  Circle,  coordinated  by  the  JRC  

•  It  was  proposed  the  WG  would  also  work  on  the  defini:on  and  development  of  the  new  skills  needed  in  the  "new  RTOs".  

FEED BACK AFTER the 2nd WG MEETING

1st  and  2nd  March  2012  

Brussels  

I. What is and what will be IMPACT through Innovation?

•  How  should  we  measure  our  success?    •  What  is  our  mission?    •  When  our  success  is  relevant?    •  How  do  we  think  this  will  evolve  in  the  near  future?  What  is  the  main  

difference  with  other  RTOs?    •  And  with  Universi4es?    •  And  with  Industry?  Excellence  vs  Impact  or  Excellence&Impact  •  We  showed  our  mission  and  the  way  to  measure  its  fulfillment.  •  Where  should  we  focus  to  increase  this  impact?    •  Can  we  agree,  with  a  common  defini4on  for  Impact  delivered  by  RTOs?  

¿How can we be more RELEVANT?

IMPACT:  Two  Dimensions    

•  Economic.  RTOs  as  growth  generators,  genera4ng  opportuni4es  that  promote  the  growth  of  the  enterprises  they  serve.  Example:  mul4plier  effect  of  investment  in  TNO  -­‐    Euro  capacity  it  can  mobilize  vs  Euro  of  investment.  

•  Social  :  The  society  demands  to  increase  our  impact.  The  crisis  is  making  explicit  the  need  for  new  ac4vity,  growth,  and  RTOs  have  to  be  relevant  actors  in  this  development.  

IMPACT  

Universi4es  are  making  everyday  more  efforts  to  go  beyond  their  own  genera4on  of  knowledge,  trying  to  enter  in  the  world  of  the  applica4on.    

We  have  to  be  in  the  business  of  business  development.    

TO  BE  INVOLVED  IN  BUSINESS,    AND  NOT  ONLY  IN  TECHNOLOGY  

IMPLIES

•  Quan:ta:ve:  number  of  projects,  number  of  created  companies,  licensed  patents,  etc.  

•  Qualita:ve:  the  ability  to  capture  and  rela4onship  of  the  RTOs,  how  they  are  connected  to  society,  government,  industry…  how  they  evolve  a  specific  industrial  area  or  a  business,  etc.    

IMPACT: Measurement

We  have  a  compe::ve  advantage  against  other  agents  such  as  universi4es,  governments  or  companies:  Our  ability  to  carry  out  

initiatives   with   technological   and   business   components,  finance,  law,  legisla:on….  

We  are  a  hub  where  others  can  connect  and  carry  out  powerful  ini:a:ves.    

Another   great   advantage   we   have   is   our  continuity,   the  guarantee   that   within   10   years   we   will   con4nue   to   exist   and  suppor4ng  rela4onships  that  have  begun  or  may  begin.  

IMPACT: Differentiating factor

•  Difficult  rela:onship  between  the  university  and  RTOs  (not  always,  SINTEF  is  an  example  of  a  good  one)  

•  One  of  the  tasks  we  can  do  is  the  influence  on  universi:es,  in  their  own  research,  in  the  way  of  doing,  and  proposing  them  opera4onal  infrastructures  as  TTOs  managed  by  RTOs,  etc.    

IMPACT: Relationship with the University

RTOs  should  be  interna:onalized  and  connected  to  each  other  and  should  be  able  to  develop  technology  and  business  ini4a4ves  in  those  geographic  areas  that  required  it  or  may  be  of  interest.    

IMPACT: International Vocation

The  future  of  RTOs  is  not  look  like  a  future  selling  knowledge,  but  as  creators  of  value,  promo:ng  ini:a:ves,  crea:ng  and  developing  business.    

This  means  that  we  have  to  change  the  business  model  of  RTOs.  This  need  of  not  selling  hours,  of  focusing  on  the  business,  of  crea4ng  value  in  another  way,  also  makes  our  business  model  must  change  and  we  must  adapt  to  that  change.  

IMPACT: Need to change the business model

II. BUSINESS MODELS: THE BM CANVAS

VALUE / IMPACT GENERATION OPERATIONS BUSINESS

DEVELOPMENT =   +  

OP   OP  

OP  

OP  

OP  

BD  

BD  

BD  

BD  

II. BUSINESS MODELS: TECNALIA

ADVANCED  TECHNOLOGICAL  SERVICES  

01.  PRIVATELY  FUNDED  RESEARCH  

02.   03.  VALUE  CREATION  TROUGH  INTERNAL  R&D  

04.  STRATEGY & TECHNOLOGY

II. BUSINESS MODELS: VTT

II. BUSINESS MODELS: PERA

TECHNOLOGY– we see it as an infrastructure management business

TRAINING– we see it as a customer relationship and intimacy business

CONSULTING (Govt programme management) – we see it as a service innovation and leadership business

II. BUSINESS MODELS: Alternative / emerging business areas and models (1/2)

1.  Joint  R&D  centers  with  strategic  customers  /  partners  

2.  Cocrea4on  of  joint  projects  sharing  risk,  costs,  competences,  benefits.  

3.  Pilot  and  small  scale  manufacturing  by  u4lizing  the  research  infrastructure  

4.  Technology  &  market  foresights  as  a  professional  service.  Compe44ve  intelligence  

5.  New  (technology)  based  business  development  and  consul:ng    Business  opportunity  iden4fica4on  

  Concept  development,  prototypes  

  Commercializa4on  

6.  Industrial  R&D  outsourcing  as  a  business  area    Opera4ng  of  corporate  R&D  labs  

  Responsibility  of  competence  development  

II. BUSINESS MODELS: Alternative / emerging business areas and models (2/2) 7.  Assis4ng  companies  for  organizing  R&D  opera4ons  

8.  IPR  pooling  and  packaging  with  other  RTOs    strategic  IPR  development  

  pooling  of  start-­‐up  ideas  /  companies  

  patents  /  IP  as  an  asset  

9.  Collabora4on  with  IPR  brokers  –  technology  transfer  10.  Using  of  crowdsourcing  as  a  resource  pool  

11.  Joint  ventures  with  industrial  investors  

12.  Strategic  collabora4on  with  seed  funds  

13.  Technology  policy  and  innova4on  management  consul4ng  

14.  Interna4onaliza4on    U4liza4on  of  public  R&D  funding  

  Collabora4on  with  RTOs  /  universi4es  from  emerging  countries  (in  

  knowledge  supply  and  demand  sides)  

III. PROPOSAL FOR A NEW BM:

New business development company, powered by leading European RTOs.

Deloitte

KPMG

Ernest & Young

Exentic

Business Consulting company (beginnings)

BRAND

RTO´s + UNIS

IP Managers

VCs/BA Experts to rise funds

Business capacity development

Access to €

Ideation

Evaluate Growth potential

Business Consultants

Knowledge database (open culture)

We help you growth

I can help you growth

=

Business Plan

+

Tech. Roadmap

Competition Based

Transaction

Exchange cost by benefit

Companies with growth ambition

Government Sponsor

Contracts for RTO´s

RTO´s Commission

Government Funding (related to growth)

Customer Price

100%? 50%?

Supermarket

Social Impact

Differen:ated  value  proposi:on:  no  one  can  offer  such  an  intensive  technology  offer  with  leading  European  experts  in  virtually  any  field  or  market  sectors.    

This  technological  knowledge  should  be  complemented  by  knowledge  in  strategy  and  business  plans  in  order  to  offer  complete  packages  to  companies.  

VALUE PROPOSITION

Business  plan  

To help companies GROW.

Technology  roadmap  = +

Companies that want to grow, regardless of their size.

It  was  also  discussed  whether  part  of  the  ac4on  of  this  company  should  be  directed  to  governments,  as  they  may  be  sponsors  or  a  funding  agency  for  this  ac4vity  for  growth  and  diversifica4on.  

CUSTOMERS

•  Large  consul:ng  firms  (Deloibe,  KPMG…)  with  high  level  of  exper4se  and  posi4oning  in  the  field  of  strategy.  These  partners  are  interes4ng  for  the  problem  of  posi4oning  that  we  have.    

•  Smaller  companies  of  regional  character  dedicated  to  strategy  consul:ng.  

•  Universi:es  or  other  technology  centres.  This  company  could  be  a  channel  for  them  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  market.  

•  Intellectual  property  managers,  Venture  Capital,  Business  Accelerators….    

•  Partners  who  can  make  contribu:ons  in  the  value  chain:  in  the  genera4on  of  ideas,  knowledge  genera4on  and  its  management,  in  defining  strategy  and  in  further  exploi4ng…  

KEY PARTNERS

•  To  charge  the  customers  for  the  service:  a  single  fee,  a  fee  based  on  profits,  a  success  fee…  

•  The  RTOs  could  get  income  as  subcontractors  of  the  developments  that  may  arise  as  a  result  of  this  ac4vity.  

•  Commissions  we  get  for  the  enhancement  of  the  assets  of  other  research  centres  or  universi4es.  

•  Public  financing  related  to  growth  

REVENUE

IV. Next Steps

IV. NEXT STEPS

1.   Advance  in  the  measure  of  Impact  

2.  Refine  the  proposed  BM  3.  Challenge  the  model  with  a  SWOT  analysis  

4.  Evaluate  the  interest  of  the  different  RTOs  to  go  ahead  to  test  the  model.  

5.  Define  future  commitment  and  steps  with  this  model.  

6.  Define  pilot  cases  for  other  BMs  7.  New  competences  in  RTOs:  which  &  how  to  get  them  

Thank you!