Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IMPLEMENTING SMART SPECIALISATION ROADMAPS IN LITHUANIA: LOST IN TRANSLATION?
Agnė Paliokaitė, Žilvinas Martinaitis
Visionary Analytics
5th International Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA) - Engage today to shape tomorrow
Brussels, 27-28 November 2014
Purpose and Methodology
o Purpose - Key interest of this paper is how bottom-up FTA translates into policy decisions. The objectives are threefold: to explain the selected methodological approach; to discuss the results, key lessons and risks that unfolded during the process; to discuss scenarios of how the roadmaps will be implemented.
o Methodology – The paper builds on a case study from a post-soviet country (Lithuania) where a three-staged FTA process was adopted for defining the S3 priorities and their implementation strategies. Specifically, focus is on the last stage - developing roadmaps for the implementation of selected S3 priorities.
o Findings – Design of the policy mixes in the roadmaps moved away from the proposed guidelines. The paper offers a discussion of the two logics that govern the behaviour of organizational actors - logic of consequentiality versus logic of appropriateness. An outlook to implementation of the S3 roadmaps is provided by discussing alternative scenarios and remaining risks.
A bottom-up steered process (Stage 2)
Re
sults
Exp
ert
gro
up
dis
cu
ssio
ns
Su
rve
ys
An
aly
ses
Tim
efr
am
e
Analysis of
trends
Web-based
‘Ideas
competition’
Discussion
1
Scenarios and
critical technologies
Analysis of
R&I
potential
2-round
Delphi
‘Long list’ of
technologies
Discussion
3
Consensus on
the Priorities
Discussion
4
Roadmaps
Analysis of
policy
implementation
needs
August 2013 November 2013 Spring 2014
Discussion
2
• Detailed analysis of trends and challenges in each of the priority areas.
• 24 discussions of six experts groups (~200 experts) each chaired by two group leaders.
• Policy ‘users’ involved (Transport, Health, Education etc).
Survey
Government approves the S3 priorities
S3 roadmaps
Time-based chart comprising a number of layers including the evolution of specific targets (products and technologies), implementation stages and required policy steps, and portraying linkages between the layers.
Etapas Idėja Kas, ką darys ir kam to reikia?
Koncepcija Ar tai veikia bandymų metu?
Eksperimentinė gamyba Ar tai naudinga ir
parduodama?
Įdiegimas rinkoje Kas bus gaminama?
Produktai
Technologijos
MTEP (tematikos)
„Kietoji“ ir „minkštoji“ infrastruktūra
MTEPI ir
studijų politikos instrumentai (priemonės)
Kitos sėkmės prielaidos (priemonės)
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Laikas 2022
Klasterio X įveiklinimas
Y laboratorija
Z eksperimentinės gamybos centras
Produktas A Produktas B
Xx laboratorija/-os versle
Produktas C
A patentas
B patentas
A tyrimai
B tyrimai
A tyrimai
B tyrimai
Pvz., Subsidijos arba krepšeliai
įžvalgoms, galimybių studijoms
Priemonė z
Priemonė x
Pvz., iki-prekybiniai viešieji pirkimai
Priemonė v
Pvz., Studijų programų xx rengimas Pvz, Parama prekės ženklo kūrimui
Priemonė k Priemonė g
A technologijos
prototipas
B tech. prototipas
Priemonė y
Stage Idea
w
Concept
(does it work?)
w
Development (can it
be commercialised?)
w
Introduction to the
market
w Product A Product B
Product C
Patent A
Research A
Research B
Patent B
Research A
Technology
prototype A
Prototype B
Research B
Cluster X X business laboratories
Y public laboratories
Z experimental development lab
Measure z
Measure X Measure y
Public pre-commercial procurement
Subsidies or vouchers for
foresight, feasibility studies
X higher education programmes Support for brand development
Measure k Measure g
Products
Technologies
R&D
„Hard“ and
„soft“
infrastructure
R&D and
innovation
policy
instruments
Other success
preconditions
Measure w
1. Orientation towards results – staged approach.
2. Different maturity of priorities.
3. Empowering users.
4. Continuous discovery/ search.
5. Monitoring system.
‘Competence stairway’ and the different needs of existing and potential innovators
Mature innovators
Emerging / new innovators
Generally R&D-based large, long time in the market, high tech, export oriented, well developed networks.
Potential innovators
Generally young and small companies, export oriented, fast growing (incl. university spin-offs
Technology consumers
Generally large manufacturing companies or services providers in the traditional facing the loss of competitiveness
What type of companies dominate the specific S3 priority?
Manufacturing companies and services providers (including public sector) that lack modern technological and managerial capacity and productivity.
Challenges Modernisation and strengthening of technology and absorptive capacities (including the human resources).
Diversification and technology transfer, new innovative activities and new business models.
Acceleration of innovative activities, including spin-off creation, attraction of risk capital and other financial resources (incl. FDI) to increase the critical mass, strengthening of capacities (including R&D infrastructure).
Moving to higher impact innovations, large scale R&D projects, new international markets, spin-outs.
Needs (what should the specific policy mix focus on?)
Demand-side incentives Capacity development
Incentives for transformation support for experimentation, innovation support services, R&D subcontracts fostering linkages
Start-up acceleration, R&D infrastructure and various ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ innovation support services
Large joint R&D projects, Horizon 2020 and other international initiatives, export support. Promotion of technology diffusion
Horizontal pre-conditions and related policy interventions
Ensuring availability of high quality specialists (including upgrading higher education programmes). Clusterisation and networking promotion. Support for experimentation and foresight. Favourable framework conditions (entrepreneurship policies, flexible labour market, tax policy, R&I regulations, talent attraction policies, standardisation, favourable conditions for research careers, etc.)
THE COMPETENCE STAIRWAY
Logic of appropriateness vs logic of consequentiality
1. ‘The methodological group’ (analysts, coordinators, facilitators)
2. ‘The experts’ ‘Me and my money’ (difficulties in killing
unpromising priorities and prioritizing policy measures)
3. ‘The policy makers’ ‘We know it better’ (overall lack of strategic
intelligence and knowledge on ‘what works in the NIS and why’)
4. ‘The SF people’ ‘Don’t create threats for smooth SF
administration’:
• Horizontal priorities pose a threat to smooth administration of funds since it requires additional resources to monitor and evaluate the progress, and to evaluate the applications.
• The suggested ‘stage-gate’ monitoring and funding approach requires additional programme management and intelligence resources.
• Entrepreneurial discovery implies that it is a continuous process. This goes counter to the logic of programming SF.
• The main challenge relates to the idea that S3 should focus on new activities and encourage experimentation and risk-taking. Challenges the current SF monitoring framework that is supposed to monitor (and help accounting for) outputs and results.
Conclusions
Lessons:
• Substantial efforts (scoping - stage 0) in creating the consensus on abandoning the sectoral approach and installing the results orientation dimension paid off.
• ‘Poisonous SF support’:
a) Rushing the Stage 2 – ‘we need to deliver S3 to the Commission asap!“
b) Failure to identify the final decision makers – the ‘SF guys‘ stepped in ~ last stages of the process.
• ‘Regional FTA paradox’ – sophisticated bottom-up methodologies by themselves do not change the capabilities of actors involved. Substantial need tor top-down steering.
Remaining weaknesses (‘business as usual’ vs ‘strategic reshape’ and ‘delayed wake up call’ scenarios):
• Inertia in defining the policy mix, ignoring the different maturity of the priorities, which shut place the policy focus on ‘potential’ and ‘new’ innovators.
• Orchestration of policies affecting R&I performance.
• Lack of strategic intelligence and monitoring capacities and procedures.
• Effective programme management capabilities.
