Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Digital Transformation Monitor
Key lessons fromnational industry 4.0policy initiatives inEuropeMay 2017
Internal Market,Industry,Entrepreneurshipand SMEs
2
Key lessons from national
industry 4.0 policy
initiatives in Europe© momente/Shutterstock.com
Boosting Industry 4.0 for the EUeconomy
Advanced technologies are currentlyfueling the so-called "fourth industrialrevolution", with the potential oftransforming EU industries and creatingenormous growth of the Europeaneconomy. Rather than creating newindustries, the greatest digitalopportunity for Europe lies in thetransformation of existing industry andenterprises.1
The low adoption rate of digitaltechnologies in enterprises – over 41%of EU companies have yet to adopt any ofthe new advanced digital technologies2 –is just one example that enterprises arefacing challenges in the wake of thistransition.
However, a recent survey of EUbusinesses gives reason for hope: Itshows that 75% of respondents regarddigital technologies as an opportunity,while 64% of companies investing indigital technologies have generatedpositive results.3
National I4.0 policies in Europe
In response to the challenges, most of theEU governments have made I4.0 apriority adopting large-scale I4.0 policiesto increase productivity andcompetitiveness and improve the high-tech skills of their workforce. Thepresent report explores the essentialcomponents of the national flagship I4.0policies of Spain, UK, France, Italy,Germany, the Czech Republic, Swedenand the Netherlands.
Introduction
1
While often united in their goals, the I4.0policies differ in their policy design,funding approaches and implementationstrategies. Although national authoritiesare aware of the I4.0 policies of theirpeers, a more systematic cooperationand exchange of good practices ismissing.
Figure 1: Key facts of the national I4.0 policies
2015
2011
2012
2016
2013
Launch date
Industry & productionbase, SMEs & mid-caps
Manufacturers /producers, SMEs &
policy-makers
Large companies, SMEs,universities, research
centres
Industry, above all SMEs& micro-enterprises
Research, academia &industrial & service SMEs
Target audience
General businesscommunity
Business, industry &research organisations
Mixed
Mixed
Public
Mixed
Public
Mixed
Mixed
Approx. €10billion
€200 million
€45 million
€97.5 million
€50 million
€25 million
€164 million
2014
2012
Industry & service sectorcompanies, trade unions
Not yetdefined
Public2016
BudgetFunding
approach
Next to conducting a comparativeanalysis, the present report seeks topoint out key lessons learned fromindustry 4.0 policies with a view tofacilitate the exchange of good practicebetween EU Member States.
3
Key lessons from national industry 4.0 policy initiatives in Europe
Facilitating the cooperation betweenindustry, research and public authoritiesand/or between the regional andnational actors is a major theme.
In France, IdFA’s platform facilitates thecollaboration between public and privateindustry and technology stakeholders,whereas the German Industrie 4.0 allowspolicy-makers to push forwardleadership in I4.0 issues at allgovernance levels. The Italian CFI, on theother hand, integrates regional andnational I4.0 policies in line with EUguidelines.
Overarching policy frameworks
Industry 4.0 policies are all part of anoverarching framework or strategy,reflecting the priority status I4.0 enjoysin Europe. In particular, these widerframeworks or strategies lay out theoverall vision and approach of theresearch, innovation and industrialpolicies.
For example, the French Industrie duFuture (IdF) is linked to New IndustrialFrance (NFI), while the Italian IntelligentFactory Cluster (CFI) was drawn upagainst the Italian Innovation Roadmap,a 3much broader strategy relating to themega socio-economic challenges Italy isfacing, e.g. climate change, scarcity ofresources, demographic developments,etc.
The French and the Dutch cases identifyvery tangible reasons to launch theinitiatives. In France, significantunderinvestment and problems indeveloping competitive digital industrieswere the driving forces behind thepolicy. In the Netherlands, on thecontrary, it was the relatively low shareof employment linked to themanufacturing sector that led to thecreation of Smart Industry.
In some of the countries, the policyinitiative is a direct result of anoverarching national framework,strategy and/or agenda.
The German Industrie 4.0 started as oneof the10 future projects under the ActionPlan High-Tech Strategy 2020.
In the case of Spain, it was the digitalpart under the Agenda for Strengtheningthe Industrial Sector which graduallytransformed into Industria Conectada 4.0.
Meanwhile, HVMC in the UK shows howthe government acted on therecommendation of the policy strategy toset up a series of technology centres indifferent industries.
Key characteristicsof national Industry4.0 policies
2
Objectives of analysed policies
Member States’ I4.0 policies show greatoverlaps in the objectives and targetsthey follow. The majority of policies aimat strengthening the respective country’sindustrial competitiveness andmodernisation and better ensuring thesustainable growth of the manufacturingsector. Regularly, economic objectivesare combined with social andenvironmental objectives.
Notwithstanding the common goals, thepolicies show some variation in howthese economic objectives are to beachieved. Most countries, above allGermany, focus on gaining higherproductivity and greater efficiency.
Delivering next-generation technologies(Italy, UK), developing new products andimproving industrial processes(Germany, Italy) providing support toSMES for innovation andcommercialisation (UK, France andSpain) also feature amongst the moreprominent goals.
Although Industry 4.0 policies often havecommon goals, they all possess elementsgiving each policy a unique touch. TheFrench and Spanish initiatives both takea market-based approach providingloans to companies participating in theprogramme.
In the case of Spain, the cost covered bythe loan depends on the action line andtype of company ranging between a costcoverage of 25% to 70%. The French IdFcombines a broad range of fundinginstruments, e.g. loans and tax incentiveswith private investments in R&D.
Sweden’s P2030 is driven and financedheavily by industry ensuring industrialimpact and long-term sustainability.Meanwhile, the unique element in the UKconcerns the provision of industrial scaletechnology and expertise to companiesto de-risk innovation through seventechnology centres.
Strategicfocus
Technology / sectorfocus
Figure 2: Strategic and technologyfocus
© vectorfusionart /Shutterstock.com
DeploymentCyber-Physical Systems,
IoT
GenericDeployment
Deployment Generic
MixedDigital platforms,
Big data, Collaborativeapplications
Aerospace, Automotive,Chemicals,
Nuclear, Pharma,Electronics
Deployment
R&D Generic
GenericDeployment
Transport, IoT, artificialintelligence, Big data,
HPC, Digital trust,healthcare, smart cities
Deployment
4
Increased sustainability of production isa common impact area targeted by theSwedish and Italian initiatives.Meanwhile, Spain seeks to provideinformation and implementation supportto companies to better exploit theopportunities provided by Industry 4.0.In the Netherlands, more flexibility inproduction volume, efficiency, costs andmeeting customer needs are the mainexpected impacts.
Sources of funding
While the major national I4.0 policiessignificantly rely on public funding,complementary private investments arealso important with the leverage effectbeing considerable.
However, the volume of the multiplyingleverage effect on investment among theexamined initiatives is subject to largedifferences. Similarly, the measuresadopted by the initiatives to ensureprivate investments vary in terms of typeof action and comprehensiveness.
Key lessons from national industry 4.0 policy initiatives in Europe
Focus and impact areas
Although all the examined policiesinvolve conducting research on Industry4.0 topics, priority is given toaccelerating the deployment andapplication of I4.0 technologies. Only theItalian CFI has a stronger focus onresearch, notably on the development ofnew technologies to meet the challengesof manufacturing innovation.
Furthermore, there is no cleartechnology or sectoral focus of theexamined national policies. WhileInternet of Things (IoT) / Cyber-physicalSystems (CPS) are the most commontechnology focus areas, they are onlyspecifically targeted by the German andFrench policies. At sectoral level, clearpatterns are non-existent. What thisshows is that the national flagshipinitiatives in I4.0 tend to be relativelyopen with regard to the application ofspecific technology or sectoral areas.
Figure 3: Public and private investments
What is more, information on theexpected private leverage is not equallyavailable for all the initiatives,hampering meaningful comparisonbetween the policies.
The HVMC in the United Kingdomunderwent a comprehensive assessmentof the leverage effect on publicinvestment. With a leverage of 17:1, theHVMC exceeds the leverage of any otherinitiative by more than threefold. To agreat extent, this success can beattributed to the significant amounts ofcommercial income the HVMC has beenable to secure through competitive R&Dcontracts.
Despite the difficulties to assess thesuccess of the initiatives in boostingprivate industry investments, it isevident that the scope of the measurestaken vary. L’Industrie du Futur (IdF)and the High-Value ManufacturingCatapult (HVMC) have put in place themost encompassing measures. IdFprovides tax incentives for private R&Dinvestments. Moreover, HVMC providesstrategic engagement with key industrialpartners and dedicated support schemesfor SME engagement.
While mechanisms are indeed put inplace to better ensure privateinvestments – i.e. the encouragement orrequirement of private investments –the national initiatives would benefitfrom a more rigorous integration ofprivate investment considerations intothe policy design.
© alphaspirit/Shutterstock.com
5
Results and outcomes
The national I4.0 policies in Europe haveproduced tangible qualitative andquantitative outputs. Tangiblequantitative results and outcomes are –at this point in time – provided by half ofthe examined policies, notably in the caseof France, the Netherlands, Sweden andthe United Kingdom.
Within IdF in France, more than 800company loans and 3400 diagnoses havebeen realised, whereas the SwedishP2030 funded 30 projects withparticipation of over 150 businesses.Meanwhile, for the German I4.0initiative, qualitative results stand-out,such as reduced industry segregation,the transformation of research intopractical applications and the creation ofthe platform’s reference architecturewith 150 members.
Regardless of the significant resultsachieved, the lack of established clear
targets – annually or multi-annually –often means that it is unclear whetherthe policy objectives have been met.
The British HVMC is once again anexception, since the initiative has set upclear targets and monitoring andevaluation cycles. The results from thecomprehensive evaluation study showthat the value of innovation workrepresented 123% of the original targetin 2013-2015.4 This indicates that thedemand for services and supportexceeds initial expectations by far.
Implementation and governanceapproach
Next to overarching strategies orroadmaps defining the objectives andmain action steps, the use of call forproposals, working groups, in-depthstakeholder consultations and steeringcommittees is wide spread. In someinitiatives, supplementary initiativeswere deployed for coordinatedimplementation.
Key lessons from national industry 4.0 policy initiatives in Europe
Country Title Budget Results achieved
FranceAlliance pour
l'Industrie du Futur
Approx. 10 billion of public funding
and industry contributions
> 800 loans to companies; 3400 company
assessments for modernising production,
>300 experts identified; involvement of 18
regions
GermanyPlattform Industrie
4.0
€200 million complemented by
financial and in-kind contributions
from industry
Reducing industry segregation;
transforming research agenda into practice,
developing reference architecture & launch
of platform with 150 members
Netherlands Smart Industry
Around €25 million for 2014-2017
period complemented by co-
financing by industry
Setting up 14 field labs by the end of 2016:
each field lab has a turnover of €250.000 to
€4 million annually.
Sweden Produktion 2030
€25 million offered by VINNOVA for
2013-2018 period and approx. €25
million from industry
Funded 30 projects, involved over 150
businesses, set up a PhD school and
obtained 50% industry co-financing for
every activity and instrument
ItalyIntelligent Factory
Cluster (CFI)
€45 million based on €34 million in
public funding and €11 million in
private funding
Creating a platform and manufacturing
community and implementing four priority
research projects
SpainConnected Industry
4.0
€97.5 million for project calls for
2016; €78 million from additional
related programmes
Set-up of innovation and research
programme in June 2016 and pilot of
enterprise support programme
United KingdomHVM Catapult
(HVMC)
€164 million in public funds for
2012–2018; for 2015/16: €79.7
million commercial income; €61.3
million public; collaborative R&D
€62 million
Value of innovation work represented
123% of the target; Every €1 of public
funding generated €17
Czech Republic Průmysl 4.0 NA NA
Figure 4: Results/outcomes vs. budget
In order to finalise the policy design andstart the roll out, stakeholderconsultations and call for proposals areheavily relied on. In Spain, stakeholderconsultations were particularlycomprehensive. During a process ofalmost 5 months, CI 4.0 held a series ofworkshops and meetings involving alltypes of stakeholders. In addition, threelarge industry partners – Santander,Indra and Telefonica – helped to set upthe strategy and governance model.
In Sweden, the use of expert groupscontributed to developing new content land input for open calls, as well asdrawing up visions and propose newinitiatives. For strategic reasons, theseexpert groups are led by one or twoyoung academic researchers. Thissupports long-term collaboration, sinceit provides the young academic leaders,who are likely to become institute ordepartment directors, with links toindustry.
6
Key lessons from national industry 4.0 policy initiatives in Europe
Policy dimensions
In terms of the first policy dimension,financing, the majority of the nationalI4.0 initiatives examined are primarilyfinanced through public means.However, private sector co-financing hasplayed a part.
Examples of best practices
Learning fromnational I4.0policies
What this means is that while otherstakeholders have been consulted andplayed a part in the implementation ofthe policies, the relevant nationalgovernments are in the driver seat.
A notable exception is Sweden’sProduktion 2030 programme – whereindustry, academia and research groupshave responsibility for the design andoperation of the initiative, on top ofsignificant industrial co-financing.
The Dutch Smart Industry (SI) is anotherexception. SI is grounded on the TripleHelix principle and bottom-upapproaches, with involvement ofindustry, universities and researchpartners and the public sector in theagenda setting and the execution of coreactivities.
Secondly, national Industry 4.0initiatives tend to focus on technologyand infrastructure, with skillsdevelopment as a secondary goal. Anotable exception is Sweden’sProduktion 2030 programme – whichincludes a National Graduate School inProduction.
Apart from Sweden, Průmysl 4.0 in theCzech Republic equally shows a greaterorientation on skills for manufacturing,in particular in terms of digital skills.
In terms of the third policy dimension,governance and implementation, most ofthe national I4.0 policies examinedessentially adopted a top-downapproach to designing, initiating andimplementing the initiatives.
3
Figure 5: Policy dimensions
7
Key lessons from national industry 4.0 policy initiatives in Europe
Industryinvolvement
/ demand
Collaborationbetweendifferent
actors
Regionalauthorities
Publicfunding /initiation
Figure 6: Driving factors behind I4.0 policiesDriving factors of I4.0 policies
Collaboration between different actors isa common driving force among thenational I4.0 policies examined. Whilethe majority of this collaborations isbetween different actors and acrossvarious governance levels, the HVMC hasset up an effective mechanism tofacilitate cross-centre collaboration:Catapult’s cross-centre forums. In theseforums, representatives from all thecentres collaborate to identifytechnology challenges and opportunitiesthat can be addressed by leveraging thecombined capability of the HVMCcentres. In addition, there is a dedicatedbudget to support cross-centretechnology projects.
In general, the participation of diverseactors is a defining strength of thenational I4.0 policies. The collaborationwith industry actors/stakeholders ismost frequently cited as a driving forceby the implementing authorities. Insome cases, industry proactivelyencouraged the creation of theinitiatives – for example, in theNetherlands and in France – giving theinitiatives additional impetus.
The involvement of regional authoritieswhich are engaged in adopting I4.0strategies at regional level – often in theframework of smart specialisationstrategies – regularly allowed forgreater policy alignment between thenational and regional level.
Last but not least, the initiative of publicauthorities in pushing forward the I4.0policies is also among the key drivers.The public impetus can be particularlyuseful when industries are toosegregated or fragmented to reachconsensus among industry actors. Theexample of Industrie 4.0 in Germanyshows how a large I4.0 platform canreduce industry segregation andimprove networking.
© SasinTipchai/Shutterstock.com
8
Key lessons from national industry 4.0 policy initiatives in Europe
Involving awide range
ofstakeholder
groups
Lack ofcapacity
EngagingSMEs
Lack offunding
Balancingdiverse
interests andcompetences
Figure 7: Barriers facing I4.0 policiesBarriers facing I4.0 policies
No particular barrier stands out as acommon denominator for the nationalI4.0 policies examined. Instead, a rangeof different aspects arise. Resourcedeficiencies and effective engagement ofSMEs have challenged theimplementation of the initiatives. Likeany other large-scale policy project,initial public funding is crucial for I4.0policies to pick up speed and build upthe capacities needed for effectiveprogramme operations.
¨In the Netherlands, a reduction inallocated resources calls into questionwhether a programme office of sevenpart-time workers can create enoughimpact to live up to the ambitiousobjectives of the initiative. In the CzechRepublic negotiations over the budgetallocation are still ongoing.
The capacity bottlenecks of HVMC, onthe other hand, were overcome thanksto the responsiveness of the UKgovernment to increase funding.Furthermore, effective SME engagementhas been challenging for both HVMC andP2030 in Sweden. One well-known issueconcerns the limited capacities of SMEsto fully participate in the often resourceintensive engagement.
In response to this challenge, adedicated SME engagement programme– HVM REACH - was established withinHVMC. In Sweden, experience has shownthat while large companies are oftenfamiliar with the process of obtainingfinancing, SMEs need more support onapplying for funding.
I4.0 policies from a SWOT perspective
The results of the SWOT analysis of theexamined national I4.0 initiatives showlow degrees of convergence. With regardto the main strengths identified, theapplied support to companies, thealignment of different policy governancelevels as well as industry co-financingemerge as core aspects.
On the contrary, the main weaknessesidentified are closely related to thebarriers. Limited funding, lackingcapacities, weak planning and monitormechanisms and challenges to engageSMEs in the programmes define the keyweaknesses of the examined I4.0policies. In France, there are doubts overthe ability to measure in a robust waythe policy’s achievements. The Spanishinitiative, at present, lacks the definitionof clear targets and milestones.
Meanwhile, I4.0 policy opportunitiesmainly reflect on the potential forscalability and transferability, and thenew market and internationalcooperation opportunities. In Sweden,the potential for upscaling theproduction school at Nordic levelprovides new opportunities. Meanwhile,in Italy, the announcement of a brandnew Industry 4.0 funding instrumentwill open up new opportunities forcompanies.
On the threats side, the insufficientscale-up and imbalances betweengovernance levels and differentindustrial and sectoral interests standout. Unusually, the HVMC is strugglingto maintain its balanced funding model,as profits have by far exceededexpectations. The balanced fundingmodel is important to ensure the rightbalance between encouraging risk-taking and stimulating innovation inareas that benefit industry.
© KAMONRAT/Shutterstock.com © KAMONRAT/Shutterstock.com
9
Policy-relevantconclusions
1 Strategic Policy Forum on Digital Entrepreneurship(2016). Accelerating the digital transformation ofEuropean industry and enterprises. Available at:http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/15856/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native2 ibid.3 Digital Transformation Scoreboard 2017: Evidenceof positive outcomes and current opportunities forEU businesses. Available at:http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/21501/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf4 Warwick Economics & Development (2015) HighValue Manufacturing Catapult - Pathways to Impact.
References
A primary lesson learned from HVMCemphasises the value of “late-phase”innovation for economic growth. This iswhere industrial scale technology canserve as a success factor. Moreover, theemployment of around 2000 workers bythe centres composed of engineers andscientists gives the initiative a realcritical mass to develop a community ofexperts in the UK. Finally, the balancedfunding model decreased the risk of theoperation to realise a long termcommitment to improve innovation.
Cross-cutting issues for effective I4.0policies
In the course of the comparative policyanalysis, the following cross-cuttingissues are recurrent:
• I4.0 policies greatly benefit fromsetting up clear objectives withmeasurable targets / milestonessupported by qualitative andquantitative indictors, as well asrigorous monitoring and evaluationmechanisms.
• While public funding is essential,private co-financing of I4.0 policies isalso very important. Therefore,policy-makers should foreseemeasures to ensure private financing– in voluntary or mandatory form.Similarly, the leverage effect of publicinvestments that can elevate theimpact of policies should beconsidered to overcome thechallenges to monetise R&Doutcomes in viable EU commercialapplications. A higher degree of co-financing from industry actors isdesirable to increase thesustainability of the initiatives.
• Industry driven approaches (orbottom-up participation) – instead ofapplying a top-down governanceapproach – giving a greater say toinvolved stakeholders – can betterensure the more active involvementof industry stakeholders.
• More innovative and close-to-marketfunding instruments, e.g. businessloans and tax incentives should alsobe considered.
• Effective engagement of SMEs oftenrequires a more customisedapproach, i.e. the provision of specificfunding instruments.
• Slow implementation speed ofprojects can reduce the chances toachieve critical mass,
4
• The trend is to create large, multi-stakeholder platforms, but most ofthe initiatives examined are moreoriented towards increasingtechnological deployment or uptake,i.e. support programmes closelyaligned to the digital transformationneeds of companies.
A need for coordination at EU-level
Given the enormous potential ofIndustry 4.0 policies, it is essential thatEurope leverages its combined know-how to fully exploit the benefits ofadvanced technologies. While EUfunding on topics of I4.0 is providedthrough several research programmes,better coordination at EU level ofnational policy efforts allowing foreffective knowledge and best practicesharing seems indispensable.
A first step in this direction would be tocreate a forum to ensure that valuablepolicy lessons are identified, collectedand disseminated across Member Statesand industries. In a second step, anonline inventory of available Industry4.0 and digital transformation policiescould help ensure that targetedbeneficiaries are aware of the entire setof measures and funding instrumentsavailable in Europe – beyond thenational flagship initiatives.
Key policy lessons learned
The policy lessons learned from thenational Industry 4.0 initiativesexamined show minor commonalities.The French IdF integrated lessonslearned from the precedent NFI into itspolicy design. Above all, this concernsthe network structure of the IdFAplatform – involving industry,technology and research stakeholders aswell as trade unions – which isconsidered critical for the policy’ssuccess. In addition, a perceived gap tocover digital solutions was closed byinvolving digital stakeholders in theproject implementation.
In Sweden, the focus areas of EFFRA – aswell as ideas and concepts from theFinnish SHOK programme – inspired theprogramme’s set-up. However, theSwedish authorities developed a morebottom-up model driven essentially byindustry and research stakeholders.
In Germany, lessons learned from thepolicy includes experience to extend thenetwork and common norms andstandards of network members, with aview to reduce competition. A secondlesson included the need to providetargeted funding instruments as well astestbeds to engage SMEs moreeffectively. Targeted approaches forSMEs also included specialised supportin integrating SMEs into I4.0 and globalvalue chains, since SMEs are often lessprepared for technological adjustment,due to a lack of specialist staff orunfamiliarity with new technologies.
The regional focus and field labapproach provided interestingperspectives in the Netherlands. Theclose proximity between companies andfield labs and the operation of field labsin different regions underlined theemphasis on facilitating access toknowledge.
The lesson learned from the Italian CFIconcerns the strategic role of clusters todefine industrial policy. Since industrialpolicy is highly fragmented in Europe –compared to the U.S. and China – aspecialised cluster can serve to informpolicy-makers on more technical policyneeds.
Key lessons from national industry 4.0 policy initiatives in Europe
10
Key lessons from national industry 4.0 policy initiatives in Europe
5
Country Title Focus ObjectivesTarget
audience
Funding model
/ private
financing
Budget Results achieved
France
Alliancepourl'Industrie duFutur
SME diagnosticsandmodernisationincentives;Development ofthe nationaloffering;Showcase pilotprojects;Development ofadvancedmanufacturingtechniques
To modernise theFrenchproduction baseand productiontools and supportthe use andintegration ofdigitaltechnologies totransformcompanies andbusiness models;to create newsources ofgrowth and jobs
Frenchindustryandproductionbase and inparticularSMEs andmid-caps
Mixing publicfundinginstruments asloans and taxincentiveswith privateinvestments inR&D andproductionlines; aprivateleverage effectof five times isexpected
Approx. 10billion frompublicsources,including IftFfunding from2017onwards,supported byprivatefunding
Provided loansto over 800companies,supported 3400companies witha diagnosis formodernisingproduction,identified over300 experts andinvolved 18regions in theprocess
Germany
PlattformIndustrie4.0
Technologicalinnovation basedon the mainpillars such ashorizontalintegration alongvalue networks,end-to-endengineering,verticalintegrationincludingsecurity aspectsand consideringnew ways ofworking andeducation.
To drive digitalmanufacturingforward byincreasingdigitisation andtheinterconnectionof products, valuechains andbusiness models;to supportresearch, thenetworking ofindustry partnersandstandardisation.
Producers,SMEs andpolicy-makers
Mixing publicfunding withprivatefinancial andin-kindcontributions;offeringbetween a 2:1or 5:1 ratiobetweenprivate topublicinvestment
€200 millionfrom BMBFand BMWI,complemented by financialand in-kindcontributionsfromindustry
Reducingindustrysegregation,transformingresearch agendainto practice,developingreferencearchitecture andlaunch ofplatform with150 members
Netherlands
SmartIndustry Acceleration of the
introduction of
ICT in
manufacturing
and adaption of
business value
chains;
Capitalising on
existing
knowledge
To ensure theDutch industry isprepared for thetechnologicalchanges ahead.
Business
community
in general,
specific focus
on high-tech
industry,
chemical,
agro-food
and logistic
sectors
Combining
public funding
from state and
European
regional
development
budgets with
financial
support and in-
kind
contributions
from industry
Around €25
million for
2014-2017
period
complemente
d by co-
financing from
industry
Setting up 10
fields that will be
extended by 14
field labs by the
end of 2016: each
field lab has a
turnover between
€250.00 to €4
million on a
yearly basis
SwedenProduktio
n 2030
Develop
leadership and
skills in
sustainable
production
To ensure that by
2030 Sweden is
the primary
choice for
sustainable
production
Research
institutes,
universities
and
companies /
SMEs from
industry and
service fields
Public funding
and co-
financing from
industry -
typically
required to
finance around
50% of project
costs in
research
projects
€25 million
offered by
VINNOVA for
2013-2018
period,
complemente
d by approx.
€25 million
from industry
Funded 30
projects, involved
over 150
businesses, set up
a PhD school and
obtained 50%
industry co-
financing for
every activity and
instrument
Annexes
Annex I - Overview of examined I4.0 policies
11
Key lessons from national industry 4.0 policy initiatives in Europe
Country Title Focus ObjectivesTarget
audience
Funding
model /
private
financing
Budget Results achieved
Italy
Intelligent
Factory
Cluster
(CFI)
Focus on the
research
topics for new
sector and products
development
(sustainable
manufacturing,
adaptive
manufacturing,
smart
manufacturing and
high performance
manufacturing);
Support technology
transfer, knowledge
and infrastructure
sharing.
To propose,
develop and
implement a
strategy based on
research and
innovation, able
to direct the
transformation of
the Italian
manufacturing
sector towards
new products,
services,
processes and
technologies.
Organisation
s of the
intelligent
factory
ecosystem
incl. large
companies,
SMEs,
universities,
research
centres, etc.
Mainly
publicly
funded, yet
envisaged
process
towards equal
funding
model
€45 million
based on €34
million in public
funding and
€11 million in
private funding
Created a platform
and manufacturing
community, and
implemented four
priority research
projects
Spain
Connecte
d
Industry
4.0
Increase industrial
added value and
skilled employment
in the sector;
develop the local
supply of digital
solutions; develop
differential
competitive levers
to favour the
Spanish industry
and boost exports.
Industry
upgrading for
economic
sustainability;
Manufacturing
efficiency for
environmental
sustainability;
Quality
employment for
social
sustainability
Enterprises
with
industrial
activity, in
particular
SMEs and
micro-
enterprises
Public-private
partnerships,
Loan and
direct aid
based system
to ensure
participation
of the private
sector with
expected
leverage
effect of 1:2
€97.5 million in
connected
industry project
calls for 2016;
related
programmes
provide
additional €68
million (loans
and direct aid)
for ICT
companies and
€10 million for
innovative
clusters
Set-up of
innovation and
research
programme in June
2016 and pilot an
enterprise support
programme
United
Kingdom
HVM
Catapult
(HVMC)
Support businesses
in the field of high
value
manufacturing. i.e. a
high level of R&D
intensity, leading to
significant growth
Drive growth of
manufacturing
within UK
Business,
industry and
research
organisations
Funded to
equal terms
by public,
business and
joint public-
private
funding;
share of
commercial
income 40%
in 2015/2016
financial year
€164 million
invested by UK
Government
over 2012 –
2018 period; for
2015/16:€79.7
million
commercial
income was
obtained
against €61.3
million public
funding;
collaborative
R&D est. at €62
million
Value of innovation
work represented
123% of the target;
Every€1 of public
funding generated
€17
Czech
Republic
Průmysl
4.0
(Industry
4.0)
Skills and
technology focus
To adapt the
education system
and labour
market to the
needs of Industry
4.0 and
manufacturing
specific digital
skills
Business
associations,
businesses;
trade unions
Mainly driven
by the public;
funding
allocation still
unclear
N/A N/A
Annex I- Overview of examined I4.0 policies (cont.)
About the Digital Transformation MonitorThe Digital Transformation Monitor aims to foster the knowledge base on the state of play and evolution of digital transformation inEurope. The site provides a monitoring mechanism to examine key trends in digital transformation. It offers a unique insight intostatistics and initiatives to support digital transformation, as well as reports on key industrial and technological opportunities,challenges and policy initiatives related to digital transformation.
Web page: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/dem/
This report was prepared for the European Commission, Directorate-General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs;Directorate F: Innovation and Advanced Manufacturing; Unit F/3 KETs, Digital Manufacturing and Interoperability by the consortiumcomposed of PwC, CARSA, IDATE and ESN, under the contract Digital Entrepreneurship Monitor (EASME/COSME/2014/004)
Authors: Demetrius Klitou, Johannes Conrads & Morten Rasmussen, CARSA and Laurent Probst & Bertrand Pedersen, PwC
DISCLAIMER – The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and should not be considered as theofficial opinions or statements of the European Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included inthis publication. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use whichmight be made of the information contained in this publication. © 2017 – European Union. All rights reserved.