TRIPLE HELIX noms.pmd

W-22Developing an Applied R&D unit in a small HE InstitutionJames G Ryan, Aidan Kennedy, Circa Group Europe, IrelandMany countries are engaged in creation of a knowledge economy. One requirement is to create an environment for support ofR&D activity within enterprises, and also greater interactivity between enterprises and sources of technology. Providing accessto such sources for firms in more remote areas can be a challenge. This paper presents Ireland's experience in developingapplied R&D centres within Institutes of Technology (IoTs). These institutes provide degree and diploma level training for 90,000students annually, and many also undertake R&D activity albeit at a relatively small scale. In 2006 they jointly received •25.7m in R&D funding, which was 5.5 % of total public R&D funding for the Higher Education (HE) sector in that year. Theseinstitutions have certain advantages in enterprise development including (a) they tend to have strong links with local industry asa result of a successful history of industrial training at all levels from operatives to degree-holders, and (b) most are located inareas where industrial firms have no other sources of R&D competence (e.g. Universities) nearby. Ireland's policy is to focus ondevelopment of R&D competence in the HE sector as a means of enhancing national RTD competence and enterprise support.The Applied Research Enhancement (ARE) Programme was established by Enterprise Ireland to make applied expertise withinthe IoTs available to local industry. It funds 3 establishment of applied R&D centres (•5m over 5 years) which engage in R&D ofindustrial relevance, guided by an industry-representative Steering committee created for each centre. In 2008 CIRCA evaluated10 ARE centres for Enterprise Ireland. This paper presents some of the major findings with an emphasis on those most likely tohave lessons for other countries.The evaluation showed that success of ARE centres is mainly affected by the following inter-related issues:Financial Sustainability: Because of the perceived opportunity to earn sustainable client income, ARE funding is provided on a5-year non-renewable basis. While some centres developed a useful client base, most did not have sufficient expertise ortechnology to attract major client funding. Their main source of R&D funding is therefore from national agencies. The tendencyhas therefore been for the ARE centre researchers to apply for small-scale R&D projects from a range of basic & appliedsources, which has the effect of diluting their technology focus.Administrative Compatibility. R&D is a small activity within almost all IoTs and their accounting systems are designed for aneducational institute. The ability of the central administration to deal with the accounting, human resource and travel needs ofan R&D activity proved very challenging in certain centres. Institutional administrators were often unwilling to modify theirsystems to accommodate a small proportion of staff. Some centre Directors devoted a high proportion of their time to dealingwith internal procedures, with consequent loss of time for marketing or client service.Centre Director Expertise & Experience. Companies surveyed in the evaluation process emphasised that the Centre Directorsshould have an understanding of industry needs and practices. In almost all centres the Directors were industrially experiencedand were actively involved in contact with companies.Technology Sustainability: Centre viability is strongly determined by the relevance of its technology offering. Centres cannotcontinually offer novel technology or expertise without a continuing supply of new technologies. However, fulfilment of their rolerequired loss of technology. Creation of spin-off companies, or licensing, can divest a centre of its technology edge. Centresmust have some means of continually regenerating their technology offerings. A critical differentiation between centres wastherefore between those associated with a basic research activity within the host IoT, and those which were created as standaloneapplied centres. In certain institutes, centres of applied research were created ab initio to address perceived localtechnology needs. In several of these cases, there was littleForfás (2008), Higher Education R&D Survey 2006 - www.forfas.ie .see Ryan J, et al. (2008) Research Evaluation 17(4). pp 294-302.or no existing R&D activity within the host IoT before these centres were established. These centres found it difficult to survive.Technology Focus. A further critical difference between centres is in their definition of scope of expertise. Some chose broadtitles (National Design Centre; Marine BioTechnology Centre etc) while others were highly specific (Technologies for the marketingof Live Shellfish, Micro Sensors for Clinical Analysis). The latter centres had the significant advantage, for a small unit, ofbeing able to focus both their R&D, and their marketing on a narrow field. It also allowed the industry steering group to be moreeffective. Those centres with a widely-defined scope were, in practice, only active in a small part of field. By their own design,they had made themselves small fish in a big pond.On the other hand, the disadvantage of a narrow focus is that a centre can make itself redundant by its success. The centre forMadrid, October 20, 21 & 22 - 2010288