IST capabilities in EuropeFindings of the FISTERA project

Matthias Weber, Bernhard Dachs & Georg Zahradnik

ARC systems research A-2444 SeibersdorfAustria

Joint ITSTAR and FISTERA WorkshopPrague, 22 October 2004

Overview

• Trajectories of research centres in Europe• European specialisation in IST in terms of patenting

Research centres in IST in Europe

Background

Public research organisations (PROs):• Longer-term perspective on research topics• Ahead of industrial applications• Seek close ties to industry (researcher mobility, co-operation,

addressing industry needs)• A main instruments of national RTD policy

Key questions:• To what extent are the expected future technology trajectories

already reflected in current research agendas? • Where are the “blind spots” as compared to the emerging

technology trajectories of TILab?

Selection of sample

• Criteria for selection:– Most active PROs in FWP5 (4 out of the 10 most active)– Geographical coverage: small countries represented – VTT,

FORTH, NMRC– Existence of an explicit and transparent research strategy

• Coverage:– Sample represents about 4% of total ICT research expenditures or

corresponds to about 20% of public IST research expenditure in Europe (~ 9000 permanent staff and est. budget of almost 1 Bn €/a)

• Data:– Publicly available information is rather patchy and differs in quality

among PROs– Personnel and expenditures as main indicators of specialisation– Sources: annual reports and web-data– Are being further complemented by targeted inquiries

List of PROs selected

Permanent Staff (2002)

Budget (Mio €, 2002)

Market income in % of total budget

INRIA 900 120 25% (?)

IMEC 891 145 76,6%

CEA LETI 820 136 65%

TNO (IST activities) 345 48 80%

NMRC 260 14 72,2%

FhG IuK 3,000 190…250 65%

FhG Microelectronics 1,550 168 75%

FORTH ICS 186 (2000) 11,2 ?

VTT IT 450 37 68%

VTT Electronics 255 21 67,1%

Selected centres: LETI (F)

• Mission: ”mastering critical micro and nanotechnologies several years ahead of market requirements”

• Permanent Staff: 820, 130 industrial partners• Six fields of research activities:

– Microsystems– Optical components and multimedia– Data transmission systems and telecommunications– Systems for biology and healthcare– Systems design

• Priorities are Microsystems, Microelectonics and Telecommunications

• Highlighted project: Nanotech 300 (45nm and 32 nm CMOS technology)

Selected centres: NMRC (IL)

• Mission „focused on strategic applied research, which a strong emphasis on supporting industry“

• Staff: 260 (permanent + Post-Docs)• four fields of research activities

– Microelectronics– Photonics– Nanotechnology– ICT / Bio research

• Priorities (according to size of research groups): systems integration and photonics

Selected centres: IMEC (B)

• Mission: ”scientific research that runs 3 to 10 years ahead of industrial needs”

• Permanent Staff: 890, 380 guest researchers• Five fields of research activities

– CMOS/Nanotechnolgies– Communications– Body-worn sensors networks– Efficient Power– Photovoltaics

• Priorities are CMOS/Nanoelectronics, Communications• Highlighted projects: deep-submicron CMOS and

applications that make up the intelligent environment

Research strategy development: the example of IMEC

• IMEC derived its priorities from a number of identified strategic drivers of future developments in IST:– roadmaps of CMOS/nanotech => CMOS research– scenarios of intelligent environment => ubiquitous comp.– scenarios of strongly miniaturized, interactive and

autonomous sensors => body-worn networks– derived future energy demands = > efficient power and

solar cells

• A similarly transparent and explicit scenario- and roadmap-based approach for defining priorities has not been found in any other PRO

Research trajectories

Comparing TILAB`s technology classification with the priorities of the PROs, we find:– R&D Priorities are defined at the level of technologies, not

at the ambients or services level (exception: IMEC)– There is a clear focus on microelectronics, systems

integration and telecommunication– Device technologies (PDAs, PCs) hardly covered = > too

near to market?– Software only in specialized PRO, no PRO that develops

both hard- and software (although important in systems integration)

– Quite a lot data processing technologies (!) – a success of RTD policy of the 90ies?

Conclusions I

• Focus on longer-term research themes (4-10 years ahead) ...

• …but only little work being done on „visionary“ technologies as identified by TILab, esp. where IST meets biotech

• Convergence is only an issue in the context of specific application areas (medical devices and diagnostics). Molecular computing, bio-printers or wetware seem to be too far ahead.

• Little evidence of explicit strategic orientation of research (priorities seem rather historically bound and mirror today’s specialisation)

• We observe a different degree of concentration: small PROs like NMRC and IMEC have to focus on a limited range of topics, while Fraunhofer covers nearly all fields.

Technological specialisation

Background

• Triadic patents of the OECD by applications• Allows well-balanced international comparison by world

regions• Possibility to look at specific technologies as defined IPC• Analysis in terms of time series of shares and revealed

technological advantage (RTA)• Differentiation by applications and inventors

Annual patent applications in Information Society Technologies, 1984-1998

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

An

nua

l num

be

r IS

T p

ate

nt

ap

plic

atio

ns EU US Japan other countries

Source: OECD, Triadic Patent Families Database, own calculations

Europe’s specialisation in IST patents; RTA 1996-98

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Printers

applications of processing

Generic processing

Storage

Sensors

Batteries

solar cells/optical sensors

Visualisation

Encryption

opitcal comm.

data comm.

Microprocessors

wireless comm.

Positioning

teleponic comm.

wired comm.

generic communciation

Revealed Technological Advantage

Development of RTA, 1984-1998

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Rev

eale

d T

echn

olo

gy

Ad

van

tage

Microprocessors Visualisation Storage

Communication Sensors

Europe’s patent portfolio: share of different technologies on all Europ. patents, 1996-98

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

shar

e of

all

Eur

opea

n IS

T p

aten

t app

licat

ions

generic comm technologies wireless communication optical communication data communication Microprocessors

applications of processing Visualisation Sensors Storage

Difference between applications and inventions of patents in IST, 1984-1998

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

-

100

200

300

400

500

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ap

plic

atio

ns

min

us

inve

ntio

ns

EU USA Japan

Location of inventors of patents applied for by Europe’s leading IST enterprises

Home country

Home country

Home country

Home country

Home country

Home country

Home country

Home country

US

US

US

US

US

US

US

US

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Nokia

Infineon

Ericsson

Bull

Philips

Siemens

STMicroelectronics

Thomson

share of inventions

Home country Germany United Kingdom France US others

Conclusions II

• Europe‘s technological position in IST is to a large extent determined by– Long-standing historical specialisation patterns– The overall growth of IST

• Catching-up process can be observed in aggregate terms as well as in some technological areas

• The research base (i.e. inventors) is still performing significantly better than commercialisation (i.e. applications)

• IST companies are diversifying their research locations, thus opening up opportunities for NMS

• „Visionary“ developments and opportunities are not the focus of leading research institutions and represent a long-term opportunity for „newcomers“…

• … but requires a systematic approach to research strategy development

Next steps

• Further refinement of patent analysis at the level of individual technologies

• Targeted inquiries in selected countries and research organisations on human resources, research actors and technological strengths– Strategy development in PROs– Questionnaire on the current developments in the NMS