key lessons from national industry 4.0 policy initiatives ...€¦ · 2016 public budget funding...

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.


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.


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


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


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


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.


10


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


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.

key lessons from national industry 4.0 policy initiatives ...€¦ · 2016 public budget funding...

Documents