Written evidence submitted by LGC Ltd
(TIC 61)
LGC response to the inquiry examining the Fraunhofer
as a model for Technology Innovation Centres in this country and
its validity in improving commercialisation of research in the
UK.
1. What is the Fraunhofer model and would
it be applicable to the UK?
1.1 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft is the largest European
organisation for promoting and undertaking (mid-range) application-oriented,
fundamental and innovative research of international relevance.
1.2 This research is directed to be of practical
use to both the public and private sectors and wide benefit to
all aspects of society.
1.3 Established over 60 years ago, now more than
80 research units, including 59 Fraunhofer institutes representing
7 "technical macro application" groups, at different
locations throughout Germany.
1.4 It employs around 17,000 individuals, most
of whom are scientists and engineers.
1.5 Its (approx 60bn Euro) income is derived
from the public sector (approx. 40%) and through contract research
opportunities (approx. 60%).
1.6 It provides a repository of "know-how"
for companies that do not maintain their own R&D departments.
1.7 It provides a platform for personal and professional
skills development of relevance to itself as an organisation,
industry and others.
1.8 It operates through a Senate which dictates
strategy and a decision-making Executive Board assisted by a Scientific
and Technical Advisory Board.
1.9 It is unlikely that a straight adoption of
the Fraunhofer model, or indeed any other Fraunhofer-type models,
would be suitable for the UK innovation system as each model has
developed different approaches and adapted over time. The principle
of development and exploitation of scientific "know-how"
for delivering economic growth however cannot be in doubt.
1.10 The Fraunhofer model has been largely only
responsive to current traditional (not emerging) trends (typically
policy-driven) and has traditionally been slow-moving to change
due to its size and "top-down" management approach.
1.11 The UK failure to innovate rests predominantly
with the "translation" of its science base ideas into
commercial reality and with their "intellectual protection".
Whilst some organisations are positioned to address these innovation
issues, in many there remain difficulties in establishing successful
collaborations between the public and private sectors, largely
as a result of the differing objectives, timescales and management
systems. This is where the focus for any adopted/established model
for the UK needs to be directed.
2. Are there existing Fraunhofer-type research
centres within the UK, and if so, are they effective?
2.1 The UK has a diffuse/distributed innovation
system. The nearest centres to Fraunhofer centres probably lie
with the intermediate research and technology organisations (RTOs)
(as acknowledged by other global economies such as the United
States). However, the public sector research establishments (PSREs)
and centres such as the advanced manufacturing centre and integrated
knowledge centres (IKCs) bear some elements of similarity.
2.2 Turnover for the RTOs is approx. £3bn,
employing approx. 22,000 individuals, some 60% of which are research
scientists.
2.3 RTOs provide a highly skilled workforce and
bridge the "translation gap" between academia and public
and private sector end-users of technology, i.e. they span technology
readiness levels 3-7/8, particularly where there is market failure.
2.4 The majority of RTOs have a sectoral focus.
2.5 There exist both public and private sector-based
RTOs, the latter especially being independent, more market responsive
and less constrained strategically, and more competitive.
2.6 However, RTO sector coverage is patchy and
this may limit the ability to maintain delivery of their existing
portfolio and be able to fully address emerging industry needs
where the UK could potentially leverage a sustainable, competitive
advantage, globally.
3. What other models are there for research
centres oriented toward applications and results?
3.1 The Carnot Institutes, France; the Inter-University
Micro-Electronics Centre (IMEC), Belgium; the (joint Dutch-Flemish)
Holst Centre, Netherlands; the GTS Institutes, Denmark; the Industrial
Technology Research Institute (ITRI), Taiwan; the Electronics
and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), South Korea;
and the National Institute for Advanced Industrial Science and
Technology (AIST), Japan, all share the need to bridge technology
development and its commercialisation.
3.2 However, each national entity varies in its
age, size, policy drivers (and hence focus) and management approach.
3.3 The Carnot institutes were established recently
to address the country's weaknesses in collaboration within, and
between, sectors.
3.4 The IMEC strategy was established specifically
to address a relatively poor research establishment environment
and technology needs 3-10 years in the future. Efforts are directed
early in the lifecycle to maximise co-operative working and maximise
commercial benefit opportunities.
3.5 The recently established Holst Centre (part
of TNO but an IMEC/TNO collaboration) focuses on advanced micro-electronics.
Efforts are directed particularly at demonstrator level.
3.6 The GTS Institutes are a loose network of
nine organisations which are predominantly industry-funded. Whilst
they appear to benefit from shared experiences and easier collaboration,
they suffer from no unified governance system.
3.7 ITRI was established through the combination
of three existing research-oriented organisations. Growth has
been linked to the semi-conductor and display industries, but
its current (still relatively conservative) technology development
and industry service activities are far broader.
3.8 ETRI was established as a result of the consolidation
of two existing research institutes. Its focus is world leading
(human) information technology. It prides itself on creative management
through continuous change and innovation, but this has placed
itself in competition with the country's universities and too
far from market.
3.9 AIST was established through the amalgamation
of fifteen existing public research establishments. It remains
predominantly public-funded. It focuses on six research fields,
including (unlike most of the other Fraunhofer-type centres) life
sciences and biotechnology, and metrology and measurement science.
The research initiatives are "bottom-up" driven, time-limited
and flexible; they seek mid- to long-term continuity.
4. Whose role should it be to co-ordinate
research in the UK-wide network of innovation centres?
4.1 Government needs to set the over-arching
innovation framework and maintain sustained support.
4.2 The private sector needs to respond to the
set framework challenges and provide market pull.
4.3 The lead Government department should be
BIS, enabling delivery through its innovation-driven arms-length
body, the Technology Strategy Board.
4.4 An independent governance structure should
be required for each TIC but there needs to be strong oversight
of the TIC network co-ordination/alignment and prioritisation
of investment.
5. What effect would the introduction of Fraunhofer-type
institutes have on the work of Public Sector Research Establishments
and other existing research centres that undertake Government
sponsored research?
5.1 The effect will be dependent upon the type/mode
of innovation framework established.
5.2 There would be concern if there was duplication
or potential for competition with any existing establishments
or centres by the establishment of the "new" innovation
centres. In this context a "hub and spoke" model has
been muted, but the logistics of governance, strategy and financing
such a model would need careful consideration on a case-by-case
basis.
5.3 The establishment of any framework(s) of
collaboration of existing RTOs would appear to bear greatest similarity
to the model adopted by many other country innovation centres.
Such a model would leverage the economic and wider direct and
indirect benefits of the RTO sector that have been well defined
in a number of recent impact documents derived for the sector.
Clearly, any innovation centre model not utilising the appropriate
sector benefits would have a significant associated cost in economic
and social terms for existing RTOs.
5.4 In newer emerging technology areas, prioritised
as of potential national importance but where currently RTOs do
not exist, consideration would need to be given to either diversification
of an existing supplier network (using the benefits of their existing
infrastructure and working model) or establishment of a new innovation
centre.
Declaration of interest: LGC can be considered as
a private sector RTO. With the benefits this brings and its designated
national measurement institute (NMI) role underpinning the translation
of chemical and bioanalytical measurement for industry take-up
and provision of training in related measurement science, it would
consider itself suited to have a potential role in technology
innovation centres.
LGC Limited
2 December 2010
| 
