Study on mapping existing experience in Europe and ...ec.europa.eu/research/regions/pdf/publications/centre_of_excellence.… · Study on mapping existing experience on initiatives

ll

Directorate General for Research & Innovation,Unit B5, spreading of excellenceAnd widening participation

Study on mapping existingexperience in Europe andelsewhere in the world on

initiatives for introducing new orsignificantly upgradingcentres of excellence

Ref. Ares(2014)4304264 - 19/12/2014

Study on mapping existing experience on initiatives for introducing new or significantly upgrading centres of excellence

June 2014 2

Legal notice:

This report has been prepared by Deloitte Enterprise Risk Services, as a response toan invitation from DG Research and Innovation.

Disclaimer:

The information and views set out in this study are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does notguarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission norany person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the usewhich may be made of the information contained therein.

Acknowledgements

The Study on mapping existing experience in Europe and elsewhere in the world oninitiatives for introducing new or significantly upgrading centres of excellence wasprepared by Deloitte, under the leadership of Emilie Tack, with the support of SamSluismans and Raquel Van Canneyt.

The production of this study would not have been possible without the continuousefforts and valuable input of many other people involved in the project. The authorswould like to express their deep gratitude to all who have contributed to theproduction of this study. We would like to thank especially:

The Science Department of the Embassy of Germany in Paris; Fabien Petitcolas, Director for Innovation at Microsoft Europe; CIRCE in Spain; Guido Verhoeven, General Manager of Strategic Innovative Materials Flanders

(SIM) ; Our colleagues of Deloitte Poland, particularly Krzysztof Senger; Our contacts at the European Commission, Directorate-General for Research

and Innovation, Unit B5 Spreading of excellence and widening participation -and especially Dimitri Corpakis, Ralitsa Atanasova, Pepa Krasteva and AndrewBianco for their support and critical advice, as well as Olivier Brunet, then onseconded to the Aragón Technology Institute in Spain.


June 2014 3

Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................... 5

Executive summary ........................................................................................... 6Purpose, motivation and problem statement ............................................................... 6Methodology, procedure and approach ....................................................................... 7Conclusions / implications / recommendations of the study..........................................10

Introduction.....................................................................................................11Defining centres of excellence ..................................................................................11Objectives of the study ...........................................................................................13Scope………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………13

1. Providing insights into centres of excellence : identification and benchmarking.....14

1.1 Methodology of task 1.1...............................................................................141.1.1 Identification of centres of excellence ...............................................................141.1.2 Benchmarking of centres of excellence..............................................................141.1.3 Analysis/justification of task 1.1.......................................................................151.1.4 Results/findings of task 1.1 .............................................................................16

1.2 Objectives and methodology of task 1.2.........................................................171.2.1 Analysis/justification of task 1.2.......................................................................171.2.2 Results/findings of task 1.2 .............................................................................18

2. Analysing the requirements to create / upgrade a centre of excellence ................19

2.1 Objectives and methodology of task 2.1.........................................................192.1.1 For existing centres of excellence .....................................................................192.1.2 For new centres of excellence ..........................................................................20

2.2 Nature and commitments of possible partnering organisations : task 2.2 ...........202.2.1 Creation of a centre of excellence.....................................................................202.2.2 Upgrading of a centre of excellence through partnering :the example of partnerships between MIT and European centres of excellence ...............22

2.3 Objectives and methodology of task 2.3.........................................................232.3.1 Germany : an innovation policy analysis ...........................................................242.3.2 The English Region of Cambridgeshire – Silicon Fen : an innovation policy analysis 252.3.3 The Spanish region of Aragon : an innovation policy analysis...............................262.3.4 Centres of excellences in Poland : an innovation policy analysis ...........................27

2.4 Results/conclusions of work package 2.......................................................28

3. Determining the costs of setting up a centre of excellence .................................29

3.1 Objectives and methodology of work package 3 ..........................................293.1.1 Strategic choices on IP and funding ..................................................................30

3.2 Results/conclusions of work package 3.......................................................32

Conclusions of the study....................................................................................33


June 2014 4

4 Annexes .......................................................................................................34

4.1 MIT Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) .................................344.1.1 Identification .................................................................................................344.1.2 Benchmarking / quantitative indicators .............................................................34

4.2 The Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology IZI .........................374.2.1 Identification ................................................................................................384.2.2 Benchmarking / quantitative indicators : ...........................................................384.2.3 Qualitative indicators ......................................................................................39

4.3 Cambridge Computer Lab ..................................................................................434.3.1 Identification .................................................................................................434.3.2 Benchmarking................................................................................................434.3.3 Qualitative indicators ......................................................................................44

4.4 CIRCE : Research Centre for Energy Resources and Consumption .....................484.4.1 Identification .................................................................................................484.4.2 Benchmarking for years 2011, 2012 and 2013 ...................................................494.4.3 Qualitative indicators ......................................................................................50

4.5 Warsaw University of Life Sciences................................................................524.5.1 Identification .................................................................................................524.5.2 Benchmarking................................................................................................524.5.3 Qualitative indicators ......................................................................................54

4.6 Maria Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology(MCMCC) .........................................................................................................57

4.6.1 Identification .................................................................................................574.6.2 Benchmarking................................................................................................584.6.3 Qualitative indicators ......................................................................................59

4.7 VIB ...........................................................................................................614.7.1 Identification .................................................................................................614.7.2 Benchmarking................................................................................................61

5. Assessment of VIB, IMEC and SIM annual accounts...........................................645.1 VIB annual accounts....................................................................................645.2 IMEC annual accounts..................................................................................715.3 Insights into SIM annual accounts .................................................................75

6. References...................................................................................................76


June 2014 5

Abstract

A centre of excellence is defined as “a structure where RTD is performed of worldstandard, in terms of measurable scientific production (including training) and/ortechnological innovation"1.

Given ongoing and future Horizon 2020 initiatives, the question is still open onwhether centres of excellence can bridge the gap to the market in Europe and producea spill over effect to bring excellence in science in the local economy. Challengesremain in the European ecosystem for centres of excellence to be up and running:investment in R&D is scarce, mobility of researchers towards centres of excellence andback to other regions is insufficient; capabilities to use state-of-the-art networkingtools are lacking…

In this study, we analyse under which conditions the measures for spreadingexcellence and widening participation in Horizon 2020, namely Teaming and Twinning,could change the context, reality and challenges of centres of excellence.

Our study is composed of three work packages, for which we have indentified aspecific methodology. The first work package gives insights into centres of excellenceidentification and benchmarking. The second provides customized advice on therequirement to create or upgrade a Centre of excellence. The third work packagedetermines the different costs to set up a centre of excellence.

1 Action for "centres of excellence" with a European dimension, working document preparatory to theinformal meeting of the Ministers of Research on 6th and 7th March 2000


June 2014 6

Executive summary

Disclaimer :

The information and views set out in this executive summary are those of the authorsand do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commissiondoes not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this executive summary.Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may beheld responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Purpose, motivation and problem statement

The concept of centre of excellence was coined for the informal meeting of ResearchMinisters in Lisbon in March 2000, under the Portuguee Presidency of the EuropeanUnion, and in the context of the Lisbon Strategy (EC, 2000). A centre of excellence isdefined as “a structure where RTD is performed of world standard, in terms ofmeasurable scientific production (including training) and/or technological innovation"2.Such centres are recognised as excellent, because they comprise and attract excellentresearchers and developers, earning a reputation as significant resource for theprogress of science and technology and the spread of innovation3. In 2000, it wasargued that in practically all disciplines and areas, Europe has public or private centreswhere research and technological development is performed at a very high, oftenworld-class level.

However, the current and future Horizon 2020 initiatives leave open the questionwhether centres of excellence can bridge the gap to the market in Europe and producea spill over effect. Indeed, challenges remain for centres of excellence to be properlylinked: investment in R&D is scarce at national level, mobility of researchers towardscentres of excellence and back to other regions is insufficient; capabilities to usestate-of-the-art networking tools are lacking; administrative or technical obstacles tothe remote use of infrastructures and the construction of distributed databases are stillexisting.

Horizon 2020, the 80 billion € EU’s Research and Innovation funding programme for2014 to 2020, introduces specific measures for spreading excellence and wideningparticipation. These measures are targeted at low-performing Member States in termsof research and innovation, and they will be implemented by the Member Statesmost in need of the new Cohesion policy for the 2014-2020 programming period.

2 Action for "centres of excellence" with a European dimension, working document preparatory to theinformal meeting of the Ministers of Research on 6th and 7th March 20003 “European ICT Poles of Excellence, EIPE Working Paper 1, “defining European ICT Poles of Excellence :Literature Review”, by Giuditta de Prato, Daniel Nepelski, 2012


June 2014 7

Methodology, procedure and approach

Our study is composed of three main tasks (work packages), for which we haveindentified a specific methodology.

The objective of the first work package is to capture and demonstrate the impact ofthe transformative power of centres of excellence. This work package is divided intotwo tasks, namely:

Task 1.1: Give a comprehensive overview of the known global experience oflaunching excellence initiatives and creating centres of excellence;

Task 1.2: Take European examples into account.

The objective of the first task (1.1) is to establish a set of useable and replicablecriteria/ indicators for the identification and benchmarking of centres of excellence.The selection of indicators take as a point of departure the availability of data andinspiration from other European and international sources. This set of indicators areused : one the one hand, to identify and on the other hand, to benchmark centres ofexcellence.For the identification of centres of excellence, we have identified two main indicators :

The type of research being performed; The technology type.

For the benchmarking of centres of excellence, we have identified nine quantitativeindicators that are relevant to identify centres of excellence.

Number of international triple-A publications; Success in international competitive grants; Number of PhD degrees delivered; Number of spin-offs created; Industrial income from valorization of Intellectual Property; Industrial income from contract research; Number of research staff : internal; Number of research staff : external; Proximity of large industrial partners in the same industry.

Obviously, not all these criteria would necessarily apply to one centre of excellence atthe same time, depending on to the type of research being performed, the policy andstrategic choices taken by the centre of excellence and its given budget.Moreover, some of these indicators are new. Information on these indicators does notnecessarily exist or is not publicly available. Therefore, if we have identified ninequantitative criteria to benchmark centres of excellence, data could not always becollected for all of them – due to the above-explained constraints.

Task 1.2 applies the above-mentioned list of indicators to the European context toidentify existing centres of excellence in Europe or the possibility to upgrade them.The result is an application of the indicators to six organisations – centres ofexcellence, based on publicly available data.


June 2014 8

The objective of work package 2 is to provide customised advice on the requirementsto create or upgrade a centre of excellence. This work package is composed of twomain tasks :

Task 2.1: Give a comprehensive overview of the overall organisationalrequirements;

Task 2.2 : Illustrate the benefits of partnering for new or existing centres ofexcellence;

Task 2.3: Take into account the need for a successful integration with therelevant national or regional innovation strategies needed to establish sucha Centre.

The objective of task 2.1 is to give an overview of the requirements needed to createor upgrade centres of excellence. The result of this task is the development of eightqualitative indicators, which are the following :

Own research agenda; Adjacent research fields; Spillover effects towards adjacent industry; High rate of exchange of qualified Human Resources; Embedded in a knowledge region; Supportive national/regional innovation programme; Numbers of followers on social media (Twitter and/or Facebook); Attractiveness for graduated PhDs.

The objective of task 2.2 is to briefly illustrate how partnering (be it through Teamingor Twinning) is likely to improve the creation or upgrading of centres of excellence.

The objective of task 2.3 is to take into account the need for a successful integrationwith the relevant national or regional innovation strategies needed to establish such acentre. To do so, we have applied the eight qualitative indicators to five centres ofexcellence (including two in the same country), meant to serve as 2 demonstratorcountries and 2 demonstrator regions. The 2 demonstrator countries and 2demonstrator regions will be representative of the 4 categories defined by theInnovation Union Scoreboard. The application of the qualitative indicators to thedemonstrator countries and regions is based on publicly available data.


June 2014 9

The objective of work package 3 is to determine the different costs to set up a centreof excellence. The result is an overview of the different cost elements of a centre ofexcellence, taking into account : their strategic choices, the maturity of the centre ofexcellence, the sector in which the centre of excellence is operating in.

In order to address the research question ‘what is the approximate cost of creating acentre of excellence?’, we have conducted a comparative analysis of three differentcentres, across several scientific sectors and each having a specific IP and fundingstrategy.


June 2014 10

Results/findings

Our results suggest that the set of quantitative and qualitative indicators used arerelevant and reflect in a coherent way the requirements to define, set up and/orupgrade centres excellence, in Europe and elsewere in the world. Our findings alsoreflect the needed costs to do so.

What we have seen is that excellence is multidimensional and systemic. Scientificexcellence flourishes with best-practice leadership, management and performanceevaluation. This culture of excellence is difficult to replicate from world-class leadingresearch organisations - like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to alocal economy, where the ecosystem and business climate might be less favourable toentrepreneurship, innovation and excellence.

Conclusions / implications / recommendations of the study

Centres of excellence can neither be created from scratch, neither by decree. Theyneed to rely both on a solid ecosystem and dynamic synergies created between auniversity/research centre and industry. Centres of excellence cannot be sustainedwhere the entrepreneurship culture is not favoured, whether this is due to theentrepreneur’s will and/or to the business climate. Centres of excellence cannot lastand ensure research/business continuity whereby the source of income is notdiversified – i.e not only relying exclusively on EU-funding, likely to stop at the end ofan FP-project. Last but not least, building a centre of excellence takes time (at least10 years), requires investment and political will.

In this context, Horizon 2020 teaming/twinning initiatives have to spread excellenceand the circulation of knowledge in the local economy, as the central purpose ofdeveloping regional research excellence is to support a knowledge economy on thebasis of smart specialisation strategies.


June 2014 11

Introduction

Defining centres of excellence

The concept of centres of excellence canbe interpreted and used in manydifferent ways. The scientific literaturereview is quite extensive on subjectssimilar to centres of excellence, such asnetworks of excellence, poles ofexcellence, pôles de compétitivité,Technology and Innovation Centres4,etc... However, the very subject ofcentres of excellence, particulary inHorizon 2020, requires further research,which we have conducted in this studyon mapping existing experience inEurope and elsewhere in the world oninitiatives for introducing new orsignificantly upgrading Centres ofexcellence.

The concept of centre of excellence wascoined for the informal meeting ofResearch Ministers in Lisbon in March2000, under the Portuguee Presidencyof the European Union, and in thecontext of the Lisbon Strategy (EC,2000). One of the preparatory workingdocument of this meeting (action for"centres of excellence" with a Europeandimension)5 defines a centre ofexcellence as “a structure where RTD isperformed of world standard, in termsof measurable scientific production(including training) and/or technologicalinnovation".

4 The current and future role of Technology andInnovation Centres in the UK, a report byDr.Hermann Hauser the Secretary of StateDepartment for Business Innovation & Skills,published on 25th March 20105 Action for "centres of excellence" with aEuropean dimension, working documentpreparatory to the informal meeting of theMinisters of Research on 6th and 7th March 2000

Such centres are recognised asexcellent, because they comprise of andattract excellent researchers anddevelopers, earning a reputation assignificant resources for the progress ofscience and technology and the spreadof innovation6. In 2000, it was arguedthat in practically all disciplines andareas, Europe has public or privatecentres where research andtechnological development is performedat a very high, often world-class level.In the course of our study - includingspecific data collection, we notablyquestion the ability of centres ofexcellence to bridge the gap betweenblue sky research, innovation andcommercialisation. The interactionsbetween the centres of excellence andthe business community are analysed,showing, wherever possible, the linkswith societal challenges highlighted inHorizon 2020.

6 “European ICT Poles of Excellence, EIPE WorkingPaper 1, “defining European ICT Poles ofExcellence : Literature Review”, by Giuditta dePrato, Daniel Nepelski, 2012.


June 2014 12

Following the Lisbon strategy and giventhe ongoing and future Horizon 2020initiatives, the question is still open onwhether centres of excellence canindeed bridge the gap to the market inEurope and produce a spill over effect.Indeed, challenges remain for centresof excellence to be properly linked:mobility of researchers towards centresof excellence and back to other regionsis insufficient; capabilities to use state-of-the-art networking tools are lacking;

administrative or technical obstacles tothe remote use of infrastructures andthe construction of distributeddatabases are still existing.Last but not least, we will base ourstudy in the context of the “Teamingfor Excellence and Innovation” initiativein Horizon 2020.


June 2014 13

Objectives of the studyIn this section, we outline theobjectives of the study:

WP 1: give a comprehensiveoverview of the known globalexperience of launching excellenceinitiatives and creating centres ofexcellence.

WP 2: give a comprehensiveoverview of the overallorganisational requirements neededto establish such a centre.

WP 3: Define the approximate costsfor creating a centre of excellence

With the overarching objective ofraising awareness on mapping existingexperience in Europe and elsewhere inthe world on initiatives for introducingnew or significantly upgrading centresof excellence, this study:

Provides a methodology to analysethe importance of existing centresof excellence in Europe andelsewhere in the world.

Assesses how to create new centresof excellence, or upgrade existingones;

Describes what the costs would be– and at which scale.

ScopeThe scope of our study is the EuropeanUnion. To take into account the contextof the innovation performance of the 28Member States and their potentialcentres of excellence, the InnovationUnion Scoreboard is used to define 4different groups of countries andregions: Innovation leaders, innovationfollowers, moderate innovators andmodest innovators. This allows us toprovide insigths into a typology ofcentres of excellence, withoutexhaustively surveying all the 28 EUMember States.Even though the primary focus of thestudy is the EU, third countries(especially the United States) are alsolooked at to benchmark their centres ofexcellence (particularly MIT) with thoseof the European Union.


June 2014 14

1. Providing insights into centres of excellence :identification and benchmarking

This work package is divided into two tasks, which objectives are to : Task 1.1: Give a comprehensive overview of the known global experience of

launching excellence initiatives and creating centres of excellence Task 1.2: Take European examples into account

1.1 Methodology of Task 1.1

The methodology of this first task is based on a set of useable and replicable criteria/indicators for the identification and benchmarking of centres of excellence. The selectionof indicators take as a point of departure the availability of data and inspiration fromother European and international sources. This set of indicators are used : one the onehand, to identify - and on the other hand, to benchmark centres of excellence.

1.1.1 Identification of centres of excellenceFor the identification of centres of excellence, we have identified two main indicators :

1. The type of research being performed (for instance, fundamental, basic,applied, transnational)

2. The Technology type (for instance, ICT, biotech, nanotech, etc…)

1.1.2 Benchmarking of centres of excellenceFor the benchmarking of centres of excellence, we have identified 9 quantitativeindicators that are relevant to identify centres of excellence.

1. Number of international AAA publications2. Success in international competitive grants3. Number of PhD degrees delivered4. Number of spin-offs created5. Industrial income from valorization of IP6. Industrial income from contract research7. Number of research staff : internal8. Number of research staff : external9. Proximity of large industrial partners in the same industry

Obviously, not all these criteria would necessarily apply to one centre of excellence atthe same time, owing to the type of research being performed, the policy and strategicchoices taken by the centre of excellence and its given budget. Moreover, the indicatorswe have created are new and the information we are trying to collect is sometimes notpublicly available or does not exist yet. Therefore, if we have identified 9 quantitativecriteria to identify centres of excellence, data could not always be collected for all ofthem. However, we tend to provide a good overview of 5 indicators completed -ormore- out of 9 to create insights on the centres of excellence characteristics in Europeand elsewhere in the world - but not to benchmark them among each other.


June 2014 15

1.1.3 Analysis/justification of task 1.1

To give a comprehensive overview of the known global experience of launchingexcellence initiatives and creating centres of excellence, we have first sougth to identifywhat the characteristics of a centre of excellence are.

The first step of our work consists of applying the nine above-mentioned indicators toan international centre of excellence.

More recently-created international examples7 could have been chosen - such as ITRI,created in 1973 in Taiwan8 or ETRI, founded in 1976 in South Korea9. However, wehave chosen to apply our list of nine criterias to the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology (MIT), created in 1861. Given its long-standing, historical and internationalreputation, MIT is an interesting word-class research centre, combining a world-classuniversity with research labs and go-to-the-market ambitions.

History of MIT

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is a private research university inCambridge, Massachusetts, known traditionally for research and education in thephysical sciences and engineering, and more recently in biology, economics, linguisticsand management.

Founded in 1861 in response to the increasing industrialisation of the United States, theinstitute used a polytechnic university model and stressed laboratory instruction.

Our first findings suggest that, while setting up a centre can be achieved quickly,reaching excellence might take several decades – earning reputation and buildingevidence.

The university historically pioneered research and training collaborations betweenacademia, industry and government. MIT's extensive collaboration with the federalgovernment on research projects has led to several MIT leaders serving as PresidentialScientific Advisers since 1940.

MIT established an office in Washington in 1991 to continue to lobby for researchfunding and national science policy.

Proximity of the MIT with Harvard

According to the Quacquarelli Symonds World University Ranking 201310, MIT is rankedfirst, followed by Harvard. The two universities are just separated by a river, in thevicinity of Cambridge and Boston, and have seized the opportunity to collaboratetogether.

MIT's proximity to Harvard University has led to a substantial number of researchcollaborations, such as the Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology andthe Broad Institute. In addition, students at the two schools can cross-register forcredits toward their own school's degrees without any additional fees. In 2002, theCambridge-MIT Institute launched a joint undergraduate exchange programme.

7 The current and future role of Technology and Innovation Centres in the UK, a report by Dr.Hermann Hauserthe Secretary of State Department for Business Innovation & Skills, published on 25th March 20108 Industrial Technology Research Institutehttps://www.itri.org.tw/eng/econtent/about/about01.aspx9 http://www.etri.re.kr/eng/ Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute10Cambridge is ranked 3rd


June 2014 16

For the academic year 2013-2014, MIT has approximately the same number of studentsas employees (11 380), including 1 030 Professors and 1,779 other teaching staff. Thereason was MIT can easily be depicted as a centre of excellence is reflected in the highnumber of selected Honors in the current and former MIT Community :

80 Nobel Laureates; 56 National Medal of Science winners; 43 MacArthur Fellows; 28 National Medal of Technology and Innovation winners.

1.1.4 Results/findings of task 1.1

Among the different MIT departments, we have studied more closely the electricalEngineering and Computer Science (EECS) Department, which is the largest departmentat MIT. MIT EECS consistently ranks top by the the U.S. News and World Reports and isknown globally for its world class faculty creating excellence in education, which isbased on innovative and award winning research.

The details of our analysis and the application of the 9 indicators to the MIT EECSdepartment are attached in annex of this study.

The results of our analysis show the following findings :

While MIT educational level (showed by the number of PhDs delivered) andthe applied research level is excellent (showed by the number of AAApublications) – the proximity with the industry and with Harvard Universityreinforces the achievements and reputation of the MIT as a centre ofexcellence.

Apple, Dropbox, Ebay, Paypal, Twitter, Google, HP, Microsoft, VMWare are partners ofthe MIT Industrial Connection Programme (ICP). The proximity of large industrialpartners with MIT is exploited through the MIT ICP, which is an affiliate programme toenhance company visibility for the purpose of recruiting students in MIT’s department ofElectrical Engineering & Computer Science (EECS).

Moreover, the 25,800 currently active companies founded by MIT alumni employabout 3.3 million people and generate annual world sales of $2 trillion, producing theequivalent of the eleventh-largest economy in the world11.

More than 20 % of the total of MIT founders come from the EECS department.Examples of companies founded by MIT Alumni from the EESC are : Hewlett Packart(1939), the Bose Corporation (1964), Apollo Computer (1980), Thinking MachinesCorportation (1982).

11 https://entrepreneurship.mit.edu/uploads/Entrepreneurial_Impact_The_Role_of_MIT.pdf


June 2014 17

1.2 Objectives and methodology of task 1.2

The objective of this task is to apply the above-mentioned list of 9 indicators to theEuropean context to identify existing centres of excellence in Europe or the possibility toupgrade them. The result is the application of the indicators to 6 organisations –centres of excellence, based on publicly available data.

Deloitte has looked at the organisations that have enjoyed the highest success rates inproposal submission under FP7. We have selected some of the successful organisations,participating in FP7 and applied the indicators to these organisations in order to assesswhether they are successful or potential centres of excellence.

1.2.1 Analysis/justification of task 1.2

We have applied our list our 9 quantitative indicators to 6 centres of excellence inEurope from four different countries : Germany (listed as Innovation leader in theInnovation Union Scoreboard 2014), the United Kingdom and Belgium (innovationfollower), Spain (moderate innovator) and Poland (modest innovator in the InnovationUnion Scoreboard 2013 – but moderate innovator in the Innovation Union Scoreboard2014), where we have identified and benchmarked two centres of excellence.

These six centres of excellence are : Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology IZI; Cambridge Computer Lab; VIB; The centre of research for energy resources and consumption (CIRCE); Warsaw University of Life Sciences; The Maria Skłodowska Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology

(MCMCC).

While the detailed analysis of the application of nine quantitative indicators to these sixcentres is attached in annex, our results suggest the following :

The nature of the links with a university can help categorize the functioning of a centreof excellence : Centres are located within a university : Cambridge Computer Lab and Warsaw

University of Life Sciences ; Centres are acting in close collaboration with a university : CIRCE; Centres are functioning independently from the university but maintain good

collaboration with it, notably attracting PhDs: Fraunfofer Institute for CellTherapy and Immunology IZI, VIB and the Maria Skłodowska Curie MemorialCancer Centre and Institute of Oncology (MCMCC).


June 2014 18

1.2.2 Results/findings of task 2.2

While it is difficult to compare exactly the number of international AAApublications between the centres of excellence given the different sources used,it is easier to prove that all these centres have participated in FP7.

Another way to comparatively and quantitatively compare the centres of excellence isthe number of PhDs delivered. This number is for instance higher in a centre ofexcellence located in a university such as Cambridge Computer Lab (119 registeredcandidates to received their PhDs in 2014) than in an institute/Centre of Excellencefunctioning outside the university such as Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy andImmunology IZI (16 PhDs delivered in 2013).

For our benchmarking exercise, we noted that very little information is available onthe industrial income made from the valorization of Intellectual Property (IP) by thecentres. In most of the cases surveyed (except for VIB, which is based on an IPvalorization model and currently gets 5 million € per year from licence/IPvalorization), the centres of excellence do not have a strategy to sell IP (CambridgeComputer Lab) or simply do not happen to earn any income from IP valorization(CIRCE). This boils down to a strategic choice and to a trade-off between having morecollaboration agreements and sharing the IP for free – or valorizing the IP and sellingless collaboration agreements. This strategic choices do have impact on thecosts/income model, as described in part three of this study.

Another feature we have seen is that most of these centres of excellence get somepublic funding, whether this support comes from the regional, national or Europeanlevel. The precise analysis is to be found in annex, in the quantitative benchmarking ofthe centres of excellence - and in the third part of the study, which is a cost/incomeanalysis of three centres of excellence.


June 2014 19

2. Analysing the requirements to create / upgrade acentre of excellence

The overall objective of work package 2 is to provide customised advice on therequirement to create or upgrade a centre of excellence.This work package is composed of 3 main tasks :

Task 2.1: Give a comprehensive overview of the overall organisationalrequirements

Task 2.2 : Illustrate the benefits of partnering for new or existing centres ofexcellence

Task 2.3: Taking into account the need for a successful integration with therelevant national or regional innovation strategies needed to establish such acentre.


The objective of task 1 of work package 2 is to give an overview of the requirementsneeded to create or upgrade centres of excellence.

2.1.1 For existing centres of excellenceThe result of this task is the development of 8 qualitative indicators to reflect on therequirements and characteristics of existing centres of excellence. To develop theindicators, we have taken inspiration from the working paper developed for the informalmeeting of the Ministers of Research on 6th and 7th March 2000 : Action for "centres ofexcellence" with a European dimension. In this document, a centre of excellence isdefined by the following characteristics :

A "critical mass" of high level scientists and/or technology developers; A well-identified structure having its own research agenda; Capable of integrating connected fields and to associate complementary skills; Capable of maintaining a high rate of exchange of qualified human resources; A dynamic role in the surrounding innovation system; High levels of international visibility and scientific and/or industrialconnectivity; A reasonable stability of funding and operating conditions over time; Sources of finance which are not dependent over time on public funding.

We have chosen to refine these indicators for the purpose of the study, particularly withsome updates on social media indicators. The 8 qualitative indicators giving acomprehensive overview of the organisational requirements needed to establish acentre of excellence are the following :


June 2014 20

Qualitative indicators :

Own research agenda; Adjacent research fields; Spillover effects towards adjacent industry; High rate of exchange of qualified Human Resources; Embedded in a knowledge region; Supportive national/regional innovation programme; Numbers of followers on social media (Twitter and/or Facebook); Attractiveness for graduated PhDs.

2.1.2 For new centres of excellenceHowever, we understand that Task 2.1 is primarily concerned with ‘organisationalrequirements’ for the actual creation of a new centre of excellence. The eight qualitativeindicators descrived above have been applied to certain centres that already exist (seeannex).Therefore, in a second step, we have made a distinction between those factors thatneed to exist before a centre is created, and those other factors that come into play as‘drivers to achieving excellence’ once a centre is up and running.

We consider that the following qualitative indicators are important for the creation of acentre of excellence :

Own research agenda ; Proximity with the industry; Embedded in a knowledge region; Attractiveness for graduated PhDs.

Another important factor to facilitate the creation of a centre of excellence is the natureand commitments of possible partnering organisations and how they are involved in theearly stages of setting up a centre.

2.2 Nature and commitments of possible partnering organisations(Task 2.2)

2.2.1 Creation of a centre of excellence

Below is an example of partnership between European centres of excellence : the “Top500 Innovators Programme”, in collaboration between the Government of Poland andthe University of Cambridge. The Top 500 Innovators Programme was launched in2011; by the programme’s end in 2015, 500 of some of Poland’s brightest youngscientists will have completed a two month programme at top US universities. The 2012edition for instance sent Polish students to UC Berkeley and Stanford University inCalifornia.

Since Poland is considered as a moderate Innovator in the Innovation Union Scoreboard2014 (and modest innovator in the Innovation Union Scoreboard 2013), it is interestingto analyse the nature and commitments of possible partnering organisations, whichcould lead to the creation of centres of excellence.


June 2014 21

Top 500 Innovators is an element of the project "Human Resources developmentthrough promotion of knowledge, transfer and dissemination of innovations", cofinancedby the European Union funds within the framework of the European Social Fund12. Itdeals with subjects such as : creation of innovation, establishment and operation ofinnovative business, assessment and valuation of technology from the point of view ofits commercialization, setting up start-ups or raising external finance and introducinginnovation in an organisation.

The programme "Top 500 Innovators" implemented by the Ministry of Science andHigher Education (MSHE) in Poland intends to raise the qualifications of Polish R&Dpersonnel in terms of cooperation with the economy, research management andcommercialization of research results. Under the programme the Polish scientists andrepresentatives of innovation centres participate in a two-month internship at the bestuniversities in the world. The first edition of the programme has already resulted insome interesting effects.

The expectations of the MSHE are reflected in reality - the participants of the firstedition of the programme, inspired by the accumulated experience and knowledge, areslowly beginning to implement new solutions and ideas on Polish grounds. For instance,two other participants of the first edition of the "Top 500 Innovators" programme, afterreturning from the internship, initiated the project of the Interdisciplinary Centre forStart- Ups. Even though such a centre cannot necessarily be considered as a centre ofexcellence, the influence of world-leading universities such as Berkely or Stanford arekey to train top scientists from Poland.

12http://www.pi.gov.pl/PARPFiles/file/POLISH_INNOVATION_PORTAL/IOB_poangielsku/Top_500_Innovators.pdf


June 2014 22

2.2.2 Upgrading of a centre of excellence through partnering : the example ofpartnerships between MIT and European centres of excellence

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Centre for Transportation and Logistics(CTL) and the local government of Aragón, Spain, have signed an agreement, extendingtheir partnership — originally due to expire in 2013 — for another 10 years. Thisextension should solidify the transformation of Zaragoza into a logistics hub for Europe,not only in terms of the physical movement of goods, but also in terms of education andresearch, through the MIT Zaragoza International Logistics Programme developed atthe Zaragoza Logistics Centre (ZLC).

Since its establishment, this partnership has culminated in an international centre ofexcellence for education and research in logistics and supply chain management thatactively engages with industry and the public sector to develop and disseminateknowledge. In the five years since the plan was implemented, the region has developedPlataforma Logística de Zaragoza (PLAZA), the largest logistics park in Europe. The parkcovers an area of almost 13 million square meters. PLAZA provides the infrastructureand services that companies need to distribute goods internationally. Global retailerZara has built a state-of-the-art distribution centre there. Other top companies thathave located in PLAZA include toy retailer Imaginarium and worldwide logisticscompany DHL. A new intermodal hub has been constructed, and more than 100companies have set up operations in the park.

ZLC has become one of Europe’s leading centres for supply chain research andeducation. Since 2005, around 300 students have graduated from their postgraduateprogrammes and over 250 professionals have received executive education. The Masterof Engineering in Logistics and Supply Chain (ZLOG) programme, modeled on the MITSupply Chain Management Programme, has been expanding since its inception in 2003,and attracts around 200 applicants from across the globe every year for a class of up to35 seats. The MIT Zaragoza PhD programme was launched in 2004 and now features asummer doctoral academy attracting professors and PhD students from topprogrammes around the world. With this new agreement, CTL and ZLC hope to expandthe education and research activities of the centre, including more educationprogrammes at the graduate level and the inclusion of new distance learningcomponents, as well as increased industry involvement from top companies worldwide.

About the MIT Centre for Transportation & Logistics: MIT CTL is a world leader insupply chain management research and education. Combining its cutting-edge researchwith industry relationships, the centre corporate outreach programme turns innovativeresearch into market-winning commercial applications. MIT is ranked first amongbusiness programmes in logistics and supply chain management.

About the Zaragoza Logistics Centre : The Zaragoza Logistics Centre (ZLC) is aresearch institute associated with the University of Zaragoza in Spain. It is directlylinked with the development of PLAZA, the largest logistics park in Europe. The ZLC haspartnered with the Centre for Transportation & Logistics at Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology (MIT) to develop world-class education and research in logistics and supplychain management. New concepts and technologies are developed from research usingPLAZA as a large-scale laboratory. To rapidly disseminate new knowledge and trainfuture leaders, the ZLC offers graduate and executive education — taught in bothEnglish and Spanish, outreach events, and industry partnerships.


June 2014 23


The objective of task 2.3 is to take into account the need for a successful integrationwith the relevant national or regional innovation strategies. The task is two-fold.

- First, an analysis of the specific context for the 2 demonstrator countries and 2demonstrator regions was made to determine the relative importance of centresof excellence. The 2 demonstrator countries and 2 demonstrator regions arerepresentative of the 4 categories defined by the Innovation Union Scoreboard:Innovation leaders, innovation followers, moderate innovators and modestinnovators.The aim has been to develop a policy rationale - for providing support inleveraging the transformative power of centre of excellence through national andlocal policies. Desk research and interviews with key stakeholders (estimated: 4interviews) were performed to gain sufficient understanding of the countries andregions specific challenges and context.

- Second, the eight qualitative indicators developed in task 2.1 were applied tofive centres of excellence (representative of 2 demonstrator countries (Germanyand Poland) and 2 demonstrator regions (Cambridgeshire in the UK and Aragonin Spain). The application of the qualitative indicators to the demonstratorcountries and regions is based on publicly available data or specific informationprovided by the centres.


June 2014 24

2.3.1 Germany : an innovation policy analysis

Germany, as an innovation leader according to the Innovation Union Scoreboard, notonly influences European objectives for Research and Innovation (described in theInnovation Union flagship initiative), but also has its own national research agenda,with a specific high-tech strategy.

The below analysis is the result of information partially provided through aphone interview with some high officials from the Science Department of theEmbassy of Germany in Paris.

A core element of the High-Tech Strategy for Germany is the building of bridgesbetween science and business: to safeguard growth and employment, researchresults having innovation potential are encouraged to be recognised, but alsoquickly and successfully brought to market. At the same time, research matters ofrelevance for the future have to be formulated and solutions found13.

Germany occupies a strong position in global competition. This is due not least tothe excellent ideas of its research scientists and the innovative capacity of itscompanies. However, the answers to the major social and economic challenges canbe found only by science and industry together - through content-related andregional partnerships in which energy is bundled and strengths are boosted. TheFederal Ministry of Education and Research was quick to recognise the potential ofsuch clusters and is promoting this potential with the Leading-Edge ClusterCompetition which addresses all industries and research areas in its thematicopenness.

According to the German strategy, clusters have great potential. They generateenormous synergies through the exchange of knowledge across the boundaries ofinstitutions, disciplines and technologies. Personal contacts as well as content-related and regional proximity in clusters accelerate technological development aswell as the path to market maturity - turning ideas into internationally competitiveproducts, technologies and services "Invented in Germany". Clusters areparticularly suitable for long-term research strategies and the development ofinternational partnerships. They offer ideal conditions for promoting young talentand starting up new companies.

Up to five winners per round of the competition are funded by the Ministry for aperiod of five years in the implementation of their strategies. There will be a total ofthree rounds - with up to 200 million € per round. Two rounds have already beensuccessfully completed.

13 Innovations from Germany : http://www.bmbf.de/en/20763.php


June 2014 25

2.3.2 The English Region of Cambridgeshire – Silicon Fen : an innovation policyanalysis

As an illustration of the innovation followers (as from the Innovation Scoreboard), wehave chosen the United Kingdom and one of its particular region : Cambridgeshire,where we study the centre of excellence ecosystem around Cambridge University.

The below analysis is the result of information partially provided through aphone interview with Fabien Petitcolas, Director for innovation at MicrosoftEurope.

Silicon Fen (or the Cambridge Cluster) is the name given to the region aroundCambridge (UK), located at the southern tip of the English Fenland - and by analogywith Silicon Valley in California. The area is now one of the most importanttechnology centres in Europe. Silicon Fen gathers a large cluster of high-techbusinesses focusing on electronics, software and biotechnology, many of which haveconnections with Cambridge Univeristy. The so-called Cambridge phenomenon isusually dated to the founding of the Cambridge Science Park in 1970: this was aninitiative of Trinity College, Cambridge University and moved away from a traditionallow-development policy for Cambridge.

The characteristic of Cambridge is approximately 1,500 companies in sectors such ascomputer-aided design. In 2004, 24% of all UK venture capital (8% of all the EU's)was received by Silicon Fen companies, according to the Cambridge Cluster Report2004 produced by Library House and Grant Thornton.14 In February 2006, the Judge Business School, Cambridge University, reportedestimates that suggested that there were around 250 active start-ups directly linkedto the University, valued at around US$6 billion. Only a tiny proportion of thesecompanies have so far grown into multinationals : ARM, Autonomy Corporation andAVEVA and more recently CSR has seen rapid growth due to the uptake of Bluetooth

The following reasons account for the regional success of the Silicon :

A self-sustaining and flexible job market in the technology sector;

A high degree of 'networking';

The academic pre-eminence of Cambridge University as a centre ofexcellence;

A high standard of living available in the Cambridgeshire county;

Good transport links;

Little internal regional competition in the high-technology industry;

Affordable commercial rents (depending on the evolution of the real-estatemarket and relatively to the UK).

14http://www.rhgraham.org/RHG/Recent_projects_files/Benchamrking%20study%20-%20Phase%201%20summary%20.pdf


June 2014 26

2.3.3 The Spanish region of Aragon : an innovation policy analysis

As for the moderate innovators, we have studied one region of Spain being Aragon.

The below analysis is the result of information partially provided through aphone interview with Olivier Brunet, European Commission official, then onseconded to the Aragón Technology Institute in Spain.

Although FP7 participation can be higher in other regions of Spain (such asCataluna), the case of Aragon is interesting.

Indeed, both high-level international partnerships and a choice to turntowards smart specialisation in the context of the Europe 2020 Strategy andthe 2014/2020 multi-financial framework are clear. Aragon intends to devote2,184 Billion € to research and innovation over the period 2013-2020, withthe support of its regional strategy. The rate of GDP devoted to Research &Innovation should move from 0,96% in 2013 to 1,3% in 2020.Aragon aims to become, by 2020 : a “connected and sustainable territoryrecognized at an international level, thanks to the improvement of itsconnections and mobility, the development of priorities linked withsustainability and the improvement of the quality of life of its inhabitants”.

The region characteristics, on which Aragon builds upon its competitiveadvantage, are the following : the region benefits from a strong networkaround the capital city, Zaragoza and its university, characterized by a higheducational level and a strong industrial focus, maintained by good synergiesbetween research centres, scientific parks, incubators and clusters acrossthe region.

The regional strategy in Aragon for smart specialization is composed of threemain priorities : connectivity, efficiency of resources and wellbeing/quality oflife:

- The first priority, connectivity, refers to logistics and to transportmaterials, taking into account the importance of the automotive sector in theregion. The strategy aims at better integrating the value chain in thesefields, stimulate inter modality, improve the industrial processes as regardstransport material and contribute to the production of more efficientvehicles.- The second priority, devoted to Resource aims to valorize majoropportunities in the field of energy : renewable energies and hydrogen inparticular. The strategy highlights the priority to be given to the stockageand better integration of energy systems, the completion of the water andenergy cycle, information and monitoring of hydraulic management.- The third priority for the well being and quality of life intends toencourage synergies between agriculture, agrofood industry and tourism.

Last but not least, the strategy also reflects the will of Aragon to fosterinterregional cooperation, including the initiatives of the Campus Iberus ofinternational excellence - involving the Universities of Zaragoza, Navarra,Lleida and La Rioja.


June 2014 27

2.3.4 Centres of excellences in Poland : an innovation policy analysis

We have hereby described the importance of centres of excellences in Poland. Giventhat Poland is the modest innovator (as from the Innovation Scoreboard 2013), some ofits R + I priorities have been shaped by the European agenda and funding, notablyregarding the centres of excellence initiatives from the European Union in FP5, FP6 andFP7.The below analysis is the result of information partially provided through aphone interview with Krzysztof Senger, Senior Manager at Deloitte Poland.

15 Polish R&D potential, stairway to excellencePublished by National Contact Point for Research Programmes of the European Union Institute of FundamentalTechnological Research, Polish Academy of Sciences, 2011http://www.kpk.gov.pl/pliki/11925/cn-fin-net.pdf

In Poland, the first project on Centres of Excellence was developed as a responseto the OECD recommendations formulated in the ‘National Research andTechnology Policies: Poland’ published in 1996. In the document, the OECDindicated the need to establish expert research groups called the Centres ofExcellence through integrating leading research teams working at universities, inthe institutes of the Polish Academy of Sciences as well as other research anddevelopment units. As the first attempts appeared to be very promising, in 1999the pilot system of Centres of Excellence in Poland was introduced by the PhareSCI-TECH II Programme. It has been afterwards developed and upgraded by theFP5 NAS2 call in 2002 as well as by the Transfer of Knowledge Programme in FP6and the Research Potential in FP715.

The initiative of the Centres of Excellence has enabled leading research units toenhance their research potential as well as to contribute to the Europeanintegration of research within the ERA. Additionally, the requirements of CoE callsfostered the implementation of modern organisation schemes as well as newadministrative and financial structures. Centres brought together best researchteams of the institution undertaking close cooperation in common research fieldsand defining common objectives, strategy and action plans for the CoE. Due to theenhanced potential, the researchers could enter into new research anddevelopment projects, intensify interaction with industry as well as provide highquality education and training services.Polish Centres of Excellence used extensively the great chance offered by the FP5,FP6 and FP7 calls developing cooperation with the best research centres,establishing twinning and networking within ERA, increasing the exchange ofscientists and developing the promotion of CoEs. These activities contributed to asignificant extent to their later participation in the Framework Programmes.However, resorting to publicly available information, it is today difficult tomeasure the legacy of the centres of excellence initiative from the pastFramework Programmes. Indeed, most of the webpages of these projects eitherdo not exist or are not updated after the end of the FP project. This shows thedifficulty of research continuity and the challenge to embed the Europeaninitiatives and funding at the local level on a long-term basis.


June 2014 28

2.4 Results/conclusions of work package 2

Work package two has provided insights into the requirements to create or upgradecentres of excellence. We have first developed qualitative indicators to reflect on thecharacteristics and performance of new and existing centres of excellence (task 2.1).We also have explained how partnering (be it through Twinning or Teaming) canleverage the creation or upgrading of centres of excellence (task 2.2).Last but not least, we have explained the need to take into account the need for asuccessful integration with the relevant national or regional innovation strategiesneeded to establish such centres of excellence (task 2.3). We have illustrated twodifferent national strategies (High-Tech Strategy for Germany; Polish initiative forcentres of excellences within the previous Framework Programmes) and two RegionalStrategies (Aragon smart specialisation priorities for Horizon 2020 and The County ofCambridgeshire Business support services).

Whereas the level of public intervention can be debated (in terms of budget,sectors and impact), it is noteworthy than these regional and nationalprogrammes have helped the given regions/countries to develop not only theirinnovation strategies and ecosystems but also their capacity to create orupgrade centres of excellence.


June 2014 29

3. Determining the costs of setting up a centre ofexcellence

3.1 Objectives and methodology of WP3

The objective of Work Package three is to determine the different costs to set up acentre of excellence. The result is an overview of the different cost elements of a centreof excellence, looking at it from the following elements: strategic choices, maturity ofthe centre of excellence, sector in which the centre of excellence is operating in.

In order to address the research question ‘what is the approximate cost of creating acentre of excellence?’, we have conducted a comparative analysis of three differentcentres, across scientific sectors and having each a specific IP and funding strategy. Wehave reviewed the annual accounts of three centres of excellence to create insights intothe strategic choices of the centres of excellence as regards their IP and fundingcharacteristics.

The three centres of excellence identified are in Belgium, given the industry insights wehave within the Enterprises Risk Services practice of Deloitte Belgium. This first analysisof the costs of centres of excellence is therefore somewhat limited to Belgium and doesnot reflect exhaustively its European dimension. Another study on the financialsustainability aspects of centres of excellence in Europe would be needed to explore ata further scale the different costs elements, the maturity and the sectors of centres ofexcellence.


June 2014 30

3.1.1 Strategic choices on IP and funding

In order to give insights into the costs needed to set up or significantly upgrade acentre of excellence, we hereby explain three elements with regard to how aninnovation centre of excellence can be developed :

IP Strategy: Depending on the IP strategy of the centre of excellence, thefunding requirements may be different. The centre of excellence basically has 2options:

o IP stringent: the goal of the centre of excellence is to build up topquality science, ensure that the IP is protected (e.g. through patents)and to valorize this IP through royalty income, license income andpotentially the creation of spin-offs. VIB follows this approach.

o IP light: the goal of the centre of excellence is to build up top qualityscience, ensure that the IP is protected (e.g. through patents) but to usethis IP as background IP and to give free licenses to industry partnersthat decide to buy contract research from the centre of excellence. Thisresults in a higher contract research volume, yet less royalty income.IMEC follows this approach16

Heavy structure: the centre gets significant basic funding, in order to build awell elaborated structure, hire (many) researchers, develop researchprogrammes, potentially with universities. The goal would obviously also toengage in competitive grants, but the Key Performance Indicators of the centrewould likely be to build intellectual property, contribute to science and havemany triple A publications. Typically these centres of excellence also have astrong Tech Transfer Office. The basic dotation would be e.g. 40 million € /year. With this money, the overhead structure, technology transfer office andresearchers are paid. Additionally, competitive granting, industrial income orincome from licenses and royalties is possible. VIB is this structure.

Light structure: the centre does not get basic funding, actually only projectfunding (or minor basic funding). This means that the centre will have toengage in competitive grants in order to be financed. The overhead structure isvery light and very small (e.g. only a manager, a CFO and a businessdeveloper). The researchers are financed by competitive grants and industrypartners. The basic funding would add up to e.g. 300 000 € per year to pay theoverhead costs and the renting costs. However, the competitive grants can addup to many millions per year. SIM (Strategic Innovative Materials inFlanders) is a light structure17.

16 IMEC means Interuniversity Microelectronics CentreImec performs world-leading research in nanoelectronics. Imec leverages its scientific knowledge with theinnovative power of its global partnerships in ICT, healthcare and energy. Imec delivers industry-relevanttechnology solutions. In a unique high-tech environment, its international top talent is committed to providingthe building blocks for a better life in a sustainable society.http://www2.imec.be/

17 SIM contributes to the competitive position of the materials industry in Flanders by means of:strengthening the scientific base and building technology platforms in relevant areas, and by generating anopen innovative environment for close collaboration between industry & academia.

http://www.sim-flanders.be/


June 2014 31

The table below aims to reflect these trends, giving an approximative idea of the costsincurred, depending on the type of centre of excellence and its functioning.

Light structure Heavy structure

(SIM Flanders)

IPvalorization

model(VIB)

Non IP-valorization

model( IMEC)

Basic Funding 650 000 € / year 40 Million €/year 40 Million €/yearCompetitive grants 6 Million /year 20 Million € /year 50 Million €/year

Contract research(collaboration agreement) 500 000 € / year 5 Million €/year 200 Million €/year

Licence/royalty income N/A 5 Million €/year N/ASpin-off income N/A 2 Million €/year 1 Million €/year

Overhead 500 000 €/ year 5 Million €/year 80 Million €/yearPurchase of raw

material/consumables andmiscellaneous goods and

services

N/A 20 Million €/year 40 Million €/year

Researchers

Internal:500 000 €/yearExternal:5 M €/year

35 Million €/year 40 Million €/year

Equipment None 2 Million €/year 120 Million €/year

Financial input

Industrial income

Costs

We have determined which specific costs, in general, have to be taken intoconsideration to set up a new centre of excellence or to upgrade an already existingone. Then we have reported on the different sectors where centre of excellences arebeing used. The variable costs vary across sector and illustrate the major differences.Given that the annual accounts of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, Fraunhofer IZI andCIRCE were not publicly available, we have relied on VIB, IMEC and SIM to reflect withmore details on the annual accounts.


June 2014 32

3.2 Results/conclusions of work package 3

Without aiming to be exhaustive, work package three has provided insightsinto the different costs to set up a centre of excellence. We have conducted acomparative analysis of three different centres of excellence in Belgium, acrossscientific sectors and having each a specific IP and funding strategy.

We have explained three elements with regard to how an innovation centre ofexcellence can be developed :

The Intellectual Property (IP) Strategy, depending on whether the centre hasopted for an IP stringent or “light” strategy.

o IP stringent: the goal of the centre of excellence is to build up top qualityscience, ensure that the IP is protected (e.g. through patents) and tovalorize this IP.

o IP light: the goal of the centre of excellence is to build up top qualityscience, ensure that the IP is protected (e.g. through patents) but to usethis IP as background IP and to give free licenses to industry partners thatdecide to buy contract research from the centre of excellence. This resultsin a higher contract research volume, yet less royalty income.

Heavy structure: the centre gets significant basic funding, in order to build awell elaborated structure, hire (many) researchers, develop researchprogrammes, potentially with universities. The goal would obviously also toengage in competitive grants, but the Key Performance Indicators of the centrewould likely be to build intellectual property, contribute to science and have manytriple A publications.

Light structure: the centre does not get basic funding, actually only projectfunding (or minor basic funding). This means that the centre will have to engagein competitive grants in order to be financed.

The three centres of excellence identified are in Belgium, given the industry insights wehave within the Enterprises Risk Services practice of Deloitte Belgium. This first analysisof the costs of centres of excellence is therefore somewhat limited to Belgium and doesnot reflect exhaustively its European dimension. Another study on the financialsustainability aspects of centres of excellence in Europe would be needed to explore ata further scale the different costs elements, the maturity and the sectors of centres ofexcellence.


June 2014 33

ResultsOur results suggest that the set of quantitative and qualitative indicators used arefunctional and reflect in a coherent way the requirements to define, set up and/orupgrade centres excellence, in Europe and elsewere in the world. Our findings alsoreflect the needed costs to do so.

What we have seen is that excellence is multidimensional and systemic. Scientificexcellence flourishes with best-practice leadership, management and performanceevaluation. This culture of excellence is difficult to replicate from world-class leadingresearch organisations like the MIT to a local economy where the ecosystem andbusiness climate might be less favourable to entrepreneurship, investment, innovationand excellence.

Conclusions of the study.

Centres of excellence can neither be created from scratch neither by decree. They needto rely both on a solid ecosystem and dynamic synergies created between aUniversity/research centre and the industry. Centres of excellence cannot be sustainedwhere the entrepreneurship culture is not favoured, whether this is due to theentrepreneur’s will and/or to the business climate. Centres of excellence cannot last andensure research/business continuity whereby the source of income is not diversified –i.e not only relying on EU-funding on stopping at the end of the FP-project. Last but notleast, building a centre of excellence takes time (at least 10 years), requires investmentand political will.


June 2014 34

4 Annexes

4.1 MIT Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS)18

4.1.1 IdentificationEECS' nearly 130 faculty work with four major affiliate labs: the Computer Science andArtificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), the Laboratory for Information and DecisionSystems (LIDS), the Microsystems and Technology Laboratories (MTL) and theResearch Laboratory of Electronics (RLE). The nature of interdisciplinary andcollaborative thinking demonstrated by EECS faculty members cuts across these labs,reaching across MIT and into industry and academia worldwide.

4.1.2 Benchmarking / quantitative indicators

Number ofinternational AAA

publications

73 PhDs theses issued in 201319

The MIT Press eBooks Library in Computing &Engineering offers, in partnership with theInstitute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers(IEEE), approximately 70% of titles in computing-related fields, such as computer science, artificialintelligence, information theory, and computerprogramming. Access to nearly 550 titles, with

18 http://web.mit.edu/annualreports/pres12/2012.04.05.pdf19Available in open access at :http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7815/browse?order=DESC&rpp=20&sort_by=2&etal=-1&offset=0&type=dateissued

Type of research beingperformed

Applied

Technology type Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence; Information and Decision Systems; Microsystems Technology ; Electronics.


June 2014 35

approximately 40 new titles to be introduced eachyear is granted20.

20 http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/subscriptions/prod/mit_press_ebooks.html21 https://entrepreneurship.mit.edu/uploads/Entrepreneurial_Impact_The_Role_of_MIT.pdf

Success ininternational

competitive grants

X

Number of PhDdegrees delivered

103 Doctoral Degrees (Ph.D. & Sc.D.) in 2012

Number of spin-offscreated X

Information not found about spinoffs created, butabout companies created.

The 25,800 currently active companies foundedby MIT alumni employ about 3.3 million peopleand generate annual world sales of $2 trillion,producing the equivalent of the eleventh-largesteconomy in the world21.

More than 20 % of the total of MIT founderscome from the EECS department. Examples ofcompanies founded by MIT Alumni from the EESCare : Hewlett Packart (1939), the BoseCorporation (1964), Apollo Computer (1980),Thinking Machines Corportation (1982)…

Among the researchers/teachers of the EECS,important research is being conducted on : theWorld Wide Web (CSAIL, Sir Tim Berners-Lee),the conversion of analog to digital TV (RLE, JaeS. Lim), building more reliable grids throughdevelopment of systems behavior algorithms(LIDS, Munther A. Dahleh) and could conduct tofurther spin-offs creation in the future.

Industrial incomefrom valorization

of IP X


June 2014 36

22 http://www.eecs.mit.edu/outreach/industrial-connection-program

Industrial incomefrom

contract research

50% of total revenues for MIT (as a whole) for thefiscal year 2013

Number ofteaching/research

staff internal

125 faculty members, 4 Institute Professors,96 Professors, 34 Associate Professors, 8Assistant Professors, 1 Visiting Professor, 33Professors, Emeriti/ae, 3 Adjunct Professors, 2Senior Lecturers, 11 Senior Research Staff

Number ofteaching/research

staff externalX

Proximity of largeindustrial partners

in the sameindustry22

Apple, Dropbox, Ebay, Paypal, Twitter, Google,HP, Microsoft, VMWare… The proximity of largeindustrial partners with MIT is exploitedthrough the MIT Industrial ConnectionProgramme (ICP), which is an affiliateprogramme to enhance company visibility forthe purpose of recruiting students in MIT’sdepartment of Electrical Engineering &Computer Science (EECS).


June 2014 37

4.2 The Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology IZI

Founded in Munich in 1949 by representatives of industry and academia, thegovernment of Bavaria and the nascent Federal Republic, the Fraunhofer Society(Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung : “FraunhoferSociety for the advancement of applied research”) is a German research organizationwith 67 institutes spread throughout Germany, each focusing on different fields ofapplied science (as opposed to the Max Planck Society, which works primarily on basicscience). It employs around 23,000 people, mainly scientists and engineers, with anannual research budget of about 1.7 billion €. Some basic funding for the FraunhoferSociety is provided by the state (the German public, through the federal governmenttogether with the Lander, “owns” the Fraunhofer Society), but more than 70% of thefunding is earned through contract work, either for government-sponsored projects orfrom industry.

The organization has seven centres in the United States, under the name “FraunhoferUSA”, and three in Asia. In October 2010, Fraunhofer announced that it would open itsfirst research centre in South America.

The so-called "Fraunhofer Model" has been in existence since 1973 and has led to thesociety's continuing growth. Under the model, the Fraunhofer Society earns about 70%of its income through contract research with industry or specific government projects.The other 30% of the budget is sourced in the proportion 9:1 from federal and state(Land) government grants and is used to support preparatory research.

Thus the size of the society's budget depends largely on its success in maximizingrevenue23. This funding model applies not just to the central society itself but also to theindividual institutes. This serves both to drive the realisation of the Fraunhofer Society'sstrategic direction of becoming a leader in applied research as well as encouraging aflexible, autonomous and entrepreneurial approach to the society's research priorities.

The Fraunhofer Society currently operates 67 Fraunhofer institutes24 and research units.For the purpose of our study, we have chosen to analyse and apply our list of indicatorsto the Fraunhofer Institute for cell Therapy and Immunology IZI25.

23 http://www.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/fraunhofer-annual-report.html24 http://www.fraunhofer.de/en/institutes-research-establishments.html25 http://www.izi.fraunhofer.de/fraunhofer-izi.html?&L=1


June 2014 38

The Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology IZI investigates anddevelops solutions to specific problems at the interfaces of medicine, life sciences andengineering.

4.2.1 Identification :

4.2.2 Benchmarking / quantitative indicators :


publications

66 in 2012 for IZI ; 8,000 per year for theFraunhofer society.


competitive grants

see FP7 subject-related grants in the table below(data from January 2014).


16 (i.e.4% of the total workforce) in 2013

Number of spin-offscreated

X

Industrial incomefrom valorization of

IPX

Industrial incomefrom contract

research

The revenues are composed of :

34 % public funding, 40 % industrial revenues, 4 % EU funding 22 % miscellaneous revenues (e.g. foundations).


Applied

Technology type Life Sciences Cell Therapy Diagnostics and Biobanks


June 2014 39

Number of researchstaff (internal):

200 Employees26

Number of researchstaff (external) X

Proximity of largeindustrial partners inthe same industry, in

Leipzig

BIO CITY, one of the most modern centres forbiotechnology and biomedicine in Germany27;

EFFIGOS, a company which creates three-dimensional graphics of biological structuresand processes for all areas of the lifesciences28;

C-LESTA provides customised enzymes andproduction strains for industrial biotechnologyapplications, by applying cutting-edge,proprietary technologies29;

SONOVUM, a “visionary” medical technologyfor improved early detection of strokes30;

4.2.3 Qualitative indicators

Own researchagenda Cell-therapeutic methods of regenerating non-

functioning tissue and organs through to thebiological substitution with tissue cultivated invitro (tissue engineering).

Adjacent researchfield

Medicine-related industries and businesses

Spillover effectstowards adjacent

industry

Solutions ranging from market studies rightdown to the development of a market-readyproduct and its marketing authorization.

26 http://www.izi.fraunhofer.de/institut-in-zahlen.html?&L=127 http://bio-city-leipzig.de/bio-city-en/what-is-the-bio-city28 http://effigos.com/en/services.html29 http://www.c-lesta.com30 http://www.sonovum.de/en/


June 2014 40

High rate ofexchange of

qualifiedHuman

Resources

X

Embedded in aknowledge

region

To enhance regional networking and to promote and coordinateresearch activities and graduate education, the Leipzig ResearchForum31 was established in 2008. Through this collective strategyand consultation body the University boosts its long standingcooperations with non-university research institutes specificallyconcentrating on joint research projects and jointly operatingscholarly service institutions.

Apart from the University of Leipzig and its affiliated institutes, thefollowing institutions are represented in the Forum:

University of Applied Sciences "Hochschule für Technik,Wirtschaft und Kultur (HTWK)"

Leipzig Graduate School of Management (HHL)

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ)

Fraunhofer Centre for Central and Eastern Europe (MOEZ)

Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology (IZI)

Leibniz Institute of Surface Modification (IOM)

Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography (IfL)

Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (MPI-EVA)

Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and BrainSciences (MPI-CBS)

Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences (MPI-MIS)

Saxonian Academy of Sciences (SAW)

City of Leipzig

Supportivefederal/regional

innovationprogramme

High-Tech Strategy for Germany

31 http://www.zv.uni-leipzig.de/en/research/excellence-initiative/leipzig-research-forum.html


June 2014 41

Numbers offollowers onsocial media

(Twitter and/orFacebook):

614 Followers on Twitter (as of February 27th 2013)32

Attractivenessfor graduated

PhDsX

32 https://twitter.com/FraunhoferIZI


June 2014 42

SpecificProgramme

Priority Area

Signed grant agreementswith at least one

participant in theselection

All participations in grantagreements

Project cost in grantagreements

Project cost for allparticipations in

selection

EU financialcontribution to grant

agreements

EU financialcontribution to all

participations in theselection

(euro) (euro) (euro) (euro)Health 19 202 119825711 12414219 86520629 9416560

Food, Agriculture andFisheries, andBiotechnology

12 208 84562605 8612462 60531792 6504684

Nanosciences,Nanotechnologies,Materials and new

ProductionTechnologies - NMP

191 2690 1251481574 148746331 865574202 112212954

JTI-IMI (InnovativeMedicines Initiative)

2 70 41015618 900982 15886491 679376

JTI-ENIAC(Nanoelectronics

Technologies 2020)19 506 619055368 22723779 99947081 3425302

JTI-FCH EuropeanHydrogen and Fuel CellTechnology Platform)

9 89 77666817 4275125 36785840 1952984

IDEAS European ResearchCouncil

1 2 609689 462276 414118 282675

PEOPLE Marie-Curie Actions 42 309 107737074 11892163 107661474 11862763Research

Infrastructures19 365 121978790 7346655 93854586 5496434

Research for the benefitof SMEs

128 1119 201839587 3439026 149007202 2849894

Regions of Knowledge 2 23 1029513 112898 849603 71038Research Potential 1 4 1422864 383964 999945 194877Science in Society 10 95 22356169 3382273 16383835 2263490

Activities ofInternationalCooperation

4 26 4765962 755945 3187635 494367

Health 17 177 117670896 12244816 84563366 9252162Food, Agriculture and

Fisheries, andBiotechnology

11 195 82456338 8490465 58560509 6382687



174 2469 1227865251 146183120 847193315 110525877

ResearchInfrastructures

17 356 120371487 6955556 92754959 5258359


5 41 10368148 1204590 5897845 684373

Total 754 10118 5554752858 600569596 3804553067 456331382

Health 2 25 2154815 169403 1957263 164398Food, Agriculture and

Fisheries, andBiotechnology

1 13 2106267 121997 1971283 121997



17 221 23616323 2563211 18380887 1687078


1 2 609689 462276 414118 282675


2 9 1607303 391099 1099627 238075


1 7 1263598 161600 939539 108070

Regions of Knowledge 2 23 1029513 112898 849603 71038Research Potential 1 4 1422864 383964 999945 194877

Activities ofInternationalCooperation

4 26 4765962 755945 3187635 494367

CSA - Coordination and Support Action

COOPERATION

CAPACITIES

CP - Collaborative Projects (including combination of CP and CSA)

COOPERATION

CAPACITIES

FRAUNHOFER-GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FOERDERUNG DER ANGEWANDTEN FORSCHUNG E.V (January 2014)FP7 Signed Grant Agreements: Participation and Contribution by Priority Area

All Funding Schemes

COOPERATION

CAPACITIES


June 2014 43

4.3 Cambridge Computer Lab 33

The Computer Laboratory is an academic department within the University ofCambridge that encompasses Computer Science, along with many aspects ofEngineering, Technology and Mathematics.

4.3.1 Identification

4.3.2 Benchmarking


publications

17 per year34, plus all the Lab researcherspublications, available on their personalwebpages.


competitive grants

see FP7 subject-related grants in the tablebelow (data from January 2014).


119 PhD candidates (academic year 2013/2014).

Number of spin-offscreated

One of the world's first computers, EDSAC, wasdeveloped at Cambridge Computer lab and it hashelped to form over 200 successful start-ups.

Industrial incomefrom valorization of

IP

None, because the computer Lab “does not havea policy of trying to sell IP”, according to theHead of Department, Prof. Andy Hopper(February 2014).

33 http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk34 http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-table.html


Applied

Technology type Computer Science Engineering Technology, Mathematics.


June 2014 44

Industrial incomefrom contract

research

The majority of the Computer Lab funding comesfrom UK Research Councils. However, in theacademic year 2012-2013, there was an increasein EU and overseas funding, taking the researchincome from £4.8M in 2011/12 to £6.3M in2012/13.35

Number of researchstaff (internal): 41 academic staff, 5 research fellows and

81 post-doctoral research workers (in2013/2014)

Number of researchstaff (external) 29 support staff


Own researchagenda

The Laboratory undertakes research in a broadrange of subjects within the disciplines ofComputer Science, Engineering, Technology,and Mathematics.

Adjacent researchfield

Current research areas include bioinformatics,computer architecture, computer vision,distributed systems, graphics and human-computer interaction, logic and semantics,machine learning, natural language processing,networking and wireless communication,operating systems and virtualization,programming, security and sustainablecomputing.

Spillover effectstowards adjacent

industry

See the Computer Lab Supporters Club1, set upas win-win collaboration with the adjacentindustrial community (Altera, Amazon, ARM,Aveva, Blue Creation, Cambridge Consultants…1.

Whereas some academic research suggest thatConcentration of high technology employmentturns out to be the most important factorpromoting local academic knowledge spillovers(A. Varga), a study from Cambridge Universityfrom 2011 suggests that the contrary canhappen in practice1: “Writing in the Journal ofEconomic Geography, Huber reports that, farfrom developing the informal social networksthat are supposed to stimulate knowledgeexchange, most people working in the

35 Annual report 2013 : http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/local/committees/facultyboard/files/annualreports/cl-review-2012-13.pdf


June 2014 45

Cambridge cluster don't feel that they need to,and don't have the time. His study, of 105people from 46 different hardware and softwarecompanies revealed that many of them feel thatthey work in too closely-specialised a field tobenefit from casual ideas-swapping outside theworkplace. Often, when they do shareknowledge or test ideas, they do it online withother specialists, who are just as likely to live inCalifornia as Cambridge”.

High rate ofexchange of qualified

Human Resources

Cambridge University participates in theNetwork of Excellence in Internet Science

Embedded in aknowledge region Silicon Fen, as described above

Supportivenational/regional

innovationprogramme

Key business support services available from the UKGovernment1 and the County of Cambridgeshire1:

e-learning tool that advises on the tax andNational Insurance issues involved in startingyour own business.

Access to specialist resources, businessnetworks and events for sharing best practicecan be invaluable in enabling businesses of anysize to respond to new challenges andopportunities.

Cambridge Network has an up-to-date list ofevents run by them and their members takingplace in the Cambridge area.

Cambridgeshire has an extremely activebusiness networking culture and an abundanceof support is available from general businessservices to highly specialist niche networks.Although the Council does not provide businesssupport services directly, it helps to shape thebusiness support strategy for the county andensures its effective delivery.

Other forms of help and assistance are availableto local businesses through Trading Standards,particularly with regard to trading lawrequirements, licensing and registrations andconsumer complaints and advice.


June 2014 46

Numbers of followerson social media(Twitter and/or

Facebook):

75 Likes on Facebook for the Computer Lab (asof February 27th 2013)1

The Computer Lab has no official TwitterAccount (as of February 27th 2013).

Number of followers of Cambridge University onTwitter : 105 000

Attractiveness forgraduated PhDs

81 Post-doctoral Researchers


June 2014 47

SpecificProgramme

Priority Area Signed grantagreements with at

least one participantin the selection

All participations ingrant agreements

Project cost in grantagreements

Project cost for allparticipations in

selection

EU financialcontribution to

grant agreements

EU financialcontribution to all

participations in theselection

(euro) (euro) (euro) (euro)Information andCommunication

Technologies58 792 399848349 27576715 290334630 21003194


119 154 218557130 193620812 218513728 193577410

PEOPLE Marie-Curie Actions 251 736 220209386 61184921 220109486 61169521Research

Infrastructures18 353 182148874 9708300 107101037 4660449


5 35 7094999 42171 5335691 29786

Science in Society 3 67 8729365 405413 7105229 335359

Support for thecoherent development

of research policies1 9 905513 86400 820000 77365


14 307 177777469 9290814 103846037 4325030

Information andCommunication

Technologies4 117 25431356 446756 16559999 365407

Information andCommunication

Technologies7 99 12992957 928643 10514818 837460


3 3 442324 442324 398923 398923


4 46 4371405 417486 3255000 335419

Science in Society 3 67 8729365 405413 7105229 335359Support for the

coherent developmentof research policies

1 9 905513 86400 820000 77365


116 151 218114806 193178488 218114805 193178487

PEOPLE Marie-Curie Actions 251 736 220209386 61184921 220109486 61169521Research for the benefit

of SMEs5 35 7094999 42171 5335691 29786

THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS AND SCHOLARS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE (January 2014)FP7 Signed Grant Agreements: Participation and Contribution by Priority Area

All Funding Schemes

CAPACITIES

NOE - Networks of Excellence

CSA - Coordination and Support Action

CAPACITIES


June 2014 48

4.4 CIRCE : Research Centre for Energy Resources and Consumption


CIRCE is a research centre founded in 1993 with the support of the University ofZaragoza, to create and develop innovative solutions and scientific/technical knowledgeand transfer them to the business sector in the field of energy.CIRCE’s mission is to drive forward improvements in energy efficiency and to spread theuse of renewable energy by means of the development of R+D+I (Research,Development and Innovation) activities that respond to the needs of national andinternational producers, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Circe's mission consists of the following objectives:

To improve competitiveness of national companies by means of the improvementof their energy processes;

To develop and apply new technologies that improve energy efficiency andfacilitate the diffusion of renewable energy;

To develop internationally acclaimed training programmes in energy; To encourage and promote the improvement of energy efficiency and the use of

renewable energy in society through information and ongoing training.

CIRCE has its headquarters in a zero emissions building situated on the River Ebrocampus of the University of Zaragoza. Since 2009, CIRCE has had a permanentdelegation in Brussels to facilitate participation in European R+D+I projects, as well asinteraction with the main networks and European agencies in the energy sector.The University of Zaragoza CIRCE Mixed University Research Institute was formed in2009 through a collaboration agreement between the University of Zaragoza and theCIRCE foundation.The CIRCE Institute enables the unification of research and training activities developedby researchers at the CIRCE foundation and the University of Zaragoza teaching staffwho collaborate regularly with CIRCE.

Type ofresearch being

performed

Applied

Technologytype

Energy efficiency


June 2014 49

4.4.2 Benchmarking for 2011, 2012 and 2013 years

Number ofinternational

AAApublications

26 publications/year, according the Journal Citation Report(JCR - Thomson Scientific)

Success ininternationalcompetitive

grants

11,7 M€ for 19 projects implemented in 2011, 2012 and2013.

Year % of success 2011 25 (4 of 16) 2012 35 (7 of 20) 2013 36 (8 of 22)

Number ofPhD degrees

delivered

5 per year (16 in total in 2011, 2012 and 2013).

Number ofspin-offscreated

1 : Fores, for Renewable Energy Services

Industrialincome fromvalorization

of IP

0

Industrialincome from

contractresearch

3.642.871,45 €/year.

Number ofresearch staff

(internal):

225 internal staff/year


(external)

4 external staff/year

Proximity oflarge

industrialpartners in thesame industry

Year Value of signedcontracts

Partners

2011 2 313 211 € Iberdrola, Unión Fenosa,Gas Natural, Grupo Endesa

2012 2 009 713 € Iberdrola, Unión Fenosa,Gas Natural, Grupo Endesa,La Caixa, Gamesa

2013 2 202 386 € Iberdrola, ENEL, Grupo Endesa


June 2014 50


Ownresearchagenda

CIRCE’s own research agenda is the following :

Energy and energy efficiency management systems Energy-based characterization of industrial and activity

sectors Verification and measurement of energy efficiency

performance Analysis of electrical supply quality Life cycle assessment of processes, products and

services Cofiring and biomass combustion Designing solid biofuel boilers Business eco-innovation and green economy Industrial ecology and energy analysis of natural

resources Power-water integration. Polygeneration Monitoring and simulation of thermal power systems Energy simulation and certification of new and existing

buildings Integrated analysis of resources (Raw materials, water

and waste recycling)

Adjacentresearch field

CIRCE’s mission is to drive forward improvements inenergy efficiency and to spread the use of renewableenergy by means of the development of R+D+Iactivities and training actions that respond to the needsof national and international producers, therebycontributing to sustainable development.

The concept of energy efficiency ranges from the searchfor better technology on thermal and electric systems ina broad scope of sectors (biomass heaters, processovens, thermal power stations, industries with intensiveenergy usage, cogeneration and desalting systems,etc.), to changes in behavior regarding energy usage,encouraging a wiser and more sustainable consumption.

CIRCE is an international expert in Industrial Ecologyand studies the potential energy integration of flows andprocesses both in power stations and in industrialEstates and / or technological parks, with the aim ofimproving their energy efficiency and environmentalsustainability.

Apart from the energy efficiency activities, CIRCE iscarrying out several research lines on renewableenergies, electrical grids and electrical vehicle

Spillovereffects

towardsadjacentindustry

The success of CIRCE in FP7 programme has led 5 SMEsfrom Aragón to participate in the FP7 programme and toincrease their innovation activity.

CIRCE provide services and technology transfer to theadjacent industry


June 2014 51


qualifiedHuman

Resources

X


region

Aragon can be considered as a knowledge region due tothe presence of the University of Zaragoza and severalResearch Centres. But this can only be considered dueto this fact because the funding coming from the regionis low.

Supportivefederal/regional

innovationprogramme

In the last years the number of programmes havedecreased and the grants related to them havedecreased too.

In CIRCE’s case, the competitive national and regionalgrants have decreased by 60% in the last three years.There are special national programmes (2 calls/year) toimprove the participation of research institutions inEuropean calls.

The maximum amount that a Centre can obtain isaround 200.000 €.



As of 27th February 2014 :

Twitter : 922 Facebook : 271


PhDs

CIRCE has no non‐competitive funds so it can not offerenough attractive grants to attract graduate PhDs.


June 2014 52

4.5 Warsaw University of Life Sciences

Although not a lot of information was publicly available about quantitative indicators,we have selected the Warsaw University of Life Sciences to illustrate the context of anFP7-project (see section 2.2)

The Warsaw University of Life Sciences (Szkoła Główna Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego,SGGW, literally "main school of rural economy") is the largest agricultural university inPoland. It was founded in 1816.


4.5.2 Benchmarking

Number ofinternationa

l AAApublications

X

Success ininternationa

lcompetitive

grants

Participation in FP7


performed

Basic

Technologytype

Agriculture related sciences, among others: LandscapeArchitecture, Biology, Biotechnology, Economics,Finance and Banking, Regional Planning, Informaticsand Econometrics, Environmental Engineering, Forestry,Environment Protection, Horticulture, Agriculture,Sociology, Agricultural and Forestry Techniques, WoodTechnology, Commodity Sciences, Tourism andRecreation, Food Technology, Human Nutrition,Veterinary Medicine, Management and ProductionEngineering, Management and Marketing, AnimalScience


June 2014 53


deliveredX

(Information not publicly available in English)


X


of IP

X


contractresearch

X


(internal):X

(Information not publicly available in English)


(external) X(Information not publicly available in English)

Proximity oflarge

industrialpartners inthe sameindustry

X

(Proximity with the College of Europe, Natolin Campus)


June 2014 54


Ownresearchagenda

Life Sciences


Plant health Horticulture Insect ethology Genetics Functional genomics

Spillovereffects


X


qualifiedHuman

Resources

As a concrete example, the Warsaw Plant Health Initiativewill be executed in a Partnership with 26 research institutions(24 European partners, 2 national ones and 2 agro-businessentities). To achieve the above-mentioned objectives, thefollowing activities will be undertaken: 197 staff exchange visits (64 out-going & 133 incoming),

plus 72 conference participations (presentations). 6 international mini-symposia with 10 workshops will be

organised and proceedings published.

Embedded ina knowledge

region

The University of Warsaw was established in 1816. Otherinstitutions for higher education include the MedicalUniversity of Warsaw, the National Defence University, theWarsaw School of Economics and the Warsaw University ofLife Sciences, the largest agricultural university founded in1818.


June 2014 55

Supportiveregional

innovationprogramme

Regional Innovative Strategy for Mazowieckie Region36.The strategy envisages hinging upon the region biggestasset, namely Warsaw – the capital city which is tobecome the key place of innovation concentration in theCentral and Eastern Europe. The region wants toencourage small and medium-sized enterprises to co-operate with the most innovative Polish andinternational enterprises.

More foreign investment (especially in the Field of hightechnology sector) could be directed here and regionalfirms should focus on export development and licenceselling. The task for Mazovian universities andeducation institutions is to increase their participation ininternational research projects. Mazovia is to bepromoted as an innovation-friendly region.



As of 27th February 2014 : 16 306 Likes on Facebookfor the Warsaw University of Life Sciences37


PhDs X

36 http://www.pi.gov.pl/eng/chapter_86528.asp37 https://www.facebook.com/SGGW.Warszawa


June 2014 56

2014–


June 2014 57

4.6 Maria Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute ofOncology (MCMCC)38

MCMCC is the leading Polish comprehensive cancer centre, as well as the primarygovernment research institution devoted solely to oncology. Founded in 1932, currentlyit is divided into 9 specialized clinical departments responsible for the diagnostics andtherapy of different tumor types and other departments devoted to therapy,epidemiology, prevention, pathology, imaging and basic research in the cancer biology.The clinical building houses 745 hospital beds; there is also a separate research buildingwith laboratories and educational facilities. The size of the institution can berepresented by a quota of numbers – in 2009 the inpatient clinics treated 28000patients; another 26000 patients were treated in the One-Day Chemotherapy Section,and as many as 340 000 outpatient visits were recorded.

The key points for collaborations with other institutions are:1) Collected clinical records of nearly 500 000 patients for retrospective studies,

including histopathological material,2) Prospective biobanking of tissues for transnational studies,3) Highly experienced medical staff involved in multimodal patient treatment in

specified types of cancer, focused also on rare cancers as soft tissue and bonesarcomas, lymphomas and neuroendocrine tumors.

4) Experienced team of researchers actively involved in high-throughput genomictechnologies.

5) Administrative infrastructure for academia-initiated and sponsored clinical trials.


38 Polish name: Centrum Onkologii-Instytut im. Marii Skłodowskiej-Curie w Warszawie;

web page: http://www.coi.waw.pl, Head Director: Professor Krzysztof Warzocha MD, PhD


performed

Basic

Technologytype

Therapy, epidemiology, prevention, pathology, imagingand basic research in the cancer biology


June 2014 58

4.6.2 Benchmarking


AAApublications

307 in 2013 296 in 2012


grants

4 in PF7 2 in FP6


delivered

23 in 2013


X


of IP

X


contractresearch

X


(internal):

29 professors and 107 researchers


(external) X

Proximity oflarge


X


June 2014 59


Ownresearchagenda

Oncology


Cancer epidemiology Genetics HTA (Health Technology assessment)

Spillovereffects


X


qualifiedHuman

Resources

X


regionX


June 2014 60

Supportiveregional

innovationprogramme

Regional Innovative Srategy for Mazowieckie Region39.The Strategy envisages hinging upon the region biggestasset, namely Warsaw – the capital city which is tobecome the key place of innovation concentration in theCentral and Eastern Europe. The region wants toencourage small and medium-sized enterprises to co-operate with the most innovative Polish andinternational enterprises.

More foreign investment (especially in the Field of hightechnology sector) should be directed here and regionalfirms could focus on export development and licenceselling. The task for Mazovian universities andeducation institutions is to increase their participation ininternational research projects. Mazovia is to bepromoted as an innovation-friendly region.



X


PhDsVery high

39 http://www.pi.gov.pl/eng/chapter_86528.asp


June 2014 61

4.7 VIB

VIB is a life sciences research institute, based in Flanders, Belgium. VIB performs basicresearch with a strong focus on translating scientific results into pharmaceutical,agricultural and industrial applications.


4.7.2 Benchmarking


AAApublications

171 top publications


grants

A total of 21 ERC-grants, as of 201340

VIB is highly successful in EU competitive granting(notably FP7).

3.531.000€ in other grants in 2012, in particularinternational grants and awards.

44.643.000 € in 2012 core funding (incl. NERF) from theFlemish Government;

40 http://www.vib.be/en/news/Pages/VIB's-has-reached-the-impressive-number-of-ERCgrants.aspx


performed

Basic

Technologytype

LifeSciences Biotechnology.


June 2014 62


delivered

936 between 1995 and 2012


VIB has co-founded 12 startup companies, the majoritybased on breakthrough research. VIB incubates technology,builds proprietary platforms, develops a business plan,identifies experienced managers to run the company andattracts national or international investors willing to invest inthe startup41.

Venture capital backed companies

Ablynx ActoGeniX AgroSavfe CropDesign Devgen Pronota Multiplicom Q-Biologicals

Non venture capital backed companies

Bio-Accelerator Bio-incubator Leuven Biolign FlandersBio


of IP

License fees accounted for about 7% of total industrialincome in 201242

41 http://www.vib.be/en/business-opportunities/spinoffs/Pages/default.aspx42 Total industrial income VIB per type of agreement worldwide 2012


June 2014 63


contractresearch

In 2012, VIB realized a turnover of 18.340.000€ (up 7% over2011) from partnership agreements43, out of an operatingincome amounted to 78.657.000€.

The turnover originated from industrial partners, the EuropeanCommission, and the VIB Bio-Incubator Gent:

Turnover generated with industrial partners (incl.orders and contracts in progress) amounted to9.462.000€. The 11% decrease compared to 2011 ismainly due to a decrease in royalty revenues andexternal services.

The research contracts with the European Commissiongenerated revenues of 7.601.000€ in 2012. Thissignificant increase (up 39% over 2011) is due to anumber of important contracts (such as ERC andomics@vib) having been started up.

Operating the VIB Bio-Incubator generated a turnoverin 2012 of 1.277.000€ (up 27% over 2011), due to anincreased occupation rate.


(internal):

1300 scientists from over 60 countries


(external)X

Proximity oflarge


PGS and Innogenetics in Gent, Bayer Cropscience andThromb X in Leuven, Janssen Pharmaceutica in Beerse

According to the VIB CRM database, 193 agreements weresigned in Flanders in 2012 with Biotech & pharmaceuticalcompanies.

The industrial income of VIB from collaborations inFlanders in 2012 is coming from agreements withbiotechnology (approximately 35%) and pharmaceuticalcompanies (approximately 21%).

43http://www.vib.be/en/about-vib/annual-report/2013/financial/activities/Pages/Notes-to-the-financial-statements.aspx


June 2014 64

5. Assessment of VIB44, IMEC and SIM45 annual accounts

5.1 VIB annual accounts

VIB Profit and Loss Statement 2011 OPERATING INCOME

The 2011 operating income amounted to 70.516.000€ compared to 68.513.000€ in2010. This 3% increase is explained by an increase in both the core funding from theFlemish Government and the various operating revenues.

TurnoverIn 2011, VIB realized a turnover of 17.060.000€ (down 2% from 2010) from contractresearch (incl. modifications to orders in progress). The turnover was generated withthe help of industrial partners and the European Commission, and from the operation ofthe VIB Bio-incubator Gent:

Turnover generated with the help of industrial partners (including completedcontracts and orders) amounted to 10 611 000€. The 5% decrease over lastyear is due to a decrease in royalty revenues.

Research contracts with the European Commission generated revenues of5.446.000€ in 2011 (up 9% from 2010).

Operating the VIB Bio-incubator generated a turnover of 1.003.000€ in 2011(down 24% from 2010). In 2011, the occupancy rate dropped due to theopening mid-2010 of the new Bio-Accelerator, also located in the ArdoyenTechnology Park (Gent).

Grant income

The 2011 Profit and Loss Statement shows a net grant income of 51.723.000€ (up 2%from 2010). This comprises the gross amounts received from the various grantinginstitutions, adjusted for the transfer of grant income to the balance sheet, in particularthe transfer of income to:

The “capital grants” item for investments financed with these funds; and

The “accrued charges and deferred income” item, under which allocated but notyet spent income is carried forward to the next operating year.

Gross grant income totaled 51.347.000€ comprised of:

37.696.000€ in 2011 core funding from the Flemish Government;

An additional subsidy of 3.180.000 from the Flemish Government for thedevelopment of the microscopy platform;

3.297.000€ in other grants, in particular international grants and awards;

44http://www.vib.be/en/about-vib/annual-report/2012/financial/activiteiten/Pages/notes%20to%20the%20financial%20statements.aspx

45 http://annualreport.imec.be/Annual-Accounts-2012/page.aspx/1238


June 2014 65

4.830.000€ due to the exemption from employer social security contributions forthe 2011 financial year in application of the Act of 29 April 1996, which providesfor an exemption from social security contributions for additionally hiredresearch personnel;

2.343.000€ due to partial payment of the withholding tax on the 2011 salaries ofresearchers, in application of the Royal Decree of 4 May 2004 and the BudgetAct of 24 December 2002.

Gross grant income derived from the core funding of the Flemish Government rose by9% due to the additional funding for the development of the microscopy platform.

Income from international grants and awards dropped by 10% in 2011.

Income from federal support programmes (exemptions on employer social securitycontributions and withholding tax) rose by 4%, mainly due to payroll growth.

In accordance with the accounting rules, the gross grant amount was subsequentlyadjusted for transfers to:

the “capital grants” item, in the amount of 456 000€; the depreciation on capitalgrants related to previously acquired assets slightly exceeded the investmentsfinanced by grant income in 2011;

the “accrued charges and deferred income” on the liabilities side of the balancesheet, in particular those related to grants; this item accounts for 79 000€.

Other operating incomeOther operating income amounted to 1.733.000€. This income mainly represents costsrelated to the expansion of the UGent-VIB Research Building FSVM.

OPERATING EXPENSESThe operating expenses totaled 69.218.000€ compared to 66.463.000€ in 2010. Thisrepresents an increase of 4% over last year.

Purchase of raw materials and consumablesThese expenses totaled 6.695.000€ a decrease of 7% over 2010.

Miscellaneous goods and servicesMiscellaneous goods and services totaled 18.742.000€ in 2011, an increase of 6% over2010.

Personnel costsPersonnel costs totaled 35.940.000€ in 2011, which amounts to an increase of 4% over2010. This is due in part to salary and index increases and in part to changes within theVIB workforce.

Depreciations and write-downsDepreciations rose by 2% to 6.689.000€

Other operating expendituresOther operating expenditures totaled 1.152.000€ in 2011. This amount mainlyrepresents various taxes and expenses to be invoiced.


June 2014 66

FINANCIAL CHARGES AND INCOMEFinancial income totaled 1.215.000€ (up 87% from 2010), consisting of interestincome in the amount of 1.160.000€ and exchange gains of 55 000€. The interestincome is significantly higher than for the previous financial year. This is explained byhigher realized interest rates.

Financial charges amounted to 719 000€ (up 44% from 2010). They consisted, onthe one hand, of interest paid 356 000€ on loans for the UGent-VIB Research BuildingFSVM at the Ardoyen Technology Park (Gent) and the VIB Bio-incubator Gent and, onthe other, of investment-related costs (309 000€). The expenditures rose mainlybecause of an increase in the number of investments in products subject to withholdingtaxes.

The balance consists of exchange losses totaling 54 000€.

EXTRAORDINARY INCOME AND EXPENDITURESExtraordinary income totaled 2.290.000€ in 2011. This amount mainly represents:

Income from the sale of part of VIB’s equity stake in stock-market-listedspinoff Ablynx (1.028.000€);

Technology contribution to Multiplicom (1.000.000€);

Technology contribution to Q-Biologicals (150 000€).

This results in the realized extraordinary income for 2011 being substantially higherthan last year (+529 000€).

Extraordinary expenditures totaled 877 000€ in 2011 (compared to 0 € in 2010). Thisamount represents:

the discount on equity stakes acquired in 2011 in Multiplicom and Q-Biologicals,given that when these will be redeemed the yield will partially benefit theinventors and basic research at the partner universities involved;

the write-down of the entire equity stake in Solucel, due to this limited companybeing dissolved.


June 2014 67

VIB Balance Sheet 2010

ASSETS (in €)

Heading Intangiblefixedassets

Land andbuildings

Plant,machineryandequipment

Furnitureandrollingstock

Fixed assetsunderconstruction

Totaltangiblefixed assets

Balance ason 31/12/10

1.755.000 17.420.000 11.101.000 289.000 30.000 28.840.000

Additionsandtransfers

180.000 125.000 3.929.000 26.000 549.000 4.629.000

Depreciation 515.000 1.177.000 4.464.000 70.000 0 5.711.000

Balance ason 31/12/11

1.420.000 16.368.000 10.566.000 245.000 579.000 27.758.000

Intangible fixed assetsPurchases of intangible fixed assets totaled 180.000€. This amount representsinvestments in software for administrative applications.

Tangible fixed assetsInvestments in tangible fixed assets totaled 4.629.000€ comprised of:

125.000€ under “land and buildings;

3.929.000€ under “plant, machinery and equipment,” primarily for investmentsin equipment intended for strategic basic research;

26.000€ under “furniture and rolling stock;”

549.000€ for fixed assets under construction; this mainly representsconstruction of the UGent-VIB Research Building FSVM in Gent.

Depreciation on tangible fixed assets (including assets taken out of service)totaled 5.711.000€ and was calculated in accordance with the applicable accountingrules.

The net book value of the tangible fixed assets at year-end amounted to 27.758.000€,a decrease compared to 2010 (-4%).


June 2014 68

Financial fixed assets

The book value of the financial fixed assets at the end of 2011 amounted to8.839.000€, an increase of 15% compared to 2010. The table below gives an overviewof VIB’s equity stakes. The changes in the various items under fixed financial assets areas follows:

Multiplicom (+600.000€): VIB participated in a capital increase and contributedtechnology;

Q-Biologicals (+ 425.000€): VIB founded the spinoff, provided equity capital andcontributed technology;

Pronota (+ 300.000€): VIB participated in a capital increase;

arGEN-X (+ 83.000€): VIB participated in a capital increase;

Ablynx (- 110.000€): VIB sold part of its equity stake;

Solucel (-150.000€): company is being dissolved.

Overview of holdings as on 31/12/11 based on book value

% of equity Book value (€)

Pronota 15.9% 3.088.000

Bio-incubator Leuven 33.3% 2.000.000

Actogenix 8% 1.607.000

Ablynx 2.3% 791.000

Multiplicom 42.2% 662.000

Q-Biologicals 24.8% 425.000

arGEN-XBiolign

0.6%49.8%

183.00053.000

Bio-Accelerator 2.0% 1.000

Total 8.810.000

The total book value of VIB’s holdings is 8.810.000€ The remaining balance of the fixedfinancial assets (29.000€) represents sureties paid in cash.


June 2014 69

Inventories and contracts in progress

In accordance with the applicable accounting rules, projects in progress for industrialpartners are entered under “contracts in progress” as long as the projects have notbeen completed, delivered and accepted. At the end of 2011, the amount under“contracts in progress” – based on the costs incurred – totaled 10.992.000€, comparedto 11.679.000€ at the end of 2010 (-6%).

Trade debtors and Other amounts receivable within one year

The amounts receivable within one year totaled 10.663.000€ (up 18% over 2010). Thisincrease is attributable to the increase in turnover and one-off items, i.e.:

the outstanding balance of the Flemish Government subsidy for the newmicroscopy platform (+ 450.000€);

the invoices to be prepared related to the expansion of the UGent-VIB ResearchBuilding FSVM (+ 464.000€).

Details of the amounts receivable are as follows:

outstanding grant money of 4.193.000€, representing mainly the outstandingbalance of the 2011 core funding allocated by the Flemish Government;

trade debts of 3.691.000€;

a claim against the National Office of Social Security for the reimbursement ofcontributions for researchers made in the 4th quarter of 2011 in the amount of1.329.000€;

a credit balance of 504.000€with regard to VAT administration;

invoices to be prepared totaling 464.000€,related to the expansion of the UGent-VIB Research Building FSVM;

other amounts receivable totaling 482.000€.

Cash investments

In 2011, cash investments amounted to 78.288.000€ (up 8% over 2010). These cashresources were conservatively invested in interest-yielding products and funds with adefensive investment strategy.

Cash resources totaled 1.420.000€ in 2011.

Deferred charges and accrued income

On the asset side, the deferred charges and accrued income totaled 6.919.000€ (up29% over 2010). This amount represents primarily revenue related to contract researchat the request of the European Commission.


June 2014 70

LIABILITIESAllocated funds and capital grants

After transfer of the balance of the 2011 financial year, the equity capital totals75.721.000€. This amount includes “allocated funds” in the amount of 53.769.000€,which represents the balance from operations to date, and “capital grants” in theamount of 21.952.000€.

The “allocated funds” grew by 3.207.000€ in 2011. This increase represents the entirepositive balance (surplus) for the financial year. The Board of Directors has decided toallocate this surplus to the VIB Technology Fund. This results in a de facto allocation ofthe 2011 surplus.

The item “capital grants” fell by 455.000€ This decrease can be explained by the factthat depreciation on existing assets exceeded new investments.

Amounts payable after one yearAt the end of 2011, amounts payable after one year amounted to 9.044.000€ (down5% from 2010) and consisted of:

5.243.000€ for financing VIB’s share in the UGent-VIB Research Building FSVMin Gent;

2.390.000€ for financing the VIB Bio-incubator Gent;

1.410.000€ for future amounts payable by VIB under the terms of its long-termlease with UGent for the land on which the VIB Bio-incubator Gent has beenbuilt.

Amounts payable within one year

The amounts payable within one year totaled 41.347.000€ (up 19% from 2010).The amounts payable after one year that came due in 2010 amounted to 502.000€ andcan be attributed in their entirety to the two previously mentioned loans for the UGent-VIB Research Building FSVM and the VIB Bio-incubator Gent.The amounts payable to trade debtors fell by 63.000€ to 4.152.000€.

Liabilities related to taxes, salaries and social security charges amounted to 6.493.000€(up 675.000€ from 2010), including such current liabilities as social security andwithholding tax payments. The advances received for contract research rose by6.401.000€ to 27.253.000€.The other amounts payable within one year, totaling2.946.000€, mainly represent amounts payable to inventors and the respectiveuniversities under the guidelines governing the allocation of income derived fromearnings realized from VIB startups and patents.

Accrued charges and deferred income (liability side)

The deferred income on the liability side allows for offsetting the time differencesbetween income payments (based on the accounting principles governing incomerecognition) and the spending of such funds, obviously within the boundaries of therelated contracts. The deferred income on the liability side totals 20.186.000€ (up 1%over 2010), distributed as follows:

14.170.000€ for VIB’s commitments related to strategic basic research, techtransfer and its social mandate;

15.500.000€ for VIB’s commitments related to its seed money fund;

516.000€ for miscellaneous revenues to be transferred.


June 2014 71

5.2 IMEC annual accounts : Balance sheet in € 2011 2012

Fixed assets 257.426.343 275.342.079

Tangible fixed assets 243.477.162 261.482.583

Land and buildings 78.423.514 70.946.519

Plant, machinery and equipment 120.929.847 146.960.455

Furniture and vehicles 476.246 318.244

Leased assets 4.560.400 3.279.450

Assets under construction 39.087.155 39.977.914

Financial fixed assets 13.949.181 13.859.496

Investments accounted for using the equity method 6.399.362 5.039.393

Other enterprises 7.549.818 8.820.103

Shares held, participations 5.787.381 7.235.066

Accounts receivable 1.762.437 1.585.037

Current assets 147.440.378 127.153.155

Accounts receivable after one year 36.383 0

Accounts receivable within one year 70.784.679 64.493.272

Accounts receivable 62.275.255 52.385.652

Other accounts receivable 8.509.424 12.107.620

Investments 36.272.083 123.634

Other investments 36.272.083 123.634

Cash 28.309.036 51.610.855

Deferred charges 12.038.197 10.925.394

Total assets 404.866.721 402.495.234


June 2014 72

Capital and reserves 143.314.500 152.427.106

Consolidated reserves 116.569.072 108.703.732

Negative consolidated differences 596.193 596.193

Translation differences 42.810 22.316

Investment grants 26.106.425 43.104.866

Minority intrests 35.838.398 36.442.640

Provisions and deferred taxes 2.777.273 3.232.609

Provisions for liabilities and charges 2.777.273 3.232.609

Major repairs and maintenance 2.432.081 2.490.531

Other liabilities and charges 345.192 742.077

Accounts payable 222.936.549 210.392.880

Accounts payable after one year 56.933.202 49.487.224

Leasing debts 3.121.538 2.160.923

Credit institutions 53.811.663 47.326.301

Trade debts

Accounts payable within one year 112.834.198 112.926.349

Current portion of long term debt

Short term financial debts – credit institutions 8.153.562 7.445.978

Trade debts 44.231.546 50.666.264

Suppliers 44.231.546 50.666.264

Advances received on contracts in progress 12.936.631 8.724.377

Taxes, remunerations and social security 21.848.655 25.077.567

Taxes 3.631.404 3.680.632


June 2014 73

Remunerations and social security 18.217.250 21.396.934

Other liabilities 25.663.804 21.012.162

Deferred income 53.169.149 47.979.307

Total liabilities46 404.866.721 402.495.234

46 http://annualreport.imec.be/Annual-Accounts-2012/page.aspx/1238


June 2014 74

Income statement 2012 in € 2011 2012

Operating income 300.173.588 320.556.249

Revenue from contract research 234.503.981 248.906.306

Miscellaneous income (charged-on costs, contrib. inkind, conferences ...)

12.715.839 15.228.774

Subsidies from the Flemish Region 45.721.000 48.208.000

Subsidies from the Dutch Government 7.232.768 8.213.169

Operating charges 299.072.381 321.548.357

Goods for resale, raw materials and consumables 59.774.885 63.915.528

Services and other goods 65.687.288 71.462.684

Remunerations, social security and pension costs 112.825.117 123.606.048

Depreciation, write-offs and provisions 59.613.154 61.355.443

Other operating costs 1.171.937 1.208.654

Interest charges -2.695.464 -2.423.672

Other financial charges and income 3.415.097 3.571.116

Operating result 1.850.841 155.336

Exceptional charges and income -652.495 -6.189.448

Taxes -187.624 -191.608

Profit of the year 980.722 -6.225.720

Investments 121.718.953 90.745.686


June 2014 75

5.3 Insights into SIM annual accounts

The annual accounts of SIM (Strategic Initiative Materials in Flanders) are not publiclyavailable. However, its General Manager, Guido Verhoeven, provided Deloitte with thefollowing information, as regards SIM governance characteristics.

SIM is functioning as a virtual knowledge centre, interconnecting and reinforcingexisting entities. The in-depth knowledge is therefore not to be built up in SIM itself.SIM is connecting academia with industry and builds up strategic business roadmaps,leading to technology roadmaps to be developed.

SIM is composed of :- A small core team : 6 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE);- Programme managers (one per programme) : +/- 0.5 FTE per programme;- Researchers: paid by SIM but actually part of an existing research lab.

For the SIM central office, SIM actually gets 640.000 € from government subsidy percalendar year, including programme management. This needs a substantial co-fundingfrom industry, roughly 400.000 € per year.

For project funding, SIM gets 6 Million € per year, which should gradually grow to 20Million €. Industry is also adding about 25 % to the research budget.

Although SIM is in principle a virtual institute, it has one “real” department beingFlamac, which is a high throughput lab, specialized in high throughput technologies.Flamac has had a financial injection at the start (industry and government) but is since2009 working without any government funding.


June 2014 76

6. References47

Andersson, M., C. Karlsson (2004), The Role of Accessibility for the Performance ofRegional Innovation Systems, in Karlsson, C., P. Flensburg & S.-Å. Hörte (2004) (Eds.),Knowledge Spillovers and Knowledge Management, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 283-310.Anttiroiko Ari-Veikko (2004), Editorial, International Journal of Technology Management(IJTM), Volume 28 - Issue 3/4/5/6 – 2004, Special Issue on Global Competition of High-Tech Centres, Guest Editor Ari-Veikko AnttiroikoArregle, J.-L., P. W. Beamish, et al. (2008). "The regional dimension of MNEs' foreignsubsidiary localization." J Int Bus Stud 40(1): 86-107.Arrow, K. (1962). "The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing." Review ofEconomic Studies 29: 155-173.Baptista, R. & P. Swann (1998), Do Firms in Clusters Innovate More? Research Policy27, 525-540.Bresnahan, T.F. & M. Trajtenberg (1995), General Purpose Technologies: “Engines ofGrowth”, Journal of Econometrics 65, 83-108.Bristow, G. (2003), The Implications of the New Economy for Industrial Location, inJones D.C. (2003) (Ed.), New Economy Handbook, Academic Press, London, 269-287.Brion, A. M., S. D. Jarwal, et al. (2009). "Measuring research quality using the journalimpact factor, citations and ‘Ranked Journals’: blunt instruments or inspired metrics?"Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 31(4): 289-300.Brusco, S. (1982). "The Emilian Model: Productive Decentralisation and SocialIntegration." Cambridge Journal of Economics 6(2): 167-184. 82Brynjolfson, E., L.M. Hitt & S. Yang (2002), Intangible Assets: Computers andOrganisational Capital, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Macroeconomics, Vol. 1,137-199.Belderbos, R., K. Fukao, et al. (2006), Foreign and Domestic R&D Investment, Instituteof Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.Bell, G. G. (2005). "Clusters, networks, and firm innovativeness." StrategicManagement Journal 23(3): 287-295.Boutellier, R., O. Gassmann, et al. (2008), Managing Global Innovation: Uncovering theSecrets of Future Competitiveness, Springer.Breschi, S. and Malerba, F. (2001), “The Geography of Innovation and EconomicClustering: Some Introductory Notes”, In Industrial and Corporate Change, v.10, n.4,pp. 817-33.Breschi, S. and L. Cusmano (2002). Unveiling the Texture of a European ResearchArea: Emergence of Oligarchic Networks under EU Framework Programmes, KITeS,Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi,Milano, Italy.Breschi, S. and F. Lissoni (2004). Knowledge networks from patent data:Methodological issues and research targets, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge,Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.Breschi, S. and F. Malerba (2005). Clusters, networks, and innovation, OxfordUniversity Press.Bresnahan Timothy, Gambardella Alfonso (Eds) (2004), Building high-Tech Clusters.Silicon Valley and Beyond, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge Journal ofEconomics, 6, 167-184.Cairncross, F. (1997), The Death of Distance, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,MA.Callon, M. (1992). The Dynamics of Techno-economic Networks. Technical Change andCompany Strategies. C. R., P. Saviotti and V. Walsh. London, Academic Press: 73-102.

47 European ICT Poles of Excellence, EIPE Working Paper 1, “defining European ICT Poles of Excellence :Literature Review”, by Giuditta de Prato, Daniel Nepelski, 2012


June 2014 77

Camagni, R. (1995), The Concept of Innovative Milieu and Its Relevance for PublicPolicies in European Lagging Regions, Papers in Regional Science 74, 317-340.Cantwell, J. and G. D. Santangelo (2000). "Capitalism, profits and innovation in the newtechno-economic paradigm." Journal of Evolutionary Economics 10(1): 131-157.Cantwell, J. A. (2009). "Location and the multinational enterprise." Journal ofInternational Business Studies 40(1): 35-41.Cantwell, J. A. and O. Janne (1999). "Technological globalisation and innovativecentres: the role of corporate technological leadership and locational hierarchy."Research Policy 28(2-3): 119-144.Carlino, G.A. (2001), Knowledge Spillovers: Cities’ Role in the New Economy, FederalReserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Review, Q4, 17-26.Chao-Chih, H. (2009). The Use of Social Network Analysis in Knowledge DiffusionResearch from Patent Data. International Conference on Advances in Social NetworkAnalysis and Mining. 83Cappellin, Riccardo and Orsenigo, Luigi (2006), Regional learning networks in mediumtech technologies and European integration, Paper presented to the XXVII ConferenzaItaliana di Scienze Regionali, Pisa, 12-14 ottobre 2006.Cohen-Blankshtain, G. & P. Nijkamp (2004), The Appreciative System of Urban ICTPolicies: An Analysis of Perceptions of Urban Policy Makers, Growth and Change 35,166-197.Crescenzi, R. (2005), Innovation and Regional Growth in the Enlarged Europe: The Roleof Local Innovative Capabilities, Peripherality, and Education, Growth and Change 36,471-507.De Prato, G. and D. Nepelski (2012). Global technological collaboration network.Network analysis of international co-inventions. Forthcoming in the Journal ofTechnology Transfer.Defever, F. (2006). "Functional fragmentation and the location of multinational firms inthe enlarged Europe." Regional Science and Urban EconomicsDG REGIO: "ESPON" Programme (2007-today). Homepage at:http://www.espon.eu/main/Menu_Programme/Dimitratos Pavlos, Liouka Ioanna, Young Stephen (2009), Regional location ofmultinational corporation subsidiaries and economic development contribution:Evidence from the UK, Journal of World Business, n. 44 (2009), pp.180-191.Douglas K.R. Robinson, Arie Rip, Vincent Mangematin (2007), Technologicalagglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology,Research Policy, Volume 36, Issue 6, July 2007, pp. 871-879.Douglas K.R. Robinson, Arie Rip, Vincent Mangematin (2007), Technologicalagglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology,Research Policy 36 (2007) 871–879.Dunning, J. (2002). Regions, Globalization, and the Knowledge-Based Economy. Oxford,Oxford Scholarship Online Monographs.Dunning, J. (2009). "Location and the multinational enterprise: A neglected factor."Journal of International Business StudiesEC (2000), "Towards a European research area", Preparatory documents for theInformal meeting of Research Ministers in Lisbon - 6 & 7 March 2000, EuropeanCommission, Directorate-General for Research available at:http://ec.europa.eu/research/area/prepdocs_en.htmlEC (2007). Innovation clusters: A statistical analysis and overview of current policysupport, European Commission.EC (2007a). Networks of innovation in information society development and deploymentin Europe, European Commission.EC (2008), Communication from the Commission to the Council, the EuropeanParliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of theRegions. Towards world-class clusters in the European Union: Implementing the broad-based innovation strategy. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the EuropeanCommunities.


June 2014 78

EC (2009), "Regional Innovation Scoreboard", European Commission, Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry and the Maastricht University (MERIT).EC (2010). A Digital Agenda for Europe. Communication of the European Commission.COM(2010) 245.EC (2011). "The European Cluster Observatory." 2011, fromhttp://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/facts-figures-analysis/european-cluster-observatory/index_en.htm.ECA (2009). The Use of Data and Analysis as a Tool for Cluster Policy, European ClusterAlliance.Economist Intelligence Unit (2011). Innovation-led clusters. Available at:http://www.managementthinking.eiu.com/sites/default/files/downloads/EIU-ATIC_Report2_Web_Revised.pdfESCAP (2010), Fostering Innovation in High-Tech Clusters. Proceeding and paperspresented at the Workshop on Fostering Innovation through Strengthening of high-TechClusters, ESCAP Asian and Pacific Centre for Transfer of Technology (APCTT), NewDelhi, India.Enright, M. J. (2009). "The location of activities of manufacturing multinationals in theAsia-Pacific." J Int Bus Stud 40(5): 818-839.EU-KLEMS (2007). EU KLEMS Growth and Productivity Accounts. EU-KLEMS.Feldman, M.P. & D. Audretsch (1999), Innovation in Cities: Science-Based Diversity,Specialisation and Localised Competition, European Economic Review 43,409-429.Fershtman, C. and N. Gandal (2011). "Direct and indirect knowledge spillovers: the“social network” of open-source projects." The RAND Journal of Economics 42(1): 70-91.Friedman, T.L. (2005), The World is Flat. A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century,Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, New York.Fujita, M., P. Krugman & A.Venables (1999), The Spatial Economy. Cities, Regions andInternational Trade, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Gadde, L.-E., L. Huemer, et al. (2003). "Strategizing in industrial networks." IndustrialMarketing Management 32(5): 357-364.Garnsey Elisabeth, Longhi Christian (2004), High technology locations and globalization:converse paths, common processes, Int. J. Technology Management, Vol. 28, Nos.3/4/5/6, 2004, pp 336- 355, Special Issue on Global Competition..Garnsey Elizabeth, Longhi Christian (2004),High technology locations and globalisation:converse paths, common processes, International Journal of Technology Management(IJTM), Volume 28 - Issue 3/4/5/6 – 2004, Special Issue on Global Competition of High-Tech Centres, Guest Editor Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko.Glänzel, W. and A. Schubert (2005). Analysing Scientific Networks Through Co-Authorship. Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. H. Moed, W.Glänzel and U. Schmoch, Springer Netherlands: 257-276.Green Ken, Hull Richard, McMeekin Andrew, Walsh Vivien (1999), The construction ofthe techno-economic: networks vs. paradigms, Research Policy, Volume 28, Issue 7,September 1999, pp. 777-792.Griffith, R. and H. Miller (2011). Innovation in China: the rise of Chinese inventors inthe production of knowledge. IFS Working Papers, Institute for Fiscal Studies.Hall, B. H., A. Jaffe, et al. (2000). Market Value and Patent Citations: A First Look,University of California at Berkeley.Han, Y.-J. and Y. Park (2006). "Patent network analysis of inter-industrial knowledgeflows: The case of Korea between traditional and emerging industries." World PatentInformation 28(3): 235-247.Hoekman, J., K. Frenken, et al. (2010). "Research collaboration at a distance: Changingspatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe." Research Policy 39(5): 662-673.Jackie Krafft, (2004), Entry, exit and knowledge: evidence from a cluster in the info-communications industry, Research Policy, Volume 33, Issue 10, December 2004, pp.1687-1706.


June 2014 79

Johansson, B. (2006), Spatial Clusters of ICT Industries, in Johansson, B., C. Karlsson &R.R. Stough (2006) (Eds.), The Emerging Digital Economy. Entrepreneurship, Clustersand Policy, Springer, Berlin, 137-167.Johansson, B., C. Karlsson & R.R. Stough (2006), Entrepreneurship, Clusters and Policyin the Emerging Digital Economy, in Johansson, B., C. Karlsson & R.R. Stough (2006)(Eds.), The Emerging Digital Economy. Entrepreneurship, Clusters and Policy, Springer,Berlin, 1-19.Karlsson, C. & M. Andersson (2007), Knowledge in Regional Economic Growth - TheRole of Knowledge Accessibility, Industry and Innovation (Forthcoming).Karlsson, C. & B. Johansson (2006), Dynamics and Entrepreneurship in a Knowledge-based Economy, in Karlsson, C., B. Johansson & R.R. Stough (2006) (Eds.),Entrepreneurship and Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, Routledge, New York, 12-46. 87Karlsson C., Maier G., Trippl M., Siedschlag I., Owen R., Murphy G. (2011). RegionalDynamics and Economic Transformations during the Deployment phase of ICT.Available at: http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=3579Kaufmann A., Lehner P., Tödtling F. (2003), Effects of the Internet on the spatialstructure of innovation networks, Information Economics and Policy, Volume 15, Issue3, September 2003, pp. 402-424.Kaufmann A., Lehner P., Tödtling F. (2003), Effects of the Internet on the spatialstructure of innovation networks, Information Economics and Policy, n. 15 (2003), pp.402–424.Kesidou Efthymia (2007), Local knowledge spillovers in high tech clusters in developingcountries: the case of the Uruguayan software cluster, Eindhoven University Press.Kirkegaard, J. F. (2004b), Offshore Outsourcing – Much Ado about What? CESinfoForum 5, 22-29.Klein M. (2005), Poles of excellence and innovation centres: Miracle cure for Europeaninnovation? Which Problems? And which remedies?, System@tic Paris-Region, 17November 2005.Koepp Robert (2002), Clusters of creativity. Enduring Lessons on Innovation andEntrepreneurship form Silicon Valley and Europe's Silicon Fen, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Available at: http://issuu.com/n467889/docs/clusters_of_creativity/1?mode=a_pKolko, J. (2002), Silicon mountains, Silicon Molehills: Geographic Concentration andConvergence of Internet Industries in the US, Information Economics and Policy 14,211-232.Koski, H., Rouvinen P., et al. (2002). "ICT clusters in Europe The great central bananaand the small Nordic potato." Information Economics and Policy 14(2): 145-165.Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167624501000646Koschatzky, K. and V. Lo (2007). Methodological framework for cluster analyses,Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).Kozovska, K. (2010). "The role of regional clusters and firm size for firm efficiency."International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business 4: 41 - 60.Kretschmer, H. (2004). "Author productivity and geodesic distance in bibliographic co-authorship networks, and visibility on the Web." Scientometrics 60(3): 409-420.Krugman, P. (1991), Geography and Trade, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Krugman, P.R., (1991b) Increasing Returns and Economic Geography, Journal ofPolitical Economy, 99: 483-499.Kyläheiko Kalevi, Jantunen Ari, Puumalainen Kaisu, Luukka Pasi (2010), Value ofknowledge—Technology strategies in different knowledge regimes International Journalof Production Economics, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 10 July 2010.Lahiri, N. (2010). "Geographic distribution of R&D activity: how does it affect innovationquality?" Academy of Management Journal 53(5): 1194-1209.Lai, R., A. D'Amour, et al. (2011). Disambiguation and Co-authorship Networks of theU.S.Maastricht Economic and social Research and training centre on Innovation andTechnology (UNU-MERIT), DG JRC-European Commission (2011). http://www.proinno-


June 2014 80

europe.eu/inno-metrics/page/innovation-union-scoreboard-2011. Also available athttp://www.proinno-europe.eu/metricsMaggioni, M. (2002). Clustering Dynamics and the Location off High-Tech-Firms.Heilderberg, Physica-Verlag.http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/information_society/evaluation/studies/s2008_03/index_en.htmMarionnet Anne Valère (2005), Pme, Innovation technologique et Secteurs d’application2004 – Biotech, Direction Technologie Projets Européens, OSEO, AnvarMarshall, A. (1920), Principles of Economics, 8th ed., Macmillan, London.Maurseth, P.B. & B. Verspagen (1999), Europe: One or Several Systems of Innovation?Meyer, K. E., R. Mudambi, et al. (2011). "Multinational Enterprises and Local Contexts:The Opportunities and Challenges of Multiple Embeddedness." Journal of ManagementStudies 48(2): 235-252.Morosini, P. (2004). "Industrial Clusters, Knowledge Integration and Performance."World Development 32(2): 305-326. 89Murtagh Fionn (2010), The Correspondence Analysis Platform for Uncovering DeepStructure in Data and Information, The Computer Journal, Vol. 35,No. 3, pp. 304-315.Naisbitt, R. (1995), The Global Paradox, Avon Books, New York.Negroponte, N. (1995), Being Digital, Vintage Books, New York.Nepelski, D., G. De Prato, et al. (2011). Internationalisation of ICT R&D. JRC Scientificand Technical Report, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint ResearchCentre, European Commission.Nesta, L., P. Patel, et al. (2003). Innovative Hot Spots in Europe: Policies to Promotetrans-border clusters of creative activity. European Trend Chart on Innovation.Luxembourg, European Commission.Nieto, M. J. and A. Rodriguez (2011). "Offshoring of R&D: Looking abroad to improveinnovation performance." J Int Bus Stud 42(3): 345-361.Nijkamp, P., G. Linders & H.L.F. de Groot (2002), Distance Matters, in Poot, J. (2002),The New Information Society and the Periphery, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.OECD (2006), Developing Poles of Excellence: Partnerships between Research andBusiness, presented by John Dryden, Deputy Director for Science, Technology andIndustry, OECD, EC Conference on Regions for Economic Change, Brussels, 12-13 June2006.OECD (2007), Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard, Paris.OECD (2010), " Attractiveness for innovation. Location factors for internationalinvestment", Working Party on Globalisation of Industry, OECD, Paris.Olav, S. (2003). "Social networks and industrial geography." Journal of EvolutionaryEconomics 13(5): 513-527.Pavlos Dimitratos, Ioanna Liouka, Stephen Young (2009), Regional location ofmultinational corporation subsidiaries and economic development contribution:Evidence from the UK, Journal of World Business, Volume 44, Issue 2, April 2009, pp.180-191.Paci, R. and S. Usai (2000). "Technological Enclaves and Industrial Districts: AnAnalysis of the Regional Distribution of Innovative Activity in Europe." Regional Studies34(2): 97-114.Porter M.E., Monitor Group, ontheFRONTIER, Council on Competitiveness (n.d.) Clustersof Innovation : Regional Foundations of U.S. Competitiveness. Ed.: Clusters ofinnovation Initiative, Council on Competitiveness. USA.Available at:http://www.compete.monitor.com/App_Themes/MRCCorpSite_v1/DownloadFiles/A.%20%20National%20Report.pdf)Romer, P.M. (1990), Endogenous Technological Change, Journal of Political Economy98, 5-21.Sachwald, F. (2008). "Location choices within global innovation networks: the case ofEurope." The Journal of Technology Transfer 33(4): 364-378.


June 2014 81

Soete, L. (2006), Information and Communication Technologies and the New RegionalEconomy, in Johansson, B., C. Karlsson & R.R. Stough (2006) (Eds.), The EmergingDigital Economy. Entrepreneurship, Clusters and Policy, Springer, Berlin, 21-32.SREEE Gbrr (2010), Analyse der Games-Branchenstruktur in Baden-Wuerttemberg,Studie, Innovationsagentur fur IT und Medien.Stefano, B. and L. Francesco (2004). Knowledge networks from patent data:Methodological issues and research targets, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge,Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.Stockholm School of Economics (2011a). Cluster Observatory. Available at:http://www.clusterobservatory.eu/index.html 91Stockholm School of Economics (2011b). Strong Clusters in Innovative Regions.Available at:http://www.clusterobservatory.eu/common/galleries/downloads/Strong_Clusters_in_Innovative_Regions_Report.pdf

Tödtling Franz, Trippl Michaela (2005), One size fits all?: Towards a differentiatedregional innovation policy approach, Research Policy, Volume 34, Issue 8, October2005, pp. 1203-1219.Trajtenberg, M. (1990). "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value ofInnovations." RAND Journal of Economics 21(1): 172-187.Traxler, J. & M.I. Luger (2000), Business and Internet: Implications for Firm Locationand Clustering, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis and Practice 2, 279-300.Turlea, G., D. Nepelski, et al. (2010). The 2010 report on R&D in ICT in the EuropeanUnion, JRC-IPTS.Uppenberg, K. (2009). R&D in Europe: Expenditures across Sectors, Regions and FirmSizes, CEPS.van der Meer André, van Winden Willem, Woets Paulus (2003), ICT Cclusters inEuropean Cities during the 1990s. Development patterns and policy lessons. The casesof Amsterdam, Cork, Dublin, Groningen, Helsinki, Jönköping, Oulu, and Stockholm.European Institute for Comparative Urban Research (Euricur), Erasmus UniversityRotterdam, the Netherlands.Weber, A. (1929). Theory of the Location of Industries. Chicago, The University ofChicago Press.Weber Arnd (2003), Semiconductor Developments in the Dresden Region. Final Report,Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft - Institute for TechnologyAssessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS)Wheeler, J.O., Y. Aoyama & B. Warf (2000) (Eds.), Cities in the TelecommunicationsAge. The Fracturing of Geography, Routledge, New York.Wilkinson, I. and L. Young (2002). "On Cooperating: Firms, Relationships andNetworks." Journal of Business Research 55: 123-133.WIRED (2011). Europe is on fire. Available at:http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2011/09Yang, S. & E. Brynjolffson (2001), Intangible Assets and Growth Accounting: Evidencefrom Computer Investments, www.ebusiness.mit.edu/erikZook, M. (2002), Ground Capital: Venture Financing and the Geography of the InternetIndustry, 1994-2000, Journal of Economic Geography 2, 151-177.

Documents

Study on mapping existing experience in Europe and ...ec.europa.eu/research/regions/pdf/publications/centre_of_excellence.… · Study on mapping existing experience on initiatives