Innovation Scorecard from Europe: Innovation Budgets Produce Returns - Portugal Offers Positive IP Tech Transfer Lesson

Release of Europe's 2010 Innovation Scorecard contains a wealth of information, much of it related specifically to university efforts in IP tech transfer. The US and Japan continue to outperform in this field, with Brazil and China catching up. However, there are pockets of excellence from which managers all over the world may learn. The primary lesson is that governments choosing to emphasize innovation in their budgets realize a return on that effort. Portugal, not generally top of mind in this regard, is a good example. Joff Wild in IAM magazine explains why:



"Last week the EU published its 2010 Innovation Scorecard. It's a big piece of work, but one that is well worth ploughing through. For those that do not have the time, the main findings are that:

• Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden all show a performance well above that of the EU27. These countries are the Innovation leaders.

• Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovenia and the UK all show a performance close to that of the EU27. These countries are the Innovation followers.

• The performance of Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain is below that of the EU27. These countries are Moderate innovators.

• The performance of Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania is well below that of the EU27. These countries are Modest innovators.

In addition, the report states that the US and Japan do much better on innovation than the EU, while Brazil and China are catching up. The good news for Europe, if it can be termed that, is that for now Russia and India seem to be going backwards.

What I particularly like about the report is the depth it goes into. Readers get the why as well as the how - something that is very important if anything is ever going to be done to improve things in the EU as a whole, or within particular European countries.

A couple of weeks back I was in Lisbon for the annual meeting of ProTon - the European Knowledge Transfer Association. Most of the 120 delegates in attendance were from university technology transfer offices and other organisations focused on knowledge transfer. It would be fair to say that they were not wildly optimistic about things. There were debates around the effectiveness of TT and KT in Europe and how it should be measured; how initiatives should be funded; whether they will still be funded at all given the spending cuts now taking place across the continent; building relationships with faculty; finding investment partners; and so on. All these are hugely important issues for Europe if levels of innovation are to increase. As experience shows, so much innovation originates in the labs and lecture rooms of academic institutions.

The US has had Bayh-Dole for 30 years now and many of its universities were doing tech transfer before that. By contrast, in most European countries it is a pretty recent phenomenon. That was emphasised by the findings of the latest ProTon annual survey, the results of which were revealed during the meeting. It found that 60% of the TTOs that responded had been founded in the last decade, with the average age of a TTO being just 9.6 years. In terms of size, most are pretty small, with an average staff size of 7.7 (although 35% had 10 staff members or more). In total, respondents had overseen 6,039 invention disclosures and currently managed 21,310 patent portfolios. Significantly, however, 28% had made no disclosures, while 30% did not manage a single portfolio. In 2009, total revenues generated by respondents came to €70.5 million, although 47.4% generated nothing (I scribbled these and other results down and as far as I can tell, ProTon does not release them publicly. If I find out that it does, I will provide the necessary link).

I came away from Lisbon pretty clear that Europe makes nowhere near enough of the innovation potential that there is in its universities, but also that too many universities themselves are failing to seize the initiative and develop KT and TT processes. There is no European Bayh-Dole, but there never will be one and, in any case, that really is not the answer: to all intents and purposes in almost all countries the levers needed to develop a tech transfer capability are there. The real problem is that in so many countries what is lacking is the culture to facilitate effective transfers; not only within faculties and university managements, but also among businesses and investors. In too many cases, ProTon members find themselves shouting to be heard by people who are basically covering their ears. Somehow that needs to change.

Funnily enough, Portugal itself is a country that offers some hope on this front. Although it is labelled a moderate innovator by the EU scorecard, the report acknowledges that the country has experienced the fastest growth in innovation performance among EU member states. This has not happened by accident. It's happened because recent Portuguese governments made a decision to prioritise innovation. Among other things, spending was increased on R&D and a network of university IP offices, created and initially funded by the Portuguese IP office, was established.

There is a long way to go yet, but real results are being achieved. In the city of Coimbra, for example, the incubator run by the Instituto Pedro Nunes - the university's innovation and tech transfer office - was recently selected as the world's Best Science Based Incubator. In 2009, companies set up through it directly employed 1,500 people and generated over €70 million in revenues. This is the kind of thing that happens when you have a top class university, a highly-motivated, well-trained tech transfer function, and a supportive financial infrastructure. And if it can be done in Coimbra, it can be done in Lisbon, Porto and other major centres in Portugal. And, of course, if the Portuguese can do it, then why not everyone else in Europe?

Yes, it takes time; yes, it takes political and financial commitment; yes it takes a lot of education and bridge-building; and, yes, it is not going to be a smooth, painless process - clearly, things will not always work, maybe most of the time they won't. But when they do, the rewards will be great. In any case, does Europe really have any other choice?