|
CARRIER TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMME
AU No 37
EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The five-year
Carrier Technology Programme started in 1992 with projected DTI funding of £18 million. This
was to be matched with an equal amount coming from Industry. The programme was hit by
budgetary difficulties and reduced eventually to a DTI spend of £6.4 million.
1.2 The main
element of the Carrier Technology programme can best be characterised as technology transfer
in its assistance to the process of re-configuring established technologies or methods to be
applicable in other industries. As such it does expand the scope for diffusion by bring
a wider range of potential users into the frame. The leading involvement of RTOs also
contributes to the diffusion process through their range of contacts with firms of all sizes
and the industrial know how as well as scientific understanding they can bring: to these
contacts. The technology transfer was predominantly between RTOs in different sectors
with HEIs and Companies involved in the collaboration.
1.3 The
programme emphasised the advantages of using cross-sector technologies and skills to maximise
benefits to industry. The process industries, those sectors dealing with operations
consisting of a series of unit operations such as mixing, mass transfer, heating/cooling,
chemical reaction, forming separating etc, were identified as the main target for the
programme. The programme embraced several aspects of Technology Transfer such as
dissemination, skills transfer as well as demonstration and adoption of appropriate processes
and techniques.
2. MAIN FINDINGS
2.1 The
"market failure" as described in the ROAME, "limited skills and capabilities in firms",
is not a market failure in itself, but it is a product of market failure. Government
cannot substitute for commercial technology markets on a large scale but can pump prime
the opening up of channels for Technology Transfer and adaptation between 'sectors'.
2.2 The relevant market failure
here, as outlined in the policy overview in section 5 of the main report, lies in
blocked channels of communication between sources of technology and applications
outside of established routes. Such as the fragmentation of the equipment supply
sector. The Programme intervenes to improve information access through network
building (within each of the consortia and to enable the technologies identified and
developed to be disseminated to the target industry with full details of cost and
likely benefits.
2.3 The downsizing of the programme
from £18 million to £8 million had a detrimental effect on the image of the programme
which had already been announced to industry at the £18 million level. This was
widely seen as a direct cut in the programme budget and also as a reduction in the
Department's commitment to it.
Collaboration
2.4 Of
the organisations interviewed 68% stated that they had collaborated with their Carrier
Technology partners before. Of these 82% were companies or RTOs and 18% were
Universities. These figures relate to collaborations between organisations who has
not worked together on any projects before as opposed to collaborations between sections
within the organisations that have not previously worked together. The AIRTO
Report1 for example states that 19 new
RTO - RTO collaborations were made as a result
of the Carrier Technology Programme. Our evidence suggests that this is accurate
for new collaborations between individual sections within RTOs but not for collaborations
where the RTOs had not worked together before at all.
2.5 On
the evidence of the fieldwork there was little collaboration or exchange of information
between the projects. The only networking that took place was between the
collaborators on the individual projects. The widening of the Technology Transfer
out of the projects and into more general sector or area specific work was lost as a
result of the cut in the programme and the subsequent reduction in the number of the
projects. Inter project technology Transfer would make sense in a programme that
had common areas or common sectors where it may be possible to facilitate valuable
exchanges, in this scale of programme however there is little or no opportunity for
this. This can be seen as one of the casualties of the cut in the
programme.
Additionality
2.6 The
nature of funding for the majority of RTO led "common good" projects pushes them towards,
RTOs would argue, complete additionality. That is to say in the majority of cases
RTOs do not have independent funding streams to apply to projects of this sort and so
these kinds of projects would not generally be undertaken unless there were a clear and
direct route to market that would draw in specific industrial funding.
2.7 Given
that the delays in the programme delayed the start of some of the projects by as much as
eighteen months it can be suggested that this demonstrated the additionality of these
projects. Had the RTOs been in a position to go ahead without funding it is likely
they would have done so.
Technology Transfer and
Diffusion
2.8 Technology
Transfer was the key activity within this programme and one which RTOs have traditionally
been well placed to deliver. This programme provided an impetus for RTOs to explore
a relatively new avenue of work in transferring technologies from donor sectors that in
many cases were not part of their usual business.
2.9 The
main element of the Carrier Technology programme can best be characterised as technology
transfer in its assistance to the process of re-configuring established technologies or
methods to be applicable in other industries. As such it does expand the scope for
diffusion by bringing a wider range of potential users into the frame. The leading
involvement of RTOs also contributes to the diffusion process through their range of
contacts with firms of all sizes and the industrial know how as well as scientific
understanding they can bring to these contacts. The diffusion curve analysis
outlined briefly above suggests that the finding that around 5% of firms contacted
by RTOs within the programme diffusion stage are actively pursuing the possibilities
inherent in the technology indicates a reasonably high response rate for the early
stages of the diffusion process.
The conclusions and recommendations
sections contained in the full document on pages 49-51 are fully cross referenced
with the main body of the report, the sections shown here are given without cross
references
3. CONCLUSIONS
Validity of
Rationale
3.1 There
is a valid programme rationale that is consistent with the underlying rationale of the
Department's Technology Transfer policy. The relevant market failure lies in blocked
channels of communication between sources of technology and applications outside of
established Supply chains. Manufacturing SMEs are heavily reliant upon their
suppliers and customers for product and process technology. As formulated in
the ROAME statement, there were some mix-specifications of the Rationale, over-emphasising
resource constraints within companies. The key element is that barriers to
technology transfer are more acute at the knowledge boundaries between industries
and that technology transfer intermediaries such as RTOs can be effective catalysts
in overcoming these barriers.
Appropriateness and
Achievement of Objectives
3.2 The
majority of objectives have been met or substantially met. But many objectives were
rather broad and diffuse, trying to cover targets that were outside of the domain of
action specified in the rationale. The technical objectives of individual projects
were mostly achieved, and the important technology diffusion objectives may be achieved
to a satisfactory level in time, but the quantitative targets for involvement of fines
were unrealistic.
3.3 The
objective of transferring usable technology predominantly into more traditional process
industries, that is implicit in the programme formulation, but was not written into the
specific objectives, has been largely achieved.
3.4 The
programme illustrates the need to link objectives to the programme rationale.
Additionality
3.5 There
were no completely non-additional projects. The majority showed scale or acceleration
effects for the project work itself, but with a significant stimulus to collaboration
across sector boundaries. This picture is consistent with the rationale to level
inter-sector technology transfer, not to generate new technology.
Dissemination
3.6 The
potential benefits of the programme although promising have yet to be fully
realised. The
next five years will be the most important period for the potential implementation of the
technologies adapted and developed and the dissemination activities and availability of
materials for potential adopters are likely to be the key in ensuring the benefits are
realised. This is therefore a very important job for the RTOs to continue.
Net Benefits and Value for
Money
3.7 It is
to early in the dissemination stage of the process to estimate economic benefits
precisely. But early results from the application of some project results in the
receiving industry, such as the steel wire testing machine, give some confidence that
the initial projections of commercial returns will be achieved. Allowing for the
normal slow stage of take up of a new technology in an industry, the extent of industrial
interest and active testing of the application of project results already in hand suggest
that net additional national economic gains will result from the programme.
3.8 Overall,
the programme has provided good value for money in contributing to important policy objectives
and generating net economic benefits, although more value could probably have been achieved
through a tighter focus of project design on the main economic objectives that flow from the
rationale.
3.9 It is
also clear that the key to achieving the projected benefits will be the availability and
dissemination of clear results and supporting coatings and case studies to potential adopters
over the next few years. This will be a job for RTOs to ensure they are able to both
generate and meet the demand.
Administration and Programme
Management
3.10
The early stages of the programme were dogged with changes of senior staff and alterations
in the programme budget. These issues were not well managed and led to confusion
amongst the Programme applicants and some significant delays in the processing of
proposals.
3.11 The
main programme activities, once running, were well managed with the great majority of
interviewees commending the Programme Management and Co-ordination carried out by
officials. Monitoring information was gathered on the projects on a quarterly basis
with officials attending progress meetings and ensuring satisfactory progress of the project
work.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that:
4.1 When
differing levels of funding are offered, in particular for feasibility studies etc, it
should be made a requirement that full proposals are put forward that show a capability
to address the findings of the study and put together a proposal to carry forward the
required project.
4.2 When
making calls for proposals a for a programme a "charter" for applicants should be drawn up
that provides a timetable that applicants can expect to see followed as has been the case
for SMART and SPUR projects. This would provide an outline timetable for applicants
so they are made aware of the stages the proposal is likely to go through and also provide
feedback to applicants as each of the stages is reached. If so some reason targets
are not me
reasons should be given.
4.3 If
a programme's funding is altered, either cut or increased, an impact analysis should be
undertaken to identify the changes in the programme that are necessary to ensure maximum
value is obtained from the programme. This should also clearly identify what changes
have had to be made to the programme and what areas of activity were removed.
4.4 Where
a programme being cut has previously been approved by the IPC the impact analysis should
then be copied to IPC for information. The ROAME should also be updated in the light,
of the changes as part of the impact analysis.
4.5 A post
completion monitoring report should be produced by the lead partner an agreed period after
the final claim has been settled (12 months) to enable programmes to be tracked more
effectively after their completion and to ensure that project participants continue to
monitor the impacts of the project work.
Dissemination and Technology
Diffusion
4.6 Consideration
should be given to ensuring that for Technology Transfer Programmes the dissemination period of
the programme, which is clearly crucial to the success of the longer term uptake of the
technology, is carefully planned and if necessary funded. This could be done via a long
term Dissemination Plan covering the five years after completion of the main project which would
enable the implementation of the technology to be followed up and managed. Funding would
enable the dissemination activity to be more proactive and provide
a technology push into the receiving sector.
Future Technology Transfer
Programmes
4.7 The Carrier
Programme has demonstrated the potential value of this kind of Technology Transfer, the rationale
for this work also remains valid.
4.8 We recommend
that inter sectoral technology transfer using specialist intermediaries should be actively
considered as part of the Department's innovation support strategy. We do not though
recommend that the Carrier Technology Programme should be simply repeated in exactly this
form.
4.9 Any
proposals for future Technology Transfer Programmes should be based on research evidence
and recognise that a review of potential areas of generic Technology Transfer sources be
undertaken prior to the start of any future projects.
4.10 In
order to enable clearer definition of Technology Transfer projects in the future and to
ensure good communication of ROAME aims and objectives to proposers the department needs
to define it's specific aims in this area very clearly when making calls for
proposals. ROAMEs should dictate detailed appraisal criteria and ensure that
projects selected meet the strategic objectives set for the Programme.
4.11 Programme
objectives should be clear and testable and set to clearly reflect the main aims and
rationale for the programme.
1 Report produced by Andrew Davidson for AIRTO
in 1997 summarising the early outcomes of the Carrier Technology Programme.
| TESE
Home |
|
