Research Study on the Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization CEN/CENELEC. Final Report. December Prepared by

Transcription

1 Research Study on the Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization Prepared by CEN/CENELEC with the financial support of Final Report and December 2014 Ref: J2572/CEN

2 Executive Summary This report details the results and conclusions of a Research Study on the Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization (the BRIDGIT Research Study ), which was carried out between September 2013 and October The study was designed to support the wider BRIDGIT project, involving CEN, CENELEC and nine National Standardization Organizations, which is aimed at 'bridging the gap' between standardization, research and innovation. The objective of the research study was to show, based on concrete data and evidence, the benefits and role of standards in supporting and driving research and innovation. It therefore addresses both standardization and standards as an output of research and innovation as well as a supporting infrastructure for research and innovation. The study methodology was designed to address seven key research questions, using several research methods including a review of literature, stakeholder consultations, a broad based survey, case study development and stakeholder workshops. A significant body of evidence was therefore collated for analysis. The key conclusions arising from the research and analysis were: Standards play a multiple, catalytic role in the innovation system o Standards play an important role in research projects. Based on survey responses they are used by over 80% of researchers and they improve the process of research by providing common terminologies, harmonised methodologies and comparability between research activities. o The functions of standards vary across the innovation life cycle. The catalytic role seems to be particularly important for market acceptance of technology-based innovation o Standards improve the marketability of research and innovation results Those researchers who are not active in standardization have a lower appreciation of the benefits of participation o Standardization activities have many benefits for participating organizations (but these benefits are not recognised by all stakeholders) o There is relatively low participation of researchers in standardization There are barriers on both sides to improving the links between the innovation and standardization systems o There are some important barriers that inhibit participation in standardization, such as a lack of comprehension of the standards world, a lack of the resources to participate and the perceived long timescales of standardization compared to a typical research project o There is limited motivation for academic researchers and constraints for industrial researchers to participate in standardization although this does vary by their field of research. Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization - Executive Summary

3 o o o Some National Standardization Organizations have to share the costs of the standardization process with interested stakeholders to maintain the sustainability of the system and this is clearly a disincentive, especially for academic researchers who are unlikely to have access to budgets to cover these costs. Existing standards may not be suitable for new generation products or technologies without significant revision. The adoption of new technologies, especially disruptive technologies, can be affected by the scope and focus of established standards. Better connections and motivations are particularly needed to improve the flow of new knowledge into standardization o It is recognised that commercial interests are one of the drivers of standardization; these interests can affect the adoption of standards related to new technologies o Linkages between the research and standardization communities can be improved in Horizon 2020 particularly by identifying future standards needed to accelerate market acceptance of new technology based innovations. o There is already a robust body of evidence that underlines the positive role that standards and standardization can have in Horizon 2020 but to realise the potential some positive steps could be taken to enhance linkages Contributions from standardization experts in research & innovation activities is an important linking mechanism for new knowledge o National Standardization Organizations have an important role to play in enhancing these linkages, but they are not the only stakeholders that can perform this role. o Standardization experts in other Organizations (e.g. industry associations and metrology institutes) can also play an important role. o Participation in standardization activities offers a number of benefits to researchers IPR and standards co-exist in an acceptable manner in most industry sectors o The widespread importance of IPR to standards development is still limited o The systems in place to manage IPR in standards development are generally suitable for practitioners Performance related standards may be innovation-enabling for outcome-based regulations These conclusions underline the need for action by influential stakeholders to address the issues raised. The action themes can be summarised as follows: Awareness 1. Increase awareness of standards, the standardization process and the benefits that they offer to the research and innovation community (including relevant government organizations and funding agencies) 2. Encourage research and innovation actors to consider the role of standards and standardization in research projects Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization - Executive Summary

4 Improved Linkages 3. Develop improved mechanisms to facilitate and encourage the research community to participate in standardization 4. Establish effective mechanisms to support standardization experts to contribute Co-ordination standards related knowledge to relevant research projects 5. Improve linkages between Horizon 2020 and standardization activities Management and Control 6. Identify and address instances where the innovation and standardization communities put up barriers to collaboration 7. Improve the governance of European standardization programmes so that they facilitate and support the exploitation of new research results Policy options to address these themes have been proposed for each of the main stakeholder group. These are: CEN and CENELEC have a key role in increasing the awareness and understanding of standardization within the research community, extending the competence and activities of technical committees to address new technologies and developing bridging platforms with Horizon 2020 The European Commission should engage with CEN and CENELEC to enhance the synergies and coordination between CEN and CENELEC Technical Committees, the priority areas of Horizon 2020 and the Innovation Union agenda. National Standardization Organizations need to reach out to the research & innovation community, including government departments and research agencies, in their country by going beyond simply providing an expert service to R&D projects. They need to ensure that the catalytic role of standards can be maximised to help overcome the market barriers to the adoption of new technology-based products and services. National Innovation Support Organizations should encourage and provide support for mutual participation of researchers and standardization experts in innovation and standardization activities, developing stronger links with National Standardization Organizations. Research & Innovation Actors need to consider how they can better help the standardization bodies to anticipate the need for, and support the development of, new and improved standards. They should consider the relevance of standards and/or standardization when formulating research and innovation projects and seek practical options to engage with the standardization community. Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization - Executive Summary

5 Table of Contents 1. Introduction Context Objective Research Questions Sources of Evidence Report Structure and Context Web-based Survey Characteristics of the Sample The Significance of Different Types of Research Activity Results and Discussion RQ1 - Function and Impacts of Standards and Standardization in an Innovation System RQ2 - Motivation of Industrial and Academic Researchers to Participate in Standardization RQ3 - Perception of the Positive and Negative Impacts of the Research and Innovation Community Engaging in Standards and Standardization RQ4 - Role of Standards and Standardization in Horizon RQ5 - Coexistence of IPR and Standards in an Innovation System RQ6 The Role of Standards in Achieving Regulatory Goals and Stimulating Innovation RQ7 - Current and Potential Mechanisms for Engagement Summarising Key Outputs from the Research Questions Proposed Policy Options Options for CEN and CENELEC Options for the European Commission Options for National Standardization Organizations Options for National Innovation Support Organizations Options for Research & Innovation Actors APPENDIX A: Literature Review Report B: Survey Questionnaires Head Office: Optimat Limited Torus Building, Rankine Avenue, Scottish Enterprise, Technology Park, Glasgow G75 0QF, United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) resource@optimat.co.uk Web: Registered Office: 21 Hunter Street, East Kilbride G74 4LZ Registration No:

6 1. Introduction 1.1 Context This report details the main results and conclusions of a Research Study on the Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization (the BRIDGIT Research Study ), which was carried out between September 2013 and October The study was designed to support the wider BRIDGIT project 1 involving CEN, CENELEC and nine National Standardization Organizations. BRIDGIT aims to 'bridge the gap' between standardization, research and innovation by: Demonstrating the best practices in Europe among the standardization organizations to reach out to the research community Transferring the idea of the Integrated Approach 2 to all CEN and CENELEC members, to the research communities in Europe and to other actors involved in research Disseminating evidence of the correlation between standardization and innovation BRIDGIT consists of a number of complementary work packages to achieve these aims, building on the practical experience of the standardization Organizations. This Research Study (one of the work packages of the BRIDGIT project) focuses on providing better evidence on the relationship and impact of standards and standardization in the research and innovation lifecycle and making the case for improved links between standardization and research and innovation activities. 1.2 Objective The objective of the research study, as defined in the Invitation to Tender, is to show, based on concrete data and evidence, the benefit and role of standards in supporting and driving research and innovation. The study should therefore address both standardization and standards as an output of research and innovation as well as a supporting infrastructure for research and innovation. This objective was defined in more detail by a number of specific research questions. These research questions were further developed and then used as a framework for the in depth research and analysis activities carried out, as discussed in the following section The Integrated Approach is an initiative by CEN and CENELEC that aims to raise awareness of the benefits of standardization in the research and innovation process, transfer research results and outcomes of innovation activities into standardization and fully exploit the functions of standards for research and innovation activities in order to increase the competitiveness of the EU Member States (Lisbon agenda). See STAIR an Integrated Approach for Standardization, Innovation and Research, CEN and CENELEC, June 2011 Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization Page 1

7 1.3 Research Questions The original research questions for the study (as defined in the Invitation to Tender) were refined and edited during early project activities (e.g. the literature review, initial stakeholder consultations and feedback from the kick-off workshop) 3. As a result seven research questions were investigated, namely: 1. What are the functions and impacts of standards and standardization in an innovation system? 2. What are the motivations for industrial and academic researchers to participate in standardization and do they vary in significant ways? 3. How do those operating in an innovation system perceive the potential positive and negative impacts of the research & innovation community engaging with standards & standardization and do these perceptions vary in significant ways? 4. What role can standards and standardization play in Horizon 2020? 5. How effectively do intellectual property rights and standards coexist within an innovation system? 6. Can standards play an enhanced role in achieving regulatory goals and stimulating innovation? 7. What are the current and potential mechanisms by which engagement between research & innovation and standards & standardization take place and what are the lessons learned from their practical application? 1.4 Sources of Evidence The evidence to address these research questions was gathered from a number of sources. The main ones were: A review of the literature, including analysis of the Technopolis study 4 for CEN and CENELEC. The review report is included as Appendix A. Evidence collated from a survey of CEN and CENELEC members carried out within other work packages (WP1) of the BRIDGIT project A programme of qualitative interviews with key stakeholders from both the standardization and innovation communities. These provided a variety of subjective inputs on the research questions as well as examples of current and emerging initiatives. Three web-based surveys aimed at specific target groups of stakeholders: o Industrial participants in FP7 research projects 3 4 These activities are detailed in the Interim Project Report Study on the contribution of standardization to innovation in European-funded research projects, Technopolis for CEN and CENELEC, September 2013 (see Study_Contribution_Standardization_Innovation_Final2013.pdf) Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization Page 2

8 o Non-industrial participants in FP7 research projects and metrology researchers o Members of CEN and CENELEC Technical Committees. In total 618 responses were obtained, as detailed in Section 2, below The three interview questionnaires that were used for the survey are included in Appendix B. Case study interviews with over 30 individuals that participated in the web-based survey. From this, 25 informal case studies were prepared and presented to the BRIDGIT team. The majority of the interviews were positive in nature, but a small number highlighted some negative aspects of the European standardization system. It was impractical to fully understand the extent or significance of these negative aspects within the scope of this study so these have been referred to CEN and CENELEC so that they can investigate further. Where appropriate, we have included some general remarks in the report from this qualitative feedback. A focus group workshop attended by over 20 key European stakeholders where interim survey results were presented and emerging issues and policy options discussed They way in which these sources link to each individual research question can be summarised as follows: Source of Evidence Research Question Literature Review BRIDGIT WP1 Survey Stakeholder Interviews Online Surveys Case Study Development Focus Group Workshop Key: Main Contribution Partial Contribution Background Contribution Figure 1: The Main Evidence Sources to Address the Research Questions 1.5 Report Structure and Context This final study report is one of four detailed reports that were prepared during the study. Other reports were: 1. An Interim Report, summarising the first six months of the project, the literature review, evidence from the WP1 survey, the stakeholder consultation and the development and synthesis of the research questions. Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization Page 3

9 2. A report of the 2nd Stakeholder Workshop, held in June 2014, where emerging observations from the research were presented and discussed 3. A stand-alone executive summary that was distributed at the BRIDGIT European Conference ( Standards: Your Innovation Bridge ) held in Brussels on 30 th October This report is therefore designed to build on and complement these other reports. It focuses on the results of the web based surveys, makes reference to significant evidence from the other research activities (where appropriate) and concludes on a number of policy options for key stakeholders. It has four main sections. Following this brief introductory section, the details of the survey samples are presented. The results of these activities are then discussed in Section 3 for each of the research questions, including analysis and interpretation of the evidence gathered. This is followed by Section 4, which summarises the key points from the research. Section 5 then details the policy issues and conclusions that can be derived from the study. Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization Page 4

10 2. Web-based Survey The three separate on-line surveys were carried out between April and July 2014, targeted at three different communities: 1. Industrial participants in FP7 research programmes 2. Non-industrial participants in FP7 research programmes and metrology researchers 5 3. Members of CEN and CENELEC Technical Committees. The surveys were based on a largely overlapping set of questions on the benefits of, and impediments to, a closer integration of standardization and research and innovation in Europe. For simplicity, the respondents from the first two surveys are identified as industrial and nonindustrial researchers, or (collectively) as the researchers, while the participants in Technical Committees are referred to as the standardizers. 2.1 Characteristics of the Sample In all, there were 618 usable responses, 163 from industrial research participants in FP7 programmes and 201 from non-industrial participants. The remaining 254 responses came from CEN and CENELEC Technical Committee members. The segmentation of respondents is shown in Figure 2 below. For standardization committee members, it should be noted that questions concerning the breakdown of organizations was related to the organizational type of the respondent, although of course it needs to be recognised that Technical Committee members are usually representatives of their respective National Standardization Organization, rather than their own organization. Total Research - Research - Technical Committee Industry Non-Industry Members Number % Number % Number % Number % Small or Medium Sized Enterprise Large Company Manufacturing Dedicated Research Services All Other Sectors Higher Eduation Institute Public Research Centre National Metrology Institute All Other Non-Industry Research Industry University Measurement Infrastructure Other Figure 2: Distribution of the Sample 5 Metrology researchers in National Metrology Institutes were accessed via EURAMET Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization Page 5

11 In Figure 2: 1. All other sectors (Research Industry) includes construction, utility, engineering and software companies 2. All other non-industry research (Research Non Industry) includes corporate, independent and jointly owned research centres 3. Other (Technical Committee members) includes public sector organizations, consumer/social organization representatives, National Standardization Organizations and individuals Respondents were asked whether their company or organization operated in one or more of 17 European standardization domains (or none of them), as listed in Figure 3, below. Clearly many organizations activities spanned several domains. The average number of domains in the total sample was 2.4, with a similar number for the industry survey (2.4). Non-industry research organizations reported a higher average number of domains (2.7) and standardizers a somewhat lower figure (2.3). This latter group were much more likely to report operating in building or civil engineering (32%) and in electro-technology (19%) and less likely to operate in the air or space, food and feed or healthcare domains. Total Industry Non-Industry Technical Committee Number % Number % Number % Number % Air and Space Building and Civil Engineering Chemicals Consumer Products Defence and Security Electrotechnology Energy Production & Distribution Energy Management for Sustainability Food and Feed Health and Safety Healthcare ICT Machinery Materials Pressure Equipment Smart Living Surface Transport (Road, Rail, Water) None of the above Figure 3: Domain of Responding Companies and Organizations The relevance of respondent s activities with respect to the Horizon 2020 priorities for Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies (LEIT) and Societal Challenges was investigated, as summarized in the following two figures. For the LEIT priority there is a reasonable representation in the surveys ranging from 30% of the total indicating that their company/organization was performing research and standardization relevant to advanced materials to 8% for space. Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization Page 6

12 The distribution across the two researcher samples was very similar but a surprising 48% of the standardizers who responded indicated that none of the LEIT priority areas were relevant to their activities. Total Industry Non-Industry Technical Committee Number % Number % Number % Number % ICT Nanotechnolgies Advanced Materials Biotechnology Advanced Manufacturing and Processing Space None of the above Figure 4: Relevance of Research or Standardization Activities to Horizon 2020 Industrial Technology Challenges For the societal challenges however, there are some differences between the researcher samples, with the industrial researchers being more likely to be in companies whose research was relevant to smart green and integrated challenges for transport, while the non-industrial participants were more likely to be in organizations performing research relating to food and inclusive societies. Unsurprisingly perhaps, the societal challenges were considerably less relevant to standardizers with a much higher percentage (28%) reporting that none of the challenges were relevant with lower percentages for all of the challenges. Total Industry Non-Industry Technical Committee Number % Number % Number % Number % Health, Demographic Change and WellBeing Food Security, Sustainable Argiculture, Marine and Maritime Research and the Bioeconomy Secure, Clean and Efficient Energy Smart, Green and Integrated Transport Climate Action, Resource Efficiency and Raw Materials Inclusive and Reflective Societies (e.g Social Inclusion and Access to Culture/Heritage) Secure Societies None of the above Figure 5: Relevance of Research or Standardization Activities to Horizon 2020 Societal Challenges These analyses show that the survey respondents represent a broad cross-section of the research and standardization community with all major sectors and Horizon 2020 industrial technology and societal challenges represented. Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization Page 7

13 2.2 The Significance of Different Types of Research Activity The surveys of industrial and non-industrial researchers (but not the standardizers) assessed the significance of different types of research and innovation activities for the respondent s organization ranging from basic science to incremental innovation. A scale of 1-5 was used to rate the significance of each type with 1 equating to no or very low significance ; a score of 4 or 5 equating to high and very high significance respectively. The sample percentages scoring 4 or 5 ( high or very high significance) are reported in Figure 6, below in addition to the means. Development of underlying science, not necessarily targeted at specific markets/applications Total Industry Non-Industry Technical Committee Researcher Samples Only Mean % Mean % Mean % Mean % Development of new and emerging technologies Development of new products, processes based on new and emerging technologies Development of new products, processes and services based on established technologies Improvement of existing products, processes and services (Scale 1-5; 1= Little or No Significance; 2 =Low, 3 = Moderate; 4 = High; 5 = Very High % Indicates Percentage Rating That Type as of 'High' or 'Very High' Significance Figure 6: Significance of Types of Research This figure indicates that there are some important differences between the two researcher samples. Early stage research (the first two categories), where the research is developing the underlying science base or is aimed at developing new or emerging technologies, is less relevant for the industrial researchers. This of course is broadly as expected. However the characteristics of the non-industry researchers are not a simple reverse of this pattern, as they show a fairly uniform distribution among the types of research. Noticeably, the most incremental category of research (that aimed at the improvement of existing products processes or services ) was rated as highly or very highly significant by a greater proportion of the non-industry sample than any other type of research. By contrast, and as expected, the development of new products or processes was more likely to be significant for the industry based researchers. Therefore the researchers responding to the survey span the full range of research activities from blue sky to close to market research. Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization Page 8

14 3. Results and Discussion The results from the web-based surveys are presented, analysed and discussed for each of the research questions. Where relevant the surveys that provided the data are also noted. In some cases additional observations are made based on other research findings. Firstly the key observations for each question are highlighted and then supporting evidence is discussed. 3.1 RQ1 - Function and Impacts of Standards and Standardization in an Innovation System The overall conclusion on this research question is that standards play a multiple and catalytic role in innovation and growth systems. Although the degree of take up varies, standards are pervasive elements in the innovation system, as initially highlighted in the literature review. Specific conclusions are: Standards play an important role in research projects Standards improve the process and marketability of research The functions of standards vary across the innovation life cycle Commercial interests can create negative impacts in the application of standards These points are each discussed below. Standards Play an Important Role in Research Projects The two surveys of researchers 6 shows a high percentage (81%) using standards but with some variation according to the type of organization to which the researcher belongs, as shown in Figure 7. Apart from a small group of unclassified others (e.g. nongovernmental health service and other (non-research) public sector organizations) these percentages fall only a little when intensive use of standards is considered % Using The Use of Standards in Research Use Intensive Use Figure 7: Use of Standards in Research 6 Surveys of (1) industrial participants in FP7 research programmes and (2) non-industrial participants in FP7 research programmes and metrology researchers (accessed via EURAMET) Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization Page 9

15 The responses from those researchers who can be regarded as part of the measurement system (i.e. National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) and certification or testing bodies) showed that 100% are using standards in research. The academic sector, as expected, seems to be rather less prone to use standards but the majority of academic research respondents (over 60%) still claim to be intensive users of standards. As far as the institutional source of such standards is concerned, the most frequently used seem to be those produced by international institutions such as ISO or the IEC. Around one third use either European and/or national standards in their research. A much lower proportion (<20%) indicated that they use standards from other bodies such as ASTM or IEEE. This is shown in Figure 8, below: % of Respondents who 'frequently' or 'always use' standard from stated sources All Industry Non-Industry Tech-Committee 1 International Standards (ISO, IEC, ITU-T) European Standards (CEN/CENELEC/ETSI) National Standards (Published by a national standards body) Other (e.g. ASTM, IEEE, ANSI, etc.) (Likert Scale: 1 = Never Use; 2 = Seldom Use; 3 = Often Use; 4 = Frequently Use; 5 = Always Use) Figure 8: Use of Standards in Research by Institutional Source of Standard 7 These observations support evidence from the literature review, which indicated that, although the degree of take up varies, standards are pervasive elements in the innovation system and they provide a number of technical and economic functions that are important to research & innovation activities, for example: o Standards for measurement and terminology o Specifications for processes (e.g. testing) and performance o Format standards developed for inter-operability between components or systems It also shows that standardization can be considered as providing a catalyst for various linkages within science, technology, innovation, and growth (STIG) systems (see the section entitled Research and Standardization from a Systems Perspective in Appendix A). Standards Improve the Process and Marketability of Research The benefits of using standards in research was investigated for both researcher and standardization stakeholders. The pattern of responses from each stakeholder group 8 is generally similar as shown in Figure 9, below. 7 8 Based on the surveys of (1) industrial participants in FP7 research programmes and (2) non-industrial participants in FP7 research programmes and metrology researchers Based on the surveys of (1) industrial participants in FP7 research programmes, (2) non-industrial participants in FP7 research programmes and metrology researchers and (3) members of CEN and CENELEC technical committees Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization Page 10

16 Figure 9: Benefits for Research of Using Standards This shows a strong agreement between all groups that standards support research in a number of ways (over 50% in agreement with each of the statements). Common terminologies, harmonised methodologies and comparability (which can be described as network effects ) are clearly seen as important and are most frequently cited. The nine statements in Figure 9 can generally be segmented into three themes: Research methods: o Provide common terminology/vocabulary o Provide a harmonised methodology for analysis o Define good practice in organization/management Research content: o Improve the efficiency and/or quality of research o Shape the specification of research activities The market 9 acceptability of research outputs: o Ensure comparability with existing products/services o Improve the comparability of research results o Increase credibility of research outputs in the market o Increase credibility of research within the organization These themes are discussed in more detail below (see section entitled The Functions of Standards Vary across the Innovation Life Cycle ). 9 Including both internal (in-company) and external customers of research outputs Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization Page 11

17 The literature review (see Appendix A) also highlighted that standards are an important mechanism for knowledge transfer. There is empirical economic evidence relating standards with productivity gains (including case studies of the benefits of standards for individual companies). It also identified a substantial body of evidence that the use of standards has positive impacts on product, service and process innovation, whether as a direct input (e.g. codified knowledge and best practice), as a complementary knowledge asset or as a contributor to the creation of market demand. The complementarities can include joint use of standards with scientific and technical literature, enabling research within businesses and academia and also facilitating collaboration between firms and with other organizations. This is illustrated in more detail in Figure 10, which shows flows of both codified and tacit knowledge between the different parts of the system. Figure 10: Knowledge Transfer Links This figure highlights the significance of codified knowledge, not just in the form of standards, but also as scientific publications that form a major element in the motivation and incentive structure of the research community. It also illustrates the fact that knowledge flows take place not only through direct use of research publications or participation of researchers in standardization activity and vice versa, but also through the channel of the firm itself which, in its innovation activities is the primary vehicle for integrating knowledge emanating from both research and standardization. This includes of course decisions about patenting and other innovation activities. The key message from the literature review is that standards have powerful effects in the innovation system through their role in the diffusion of knowledge of many types. It is also clear from the literature and from the stakeholder surveys that some sectors, notably services, the majority part of modern economies, make less use of standards in support of their innovation activities and that there is less standardization activity in services. CEN, CENELEC and National Standardization Organizations should consider developing activities to address this issue. Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization Page 12

18 There is also relatively high agreement that standards enhance the credibility or marketability of the research to those outside the research group involved. The vital role of standards in improving the marketability of innovative new solutions was clearly highlighted in a number of case examples provided by survey respondents from the research community. Many of these provided simple examples of cases where the relative benefits of the new technology or solution could be validated using an established standard. In contrast, most of the negative examples were related to the lack of an appropriate standard that researchers could use to demonstrate the efficacy of new products or services to potential users. This is a big issue for innovative SMEs in particular as they do not have the power or resources to influence the standardization processes. The respondents from Technical Committees were rather more likely to perceive the benefits of standards for improving the organization and efficiency of research. The Functions of Standards Vary Across the Innovation Life Cycle The survey questionnaires for the two target groups of researchers 10 included a question on the type of research & innovation that they get involved in, based on five options related to the innovation life cycle (as already listed in Figure 6): Development of underlying science, not necessarily targeted at specific markets or applications (science) Development of new and emerging technologies (new technology) Development of new products and processes based on new and emerging technologies (innovation new technology) Development of new products, processes and services based on established technologies (innovation existing technology) Improvement of existing products, processes and services (product improvements ) This allows some detailed analysis of the correlation between research activities and perceptions of the relative benefits (or functions) of standards, as summarized in Figure This figure is based on categorizing the benefits as either research methods, research content or market acceptability of research outputs, as defined above (see discussion following Figure 9 (page 11, above) The surveys of (1) industrial participants in FP7 research programmes and (2) non-industrial participants in FP7 research programmes and metrology researchers Figure 11 uses a set of summary indicators based on the patterns of correlations between responses and statistically rescaled to be measured on a scale of -1 to +1, hence showing relative not absolute relationships. Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization Page 13

19 Figure 11 Relative Benefits of Standards at Different Stages of the Innovation Life Cycle This indicates that the function of standards varies for different types of research activity. It also indicates that standards are relatively more important for innovation (especially through new technology and more incremental change) and less so for more fundamental research. It also indicates that standards are important for the content and management of science oriented research. Standards can influence the way investment in the generation of new knowledge is organized and thus support potentially radical innovation. Standards are also considered especially important in specifying the content of research with more incremental innovation objectives. This is an issue that some National Standardization Organizations have investigated. DIN makes use of mechanisms that correlate to the different stages of the product life cycle, supported by three different types of project, as shown in Figure 12. Figure 12: DIN s Tools for Linking R&D and Standardization 12 BSI considers that functions of standards and standardization across the innovation life cycle can be regarded as different standardization readiness levels (SRL) as shown in Figure Innovation and standardisation, DIN, 2013 Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization Page 14

20 Copyright BSI, 2014 Figure 13: BSI s approach to linking R&D and standardisation 13 The literature also highlights that different types of standards are relevant to the various stages of research, development and investment/commercialization, for example, as shown in Figure A1 (in Appendix A). At early stages of the innovation life cycle, standards may facilitate the process of research in various ways that enable effective communication between researchers and allow for the systematic collection of results and data. However, as we get closer to commercial applications, standards provide important elements of marketability and may also assist companies to show that they are meeting regulatory requirements. In this case, standards are therefore part of the demand pull side of the innovation system which in turn creates flows of knowledge from products and markets back into research and innovation. Figure A1 also suggests that there may be an important economic distinction in the nature of the knowledge being generated over the cycle, with early stage research coming closer to what economists understand as a public good while the knowledge created later in the cycle is more likely to be treated by firms as a private good an asset that can earn a return. Commercial Interests Can Sometimes Create Negative Impacts Two broad categories of economic model are important to understand how standardization works and standards are created in an innovation system. These are based on the distinction between private and public goods outlined above. 13 How Are Standards Made? Daniel Mansfield, BSI, at Standards: Your Innovation Bridge, Oct Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization Page 15

21 In the public goods model, the creation of a standard for common use across the economy involves little by way of conflict amongst participants because they don t generally have a preference over which option gets adopted. In this kind of situation, a sub-optimal number of standards may get created as firms are reluctant to commit resources and can free ride on the efforts of others a situation especially likely in sectors where small firms predominate. So a lack of commercial interest can affect commitment to the standardization process. In the second type of model (private goods) differences in preferences between firms become important and the negotiating firms may therefore have an interest in promoting a particular standard specification on the basis of their own commercial interest. In some circumstances, intellectual property rights in a standard may sharpen these distributional impacts. This effect may be particularly important where some firms (or perhaps a university) are specialized in research activities. In the context of committee based consensus standards, such distributional conflicts may lead to delays in standardization or in the failure to adopt a standard at all. It may well be that problems of this latter type are more prevalent in the later stages of innovation cycles, since preferences will be more heavily influenced by individual firms sunk cost commitments incurred in the process of development creating a potential for opportunistic behaviour. However the standardization process, with benefits for the functioning of the innovation system as a whole, requires the active participation of firms and the management of their expectations and interests, bearing in mind that the latter include the growth and scale of markets as well as their market shares. Moreover, it is a major strength of formal standardization organizations that agreed rules can successfully ameliorate the potential problems. Several case examples highlighted how a standardization committee that is based on a specific product or technology can inhibit the exploitation of innovative new solutions. These anecdotal case examples (which are being further investigated by CEN and CENELEC) illustrate the potential risk of negative impacts when a standardization committee is populated by commercial interests that favour the status quo. Ideally, such committees should be technology neutral in order that they can be objective in their consideration of new solutions. This key issue is discussed again under Research Question RQ2 - Motivation of Industrial and Academic Researchers to Participate in Standardization The overall observations for this research question are that participation in standardization activities is beneficial for researchers but there are significant barriers to address. Specific points are: Standardization activities have many benefits for participating organizations There is relatively low participation of researchers in standardization There are a number of barriers that inhibit participation in standardization These points are each discussed below. Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization Page 16

22 Standardization Activities have Many Benefits for Participating Organizations How does participation in the process of standardization support research activities was a common question in all three surveys 14. Figure 14 shows both the general pattern of responses and the differences in level of agreement between the three survey target groups, as defined in Section 2, above. Provides a way to increase the income potential of Intellectual Property by incorporating it into standards Reduces time to market for research outputs Increases visibility and support for research activities within the organisation Provides an effective route to exploit research results Develops an image as leaders in the area Enables networking with important stakeholders on future research needs Provides a platform for information exchange Ensures awareness of future standardization trends Provides an opportunity to influence future standardization activities Builds confidence amongst potential customers and consumers Research Industry Research non-industry Technical Committee % Agreeing with Statement Figure 14: Perception of the Benefits for Researchers of Participation in Standardization Whilst there are some differences between the three groups, the general pattern is similar. For example, all three groups Highlight that builds confidence amongst potential customers and consumers (78% agreement) is the most important benefit of participation Indicate that the four next most important motivations for participation in standardization are related to networking benefits rather than simply commercial interests, i.e. that participation: o Ensures awareness of future standardization trends (76%) o Provides an opportunity to influence future standardization activities (76%) o Provides a platform for information exchange (73% in agreement) o Enables networking with important stakeholders on future research needs (74%) 14 The surveys of (1) industrial participants in FP7 research programmes, (2) non-industrial participants in FP7 research programmes and metrology researchers and (3) members of CEN and CENELEC technical committees Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization Page 17

23 Technical Committee members seem to have a more favourable attitude to most of the potential benefits. Their most important motivation, perhaps unsurprisingly, seems to be about influencing future standardization activities whereas the overall top response across all three groups was builds confidence amongst potential customers and consumers. There is Relatively Low Participation of Researchers in Standardization Survey feedback 15 indicates that there is a relatively low participation in standardization by EU-level researchers in general (46% participation) and also considerable variation in participation by organization type. Academic researchers in particular show comparatively low participation levels. Participation is highest, as expected, among organizations that form part of the measurement system, as shown in Figure 15. This observation is also supported by a separate survey of the National Standardization Organizations across Europe carried out as part of the wider BRIDGIT project to gather both quantitative and qualitative information on links with the research and innovation community Active Participation in Standardization by Researcher's Organization All Researcher Industry Research Organization Measurement System Figure 15: Participation in Standardization by Type of Research Organization (FP7 and NMI Samples) One of the statistics from this survey is that (in most cases) less than 10% of standardization committee members are from the research community. How this form of participation effectively integrates research and standardization at the level of the organization and how it impacts upon perceptions is considered again in the discussion of other research questions. The literature review found little evidence on the motivations for the participation of researchers in the standardization process, compared to the benefits and motivations of business. The public good nature of some standards and the potential of others to leverage the value of intellectual property, have been more extensively studied. However a survey of both business and academic researchers in nanotechnology in Germany 16 suggested that only a minority of research institute respondents participate in standardization, largely due to the perceived lack of alignment with the reward and appraisal framework for their research. Those who did participate indicated that they are motivated by the prospect of future research HEI Other Based on the surveys of (1) industrial participants in FP7 research programmes and (2) non-industrial participants in FP7 research programmes and metrology researchers Blind, K., & Gauch, S. (2009). Research and standardization in nanotechnology: evidence from Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(3), Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization Page 18

24 funding. The same survey found that technical standards were ranked rather low as information sources by business, but higher by academic researchers. It also highlighted the importance of tacit knowledge (for which participation is crucial) as well as codified knowledge in both research and innovation. This is discussed further in Appendix A. There are Several Barriers that Inhibit Participation in Standardization A number of potential barriers to participation were tested in all three surveys 17. The three main stakeholder samples that participated in the surveys expressed different opinions on the barriers to improving links between the research and standardization communities. Figure 16 shows the pattern of responses from the three stakeholder groups. Figure 16: Barriers to Links between Research and Standardization Clearly there are some interesting differences in perception of the barriers. For example, issues such as standardization timescales and lack of a clear process for researchers to engage with standardization bodies are perceived to be much less important to Technical Committee members than to either industry or non-industry researchers In contrast, members of Technical Committees consider that the standardization community in general lacks the resource to participate in research projects, although it should be noted that a number of National Standardization Organizations have been active in FP7 research projects. Only a minority believe that standards have little relevance to research, and vice versa, which 17 The surveys of (1) industrial participants in FP7 research programmes, (2) non-industrial participants in FP7 research programmes and metrology researchers and (3) members of CEN and CENELEC Technical Committees Benefits of Linking Innovation and Standardization Page 19