Conference papers

I believe the theme of our Conference can be summed up in one word -networks. We have heard throughout the Conference how the process of technology transfer and innovation reguires the interplay of technical ideas, resources and information. Some Science Park are a medium through which many of these types of resource can be networked to foster and encourage the process of technology transfer and innovation. At the local level Science Parks are networked into their local University or other Institute of Higher Education and frequently, through the management team, there are strong links into banks and other financial institutions, professional advisers including lawyers, patent agents and accountants, and there are often other strong links into Chambers of Commerce, small business clubs and many sources of information relevant to the development and exploitation of technology. Internationally, the Science Park movement is growing strongly and we in Europe are becoming a major force. I believe we should be able to use our Science Parks to network information across national boundaries to the benefit of our tenant companies.

Looking back over the Conference I believe our papers have helped us to put Science Parks into perspective and give us an insight as to how we might help in stimulating and encouraging the process of innovation and technology transfer as a group of Science Parks rather than just as individual Science Parks.

The Growth of a European Science Park Movement
We heard at the start of the Conference how our movement was growing throughout Europe. There were some impressive statistics given. We also heard that Science Parks are freguently different one from another depending on the country and on the needs that a particular region has.

Individual case studied from the Area Trieste and Zirst, Grenoble served to exemplify and underscore the general points on growth and diversity reinforcing more global statistics provided by Heinz Feidler for Germany, Arthur Rimmer for the UK and Dick Porter for Europe as a whole.

A Challenge to the Science Park Movement
In our second session we heard, what was for me, one of the key addresses for this Conference because of an implied challenge. Hidden within Dr Strub's talk about the role of DGXIII in research and development and technology transfer there was a challenge to those of us in the Science Park movement - a challenge to become more involved in the EEC's programme on transnational technological transfer and commercialisation. Some Science Parks are already involved with DGXIII through TII and most Science Parks subscribe to the concept and ideal of using Science Parks as a medium for promoting transnational collaboration for technology transfer and exploitation of technologies throughout Europe between the companies on Science Parks.

I would like to return later and explore some further thoughts on this important matter. These thoughts have come about in part through the informal discussions outside the Conference Chamber with other delegates. However, I believe that these discussions are just as valid as the formal papers and, therefore Chairman, I hope you will allow me to report on these informal aspects of our Conference after a resume of the papers.

Market and Science-Led Innovation
In the next two sessions of our Conference we investigated market-led and science-led innovations. In these sessions I think we heard some important ideas about the role that Science Parks can and do play. Harry Fitzgibbons, who has a wealth of experience in investing in high technology companies, saw that one of the values of a Science Park was its ability to provide premises upon flexible terms which relate to the high risks and uncertainties of small embryonic companies by giving them the chance to expand rapidly without burdening them with personal guarantees or long leases etc. But, more importantly than this he saw and recognised the significance of the total environment that a Science Park has to offer. This environmental factor came out graphically with the story of Joe's Table and the endless development syndrome. Harry Fitzgibbons believed, and I agree, that if Joe had been on a Science Park within an incubator unit, the chances are that he would have interacted with other small businesses and learned from them. I am sure that many of us who operate Science Parks have seen this phenomenon working and know how powerful and important it is. I could well imagine that Joe would have been approached by other companies on the Science Park to tap into his mechanical engineering expertise on a consultancy basis which would have provided him with a source of income. Other companies may have spotted opportunities for exploiting his ideas in particular markets and offered to undertake joint ventures with him thereby achieving some exploitation of his technology at an early stage. It is only in the close knit community of a Science Park with likeminded individuals who understand one another and collectively have a considerable understanding of markets and technology that this type of interaction can occur to the benefit of each company. This is true synergy where the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts.

Harry Fitzgibbons also saw Science Parks as a half-way-house for ideas emerging from University laboratories and serving as a pathway to facilitate that activity. I believe that Science Parks act in two ways here. First, they create a cultural climate which makes it acceptable for University scientists and engineers to start a company and second it makes it easier because of the proximity to the laboratories within the University. We should not underestimate the importance of these cultural affects in encouraging University academics to exploit their own ideas.

The potential scale of these cultural effects can be judged from the experience of the Chalmers University at Gottenburg. Douglas McQueen in his paper told us that 150 spin-out companies have occurred from Chalmers within the last decade or so. The level of spin-out is not due to the Innovation Centre at Chalmers alone but it is due largely to an environment created by Professor Walimark of which the Innovation Centre is an important part of the infrastructure.

Douglas McQueen also saw Science Parks in a far more complex network than the one-way process of taking innovative ideas from the laboratory to a small company. He says, and I agree, that much technology is phenomenological, ie it does not come from science directl but as a result of someone realising that a particular effect he has observed has an application, even though he does not understand how that effect has arisen. This lack of understanding then creates opportunities for research. Thus, a technological company in the Chalmers Innovation Centre can throw up problems in need of scientific research for the University to undertake, which in turn brings about two further effects:

• It allows for a fuller exploita tion of the original observed effect, and;
• It freguently throws out new phenomena along the pathway of the research which then gives new opportunities for companies to be formed.

In this way a Science Park can become a part of a virtuous cycle in which technology is generated and new knowledge is unfolded.

I cannot leave Douglas McQueen's paper without a passing reference to his concept of a clinic for technology. I found his idea appealing although I am unsure of the practical consequences. What I believe he is saying is that in a teaching hospital there is an opportunity for a full flow of ideas between patient, practitioners of medicine and researchers. However, in the world of products we have created organisational structures which are very efficient at delivering products to end consumers but where the feedback loop has been broken and there is no comparable interactive forum for researchers, innovators and consumers to interact as they do in the teaching hospital context. Douglas McQueen was laying down an implied challenge that Science Parks may be a good organisation medium for establishing that eedback mechanism. I believe we might profitably invite him to develop his ideas from the conceptual to the practical and then test out his ideas in a wider forum.

In the same session Professor Witholt gave us a quotable quotation for the Science Park environment. Quite apart from the rest of his excellent paper he said of certain institutions involved in the process of creating new technology within the Netherlands:

"Why do people go there? - because there is a lot happening there."

I believe this statement is true of Science Parks generally. Because Science Parks are on the node of so many networks of organisations relevant to technology and its exploitation they are exciting places for technology based companies to locate. It was in the following session in Bob Whelan's paper that we gained an insight into why some of this excitement arises. He argued that Science Parks are uniguely placed in the network of advancing technology to be the home of those smaller fast moving companies who provide elements of "enabling technology" in niche markets. He gave the example of computer modeling software for molecular structures which is an essential tool for the large companies involved in drug design and in various aspects of biotechnology. Since needs for new elements of enabling technology are continually arising it follows that working in these markets is highly dynamic - and hence the excitement.

In listening to Bob Whelan's talk, quite coincidentally, another thought occurred to me when he showed one of his slides relating to the technology of adhesives. This slide showed that one key technology area was more durable adhesives in the construction industry. On my own Science Park I have a company working in this field collaborating in research with the University. They obviously recognise Bob Whelan's priorities - but are they aware of the rest of the thinking going on in adhesives which may bear on their own business and future opportunities. Maybe they do, but there is a clear role for Science Parks to act as a gateway for such information ensuring that the information is channelled from a wide variety of national and international sources to the individual companies on a Science Park. Again this reinforces the importance of a Science Park as a network medium.

Bob Whelan also gave us a challenge in his paper when he said that:

"Science Park Managers should think how they can organise things to introduce full European and world markets to the small companies who operate in niche markets on their Science Park."

In our final session we heard about the importance and disciplines to be adopted in licensing and transferring technology internationally. But clearly the problem of exploiting technology is larger than just licensing. It also involves the commercialisation of technology, joint ventures between companies, joint marketing agreements, manufacturing arrangements etc.

Regrettably I do not believe our Conference has fully addressed the key guestion of how Science Parks should use their networking capabilities to encourage and expand this type of activity for our SME companies throughout Europe as suggested by Bob Whelan. We have heard through the case study material relating to individual Science Parks about some initiatives that have been tried and perhaps these ideas could be extended and adopted by others.

However, I think we now need a period of idea generation and examination resulting from this Conference. That is, ideas for using the networking capabilities of Science Parks.

Let me start this process with three ideas and I hope that delegates who have other ideas will add them to a pool which UKSPA, ADT, IASP, TII and others will evaluate them, and where these ideas are found to have merit, implement them. I would encourage these bodies to think fast. Dr Strub told us that SPRINT will be making a call for proposals shortly and this must be a golden opportunity to establish some working parties to develop ideas and try them out in a limited form in the coming months.

To turn to the ideas. The first idea has come from the ADT through Heinz Feidler. ADT are looking at establishing exchanges of staff between Science Park management teams across Europe. I would like to commend the thought that these transferees are given a specific brief to investigate the opportunities for assisting linkages between the companies at the Parks they visit and the Park they come from. I believe that Heinz Feidler has already organised some funding for this programme and I am sure it will be a valuable way of strengthening our network.

The second idea is one given to us by Harry Fitzgibbons. He suggested we look at ways of gaining information on markets from niche companies by interrogating larger companies about their technological needs. This idea would also tie in very well with Bob Whelan's concept of Science Park companies providing enabling technologies. However, to obtain this information is a particularly complex task which should not be underestimated under any circumstances. Nevertheless, the rewards for success would be great and suppose it could be done in the various countries of Europe - what a powerful tool it would be for initiating and expanding small companies on Science Parks.

The third idea is a little more complex and it has to do with seeing if there are ways in which we can order the way in which we communicate with each other as Science Park manager to facilitate the establishment of linkages between our on-site companies. The systems we adopt must not only be productive in the early stages but must also ensure that it does not prejudice either party in the later stages of negotiation whether it is for a licensing arrangement, a joint venture or a marketing initiative

As we stand today, we have the network of people and that network is getting stronger every year as we gain knowledge of each other and gain experience in the needs of our companies. We also have the hardware for communications and by this I do not mean databases. I believe that the only essential technologies are the telephone, the facsimile machine and language translation services. There cannot be a Science Park in Europe that does not have access to all these means of communication.

However, we do lack one very important dimension and that is the software to drive our network efficiently. The software we need is the procedures and mechanisms by which we regulate our contacts between each other on behalf of our tenant companies. For example, if I wished to contact Aachen Innovation Centre looking for a contact on behalf of a company on my own Science Park, what information should I provide? What would Aachen do with any information I sent them and how and on what timescale should they respond? Should there be a fee structure for me to pay Aachen for doing some searching and if they confirm an interest by one of their companies what is the next step that they should take that will best ensure success in the following contact between the companies?

I think we need to address these detailed issues. We need to draw on the experience of the first SPRINT round and the TII and from that develop the software to make our network actually work.

Whether or not these preceding ideas would prove to have any value I do not know. However, one thing I am sure we would all be agreed and that is that the personal contacts made in this Conference can only add to the strength of our network and indeed our meeting together is an absolutely essential ingredient in establishing and maintaining the existence of our network. I believe that Science Parks are a force in the making within Europe and if we continue to believe in ourselves, I think we will not only surprise ourselves and our backers with what we can achieve but we will confound the sceptics.

Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen I commend to you the challenge which this Conference has laid before us.