|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  |
 |
  |
USAID Mission to Poland
Europe & Eurasia
>> E & E Home >> Poland >> Assistance Areas >> Private Sector >> Activity Reports >> Fabrykat 2000 >> Appendix A
Success Stories
Assistance Areas
SEED Reports
Contact Information
Last updated: Thursday, 25-Jun-2009 16:24:00 EDT
Fabrykat 2000 - Final Report - Appendix A
1. Best Practices Case Studies and Key Lessons Learned
The 15 best practices case studies presented by FABRYKAT 2000 for adaptation in Poland were:
Cleveland Advanced Manufacturing Program (CAMP) and Great Lakes Manufacturing Technology Center (GLMTC). CAMP/GLMTC provides both technology transfer and manufacturing extension to the region's industries. It is one of seven Thomas Edison Technology Centers set up by the state of Ohio to provide technology transfer in manufacturing technologies through its university affiliates. GLMTC, which operates as a division of CAMP, is one of the first three designated federal Manufacturing Extension Partnerships (MEP).
Ben Franklin Technology Center of Southeastern Pennsylvania (BFTC/SEP). BFTC/SEP provides a wide range of technology and business assistance, and investment tools for technology enterprises. Technology services are provided through a variety of programs that link enterprises with technology sources at research universities and federal laboratories. Investment services are provided through multiple grant, loan and investment funds in exchange for royalties and other types of payback methods.
Kansas Commercialization Corporations. The Kansas Technology Enterprise Corporation (KTEC) is a statewide technology system that supports three Commercialization Corporations, in addition to seed capital funds and other financing programs for SMEs. Manufacturing extension is provided through the Mid-America Manufacturing Technology Center (MAMTC), which also operates as part of KTEC.
Purdue University Technical Assistance Program (TAP). Based in the College of Engineering, Purdue's industrial extension program has a national program in data and information for companies, faculty delivery of problem solving, student programs for both short- and long-term projects, and linkages to research.
Georgia Institute of Technology Manufacturing Alliance (GITMA). The industrial extension programs at the Georgia Institute of Technology are the largest university-based technical services delivery system in the United States. This program involves 19 field offices, staffed by highly trained engineers. These field offices are integrated into the university’s economic development program providing services in economic research, international standards, and a host of other support and delivery units.
Iowa Center for Industrial Research and Service (CIRAS). CIRAS is a 36-year-old industrial extension program that operates in the rural state of Iowa. CIRAS has evolved from providing low- and mid-level industrial outreach to serving the technology needs of high technology firms through its affiliation with the Iowa State University. Field staff provide services from marketing to problem solving throughout the State.
Maryland Technology Extension Service (TES). TES is one of the smaller statewide U.S. industrial extension programs and is unusual because it operates as part of a university’s engineering research center. Engineers provide lower-end problem solving through field offices and refer a large number of advanced problems to the university’s research center and faculty. The extension service also has unusually close ties with several federal laboratories in the area.
North Carolina Industrial Extension Service (IES). IES has a large continuing education program for working engineers and industrialists that uses university faculty and electronic media. This effort is integrated with a statewide technical services component that combines manufacturing assessments with workforce development, and concentrates on industrial clusters.
Edison Welding Institute (EWI). EWI, another of Ohio's Thomas Edison Technology Centers, is the largest welding and materials joining center in the United States. EWI has one of the largest U.S. membership programs, in which SMEs and large firms collaborate on research and development (R&D) with the institute and share in the results. Members receive additional business and information services.
Danish Technology Institute (DTI). DTI is a comprehensive national technology center that provides a full range of high quality technology transfer and extension to Danish industries. This includes technology assessments and problem solving, demonstrations, business assistance and financial help for start-ups and mature SMEs. DTI gains an unusually large portion of its revenues from user fees.
Fraunhofer Gesellschaft (FhG). The FhG is a network of regional technology transfer centers located throughout Germany. They specialize in specific technological areas and normally are affiliated with universities, making good use of faculty and students in helping technology firms assess and solve technical problems, and adapt advanced technologies.
TEKES. TEKES is the Finish national technology center that uses various funding tools to stimulate technology development and commercialization. Through technology clinics, TEKES uses a network approach to assist SMEs from both the demand and supply sides by identifying and meeting specific technological needs and also identifying and promoting adaptation of specific advanced technologies.
The full Best Practices report is available on the Fabrykat 2000 website.
KEY LESSONS LEARNED
TT and MEP as Part of a Larger System
Technology transfer and manufacturing extension programs operate as part of a complex technology system: Successful technology transfer and manufacturing extension services are part of a process that involves multiple services and support for technology-based enterprises. This includes internal and external sources of financing, business assistance, technology assistance, marketing and export assistance, legal help, and networking opportunities. Technology transfer centers play an important part in the technology process, but they are only part of a larger, interrelated system. Under the leadership of PBICA, FABRYKAT 2000 leaves behind a cohesive country-wide network of institutions and individuals that are the core of Poland's Technology Transfer Center system.
Legal, regulatory and tax structures should be in place that provide incentives for technology-based firms: Successful programs operate in an environment where there are legal structures that protect proprietary rights, provide incentives for start-ups, give credits for adapting advanced technologies, and promote entry into new markets. Both at the national and provincial levels, this message has begun to come across in Poland and is beginning to bear fruit in the form of concrete funding and greater awareness of the role of technology transfer in overall macroeconomic development plans.
Linkages with R&D Resources
Forming linkages with the sources of research and development: In most successful communities, it is the universities, government research institutes, and private research and development (R&D) institutes that have formed the base upon which high tech firms have been built and manufacturers advanced. Continuation and acceleration of Poland’s privatization endeavors remain key, and not only in the technology transfer area.
Encouraging the participation of university and government institute researchers: University professors and government institute researchers respond best if they have a self-interest in seeing that their work is commercialized. Successful technology transfer programs work with the universities, government institutes and other R&D sources to develop appropriate incentives for researchers to collaborate with industry. This may be developing systems for monetary rewards or other meaningful commendations such as giving added consideration toward tenure or prestigious awards. Directors in successful technology transfer centers work with heads of government institutes and universities in order to structure such incentives. In Poland, the rules of the game regarding intellectual property and regulating appropriate remuneration of individuals generating innovations in an institution where they are employed remain muddled at best, but at least there is increased awareness of the importance of the issue.
Using universities and government institutes to build credibility: Linkages to universities and government institutes are often used to provide a technology transfer center with credibility, and contrary to common perception, usually do not provide more than a minor part of technical assistance to small enterprises. In Poland, academia enjoys a high level of respect and prestige, but a dearth of resources; thus far this has not resulted in a stampede to create spin-offs, but a beginning has certainly been made.
Industry-Driven Technology Transfer
Industry vs. university-led technology transfer: At the same time that it is important for technology transfer centers to form linkages with universities and government institutes, these institutions should not dominate the technology transfer agenda. Although most of the United States’ best technology transfer programs were originally university-centered, as the programs matured, they increasingly became more industry-focused and industry-driven. This has been one of the central messages of all FABRYKAT 2000 educational and advocacy efforts, and at the very least has been duly noted.
Funding directed to private enterprises: Until recently, many state programs provided funding, through competitive bids, to universities to perform university-industry collaborative R&D. In order to promote more industry-led R&D, several successful state programs have changed their funding systems and now provide direct funding to private enterprises to conduct collaborative R&D. While Poland’s State Committee for Scientific Research, the government’s main funding arm for technology and R&D projects does have a facility to finance private sector enterprise research (so-called targeted grants), in fact the facility is small – and despite that underutilized by the private sector, because it requires a 50 percent matching.
Matching requirements: Most successful programs require “matching” from enterprises as a funding requirement for collaborative R&D and/or receiving other types of grants and investments. This helps ensure that there is private sector value in the R&D and that the R&D is not being performed for pure scientific interest alone. (See above).
Assistance to SMEs and Networking SMEs
Focusing technology transfer center services on SMEs: In the United States, SMEs have been the engine that has driven high technology growth. SMEs have been found to be more flexible and innovative than larger enterprises. Technology transfer centers can provide the opportunity to link SMEs with sources of R&D that would otherwise only be available to larger enterprises. Membership programs at technology transfer centers and programs that subsidize collaborative R&D can provide cash-poor start-ups with access to R&D at minimal expense. In Poland, considerably lip service is being paid to the leading role of SMEs, but various proposed initiative remain largely un-funded at the national level; at the provincial level, particularly in Malopolska and Lower Silesia as well as in various municipalities the rhetorical support is beginning to be followed-up by actual resources, albeit limited.
Targeting clusters of SMEs: Manufacturing extension programs sometimes provide services to groups or networks of SMEs that have a common industrial base or that are linked together in a supply chain. This method can reduce costs and help create a synergy among SMEs that supports regional technology growth. To this end Fabrykat 2000 supported a program spearheaded by the Wroclaw Technology Transfer Center and the Wroclaw University of Technology to educate SMEs on supply chain management opportunities stemming primarily from foreign direct investment in such sectors as engineering, and piloted a Lean Manufacturing Program at the above institution.
Program Structure
Hiring the “right” staff: Hiring the “right” staff is always one of the highest priorities of successful technology transfer and manufacturing extension programs. Most successful center directors say that business experience is the most important criteria when selecting staff for both manufacturing extension and technology transfer programs. Many programs require, or at least prefer, 5 to 10 years of business experience, giving the greatest preference to those who have started their own enterprises or worked with entrepreneurial high-tech enterprises. Centers usually prefer engineers, particularly those with a masters in business administration, for technical support and field staff positions. Directors of most successful technology transfer programs also say that business know-how is more important than science and technology expertise, although it is best if staff have both. The most successful programs are those with staff who can speak the language of business and the language of researchers. Given that only a decade has passed since Poland launched its economic transformation, FABRYKAT 2000 determined it to be critical to develop a technology management curriculum that could be taught at various institutions to supply future competent personnel in this sector.
Field staff play a valuable role: Manufacturing extension programs particularly benefit from placing technology and business specialists in various locations throughout the region. Staff who have worked in a specific geographic area are usually particularly well received by local business people. FABRYKAT 2000 has purposely located its staff resources in seven different locations throughout the country, and worked assiduously with other so-called “second-tier” TTC-related institutions to maximize geographical diversification.
Using consultants vs. in-house staff: Many successful programs make heavy use of consultants. Consultants may provide from 25 to 75 percent of services to client firms. The advantage of using consultants is that it allows technology transfer and manufacturing extension programs to benefit from specialized expertise. By screening consultants, centers develop rosters on the basis of training and experience. The centers provide referral services to client firms that match consultants’ expertise with specific firm needs.
Boards can be used for multiple purposes: Boards overseeing technology transfer centers should include representatives from all of the sectors that make up the “technology infrastructure” -- that is, universities, government laboratories and institutes, large and small technology enterprises, banking and financial institutions, business organizations, and political entities. Some of the more successful technology transfer programs require that business and industry representatives make up at least half of the board. Boards overseeing manufacturing extension services have a similar composition, but usually have fewer R&D institutional representatives and more manufacturing, business, and often labor representation. Boards formally review the activities and financial standing of the technology transfer center or manufacturing extension service and provide input (and sometimes have ultimate authority) in planning. Boards most often involve prestigious members from the community who have established relationships with the media and hold visible positions in their fields. Centers can effectively use their board members to promote the center’s activities and to help build the center’s credibility in the community.
For a variety of tradition-related reasons, the “champion” model appears to resonate better with Polish institutions than a board approach, and this is one issue on which FABRYKAT 2000 has not been able to make much headway.
Developing and Marketing Services
Marketing services to client firms: Developing marketing strategies to attract clients is critical. Successful technology transfer and manufacturing extension programs can at a minimum place advertisements in selected media targeted to technology SMEs; feed the media success stories; present services at meetings of chambers, industrial associations, scientific meetings and other places where technology enterprises gather; contact firms targeted by industrial sector, size and/or development stage; conduct free or low-cost seminars, luncheons, and other fora to attract firms; and conduct personal follow-up with individual firms. An extensive re-orientation of all the TTCs from a grant-approach to a client-driven approach has been a major achievement of FABRYKAT 2000.
Conferences, workshops, and seminars: Many beginning technology transfer centers focus on conferences, workshops and seminars. They use these activities as a way to initially attract client firms and advertise the center. They find the most value from conferences and workshops by following-up with firms afterwards to market direct services. Often centers charge little or no fees for conferences and workshops, using them as “loss leaders” for follow-on activities. (See above)
“Hands-on” services: Successful manufacturing extension programs provide a substantial portion of their services in direct “hands-on” services to client firms. This usually involves conducting technology audits; providing advice with selection, purchase, and installation of equipment; and business and management advice, training, and other services needed by firms in specific industrial sectors and regions. Although information services such as data searches, newsletters, and seminars can provide important information to firms, these services should consume a small part of staff time and expenses and they should not be used in place of direct services to firms. (See above)
Business services vs. technology services: Directors of many successful technology transfer and manufacturing extension programs say that business services are by far more important than technical services to their client firms. Most high-tech enterprises with whom technology transfer centers work have considerable expertise in their particular field and know where and how to access technical knowledge. But most are weak in business, management and financial aspects of enterprise development and require substantial assistance in these areas. New technology transfer centers often make the mistake of building up their technical expertise and linkages with technology resources rather than concentrating on building up business and financial expertise. As technology transfer centers mature, they tend to de-emphasize the technical assistance and build in-house expertise in management and financing, and develop linkages with external business sources. Of the more than 150 SMEs which received some form of assistance from FABRYKAT 2000, well over 80% had or perceived they had primarily marketing and financing problems, rather than technological problems; even in those cases where the technology issue was paramount, its resolution more often than not lay hostage to resolving business and financial problems. This has made it imperative for the TTCs to provide a broad spectrum of services, and not limit themselves to technological issues.
Investment and financing assistance: It is critical that technology transfer centers and manufacturing extension services structure financial assistance or develop linkages with sources of financial assistance for high tech SMEs. Enterprises are often frustrated and lose confidence in technology transfer centers when the enterprise can not carry out advice from the center because it does not have the financial means to do so. Manufacturing extension and technology transfer programs fail when they do not develop the critical linkages needed to financially support enterprises to implement the technology and manufacturing advice. (See above). By the same token, access to potential sources of funding, be they public grants, commercial loans or equity capital has become one of the key “carrots” of the FABRYKAT 2000 TTC network in Poland, which has assiduously developed those contacts both domestically and internationally. In the case of the Malopolska province, the provincial authorities are proceeding with establishing a publicly co-funded seed capital fund.
Funding Issues
Developing self-sufficient centers: Although making TTCs self-sufficient is usually a government goal, this has rarely been accomplished in the United States or elsewhere. Most technology transfer centers and manufacturing extension programs that are considered successful are not self-sufficient, and rely on government funding for at least half of their revenues. For example, the U.S. Congress mandated that the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships were to become completely self-sufficient in their sixth year. When none of the MEPs could meet this criterion, the mandate was changed to continue providing one-third of funding from the federal government, one-third from state governments, and one-third from fees-for-service. Technology transfer and manufacturing extension services have developed successful fee-for-service programs, but centers should be realistic about how much private enterprises contribute to the total budget. Product development is often a more profitable source of income than fees for service. But it is unusual for fees from services or product development to contribute more than one-third of a center’s revenues. This is the model to which the Polish TTC network aspires, and it has made a good beginning in the right direction.
 |
|||
Last Updated on: June 25, 2009 |
