Publications:

Lessons Learnt from Innovative EU Projects: the Benefits of Collaboration for SMEs

Dr Elly Philpott, Senior Research Fellow, RICTA, University of Bedfordshire

Putteridge Bury campus, Hitchin Rd, Luton, Bedfordshire, LU2 8LE

+44 (0) 1438 231619, elly.philpott@beds.ac.uk,

www.beds.ac.uk/research/bmri/staff/elly-philpott

Dr John Beaumont-Kerridge, Director of Marketing and Communications, Bedfordshire Business School, University of Bedfordshire

Dr Oonagh McNerney, Director, Iberian Productivity and Innovation Centre, Spain

Karolína Řípová, Executive, Grant Garant, Czech Republic

Anna Stachowicz, Technology Transfer Centre, Cracow University of Technology, Poland

Keywords: innovation, SME, EU, dissemination, exploitation, collaboration

Abstract

Objective: The paper details a study that has explored the exploitation achievements of Small to Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs) involved in EU collaboration projects to understand suitable measures, identify best practice SMEs and provide insights into the benefits of collaboration for SMEs at EU level.  

Prior Work:  The relationship between innovation inputs and innovation outputs is a subject of debate between economists and business strategists. Hollanders and Celikel Esser (2007) laudable work to define these variables in econometric terms has no doubt advanced the field significantly; however there are very few studies that relate innovation inputs and outputs (as manifested by exploitation) at a practitioner level for collaborative projects. 

Results: The benefits of collaboration for the SMEs involved were increased productivity, skills and know how, quality of products/services, new to company products/services, new to market products/services, exports.  SMEs also reported closer collaboration with partners, intensification of international contacts, additional know-how to design their own products / file future patents / manage large projects, faster development of subsequent standards, extension of markets, additional funding to that initially anticipated by taking on additional roles.

The work also infers that SMEs involved in successful EU projects fall into 5 distinct categories: Type 1 - Product / service quality focused, Type 2 - Sales of new to company products/services focused, Type 3 - Sales of new to market products/services focused, Type 4 - Export achievement focused, Type 5 - Productivity focused. Similarly, RTDs involved in successful EU projects fall into 3 distinct categories: Type 1 - RTDs who are focused on invention disclosures, PhDs, patents, licensing income, spin off businesses Type 2 - RTDs who are focused on positive cost/benefit analysis, subsequent funding, Type 3 - RTDs who are focused on journal articles, expert evaluation of outcomes/project, ongoing or new collaborations. 

Implications: SMEs and RTDs wishing to exploit collaborative funding opportunities to achieve their own aims should consider their own status against these profiles and aim to work with complementary partners.  SMEs wishing to attain the types of output listed could also benefit from EU projects. 

Keywords: innovation, SME, RTD, dissemination, exploitation, EU, collaboration

Thinking of getting involved in European Project? Would you like to know more from lessons learned from succesful Health and ICT project involving SMEs? Find the Use&Diffuse Brochure and compare your potentials.

Recent press release done locally by Project's Partner - RICTA about U&D were introduced in the link: http://newsweaver.co.uk/corpnews/e_article001394662.cfm?x=bfmJFcq,b8vnTvPT,w

Literature review that was carried out to understand success factors, adversities, best practice in dissemination and implementation of university research to SMEs as well as the results and outcomes of the project’s research came up with 2 publications.

Paper 1 is under review with an international journal:

Innovation outputs in SMEs:  a conceptual framework relating innovation inputs, dissemination and exploitation channels and innovation outputs in University-SME projects in the UK

Abstract:  The relationship between innovation inputs and innovation outputs is a subject of debate between economists and business strategists.
Hollanders and Celikel Esser's (2007) laudable work to define these variables in econometric terms has no doubt advanced the field significantly. We have yet to discover however, the 'Rosetta stone', which will allow us to categorically relate technology transfer activities between universities and SMEs with these indicators.  This paper reports one approach taken to study R&D projects involving UK SMEs and universities in the health and ICT sectors. As an innovation leader in Europe (OECD 2006), a framework is proposed which links innovation inputs, dissemination and exploitation channels and innovation outputs. The paper employs multiple levels of analysis in that it relates literature-derived theory to the learning derived from empirical case-gathering to test the suitability of the framework.  The framework is currently being developed with six European partners.

Paper 2 is a working paper for future submission:

Innovation outputs in SMEs:  the use of a conceptual innovation framework to evaluate the success of 80 European funded projects in Health and ICT

Abstract:  The relationship between innovation inputs and innovation outputs is a subject of debate between economists and business strategists.
Hollanders and Celikel Esser's (2007) laudable work to define these variables in econometric terms has no doubt advanced the field significantly.  To date, the innovation successes of European SMEs involved in European -funded projects are rarely consolidated and reported.  This paper reports one approach taken to study R&D projects involving European SMEs and universities in the health and ICT sectors.  An innovation framework for assessment is overviewed and its use is described in evaluating best practice in terms of innovation output for stakeholders. The paper employs multiple levels of analysis to evaluate 61 SME questionnaires and 36 RTD questionnaires representing the innovation outputs of 80 projects and concludes with a methodology for good practice in RTD-SME research projects. The paper concludes with lessons learned for funders and for practitioners embarking on the collaborative innovation path.