Assessment of the Norwegian national support system

the Norwegian national support system for participation in the EU’s 5FP:

- information obtained from the questionnaire (cf. Appendix 5), and

- information obtained from interviews with a number of key informants related to Norway’s participation in 5FP, cf. Appendix 6 for a list of informants and

Appendix 4 for the interview guide that was used.

Although small in scale, the Norwegian national support system is similar in most aspects to that in the countries studied in the benchmarking exercise undertaken in the evaluation. Of course, there are differences, but these reflect adjustments to national conditions, however, as the drivers are almost the same for Norway as with the other countries – the “responses” are similar. As pointed out earlier, the national support systems have co-evolved with the various, succeeding FPs, reflecting both that actors involved in the FPs learn and gain experience, and that the national supports systems make adjustments to accommodate the changing nature of the FPs themselves.

However, looking more closely into the material from the interviews and other sources, Norway’s main challenge in terms of a national support system will be: To make a coherent national R&D and innovation strategy with a special focus on international R&D and innovation activities. This claim is based on a number of observations from Norway’s participation in 5FP that will be elaborated below.

• Apart from a few cases, the strategic overlap or convergence between national R&D and innovation priorities and Norwegian participation in 5FP has been weak, or coincidental. The main reason for this is that strategy, agenda and priority setting – and implementation of these at the national level are done within a national context; in these, participation in the EU’s FPs do not command high focus. Thus, questions such as whether participation in the EU’s FPs represent a substitution, symbiosis or a synergy with national priorities and strategies are difficult to answer because this is not high on decision makers’ agenda. This point is important as a structural factor for how the national support system works,

Assessment of the Norwegian national support system

70

because to some extent this explains the outcomes and actions of various elements within the national support system, as will be elaborated below.

• Apart from some of the large industrial firms (e.g. Statoil), some of the research institutes (e.g. NILU) and, to a lesser extent, some of the universities (e.g.

NTNU), Norwegian institutions that participated in 5FP seem to lack a coherent R&D and innovation strategy. Thus, what may be observed on a national level is also reflected on institutional level. Although most of the institutions explain that participation in the EU’s FP is important for internationalization, establishment of international networks and new market entry opportunities, gaining access to important sources of information, etc., linking this to the institution’s own strategy is often weak. Except from one institution, evaluation of its participation in the EU’s 5FP has not been undertaken. Although this lack of strategy may provide room for a high degree of bottom-up initiatives and entrepreneurship (of which there are many notable examples of successes), the link to an institutional strategy is weak, chiefly because institutional strategies and portfolio management are not strongly developed.

• In looking at the relationship between the EU FP-system and the national system, one may observe how Norwegian actors, in particular representatives of the Research Council of Norway, operate in the roles as NCPs and delegates to various programme committees, etc. Although most of the people undertaking these task seem to do a good job, their modus operandi do not necessarily to reflect national priorities or interests in a coherent way. One would expect that R&D and innovation issues related to vital national economic or societal interest (e.g. energy, environment, marine resource management, etc.) should be given high priority in order to induce high activity in R&D areas relevant for these. In contrast, one would expect other areas would require less attention and resources.

However, individual entrepreneurship (which in itself is an asset) more than strategic design and priorities seem to explain their modus operandi. This may, of course, be beneficial for some interests, but these are not necessarily in areas requiring much strategic attention for national interests. This aspect reflects the first point above, a general absence of national priority setting.

• In spite of these weaknesses, there are many cases of successful entrepreneurship which have been beneficial for the national support system. In particular, the

“IT&FoU-Forum” in Brussels, which was established in year 2000 (almost midway in 5FP) as result of an initiative from the Norwegian delegation to the EU, is considered highly successful. The reason for this is its format and agenda that provides those attending an opportunity for informal dialogue and networking with other stakeholders, in particular it has given Norwegian participants valuable relationships to policy makers and decision takers in the EU-system. Most of the

The Norwegian system for information and counselling (support system)

Assessment of the Norwegian national support system

informants claimed that they gave attendance to meeting of the “IT&FoU-Forum”

in Brussels high priority. Some stated that through this meeting point, they had been able to invite important “DG-people” to Norway for visits, guest lectures, etc. – this contributing to valuable relationship building. As a result, some cited being put on various informal mailing lists and consultation groups for DG-people, this giving them opportunity to comment early drafts, etc., i.e. influence outcomes of decisions and policies important for them and giving them advance insight into upcoming issues and initiatives. Thus, a more coherent national strategy has to allow for individual entrepreneurship in order to harvest the better of two worlds.

In general, informants claim that using official channels of communication, such as attendance in programme committees, is not effective; the meetings are mostly formal occasions for EU officials to make announcement of their decisions, a fait accompli in terms of policy and strategy. At the level of programs, Norwegian representatives claim that they have the greatest possibility of influencing outcomes at three points:

- As members of working groups (WGs) of a programme committee that has been established to provide input for a special purpose, such as making input for the next FP. Some informants who were members of 4FP WGs claimed that this was important for putting Norwegian interests into the agenda of 5FP.

- As members of WGs in programme committees to make specific work programs for a FP, or midway revision of these.

- Nomination of influential Norwegian experts (typically university professors) as candidates for various WGs or expert committees within a FP.

Needless to say, the personal capabilities, networks and interests of NCPs and delegates have been important for Norway’s participation in 5FP and exploiting the opportunities stated above. However, as stated initially, because of weak strategy, this also makes Norway vulnerable: Vital national interests may suffer for

shortcomings related to the persons involved – the system lacks robustness.

In general, in the opinion of key informants interviewed, they were generally

favourable to the Norwegian EU R&D Information Centre in the Research Council of Norway. Typically, many stated that they provided general and useful information on FPs in an efficient manner to interested parties in Norway. Their newsletter, web-based announcements and information meetings were considered beneficial for raising awareness of the EU’s FPs in general – and for dissemination of important information related to new FPs. This is typical of the “broadcast” mode found in most of the national support systems benchmarked in the evaluation. Although generally considered positive and responsive to requests from users in Norway, some improvement potentials were identified, in particular:

Assessment of the Norwegian national support system

72

- For newcomers, the EU’s FPs represent a cultural barrier. In particular, they are confronted with concepts and procedures that are unfamiliar and non-intuitive.

This was amplified in the 5FP because this was structurally more complex than its predecessors. The EU-Forskningsinfo should strive to make these concepts and procedures more understandable, i.e. “translate”, “educate” and “demystify” were words that informants used to describe the challenges.

- The personnel, as some of the NCPs, are usually not experts. For this reason they may be incapable of providing expert advice. When approached by users seeking advice on complex matters, they should pass them on to real experts in the national support system.

- Creating interest for the EU’s FPs in regions and among SMEs: Most informants admit that this is a difficult challenge, however, they claim that some simple, and possibly efficient initiatives may be taken by being more “market oriented”, i.e.

searching for potentially interested institutions and firms. This should be an area of cooperation between the Reseach Council of Norway and the newly established Innovation Norway (the former SND). In general, regional state colleges should be encouraged to take greater interest in participation in EU’s FPs; in doing this, they may be able to involve other organizations and firms in the regions.

In the questionnaire, respondents were asked to consider and score various actors in the national support system as either “useful” or “not used or not very useful”. The results obtained from this question are shown in table 5.3. As shown, “EU’s

homepage” was ranked highest, i.e. being considered most useful. In interpreting this table, one has to be careful because the immediate impression may be dramatic – and somewhat deceptive. More than anything else, the response should be interpreted as giving an expression of the sources of information that participants use – not an assessment of their quality. Because many participants use the EU’s homepages, perhaps daily at times, this probably explains its high score. In contrast, few if any ordinary participants have any interaction with the science attaché of the Norwegian EU-delegation in Brussels, this being a domain far removed from their work as scientists or engineers. Note should be taken that the range of variation in the responses is limited, and that the question has lumped together “Not used” and “Not very useful”, which are two different aspects.

The Norwegian system for information and counselling (support system)

Recommendations based on analysis of strengths and weaknesses

Table 5.3: Usefulness of information sources used by Norwegian participant in the EU’s 5FP

Information source Norwegian

participants in the EU’s 5RP Not used or not

very useful (%) Useful (%) Total (%)

experience from the EU system

83 17 100

EU research coordinators at the universities

Other parts of the Norwegian Research Council

5.5 Recommendations based on analysis of strengths and