Research institutes

Norway is a country with a comparatively large research institute sector, especially the technical research institutes on which this section focuses.

These applied research institutes have long had a mission to support industrial development and continue to play an important role in supporting innovation in Norwegian industry, particularly through applied research.

About a quarter of Norway’s R&D activity is done in the research institute sector, about the same proportion as the university and college sector.

Research grew faster in institutes than in higher education during the 1980s.

However, since the end of the 1980s, the volume of institute research has stagnated and been overtaken by growth in the higher education sector.

Institute staff is highly qualified, and institutes collectively employ 0.4 PhDs per full time equivalent researcher.

There are no entirely reliable internationally comparable data on the role of research institutes in the innovation system. Conventionally, their acti-vities are classified under GOVERD³⁹and the ratio between HERD⁴⁰ and GOVERD is the best internationally valid proxy for the university/institute division of labour. Different countries allocate very different proportions of state-funded research effort between the university and institute sectors.

Figure 2.11 shows this ratio for a selection of countries and indicates that Norway is close to the OECD and EU15 averages. The Norwegian, Dutch and Finnish pattern is to maintain a large applied research institute system.

With the exception of the Baltic countries, new member countries from eastern Europe tend to have higher proportions of GOVERD than HERD, reflecting past practice (the national academy of sciences performed much of the basic research) and the comparative isolation of the research institutes from the higher education system. France and Germany, with their large institute systems, lie near the middle. While these countries retain a large scientific research institute structure, the work of the institutes has in practice been partially integrated with that of the universities through the extensive use of joint appointments, exchange of PhD students and, in France, of “unités mixtes” in which researchers and academics work together.

39. Government expenditure on R&D (GOVERD) refers to R&D carried out in the govern-ment sector, not R&D funded by the governgovern-ment sector.

40. Higher education expenditure on research and development (HERD)refers to R&D carried out in higher education institutions.

Figure 2.11. Proportion of state expenditure on R&D allocated to HERD and GOVERD, 2005

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Luxembourg Slovak Republic Korea Poland Czech Republic Hungary Iceland France United States Germany Mexico OECD Japan Spain EU-15 Norway Finland Greece United Kingdom Portugal Belgium Sweden Denmark Ireland Canada Austria

HERD GOVERD

Source: OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators 2007.

Within the institute system, the National Institute of Technology (originallyStatens Teknologisk Institutt, more recently TI) focuses on SMEs.

Its 200 or so employees provide a range of product and process development services, of measurement, test and certification as well as technology-related advice and training. It was originally set up in 1916 to help small firms compete more effectively and its mission is essentially unchanged.

Key institutes were established in agriculture and fisheries in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and a technology-based environment began to arise in Trondheim around the national polytechnic (NTH) from the early part of the 20th century. However, major growth in techno-industrial institutes came after World War II, as applied research institutes were founded in Oslo at and around the Central Institute (SI), and then in Trondheim, where NTH established SINTEF in competition with Oslo-based activities. Institutes for applied social science grew rapidly in the 1960s and 1970s. Until the mid-1980s, these institutes were generally “owned” by ministries or by ministries’ research councils. In the mid-1980s, however, as part of an international wave of separation of customers for research and research performers, the natural science and technology research council (NTNF) was encouraged to divest itself of its techno-industrial institutes. The techno-industrial institutes became separate foundations.

Emblem (1995) explains the importance of institutes in the Norwegian research and innovation infrastructure in terms of:

x Weak industrial R&D capability, which meant that the techno-industrial institutes could perform R&D on behalf of industry, especially because of their focus on applied research.

x The multidisciplinary capabilities of the institutes, which unlike the universities were able to tackle users’ problems.

x The sector principle, which sees research as one policy instrument among others and institutes associated with ministries are used as

“insiders” in policy development.

External funding of R&D in the institute sector by source of funds is shown in Table 2.7. The public financing of the institute sector is being revised. A new, indicator-based system for allocating core funding has been proposed and may be applied from 2009. This essentially rewards institutes for the quality of their work and the extent to which they tackle social needs.

A key principle is that the greater the share of income that an institute receives from industry, the more it is exposed to the market failure that inhibits research performance and the more it should therefore be subsidised to enable it to develop capabilities that go beyond what market actors can create.

Table 2.7. Externally funded R&D expenditure in the institute sector by financial source and by field of science, 2003

NOK millions

Field of science Industry RCN Other

government Other

national Abroad Total

Humanities 26.9 19.6 112.5 0.9 4.5 164.3

Social sciences 106.1 425.4 468.0 30.1 89.6 1 119.2

Natural sciences 186.7 366.2 568.4 1.9 144.5 1 267.8

Engineering and technology 882.3 431.7 397.8 11.7 423.2 2 146.7

Medical sciences 13.4 40.3 303.4 16.1 27.2 400.3

Agricultural sciences 159.4 268.2 497.4 14.7 37.4 977.0

Total 1 374.8 1 551.4 2 347.4 75.3 726.5 6 075.3

Source: Kaloudis and Rørstad (2006).

Box 2.4. The Institute for Energy Technology

The Institute for Energy Technology (IFE) is a noteworthy success. Founded in 1948, IFE is an international research institute for energy and nuclear technology. Its mandate is to undertake research and development for the benefit of society in the energy and petroleum sector and to carry out assignments in the field of nuclear technology for the nation. IFE´s nuclear technology activities comprise all those that are directly or indirectly related to the institute´s two research reactors, in Halden and at Kjeller. IFE is now an independent foundation. With operating income of more than NOK 500 million and staff of over 500, it is larger than most other Norwegian research institutes.

The Halden reactor project (HPR) is one of the world’s leading research facilities for the study of reactor fuels and materials behaviour, as well as of man-machine interaction in control rooms, areas that are critically important to the maintenance and further improvement of nuclear power plant safety.

IFE´s Halden reactor project has tripled its volume of international bilateral contracts during the past ten-year period, during which funding for nuclear research has generally declined.

This confirms the high quality and relevance of the work performed at IFE/Halden. Bilateral collaboration between Russia and Norway makes significant and cost-effective contributions to improving the safety of the Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant and the Kola Nuclear Power Plant and radiation safety at other installations in the Kola Peninsula.

…/…

Box 2.4. The Institute for Energy Technology(continued)

IFE has given birth to a constant flow of spin-off companies. Sorted by year of establishment, these are:

x 1971 Scandpower AS

x 1991 Well Flow Dynamics AS x 1994 Rembra AS

x 1995 Lokaldata Instruments AS x 1996 Nordisk Energikontroll AS x 1996 OMX Technology x 1996 GE Healthcare AS x 1998 Kjeller Vindteknikk AS

x 2000 Applied Petroleum Technology AS x 2000 Querqus AS

x 2001 Norse Decom AS

x 2001 Scandpower Petroleum Technology AS

x 2003 Navita Systems AS

x 2004 Scandpower Risk Management x 2004 Hybrid Energy AS

x 2004 New Energy Performance AS (NEPAS)

x 2005 Resman x 2005 Wirescan AS

x 2005 Hydrogen Storage & Systems AS

Research institutes are building closer international links with univer-sities through joint appointments and joint PhD education. As noted above, the French CNRS (National Centre for Scientific Research) directs its activities towards “unités mixtes” on university campuses, and about 80% of its researchers now work in such mixed research units. KTH in Stockholm has developed a strategy for closer integration with the research institutes located on campus. For its part, Denmark has merged much of its institute system into the universities.

To some degree, Norway has followed a similar trend. The SINTEF and NTNU boards established a common strategy in 2005, while the new univer-sity in Stavanger has become the owner of IRIS (formerly Rogaland Research).

However, RCN’s indicator report for 2005 also shows that, owing to the recent expansion of the higher education system, the amount of PhD super-vision by institute staff has declined. In 1999, 750 institute researchers acted as PhD supervisors; in 2004 the number had fallen to 485. In other countries joint appointments and exchange of work between universities and institutes have been increasing, but have been stable in Norway for much of the last decade. In an international perspective, this is disturbing and warrants closer examination. The future success of the institutes (especially the vital applied institute sector) depends upon their ability to cope with the increasing role of science in R&D while the universities need the contact with industry and

“real” problems that the institutes can provide.

Figure 2.12. Institutes’ income by type of institute and income source

100%

Other Abroad Business

Techno-industrial Primary

industries Environment

& development Social

sciences 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Other state RCN competitive Other general SIP Core

Source: RCN Annual Institutes Report, 2005.

It is important to understand how applied the Norwegian industrial institutes are. The most obvious indicator is the proportion of core funding, shown in Figure 2.12. ”Core” indicates unconditional core funding. “SIP”

relates to strategic institute projects, competitively awarded projects funded by RCN to build capabilities. “Other general” relates to general funding for regulatory, measurement and other tasks carried out for the state; this mainly concerns the environmental and primary (agriculture, fishing) institutes.

The international competitiveness of some of the institutes is borne out by the fact that about NOK 362 million (17%) of their industrial income in 2005 came from abroad. Overall foreign income was NOK 641 million in 2005 (the remaining NOK 279 million came from international funders, primarily the EC).

2.4.2.1. SINTEF

SINTEF is an industrial research institute and the largest of the Norwegian research institutes. Its headquarters are located on the campus of the Norwegian University of Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim. It has two main missions:

x To promote technological and other industrially oriented research at NTNU and develop co-operation between NTNU and the nation’s industry and commerce, other research organisations and academic institutions.

x To meet research and development needs in the private and public sectors.

Depending how one counts, SINTEF receives core funding of 4%

(unconditional funding), 7% (if RCN-funded strategic institute projects are included) or 10% (treating RCN’s automatic co-funding of EU projects as core funding). A recent study of the institute sector (Arnold et al., 2007) which tried to take account of synergies with NTNU,⁴¹ suggested that the total equivalent of core funding was as high as about 20%. However core funding is counted, it is towards the low end of the international range, and this forces SINTEF (like other Norwegian industrial institutes) to work very closely with its industrial customers on projects that may involve research but may also require development and other activities on the border of R&D as it is statistically defined (Figure 2.13). For example, SINTEF plays a significant role in finding one-off engineering solutions for exploitation of the North Sea oil and gas resources. In many cases its role appears to be an extension of companies’ R&D and engineering capabilities. This may be one factor in the “Norwegian puzzle”. In other countries one might expect to see at least some of this work performed internally by industry and hence appearing in the statistics as BERD rather than GOVERD.

SINTEF staff is very highly qualified, with an unusually high level of PhDs (29%). Unlike some other industrial institutes abroad, SINTEF has not historically built on the measurement and testing role. Its purpose from the start has been industrial development through applied research and develop-ment, partly based on a vision that research institutes can deliver usable products and processes to industry. It describes the bulk of its work as multi-disciplinary contract research with “problems set and solved in the context of application”.

41. For example, some employees work sometimes on applied research at Sintef and sometimes on basic research in NTNU.

Figure 2.13. Institutes’ core funding: an international comparison, 2005

Basic

Demand-driven programmes NTNU Synergy + EU co-funding Arsenal

(Austria)

20%

0%

Centre contracts (Netherlands)TNO

Fraunhaufer (Germany) (Finland)VTT

SINTEF (Denmark)GTS

(Belgium)IMEC

IRECO (Sweden)

40%

30%

10%

Source: Arnoldet al, 2007.

SINTEF’s key role in Norwegian industrial development means that it has longstanding relations with many major Norwegian companies, such as the Hydro group. Another large block of industrial demand comes from medium-sized firms, owing to the Research Council’s user-directed R&D programmes.

A fairly recent development has been to build longer-term strategic alliances with key customers on a formal basis. For example, SINTEF signed a NOK 50 million agreement with Sydkraft, establishing a working relationship for the period 2002-06. There are nine-year agreements with two oil companies about flow assurance in oil pipelines.

SINTEF’s origins and history mean that its relationship with NTH/NTNU has been close since it was founded. In 2003, 537 of SINTEF’s employees held some sort of post at NTNU, in addition to their SINTEF duties.

Especially in Trondheim, many facilities are shared between the university and SINTEF. In 2003, SINTEF estimated that it and NTNU both invested some NOK 30 million in shared equipment and running costs for the year. In 2004, 89 PhD students with external grants were placed at SINTEF for their studies. In addition, 32 members of SINTEF’s staff were working for their doctorates, for a total of 121 PhDs in progress. In all, 109 members of

SINTEF staff were acting as PhD supervisors. There is no routine arm’s length accounting of this or of the work done by one organisation that benefits the other, such as the alignment of university research and the development of technology platforms by SINTEF. Clearly, however, the relationship provides very large synergies and is highly valued by both sides. A reason why the relationship has been difficult to account for in the past has been its bottom-up character. In 2005, the Boards of NTNU and SINTEF for the first time decided to establish a common strategy.

In document OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy, Norway (sider 121-129)