Decidir nuestra Estrategia en función de las Ventajas Competitivas

This section provides an overview of how we implemented the learning experiences, as this project moved from a pilot study to a final report. Both the pilot study and final report required continual discussion and

development of concepts, analytical frameworks, empirical material and analyses. Comments on the input from stakeholders are also included, given that VINNOVA states that they should help stimulate the interplay among academia, industry and society in effective innovation systems

The pilot study was completed in early 2008, based upon several months work, and the main report in early 2009. After completing the pilot study, we proposed that VINNOVA could either focus upon one specific issue or case or, alternatively, we could take the challenge of discussing the long- term, overall effects of the efforts upon research and industry in these two sub-fields of innovative food and medical technology. VINNOVA agreed to the larger, more ambitious study, in line with principle purposes and issues discussed in Chapters 1 and 2.

Based on experiences from previous Effect Analysis18, we agreed with VINNOVA that a specific set of government public policy initiatives should be analyzed. Hence, we started from the list of programs and projects, as detailed in Chapter 4.

The 2008 Effect Analysis on life science should target three different “effect areas”. These three areas are: effects on research (excellence), effects on industry (competiveness and employment), and effects on society (growth and economic benefits). The different character of the three areas implies that in order to create a full and coherent picture of the effects a multi- methodological approach needs to be applied.

From previous effect analyses, we found that broad lessons, existing concepts and analytical frameworks, and methodological learning could be directly relevant, but all required further development. From interaction with stakeholders, many aspects were improved.

In terms of broad lessons, we agreed to do the study, as experts with specific methodological techniques and with specific knowledge of innovation in the target research and industry. We concentrated upon the methodology and

the research design for analyzing the effects on research and on industry, given that other experts have been commissioned for the societal benefits. In terms of concepts and analytical frameworks, we found the existing ones to be useful starting points – but with clear needs to further develop them. We also quickly identified that addressing the issues was a rather complex task, based on different data. Completing this task also leads to a longer, detailed empirical report, which is of a different format than typical social science journal articles, but of importance to society and public policy. These aspects have already been covered in Chapter 2.

In terms of methodological lessons, some key aspects are discussed below, given the multi-dimension and multiple indicators used in this study. We used the pilot study to identify the advantages and disadvantages of possible methodologies and also examined the availability of material. One reason for this effort is that innovation studies can use multiple

methodologies. Another reason is that much material was found in archives, scattered amongst actors, and so on, although other material could be found in project reports or through secondary sources. During the pilot study, we started to collect relevant secondary data, background reports and articles and identified some key informants. This work was extended in the main study, to provide useful background overviews as well as material for the analysis.

An important purpose of the pilot study was to develop a methodology for the main study. We proposed to use a combination of methods, involving quantitative and qualitative ones, depending upon which is most relevant for the specific effects or question of interest. During the pilot study, we

examined the relevance and the data constraints for each of the following methodologies:

1 Document analysis. This means that we use secondary data in the form of, e.g., program documents, project reports and previous studies carried out by VINNOVA or other organizations. Some issues about access and types of material available have been raised during the pilot study. 2 Interviews. These can be used to generate relevant background

information and exploratory insights, as well as very specific information. These can be personal or by phone.

3 Survey. This means a web-based, mail or telephone questionnaire distributed to a larger number of receivers.

4 Bibliometric studies. This means that we analyze publications and other quantitative data, primarily about academic results. These are primarily SCI data.

5 Patent analysis. This means using our Swedish part of the KEINS database on academic patents, in order to examine patents where

academics (e.g. working at universities) are inventors.19 Company involvement can be identified.

6 Use of existing databases for specific analyses. In particular, we have been investigating the relevance of variables and terms of access to databases.

7 Case study. Data can be collected through interviews with complementary use of written documentation when available.

The main study uses all of these methodologies, as outlined below, in order to conduct a broad analysis related to specific issues. These methodologies are used in order to give a more complete picture of overall developments in research and industry, in relation to the key issues identified in Chapter 2. As case studies are one aspect and are of particular interest to this type of study, we wish to say a few words about them.

Quite early on, we decided not to follow the methodological approach to cases found in the Swedish traffic safety research (VINNOVA 2007b). The methodology in that report is one case study, explicitly focused upon how a specific piece of research was later commercialized and affected firms and sales. These types of successful case studies are very useful for public policy discussions, as they indicate one role which public policy can play – e.g. stimulating new products. However, these types of stories only focus upon one mechanism (direct product development) and suffer from selection bias. A very linear approach is also visible in the reasoning about the

potential effects of public policy.

This report has a series of shorter case studies, which illustrate key points about the overall developments in research and industry. The case studies are of two main types. For innovative food, the cases often focus upon the results or processes of a specific research project. For medical technology, the cases are of the research environments and of the closure of one major international firm of its Swedish operations.

Finally, a few words about why interaction with stakeholders and experts has been prominent during both phases. We the authors – as well as the extended members of our team – have interacted regularly with public- policy makers from spring 2007 through spring 2009, including phone conversations, emails and meetings in Stockholm, Oslo and Gothenburg. This includes meetings with VINNOVA officials, with technical expertise. We have also interviewed main stakeholders in research and industry.

19 _{KEINS was an EU project, resulting in a Swedish database. We examined patents at the}

individual level (of persons working at HEIs), where the patent can be assigned to the individual, a company or a HEI (Higher Education Institutions).

The interaction with stakeholders – as well as our theoretical understanding of innovation studies and of the empirical areas – lead us to go beyond single case studies of product commercialization, which were used in previous VINNOVA studies. We decided, therefore, that it was more

interesting to tackle the larger and more complex ways in which universities and companies interact. Modern literature shows that there are many ways in which university-university interaction stimulates innovation – and these mechanisms go far beyond the commonly measured ways of firm start-ups and of patents, as discussed in Chapter 2 (Salter and Martin 2001). Hence, we felt that given the unique set of competencies and material available, we should come further in discussing how public policy initiatives can shift the trajectories of sectoral systems of innovation. The stakeholders and experts had deep empirical understanding of the phenomena.

Another aspect that was improved through stakeholder interaction was the set of concepts and ways of analyzing the empirical material gathered. The pilot study proposed a new analytical framework and key issues, including a range of more specific questions. This was used in several discussions with representatives from stakeholders (including VINNOVA), to identify the key issues of interest to the Swedish public policy debate.

In summary, the pilot study led to the identification and assessment of the feasibility of a number of data and methodologies of relevance. Although previous lessons were applied, many new aspects had to be developed, as well as specific knowledge interaction with stakeholders and experts as we moved from pilot to final report.