www.technopolis-group.com
www.technopolis-group.com
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
13
13
14
14
15
15
17
Bibliography
18
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Typology of research infrastructures ................................................................ 1
Figure 2: Stakeholders and beneficiaries of investment in research infrastructure ....... 2
Figure 3: Logical framework for socio-economic impact assessment of investment in
research infrastructure ..................................................................................................... 5
Figure 4: Indicators for economic impacts of RI construction phase ............................. 6
Figure 5: Indicators of innovation impact of RI construction phase .............................. 7
Figure 6: Indicators for economic impact of RI operational phase ................................. 8
Figure 7: Indicators for impact of RI operation on human resource capacity ................ 9
Figure 8: Indicators for impacts on innovation of RI operational phase ...................... 10
Figure 9: Indicators for impact on scientific activity ..................................................... 12
Figure 10: Indicators for impacts on society .................................................................. 13
Figure 11: Implementation of an impact assessment of research infrastructure .......... 16
1. Introduction
1.1 Why evaluate the socio-economic impact of research infrastructures?
Research infrastructures (RI) refer to facilities, resources (including human) and
related services needed by the research community to conduct research in any
scientific or technological field. Research infrastructures include:
Due to the large number of research communities and complex research needs, there
are very different types of research infrastructures with specific characteristics. Figure
1 provides an overarching typology of RIs.
Figure 1: Typology of research infrastructures
Type of research
infrastructure
Description
Examples
Single-site facility
Unified body of
equipment at one physical
location
Distributed facility
Network of distributed
instrumentation or
collections, archives and
scientific libraries
Mobile facility
Virtual facility
While RIs are designed for research needs, the impacts of these facilities reach beyond
fuelling scientific excellence. The advanced technical opportunities and the
concentration of skilled human capital and know-how can foster innovation, create
new or expand the existing markets, attract inward investment, increase economic
activity and potentially have an impact on the social and cultural life in a particular
region. In this regard RIs can be viewed as focal points for continuous interaction
between scientific, technological and socio-economic development.2
The construction and operational phase of RIs are largely funded from public budgets
either through national funding from one or several countries, or a mix of national and
EU funding. For this reason it is crucial to understand the return on investment in RI
to support informed decision-making. Yet it is difficult to quantify and understand this
return in conventional commercial terms. Investment in RI brings a broad range of
benefits that spreads across wider society rather than serving merely the direct
stakeholders (owners and users of RI). Official statistics do not sufficiently describe
the variety of benefits associated with the development and, more importantly,
exploitation of RI. It calls for more elaborate and fine-tuned approaches to account for
the impacts that the RI investment brings on science, economy and society.
Figure 2: Stakeholders and beneficiaries of investment in research infrastructure
Rizzuto, C. (2012) Benefits of Research Infrastructures beyond Science, presentation at ERF Workshop
The Socio-Economic Relevance of Research Infrastructures, 31 May-1 June 2012, Hamburg
3 See, for example, project Research Infrastructures: Foresight and Impact (RIFI), project on Evaluation of
Research Infrastructures in Open innovation and research systems (EVARIO), Research Infrastructure
Group of UK Science & Technology Facilities Council, Czech Metodika: Evaluation Methodology for
Research Infrastructures
2
clusters that grow up around some of the larger facilities.4 A heterogenous set of
methods is applied to capture these effects of RI. Most of them address standard
economic impacts (direct effects) and to some extent economic multipliers.5
Comprehensive and methodologically demanding studies are still rare. Core aspects of
RI benefits, such as their impact on human and social capital formation and
innovation, are not extensively explored. Up to date, the existing literature provides
insufficient evidence to support claims that investment in RI (even large-scale) attract
and retain talent and promote innovation.6 Therefore, important socio-economic
contributions remain poorly understood. In this respect, significant work is
undertaken by FP7 project Research Infrastructures: Foresight and Impact (RIFI). A
Foresight Enriched Research Infrastructure Impact Assessment Methodology
(FenRIAM)7 was developed during the project, which significantly contributed to the
understanding of the impact of RI on learning and capacity of RI operators, suppliers
and users. A key lesson is that there is a need to treat the impact pathways in greater
detail and substantiate them with empirical evidence.
Most previous concept papers and evaluations have been devoted to studying largescale research infrastructures, or so-called big science facilities that are of European
and international significance. Empirical work on investment in mid-size
instrumentation of national and macro-regional significance barely exists. This is
mainly the result of the fact that RI investments have not yet been subject to regular
evaluations. There is a scope for further methodological developments and their
applications in evaluations to evolve from narratives of socio-economic effect of RIs to
more empirical models and measurement techniques. This knowledge would help to
move from simple ex-post detection of intended and unintended returns of RIs to a
better understanding and planning of future investment.
4 Simmonds, P. et.al (2013) Big Science and Innovation. Report for the UK Department for Business,
5
6 Horlings, E. et.al (2012) The societal footprint of big science. Report of the Rathenau Instituut, the Hague,
7
the Netherlands
http://www.fenriam.eu/
Figure 3: Logical framework for socio-economic impact assessment of investment in research infrastructure
Indicators
1.
2.
3.
Bianchi-Streit, M. et al (1984) Economic utility resulting from CERN contracts (second study). Report of
the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN)
http://indico.cern.ch/event/66952/contribution/0/2/material/paper/0.pdf
10
For the theoretical background of this nexus see work of von Hippel, E. (1976) The Dominant Role of
Users in the Scientific Instrument Innovation Process, Research Policy 5 (3)
Indicators
1.
Number of joint
development activities
with suppliers
2.
Number of contracts
concluded for high-tech or
specialist services that
require development, or
calibration of
designs/equipment to
meet specific requirements
11
http://www.innovatiefaanbesteden.be/files/409
Indicators
1.
Number of scientists,
students, state-owned or
private enterprises that
benefitted from RI services
2.
3.
4.
Total amount of
expenditure on personnel,
operations, maintenance
5.
Total RI capacity
utilisation
RI capacity utilisation
external business users
Financial sustainability of
RI
6.
7.
(MAs, PhDs, post-docs) and experienced researchers and technicians is structured and
promoted. Equally important is to appraise the ways tacit knowledge is transferred to
private sector users.
The diffusion of knowledge gained by the RI management, operators and users may
have a significant societal value. For example, the research commercialisation skills
acquired by the management and scientists at a RI is an important benefit with farreaching implications on the local innovation system. Closer formal and informal
social networks increase interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing. This consequently
augments the quantity and diversity of knowledge that is available to RI users. Social
networks create new forms of interaction among the actors of the innovation system,
stimulate learning environments and increase the awareness of users (potential and
existing) about the scope of knowledge that is available on RI. In short, social capital
enables the full exploitation of accumulated human capital.
The mobility of people and emergence of new cooperation networks is a major
mechanism through which knowledge circulates and diffuses the benefits to wider
economy. Graduates leave RI with the knowledge of the most recent scientific results,
skills using advanced instrumentation and ability to apply them to complex problem
solving. Internships and recruitment of graduates mean that students act as a form of
social glue and they often create long-term links between scientists and businesses.14
However, if the local academic and industrial environment does not provide sufficient
absorption capacity for these advanced skills, the accumulated human capital may
remain underutilised or emigrate.
Figure 7: Indicators for impact of RI operation on human resource capacity
No
Indicators
1.
2.
3.
Number of graduates
trained on RI
4.
Number of foreign
students as % of all
students trained on RI
Data on the post-diploma
employment path of those
graduates trained on RI
5.
14 Bozeman, B. (2000) Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research
Policy, 29(45)
Indicators
1.
Number of collaborative
research projects and
volume of funding
2.
15 ERF Workshop The Socio-Economic Relevance of Research Infrastructures, 31 May 1 June 2012,
Hamburg, Germany
16 The metric is used by the Scottish Government to measure as a proxy measure of the quantity, but not the
quality,
of
knowledge
exchange
activities
undertaken
by
http://www.gov.scot/About/Performance/scotPerforms/TechNotes/knowledge
Scottish
universities.
10
No
Indicators
3.
Number of technologies,
prototypes, industrial
designs developed and
transferred
4.
5.
Number of feasibility or
market studies for
industrial investment and
application of technologies
6.
Procurement contracts
signed for development
and upgrade of research
equipment
11
Open access to RI also induces more regular inward flow of researchers promoting
closer involvement of local teams in international research networks (brain exchange).
Such interaction can generate important learning effects for experienced and earlystage researchers alike. Increase in international recognition of leading scientists and
the capacity of research teams can attract further international competitive funding to
the research system. In addition, researcher experience gained during the set-up and
operational phase of RI can have further policy impact through contributions to RI
roadmaps.
Figure 9: Indicators for impact on scientific activity
No
Indicators
1.
Number of articles
published in the ISI level
international scientific
journals as a direct result
of research using RI
2.
Number of
methodologies/designs
developed
International patents
granted and published
patent applications (all
types)
3.
4.
Number of PhD
dissertations completed
5.
12
Indicators
1.
2.
3.
4.
17 See e.g. Clarke, S. et.al. (2013) Project Preparation and CBA of RDI Infrastructure Projects. JASPERS
13
14
Data requirements
Relevant official statistics and structured monitoring data (i.e. regular progress reports
and data for measure project level key performance indicators)
Database of users (academic, industrial) over the lifetime of the facility
Database of supplier contracts (held either by the funding agency or by beneficiary
higher education or public research institutes)
15
16
17
Bibliography
Autio, E. (2014) Innovation from Big Science: Enhancing Big Science Impact Agenda.
Report to UK Department for Business, Innovation & Skills. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/28
8481/bis-14-618-innovation-from-big-science-enhancing-big-science-impactagenda.pdf
Autio, E., Streit-Bianchi, M., and Hameri, A.-P. (2003) Technology Transfer and
Technological Learning Through CERNs Procurement Activity, CERN Scientific
Information Service. Geneva
Bianchi-Streit, M. et al (1984) Economic utility resulting from CERN contracts (second
study). Report of the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN). Available
at: http://indico.cern.ch/event/66952/contribution/0/2/material/paper/0.pdf
Bozeman, B. (2000) Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and
theory. Research Policy, 29(45)
Clarke, S. et.al. (2013) Project Preparation and CBA of RDI Infrastructure Projects.
JASPERS
Staff
Working
Paper.
Available
at:
http://www.jaspersnetwork.org/display/for/Project+Preparation+and+CBA+of+RDI
+Infrastructure+Projects
European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (2011) Evaluation Report 2011.
Available
at:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/pdf/esfri_evaluation_report_2011.pdf
Fotakis, C. (2010) Analyses of FP7 supported Research Infrastructures initatives in the
context
of
ERA.
Available
at:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/fp7-evidencebase/experts_analysis/c.%20fotakis_-_research_infrastructure.pdf
Hallonsten, O., Benner, M. and Holmberg. G (2004) Impacts of Large-Scale Research
Facilities- A Socio-Economic Analysis. A study done at the Research Policy Institute,
Lund
University.
Available
at:
http://rifi.gateway.bg/upload/docs/public_doc_REPORT_impact_of_large_scale_R
I.pdf
von Hippel, E. (1976) The Dominant Role of Users in the Scientific Instrument
Innovation Process, Research Policy 5 (3)
Hickling Arthurs Low Corporation (2013) Return on Investment in Large Scale
Research Infrastructure. Report for National Research Council Canada. Available at:
http://www.triumf.ca/sites/default/files/HAL-ReturnOnInvestmentStudy-May2013.pdf
Horlings, E. et.al (2012) The societal footprint of big science. Report of the Rathenau
Instituut. Available at: http://www.rathenau.nl/en/publications/publication/thesocietal-footprint-of-big-science.html
National Research Council Canada (2013) Return on Investment in Large Research
Infrastructure.
Available
at:
http://www.triumf.ca/sites/default/files/HALReturnOnInvestmentStudy-May-2013.pdf
OECD (2014) International Distributed Research Infrastructures: Issues and Options.
Available at: http://www.oecd.org/sti/sci-tech/international-distributed-researchinfrastructures.pdf
OECD (2014) Report on the Impacts of Large Research Infrastructure on Economic
Innovation and on Society: Case Studies at CERN. Available at:
http://www.oecd.org/sti/sci-tech/CERN-case-studies.pdf
18
Rizutto, C. and Wood, J. (eds.) (2013) RAMIRI Handbook. Deliverable of FP7 project
Realising and Managing International Research Infrastructures. Available at:
http://www.ramiri-blog.eu/index.php?n=Main.HomePage
Rizzuto, C. (2012) Benefits of Research Infrastructures beyond Science, presentation
at ERF Workshop The Socio-Economic Relevance of Research Infrastructures, 31
May-1 June 2012, Hambourg
Sallee, C.M., Watkins, S.D and Rosaen, A.L. (2011) The Economic Impact of Fermi
National Accelerator Laboratory. Anderson Economic Group report to the University
of
Chicago.
Available
at:
https://ovprnl.uchicago.edu/sites/research.uchicago.edu/files/Fermilab_Economic_I
mpact_Full_Study.pdf
Simmonds, P. et.al (2013) Big Science and Innovation. Technopolis Group report for
the UK Department for Business, Innovation & Skills. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/24
9715/bis-13-861-big-science-and-innovation.pdf
Wissenschaftsrat (2011) Recommendations on Research Infrastructures in
Humanities
and
Social
Sciences.
Available
at:
http://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/archiv/10465-11_engl.pdf
Wissenschaftsrat (2013) Report on the Science-Driven Evaluation of Large Research
Infrastructure Projects for the National Roadmap (Pilot Phase). Available at:
http://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/archiv/2841-13_engl.pdf
Zuijdam, F. et. al (2011) The role and added value of large-scale research facilities.
Technopolis Group report. Available at: http://www.technopolis-group.com/wpcontent/uploads/2011/02/1379_Report_Large-scale_Research_Facilities_EN1.pdf
Front cover photo: Centre for New Pharmaceutical and Health Technologies of the
Santaka Valley, Kaunas, Lithuania. Source: http://www.mitnija.lt/
19