Two decades of fostering
innovation in Greece: Lessons
learned from Thessaloniki and
implications for the future
Nikos Zaharis, [email protected]
Director, South East European
Research Centre (SEERC)
Who is your speaker?
I have more than 18 years experience as a consultant and manager
working for industrial as well as public sector organizations on issues
ranging from management of innovation to environmental management,
economic and regional development in Greece and in a series of eastern
European countries. Main highlights include:
• Establishment and direction of i4G Incubator in Thessaloniki,
Greece
• Development of the Cyprus National Development Plan and the
Programming Documents for the participation of Cyprus to EU
structural funds.
• Development of the Action Plans for the participation to the
Information Society Program for Ministries, Regions and other
Public organizations
• Support for the participation of Western Balkan Countries in FP7
(WBC-INCO-Net,ICT-WEB-PROMS, ICT-KOSEU projects)
• Support for bridging research and entrepreneurship
(INTERVALUE and INNOPOLIS projects).
What is SEERC
A multidisciplinary, not-for-profit research centre based
in Thessaloniki, Greece. It was established jointly by the
University of Sheffield (UK) and CITY College (Greece) in
2003, as a truly international research institute with the
mission to support the stable and peaceful development
of South-East Europe by conducting pure and applied
research in, and for the region. Research at SEERC is
organised along three research tracks:
– Enterprise, Innovation and Development
– Information and Communication Technologies
– Society and Human Development: Psychology, Politics, Sociology
and Education
Greece: Types of interventions
For the past two decades Greece has been investing into
actions and programs that can be classified into two
categories:
–
–
Support for R&D and innovation infrastructure.
Support for technology/ knowledge transfer and diffusion as
well as the finance of innovation.
The above were accompanied by legislative initiatives
such as the laws on Venture Capital, Intellectual Property
Rights, Private Industrial Areas and Public-PrivatePartnerships (PPP).
A. Public research centers loosely linked to the
Universities
Established by the Greek General Secretariat for Research and
Technology mainly during the ’90s making use of the Structural Funds.
Played an important role at providing flexibility to University- based
researchers to perform applied research.
Examples:
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas
(FORTH) – based in Crete
Centre for Research and Technology (C.E.R.T.H.) based in Thessaloniki
Ceramics and Refractories Technological Development
Company (CERECO S.A.) - based in Chalkis
Metallurgical Industrial Research & Technology
Development Center (MIRTEC) - based in Volos
B. Public incubators and Technology/ Science
Parks
Established during the early 90s by Public Research and
Technology centers, i.e. in Crete, Athens, Patra and
Thessaloniki.
Pros:
• First effort to encourage spin offs and support start ups
• Access to university and research centers’ facilities and expert
personnel
Cons:
• The public nature of the creators of the incubators inhibited a
professional and business – like approach
• No access to finance (venture capitals etc).
Overall: limited success – best successful example: Forthnet
telecom company
C. Private incubators (Eleftho scheme)
Established after 2002 as a result of an open call for proposals by the
General Secretariat of Research and Technology.
Main characteristics:
– The state puts 50% of the expenses and the incubator’s owner/manager
has to contribute the other 50%
– Provision of management services and access to venture capital is foreseen
as necessary and vital.
– Success is judged by the ability of the incubator to attract and sustain start
ups but also by business criteria.
Pros:
– Private investors have a clear incentive to help star-ups grow
– Access of start –ups to finance
– Emphasis on the business prospect of the start up along the scientific/
technological aspect
Cons:
– Too much emphasis on ”bottom line” can inhibit potentially successful
start –ups
– Limited interaction with Academia compared with the public incubators
i4G Incubator in Thessaloniki
Established in 2003 by a EUROCONSULTANTS a major
Greek consultancy based in Thessaloniki
First private incubator in Greece
Total Investment: 5,5 m €
Public subsidy: 50%
Established firms: 12 – 18
Total available space: 1600 sp.m. of which 1200 for the
incubated firms
i4G Services
• Co-operation among scientists, researchers, entrepreneurs and
investors.
• Entrepreneurship encouragement by pointing out new ideas and
supporting their business-wise utilization.
• Management Consulting and information provision support
• Investment support in the form of shared capital (essentially the
incubator acts as a Venture Capital)
• Provision of building facilities including provision of common facilities
• Provision of professional services
• Technical assistance for growth
• Networking - synergies
• Mentoring / Coaching
Formal criteria
i4G entry criteria
Firms still in their early stage
Recent presence in the market
Innovative entrepreneurial activity
“Knowledge Intense” activity section
Legal status
Essential criteria
Competitive Product
Technology level of both products and services
Shareholders' reliability and commitment to the firm
Managerial qualities (expertise and know-how, professional maturity)
Flexible exit procedures
Internal Return Rates (IRR)
Payback period
D. Support for Universities spin -offs
During the 3rd CSF (2000-2006): The Program was designed by the
General Secretariat for Research and Technology to support the
creation of spin-offs from the universities and public research centers.
It was implemented in two phases:
Phase A: A proposal by one or more academics/ researchers was funded in
order to prepare a detailed Business and Marketing plan.
Phase B: The Business and Marketing plans prepared in Phase 2 were
evaluated and those that were deemed promising from a business
perspective were funded. State aid was for 50% of Business Plan expenses
up to 100,000 €
During the NSFR (2007-2013): Open call for proposals in a single phase
and 4 cut off dates for evaluation so far. Public funding up to 70% and
1,000,000 €.
E. Clusters creation
During the 2nd and 3rd CSF (1996-2006): The ministry of Development
initiated 2 programs at the end of the 90’s and the beginning of the new
century to create sectoral and regional clusters of SMEs.
The basic notion behind it was to bring together small enterprises in order to
collectively tackle tasks that could not be attempted by each one of them on
their own, such as: branding and marketing of products, new product
development, expansion to international markets
The 2 programs funded over 50 clusters all of Greece that were mainly
sectoral.
The results were not up to the expectations mainly for 2 reasons:
– Bureaucratic structure of the program (i.e. requirement that the cluster becomes a
separate legal entity resulted in new companies that were not profitable)
– The clusters were not build around “new concepts” that would give added value to
the participating SMEs by bringing them close to other entities (such as researchers,
supply chain, marketing experts etc) that can offer this “added value”. Rather in
most cases it was “business as usual” but in a collective way and with all the
inflexibilities of a centrally managed program.
•
During the NSFR (2007-2013):
– Corallia cluster on micro-electronics
– New call currently open
The Thessaloniki innovation ecosystem: From CPERI to
the Innovation Zone
In the beginning there was CPERI (Chemical Process Engineering Research
Institute) ~ 1987
Then in the ’90s:
• The Thessaloniki Technology Park and its Incubator
• Spin-off consulting companies focusing on innovation: Euroconsultants SA,
Atlantis SA
• The Centre for Research and Technology with its 5 Research Institutions
And in the ‘00s:
• Private High-tech incubators (i4G, THERMI, Technopolis Incubator)
• The Thessaloniki Technopolis
• NOESIS
• An increasing number of IT and consulting companies
• The Alexandrian Innovation Zone with the ultimate goal to establish Thessaloniki as
a “Centre for the Development and Diffusion of Innovation in South East Europe” and
provide a pole for development of the whole region of Northern Greece.
The Thessaloniki experience: Conclusions
Positive outcomes of the last 2 decades:
– The establishment of Research Centers and Technology companies overall
contributed to the extroversion and flexibility of academic research,
allowing Northern Greek researchers to cooperate and compete at a
European level.
– A lot of academic and business organizations have now a significant
experience of collaboration.
– A number of spin-offs and start–ups have been created and supported by
venture capitals and incubators.
– A new type of professional (being a technology transfer expert, a
consultant or a liaison officer within a research organization) has emerged
and has assisted the creation of a new favorable environment and the
internationalization of research and innovation.
The Thessaloniki experience: Conclusions (cont.)
Drawbacks of the last 2 decades :
– Not much progress in terms of the basic innovation outputs
(i.e. Intellectual Property, high tech employment, new product
development)
– Access of small innovative start-ups and spin-offs to finance has
been almost impossible in the first years and even in the ’00s was
still difficult.
– Initiatives that were mostly driven by academic institutions,
suffered severely from a lack of understating of the business
environment and its requirements, resulting to uncompleted and
non-viable efforts.
– Similarly initiatives driven by private entities (VCs, consultants,
private investors) were constantly underestimating the potential
of the scientific “content” resulting a lot of times in inhibiting
potentially promising ideas.
The Thessaloniki experience: Conclusions (cont.)
A really successful regional research and innovation system will have
to find a “fine balance” between the “scientific/ technological”
perspective which only an extrovert, flexible and innovative academic
community can offer with the “business” perspective that a risk
prone, entrepreneurial and global-minded finance community can
contribute. Putting together researchers and business people to
achieve this fine balance is the real challenge of the future.
What can we learn from the Thessaloniki experience?
1.
2.
3.
Understand the dynamic relation between R&D and innovation:
Research = Turning money into knowledge
Innovation = Turning knowledge into money
Research is one of the inputs of innovation
Promote entrepreneurship and innovation to the society: Aim for the young
people (in high schools and Universities). They are the future innovators and
entrepreneurs.
Create the conditions for buy-in from all the absolutely necessary
stakeholders:
–
–
–
–
The academics who will bring the ideas, the students and the state of the art
The entrepreneurs who will bring the market perspective
The financiers (venture capitalists etc) focusing on seed capital
The society
All 4 are necessary ingredients of a successful innovation mechanism, being it
a Technology Park, an incubator or a technology and innovation facilitator.
What can we learn from the Thessaloniki experience?
(cont.)
4. Use innovative ways to bring the stakeholders
together i.e
–
–
–
–
informal gatherings,
open-end projects,
link public procurement with innovation,
open innovation.
5. Be ready to get your hands dirty….
Thank you
www.seerc.org