Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The use of technology platforms as a policy tool to address research challenges and technology transfer

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 23 June 2015

Abstract

The paper analyses technology platforms (TPs) that are seen as a valuable policy instrument to assist a multi-stakeholder formulation and implementation of long-term research and development (R&D) programs in specific technology areas. TP are predominantly initiated by policy-makers to support a wide range of priority technologies through direct funding and indirect support measures, information and technology transfer at economy or industry level. The authors propose a theoretical approach to TPs as a science, technology and innovation policy concept. A taxonomy of TPs is offered that may be useful for policy-makers in designing the R&D support measures through assessing a platform’s risk level. The paper clarifies the position of TPs in the science, technology and innovation policy mix. Through a case-study of Russia’s newly established Technology Platforms, designed after the European Technology Platforms, the authors demonstrate the policy adoption and policy learning approach to application of this tool.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Roadmaps were developed by the platforms “Medicine of the future”, “Innovative laser, optical and optoelectronic technologies—photonics, “Environmentally clean effective thermal energy”, “Radiological technology”, Aviation mobility and aviation technologies, “Ocean development”, “Textile and consumer goods industry”.

  2. “Research and Development in priority areas of S&T development in Russia for the years 2007–2013”.

  3. One of the most important principle of the Program for 2014–2020 is the “active involvement of business and technology platforms to making a substantial R&D input by performing applied research in suggested topics (bottom-up approach), including those in the form of public–private partnership, as well as top-down pre-defined research topics in the interests of various sectors, business and technology platforms, including those identified through prior agreement of key stakeholders” (Head of Government of the Russian Federation 2013: 11).

  4. The Foundation organizes and conducts the competitive selection of innovative projects included into the Road Maps and Strategic Research Programmes. As of October 2012, 10 projects presented by seven Technology Platforms have been financed for a total amount of 1,134 million rubles (one billion, one hundred and thirty-four million). Available:ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/etp/docs/technology-platforms-rf_en.pdf (last accessed 21 January 2014). According to the Foundation, it received 143 applications from TPs which amounted to RUB 15.5 bln in 2012. Loans totaling RUB 1.6 bln were provided to only 17 applications, inter alia, of the following platforms: “Photonics”, Materials and technologies for the metal industry”, “Bioenergy”, “Biotech-2030” and others.

  5. 60 state-owned enterprises have been implementing such programs from 2011 to 2012.

  6. As of 2014, 33 out of the 60 state-owned enterprises with innovation development programs use TPs as cooperation platforms. As of 2014 eleven of these companies participate actively in TPs. The volume of funding by state-owned enterprises of extramural R&D in line with TP priorities amounted to RUB 4.8 billion in 2012.

  7. “BILAT-RUS: Enhancing the bilateral S&T Partnership with the Russian Federation”. For more information see project’s website. Available: <http://www.bilat-rus.eu/en/94.php> (last accessed 12.02.2014).

  8. According to the 2013 joint study by BDO company and Russian Managers Association, short term business strategies (1–3 or 3–5 years) are the most frequently implemented type of strategies.

    In the innovation development programs developed by the 60 state-owned enterprises, the planning horizon averaged 5–7 years, while the MED recommended it to be 10–15 years.

  9. In March 2012, 25 clusters were selected by the MED to receive various types of government support. 14 of these clusters were granted financial support from the federal budget.

  10. Supported by the EU 7th Framework Program for Research and Technological Development.

References

  • Abashkin, V. L., Boyarov, A. D., & Kutsenko, E. S. (2012). Claster policy in Russia: From theory to practice. Foresight Russia, 6(3), 16–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, C., & Clark, K. (1999). Design rules: The power of modularity (Vol. 1). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • BDO, Russian Managers Association. (2013). Short horizons. A joint study by BDO and Russian Managers Association: The role and importance of strategy for the Russian business. http://www.bdo.ru/media/publication/korotkie_gorizonty.pdf. Accessed 21 Jan 2014.

  • Biesenbender, S., & Tosun, J. (2014). Domestic politics and the diffusion of international policy innovations: How does accommodation happen? [Special issue]. Global Environmental Change. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.001.

  • Boudreau, K. (2010). Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs. devolving control. Management Science, 56(10), 1849–1872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camera, R., Yen, D. C., Chou, D. C., & Lee, S. (1997). Information superhighway: Current developments and future analyses. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 97(6), 207–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Council for Public–Private Partnerships. (2014). http://www.pppcouncil.ca/resources/about-ppp/definitions.html. Accessed 29 July 2014.

  • Cervantes, M. (1998). Public/Private partnerships in science and technology: An overview. In STI review (Vol. 23). Paris, France. http://www.oecd.org//dsti/sti/prod/intro-23.htm. Accessed 30 Oct 2014.

  • Curwen, P. (1995). Telecommunications policy in the European Union: Developing the information superhighway. Journal of Common Market Studies, 33(3), 331–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cusumano, M. (2010a). Staying power: Six enduring ideas for managing strategy and innovation in a changing world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cusumano, M. (2010b). Technology strategy and management—The evolution of platform thinking. Communications of the ACM, 53, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dezhina, I. (2013). Technology platforms in Russia: A catalyst for cluster development? In Triple Helix Conference 2013. http://www.biginnovationcentre.com/Assets/Docs/Triple%20Helix/Papers/Theme%201/Dezhina.pdf. Accessed 11 Mar 2014.

  • Doroshenko, M., & Skripkin, K. (2013). Developing the national software market: Public policy alternatives. Foresight Russia, 7(1), 44–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • European innovation partnership water. http://www.eip-water.eu/about/partners. Accessed 6 Mar 2014.

  • Eta, E. A. (2014). Policy borrowing and transfer, and policy convergence: Justifications for the adoption of the Bologna Process in the CEMAC region and the Cameroonian higher education system through the LMD reform. Comparative Education (forthcoming).

  • European Commission. (2004). Technology platforms from definition to implementation of a common research agenda. Report compiled by a commission inter-service group on technology platforms. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission.

  • European Commission. (2007). Third status report on European technology platforms—At the launch of FP7. Report compiled by a commission inter-service group on technology platforms. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission.

  • European Commission. (2010a). Strengthening the role of European technology platforms in addressing Europe’s grand societal challenges. Report of the ETP Expert Group, October 2009, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2010.

  • European Commission. (2010b). Risk management in the procurement of operations. Concepts and Empirical evidence in the European Union. Expert Group Report.

  • FIRST project web-site. (2014). http://www.latin-american-technology-platforms.eu. Accessed 11 Mar 2014.

  • Gawer, A. (Eds.). (2009). Platforms, markets and innovation. Nothampton: Edward Edgar Publishing.

  • Gawer, M. A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2002). Platform leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco drive industry innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2008). 2008. How Companies become Platform leaders, MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2), 29–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gershman, M. (2013). Innovation development programmes for the state-owned companies: First results. Foresight Russia, 7(1), 28–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goland, M. (2013). Interview with Michael Goland. 14 May 2013 (in Russian). http://innovation.gov.ru/node/14637. Accessed 22 Jan 2014.

  • Goldstein, H. (2005). The role of knowledge infrastructure in regional economic development: The case of the Research Triangle. (Company overview). Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 22, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorbatova, A. (2013). Gorbatova A. Selective support. S&T RF, 31.05.2013 (in Russian). http://www.strf.ru/material.aspx?CatalogId=221&d_no=56890#.Ut_L4NLHkUQ. Accessed 22 Jan 2014.

  • Head of Government of the Russian Federation. (2013). Federal program “Research and Development in priority areas of S&T development in Russia for the years 2014–2020” approved by the Head of Government of the Russian Federation No. 736-p from 2 May 2013.

  • Hervás, S. F., & Mulatero, F. (2011). EU research and innovation (R&I) in renewable energies: The role of the strategic energy technology plan (SET-Plan). Energy Policy, 39, 3582–3590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higher School of Economics. (2014). Russian Technology Platforms portal. http://www.hse.ru/org/hse/tp/catalogue. Last accessed 10 Jan 2014.

  • Hirschman, A. O. (1958). The strategy of economic development. New Heaven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Justman, M., & Teubal, M. (1995). Technological infrastructure policy (TIP): Creating capabilities and building markets. Research Policy, Elsevier, 24(2), 259–281.

  • Kaminskiy, I., Ogorodova, L., Patrushev, M., & Chulok, A. (2013). Medicine of the future: Opportunities for breakthrough through the prism of technology foresight. Foresight Russia, 7(1), 14–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawther, W. C. (2002): Contracting for the 21st century a partnership model. Arlington, VA. http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/LawtherReport.pdf. Accessed 29 July 2014.

  • Meyer, M. H., & Lehnerd, P. (1997). The power of product platforms. NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. H., & Utterback, J. M. (1993). The product family and the dynamics of core capability. MIT Sloan Management Review, 34(3), 29–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, J. J., Sengupta, S., & Slater, S. (2010). Marketing of high technology products and innovations. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Dubchair, K., Scott, J. K., & Johnson, T. G. (2001). Building a knowledge infrastructure for learning communities. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 4(4), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2011). OECD reviews of innovation policy: Russian Federation 2011.

  • President of the Russian Federation. (2011). Decree of the President of the Russian Federation on approving the priority development directions for science and technology in the Russian Federation and the list of critical technologies of the Russian Federation #899 dated 7 July 2011.

  • Rochet, C., & Tirole, J. (2003). Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4), 990–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russian Ministry of Economic Development. (2012). Ministry’s official web-site: http://www.economy.gov.ru/minec/activity/sections/innovations/formation/doc20110405_05. Accessed 10 May 2012.

  • Russian Ministry of Economic Development. (2013). Joint report on measures to advance the technological development governance in the Russian Federation and the outcomes of the innovation programs’ implementation by the state-owned companies and the activity of technology platforms. December 2013.

  • Sanchez-Vegas, S. (1995). David meets Goliath on the information superhighway: Venezuela in the context of the electronic communication networks. Information Technology and Libraries, 14(1), 32–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraer, A. (2011). Schraer A. Technology platforms as an innovation development instrument. Creative Economy, 9(57), 113–118 (in Russian). http://www.creativeconomy.ru/articles/4183. Accessed 22 Jan 2014.

  • SESSA. (2013). The South African solar thermal technology platform (SA-STTP). Sustainable Energy Society Southern Africa News, 6 November. http://www.sessa.org.za/all-news/item/the-south-african-solar-thermal-technology-platform-sa-sttp. Accessed 6 March 2014.

  • Sharif, M. N. (2012). Technological innovation governance for winning the future. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 79, 595–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tassey, G. (1991). The functions of technology infrastructure in a competitive economy. Research Policy, 20, 345–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, K. (1995). The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy, 24(3), 419–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Congress. (1990). Office of technology assessment, the big picture: HDTV and high-resolution systems, OTA-BP-CI’I’-64. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Working group on PPP in the innovation sphere. (2010). Recommendations on developing a project for establishing a technology platform. Approved by the chair of the working group on PPP in the innovation sphere, Deputy Minister for Economic Development of the Russian Federation A. Klepach (in Russian).

  • Yescombe, E. R. (2007). Public–private partnerships: Principles of policy and finance. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Pavel Rudnik

    Present address: Russian Ministry for Economic Development, 1st Tverskaya-Yamskaya Street, 1-3, 125993, Moscow, Russia

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Laboratory for Science and Technology Studies, National Research University “Higher School of Economics”, Myasnitskaya Street, 20, Office 501, 101000, Moscow, Russia

    Liliana Proskuryakova & Dirk Meissner

Authors
  1. Liliana Proskuryakova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dirk Meissner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pavel Rudnik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liliana Proskuryakova.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9421-z.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Proskuryakova, L., Meissner, D. & Rudnik, P. The use of technology platforms as a policy tool to address research challenges and technology transfer. J Technol Transf 42, 206–227 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9373-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9373-8

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation