Filling the gap between R&D and commercialization

The European Institute of Technology (EIT) moved back onto the agenda on October 18th with the publication of a revised proposal for its funding and organizational structure. According to its supporters, the EIT will bridge the gap between Europe's rich knowledge-base and commercially valuable innovation.

What began as a plan to create Europe's answer to the MIT has now changed considerably. In the new proposal, the EIT is a two-tier institution comprising a small organizational body and a network of collaborative groups called Knowledge & Innovation Communities (KICs).

The KIC's comprise researchers and entrepreneurs employed at universities and other public sector bodies, and the private sector. They will be expected to come up with the innovation, as well as €2.1Billion of the €2.4Billion budget.

Industry and academic interest in the proposal is lukewarm. Industry groups wonder why they should give generously to something that is, in effect, little more than an administrative department of 100 people.

Supporters of the EIT battle on. One name that stands out at the moment is Polish MEP Jerzy Buzek. Buzek talks about Europe's poor ability to deliver innovation, by which he seems to mean, products and services that generate a direct profit.

"It is impossible to finance innovation directly through FP7", remarked Buzek in a reference to the EC's research funding program. He believes the task comes down to filling a gap between research and commercialization.

The EIT would fill this gap, claims Buzek, and would not participate directly in either research or education. This would create unnecessary competition between the EIT and Europe's universities and research institutes, he claims.

Some comment that the latest proposals for the EIT pose more questions than answers. Eurochambres, the 17 Million member association of European chambers of commerce raise several questions.

They believe the proposal lacks clarity about how the KICs will be organized. They also claim that the proposal leaves open the question of how the EIT will rate, and therefore rank, the projects it will become involved with.

Buzek claims these questions reveal the EIT's strengths rather than its weaknesses. On the issue of how KICs would be organized, Buzek believes that the innovation programs will benefit from being able to decide themselves on their composition and organization.

This is a curious response from Buzak.

If the EIT will not participate directly in research, then its existence will be justified in terms of its guidance in technology transfer and commercialization. Filling the gap and all that.

But if it cannot describe how those goals would be translated into some kind of organizational formula or plan, how can we evaluate its quality as an organisation? Seems that the gap between research and commercial success is as empty and unclear as ever.