Background and Study Rationale
The United States is currently experiencing a significant competitiveness crisis, as highlighted by various recent reports that raise concerns about the fragility of the nation's global leadership in engineering, technology, and innovation This situation underscores the urgent need for action to address these challenges.
National Academies has reported on “the gathering storm” that is threatening U.S scientific and technical leadership in the global marketplace, 3 and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and
The PCAST highlights a "new industrial world order" and the intensifying global competition for technological supremacy This document aims not to reiterate demands for policy makers to secure U.S leadership in science, technology, and engineering, but rather to evaluate the role of the National Science Foundation in engineering advancements.
Research Centers (NSF ERC) program may evolve to help enhance U.S competitiveness in face of stiffer global competition than in the 1980s and 90s
The NSF ERC program is designed to address the evolving needs of engineering by integrating practice and training to develop engineers skilled in applied, cross-disciplinary, and systems-level research Originally established in response to America's postwar competitiveness crisis, the program aims to cultivate industry-relevant engineers capable of driving future industrial success As global competition intensifies, there is a pressing need to reinvent the American engineer to maintain the U.S.'s leadership in technology and innovation.
As the NSF ERC program has facilitated the remaking of university-based engineering research and education in the past, it is doing so again Despite
The next generation of NSF Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) is being restructured to enhance their impact by focusing on larger international collaborations, increased involvement from industry and other stakeholders, and a stronger emphasis on prototype development Additionally, these ERCs are exploring new modes of operation, such as co-locating with private firms and establishing joint laboratories, all aimed at fostering more effective interactions and partnerships within the research community.
ERCs are intended to foster among academic researchers, students, industry researchers, and administrators on both sides of the
Features of existing NSF “Gen 2” Engineering Research Centers
Systems approach to engineering research
Strategic plans for research, diversity, and education missions
Proof-of-concept test beds for technology development and theory testing
Industry partnerships to facilitate technology transfer
Integration of engineering research and curricula
To bridge the K-12 outreach gap between universities and industries, a comprehensive re-evaluation is essential This involves restructuring organizational frameworks, optimizing personnel incentives, and acknowledging the global dynamics of scientific and technical networks Additionally, it is crucial to develop engineering curricula that foster creativity and critical thinking skills among students.
To envision the future of NSF Engineering Research Centers (ERCs), it is essential to reevaluate the expected outcomes and impacts of industry interactions Recent surveys indicate that U.S private firms are primarily motivated to partner with NSF ERCs for access to students and upstream knowledge Therefore, it is crucial to explore alternative incentives, such as access to groundbreaking and market-ready research, center-based expertise for rapid translation into commercial products, and exposure to a new generation of engineering students equipped with critical and creative problem-solving skills Additionally, integration into global research networks will facilitate connections with scientific and technical leaders worldwide.
The Science and Technology Policy Institute (STPI) conducted a study to guide the management and practices of NSF Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) in alignment with their "Gen 3" goals (NSF 07-521) The research focused on examining international research centers, mainly in Asia and Europe, to uncover effective processes and skills that could benefit the development of future NSF ERCs Notably, the study excluded U.S.-based university-industry research centers and involved visits or analyses of over forty centers, with a comprehensive list available in Appendix A.
The STPI team, in collaboration with NSF personnel including ERC Program Leader Lynn Preston and various ERC directors, identified the centers discussed in the following chapters as highly proficient in areas relevant to the new "Gen 3" mission This mission aims to enhance engineering research and education capacity while fostering new interactions, building upon the foundational elements of previous NSF ERC generations.
The STPI team performed comprehensive case analyses for each center through site visits and desk studies, incorporating insights from interviews with directors, key personnel, and government officials in the visited countries, as well as industry representatives These analyses were further informed by existing documentation and literature, and were structured around study questions collaboratively developed with NSF ERC program personnel at the project's inception.
Study Questions
The study aimed to gather insights for designing the next generation of NSF Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) by identifying best practices and lessons from university-industry research centers and similar programs both in the U.S and internationally These questions were developed collaboratively with NSF ERC program staff at the beginning of the project and concentrate on five key areas of investigation.
Chapter 2 explores the derivation of research themes for new centers, examining the influence of researchers, government, and industry on these selections It discusses the process of top-down topic selection and its potential bias toward short-term outputs and outcomes Additionally, the chapter investigates how, if at all, the programs of these centers align with national economic goals, highlighting the integration of research initiatives with broader economic strategies.
Chapter 3 focuses on center-level planning, organization, and management, exploring various models for research and program planning that enhance flexibility and speed while minimizing bureaucracy It also addresses the essential requirements set by funding stakeholders regarding research and management planning to ensure effective resource allocation and project execution.
Chapter 4 explores the extent to which centers engage in the continuum from theory to concept to product, examining when industry involvement becomes predominant It discusses the role of centers in proof of concept and test bed activities, highlighting how these initiatives facilitate faster technology transfer Additionally, the chapter outlines various models for designing and structuring partnerships with industry and other stakeholders, detailing the processes for establishing these collaborations Finally, it addresses the intellectual property (IP) arrangements of the centers and the criteria that guide their determination.
International partnerships are essential for centers and their programs as they foster collaboration and innovation across borders When designing these collaborations, it is crucial to address key management issues, including communication, cultural differences, and resource allocation Potential organizations for international collaborations with NSF Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) include universities, research institutes, and industry partners that can enhance research capabilities and broaden impact.
The perception of the essential skill set for successful engineering students is evolving due to the impacts of globalization, necessitating a broader range of competencies beyond traditional technical knowledge As the field adapts to a more interconnected world, there is a growing emphasis on critical thinking, collaboration, and communication skills Additionally, various models for teaching engineering in K-12 education and informal public settings are emerging, aiming to engage students early and foster a passion for engineering through hands-on experiences and interdisciplinary approaches These developments highlight the need for a dynamic educational framework that prepares future engineers for a globalized workforce.
The responses to the study questions are found within specific chapters, reflecting the diverse funding systems and strategic priorities of various countries and centers, some of which align with the NSF ERC program while others differ significantly This variability means that each question may yield multiple and sometimes conflicting answers, influenced by various contextual factors Additionally, the answers are further shaped by the unique attributes of each center, as explored in other chapters, complicating the systematic discussion of these findings.
Data and Methods
The study's findings were derived from comprehensive data collection conducted by the STPI team, which included site visits, desk studies, and documentation from various centers Interviews with center directors and key personnel utilized semi-structured protocols to gather qualitative insights Additionally, the team analyzed center-produced documentation and existing literature to enhance the analysis, ensuring a thorough understanding of the centers and their practices in intellectual property rights (IPR) and engineering education in the U.S.
The study's selected centers were chosen through collaboration with NSF ERC personnel, ERC directors, and research center experts at STPI, ensuring a focus on institutions known for scientific excellence and expertise relevant to the new "Gen 3" mission It is important to note that the centers evaluated in the following chapters do not represent a comprehensive or typical sample of university-industry research centers internationally.
Accordingly, the findings of this report are not general and should not be interpreted as such.
Report Format
Chapters 2 to 6 of the STPI team's report outline their findings across five key areas of inquiry, each focusing on specific "models" of practice derived from the team's observations and analyses Notably, Chapter 4 highlights industry partnerships, presenting a comprehensive model that illustrates effective collaboration strategies within this theme.
This article explores "technology transfer consulting" through the lens of practices in Germany, China, and Belgium We begin with a concise overview of the model, followed by relevant case data that highlights the significant variations in our study's findings.
The chapters feature answers to numerous study questions presented in grey “breakout boxes” for easy access, derived from the observations and analyses conducted by the STPI team.
Chapter 7 includes a summary of the findings presented in Chapters 2 through 6 as well as the STPI team’s recommendations for the management and practice of the next generation of NSF ERCs.
Overview
This chapter explores the strategies and criteria used by government and program-level entities to solicit, review, and select research centers in science, technology, and engineering Since its launch in 1984, the NSF ERC program has welcomed proposals from all doctorate-granting universities across
The recent “Gen-3” solicitation for NSF Engineering Research Centers (NSF 07-521) exemplifies the NSF's openness, emphasizing that there is no specific preference for the systems vision of proposed ERCs The NSF encourages proposals that either foster national economic growth or address significant societal challenges with national and potentially international relevance This flexible approach stands in contrast to other countries, which often focus their university-affiliated research centers on more narrowly defined objectives, such as boosting national competitiveness through improved engineering education or promoting collaborations with industry.
This section utilizes data from site visits and desk studies of international research centers to explore alternative mechanisms or models for program-level vision and strategic planning The following sections address key program-level topics, including funding strategies, the position of programs and centers on the innovation continuum, and the life-span of research centers.
Program-Level Strategy and Planning
Strategic planning for science, technology, and engineering research programs encompasses critical decisions on funding specific scientific and engineering fields, selecting researchers, and determining the best organizational structures, such as centers or individual grants, to effectively integrate these efforts within the broader innovation ecosystem.
In a "bottom-up" approach to research centers, researchers play a crucial role in defining the themes and directions, allowing government and industry stakeholders to trust scientists to lead the way Conversely, when government officials set predetermined research areas for a center or program, the process shifts to a more top-down methodology, limiting the input from the scientific community.
The research initiatives are primarily "top-down," requiring researchers to adhere to government-directed scientific and technical objectives During site visits and desk studies, the STPI team noted that the program-level strategies for soliciting, reviewing, and selecting international research centers were largely directed However, they also identified some centers abroad that, similar to ERCs, adopt a more "open" approach to research.
The "bottom-up" approach to program-level vision and planning is often an exception rather than the norm In contrast, many centers abroad utilize a "variable" or "mixed" model that combines both top-down and bottom-up planning elements.
Below, each model – top-down/directed, bottom–up/open, and mixed – is discussed in the abstract and then supported by example cases from the
STPI team site visits and desk studies.
We take this approach due to variation within each model That is, no single center or country visited encompassed all attributes of a particular model.
Each aspect of the model is illustrated with at least one example case, often featuring multiple example centers for each model variant For instance, the "top-down" model includes "diffuse" and "concentrated" variants, with supporting examples from China and Ireland, respectively.
Recommendations for program level vision and planning are reserved for
Many international research centers operate under programs that exert considerable influence over their scientific, technological, and engineering focus, often aimed at creating new products or processes for industry clients The following examples illustrate "top-down" planning approaches at the program or agency level, showcasing distinct strategies in directed center planning These cases were selected for their ability to highlight alternative methods observed by the STPI team during site visits and desk studies.
The first example case – the Chinese National Engineering Research Centers
(NERCs) program – is relatively “diffuse” despite also being a highly directed program, insofar as multiple government agencies have input into the planning and direction of the separate NERCs they sponsor
NERCs are integral to national economic priorities and current industry demands, primarily funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) and the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) In this report, we will use the term NERC to refer to centers funded by either MOST or NDRC, unless a specific NERC is mentioned.
Study Question: If topics are selected in a top-down fashion, what is the process?
To what extent does the top-down approach favor short-term outputs and outcomes?
The programs utilizing a top-down approach varied in their implementation In Ireland, the research areas for SFI CSET are primarily shaped by the National Development Plan (NDP), focusing on economic development in biotechnology and information technology These NDP goals were established through consultations with Irish and European Union academics, government policymakers, and representatives from multinational industries.
Chinese NERCs were similarly strategy driven. However, strategic research areas were in large part driven by NERCs’ foci on short term outputs and outcomes for industry clients
While both programs are top-down in nature, the Irish CSETs emphasize long-term research and development over the immediate application of products and processes in existing industries, distinguishing them from the Chinese initiatives This focus on long-term research does not diminish their effectiveness, highlighting a commitment to innovative advancements rather than short-term gains.
Study question: How, if at all, are centers programs integrated with national level economic goals?
Certain Center programs were only loosely connected to national-level objectives, as their vision and planning at the program level, similar to the NSF ERC program, remained broad and vague in strategic terms.
Manufacturing and Construction Research Centre-IMRC)
Other centers programs (e.g., Chinese NERCs, Irish Centers for Science, Engineering, and Technology-CSETs) were direct extensions of national level economic development policies.
In the middle of the “bottom up” and
“top down” programs are programs that employ a “mix” of directed and open centers This model is captured by the Korean Science and Engineering
Foundation (KOSEF) In addition to ERC- style unsolicited bottom-up centers, KOSEF also implements Korean national
MOST's sponsorship of NERCs is driven by its "863" and "973" Programs, which are designed to promote collaborative research and development between universities and industry These programs strategically support innovation and cooperation in scientific endeavors.
The MOST and NDRC-sponsored NERCs aim to enhance China's global competitiveness while addressing scientific and technical challenges to improve the quality of life in the country.
The 863 Program primarily supports close-to-market development in six key areas: information technology, biotechnology, materials, automation, energy, and environmental technology, while also funding some application-oriented research The focus of the program is on applied research and product development assistance for industry, informed by insights from prominent researchers, industry representatives, and government-funded institutions Additionally, the 973 Program, although more focused on basic research, plays a significant role in shaping the topics and proposals eligible for NERC funding.
The NDRC, similar to MOST, aims to guide and fund scientific research and development in China to enhance its global presence and achieve significant advancements in critical technical fields such as nanotechnology, energy, biotechnology, and information technology, which are vital for national economic and security interests NDRC-funded National Engineering Research Centers (NERCs) are strategically focused on specific research areas, akin to those sponsored by MOST Unlike international counterparts, Chinese NERCs, such as the National Engineering Research Center for Beijing Biochip Technology at Tsinghua University, operate as independent legal entities, functioning as private ventures rather than being directly integrated into universities This structure provides greater flexibility for staffing, allowing researchers to be employed by the Center itself, although center directors and key researchers are typically senior faculty members from the associated university.
The STPI team observed that although the visited NERCs were distributed across important technical fields, there was a lack of coherence between the individual NERCs and the objectives of the NERC programs as outlined by the NDRC and MOST This inconsistency was notably more pronounced when compared to the structured approach of the Irish Centers for Science.
Engineering and Technology (CSETs), reviewed below This disconnect between the agencies’ vision for NERCs and the realities of the research and development
Program-Level Funding
The funding mechanisms of research centers significantly influence their priorities, recruitment of top-tier researchers and students, and investment in advanced infrastructure Insights from the STPI team's site visits and desk studies identified four key strategies through which these centers secure funding and, in some cases, stimulate growth.
The "one shot" funding model involves a single grant awarded to a center, with no subsequent funds provided, differing from the typical funding practices in most programs The Chinese NERC program exemplifies this approach by allocating up to $5 million in a one-time block of funds to selected centers for the establishment and initiation of operations, without any follow-on financial support An example of this is the National Die & Mold CAD ERC.
Shanghai JiaoTong University secured a $3.5 million grant from the World Bank, which was matched by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), resulting in a total investment of $7 million to establish the center While the National Die & Mold CAD Engineering Research Center (ERC) and other National Engineering Research Centers (NERCs) are subject to ongoing evaluations by MOST, they do not receive additional funding from the Chinese government Instead, future financial support has been sourced from industry contracts, collaborations, and technology commercialization efforts.
In Ireland, the STPI team identified two interconnected models for funding new centers under the CSET program SFI directors explained that alongside the standard five-year CSET award, they provide a pre-CSET or "seed" award, which offers initial funding at a reduced level This approach aims to catalyze the center's management team, facilitating the gradual development of infrastructure, collaborations, and research Once these foundational elements are established, the "seeded" center can compete for full CSET funding, typically following an SFI review after the second or third year of seed funding.
The STPI team observed the seed concept at the Japan Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), where innovative ideas for future centers were developed using seed funds These concepts were provided with a seven-year period to showcase their necessity for center-mode funding At the end of this period, successful "seeded" ideas evolved into fully operational centers, while those that did not meet expectations were dissolved.
2.3.3 Funds Matching (Incentive-based Funding)
A third model for program-level funding allocates resources according to the funding secured from industry or other users by each center, similar to the approach utilized by the Fraunhofer Institutes.
Fraunhofer Institutes are required to secure between 25-65% of their funding from industry or other sources, which is matched by the German Federal Government Institutes that fail to obtain at least 25% from industry face reduced funding, while those exceeding 65% in industry funding will also see limitations on government support to align with the goals of the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft.
In England, the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC)
The Innovative Manufacturing Research Centers (IMRC) program offers a funding model akin to that of the Fraunhofer Institutes, albeit with less specificity IMRCs have the opportunity to apply for matching funds from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC).
Councils based on industry investment – however, this funding is provided on a case-by-case basis
In several countries, governments actively promote industry co-funding for research centers A notable example is England, where the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) partners with industry to jointly finance research in relevant industrial sectors.
2006, EPSRC and Philips Research announced a £6 million strategic alliance to develop the next generation biomedical diagnostic technologies and to fund research and training in biomedical technology EPSRC and Philips signed a
'Memorandum of Understanding' to support the four-year joint research framework that would provide funding to leading UK-based centers
Similarly, we learned in China about the Tsinghua-Foxconn Nanotechnology
Research Center, created primarily with funds from the Taiwan-based semiconductor manufacturing firm Foxconn
Governments and researchers consistently viewed the collaboration between research and industry as mutually beneficial, appreciating the significant influence of industry in both the selection of research centers and the direction of their research initiatives.
The final model for program-level funding ties Center performance, evaluated through site visit reviews, to future funding levels While the NSF ERC program incorporates elements of this model, South Korea’s ERC and NCRC programs have expanded its application The STPI team discovered that KOSEF ERCs and NCRCs receive annual funding based on review outcomes, similar to NSF ERCs, but with funding adjustments directly linked to review results Centers with top rankings can receive up to a 20% increase in funding, while those with poor reviews face a 20% reduction However, it is important to note that KOSEF ERCs and NCRCs are reviewed every three years, meaning funding adjustments occur at that interval rather than annually.
Areas of Emphasis on the “Innovation Continuum”
The STPI team found that only a limited number of programs they visited effectively support centers operating across a simplified "innovation continuum." Table 2.1 on the next page provides a qualitative assessment of the locations of the programs and centers evaluated by the site visit team along this continuum.
As the Table shows, centers that do span a greater breadth of the simplified innovation continuum include the Korean centers (modeled after the U.S ERCs), the
EU and Belgian government funded International Microelectronics Center (IMEC), and Japanese Institute for Nano Quantum Information Electronics (CINQIE)
IMEC, with funding exceeding $250 million annually, conducts research across the entire spectrum from basic research to proprietary technology development Similarly, the Collaborative Institute for Nano Quantum Information Electronics (CINQIE) at the University of Tokyo, funded by the Japanese Ministry of Education (MEXT) and industry, receives over $10 million each year to advance basic research towards commercialization Both IMEC and CINQIE utilize a continuum-spanning model similar to the European Research Council's "three-plane model," effectively transitioning research from initial creation to test-bed stages.
Table 2.1: Approximate Position of Programs/Centers Visited on a simplified Innovation Continuum
Partial List of Programs/Centers Visited Stage 1
Japan: MEXT Centers of Excellence (COE)
Japan: MEXT Global COE program
Japan: MEXT World Top-Level Research
Japan: Advanced Industrial Science and
Korea: Centers within Korea Institute for
Korea: Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)
Korea: ERC Program, National Core Research
Japan: Institute for Nano Quantum
Korea: Samsung Institute for Advanced
UK: Leeds Particle Science Institute
Ireland: Centers for Science, Engineering, and Technology (CSET)
UK: Rolls Royce Vibration Technology Center
Korea: Institute for Advanced Engineering
Note: This table is based on the judgment of the STPI site visit team, and presented here for illustrative purposes only It may be modified upon further study
Figure 2.1: IMEC’s Span on the Innovation Continuum
Source: IMEC, http://www.imec.be/ovinter/static_business/market.shtml Accessed April 6,
Note: This picture is included for illustrative not analytic purposes It is not intended to provide a rigorous measure of the types of research conducted by IMEC.
Most examined programs primarily fund centers that focus on a limited range of the research continuum, distinctly separating basic and applied research In Japan, government funding for basic and applied research is organized through separate programs, with some efforts to connect the two Programs like MEXT’s Centers of Excellence (COE) and the World Top-Level Research Center Program emphasize basic research and do not anticipate significant industry involvement or financial contributions Their main goals are to advance fundamental research and train future researchers In contrast, applied research and development are mainly supported by other agencies, such as MEXT’s Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) and METI’s New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO).
The German innovation system distinctly differentiates between basic and applied research functions, as demonstrated in Figure 2.2 Basic research is primarily conducted by institutions like the Max Planck Institutes, while applied research is the focus of organizations such as the Fraunhofer Institutes.
Figure 2.2: Fraunhofer Institutes in the German S&T System
Source: Fraunhofer ISI meeting handout
In China, a notable division exists within the research landscape, where Chinese NERCs, inspired by the German Fraunhofer Institutes, play a crucial role in advancing applied research This is complemented by other institutions like Key Labs, which emphasize fundamental research, thereby fostering a comprehensive innovation continuum.
Center Life-span
The STPI team's site visits revealed that most research centers receive funding for at least five years, although the duration varies significantly across programs In China, NERCs typically see funding cease sharply after five years, with minimal support afterward, yet they retain their NERC designation if they pass periodic evaluations Conversely, institutions like the Max Planck Institutes in Germany enjoy indefinite funding, continuing as long as researchers maintain their focus Other examples of centers with flexible funding timelines include the Warwick Manufacturing Group in England, the Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology in Korea, and IMEC in Belgium.
Most centers observed had life-spans that varied significantly, typically ranging from four to ten years Programs modeled after the NSF's ERC, such as SFI’s CSETs and Korea’s KOSEF ERCs/NCRCs, usually receive funding for four to five years, with a possibility of a one-time renewal extending the total funding period to eight or ten years After this duration, these centers can reapply for funding, but must submit a completely new application, along with a revised research vision and strategic plan.
Determining the "sunset" timeframes for research centers proved challenging, as insights from program materials and site visits were limited The STPI team engaged with various funding bodies, including the Chinese Academy of Sciences, EPSRC in England, SFI in Ireland, and KOSEF in Korea, but found no clear rationale for establishing an "optimal" center lifetime Most funding agencies seem to correlate the availability of government funding with the duration of funding decisions However, agencies like KOSEF, SFI, and England’s Office of Science and Innovation noted that centers funded for over 10 years tended to lose their "creative spark," suggesting that longer lifespans may not be ideal for fostering innovation.
Table 2.2: Range of Center Life-Spans
Centers of Excellence (Japan) 5 years
Centers for Science, Engineering and
World Top-Level Research Centers
Permanent (if performing well or have ability to continue funding, or endowment/continued funding)
10 years, renewal reviews in years 3 and 6 with “phasing down” of support in years 8 and 9.
Study question: What are the models for research and program planning at the center?
Certain research centers, such as the Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) in Japan and the International Microelectronics Center (IMEC) in Belgium, utilize dedicated faculty members who are not bound by conventional academic duties This approach allows these faculty to focus entirely on center-based research and development, ensuring that the primary research agenda aligns with the center's objectives.
Research centers can engage stakeholders, including industry representatives, in shaping both center-wide and program-specific research agendas, as exemplified by the Warwick Manufacturing Group (WMG) in England This collaboration aims to bridge the gap between the outputs and activities of the center and the expectations of stakeholders.
Overview
The planning, organization, and management of a university research center significantly influence various operational aspects, including researcher productivity and efficiency, interdisciplinary collaboration among faculty, the transfer of research and development to industry partners and stakeholders, and the fulfillment of alternative missions such as education and outreach.
The STPI team's exploration of international research centers reveals diverse organizational structures, some resembling NSF ERCs with university-based faculty engaged in dual research missions However, many centers adopt distinct frameworks that effectively align the interests of stakeholders, including center leadership, faculty, staff, and industry partners This chapter focuses on three key elements of center-level planning and management: strategic planning, researcher affiliation, and the effective use of government funding, each examined through various components to enhance understanding and implementation.
Center-Level Strategic Planning
Strategic planning at a center level, as opposed to a program level, tends to be
The research, collaboration, and education strategies of a center are primarily guided by the center's directorship and researchers, while also incorporating input from stakeholders across various sectors This approach can be described as "bottom-up" or "mixed," highlighting the shared influence in decision-making processes.
Center-level strategic planning and program-level strategic planning intersect significantly, as both approaches are characterized by a "bottom-up" or "mixed" model In this framework, the center's directorship and researchers maintain authority over research, collaboration, and educational strategies Notably, the examples presented primarily involve independent centers that operate without connections to government-based center programs.
Some of the centers visited abroad by the STPI team take a center leadership-driven
The "road mapping" approach to strategic planning involves collaboration among center-based and external researchers, government officials, and private companies This model focuses on identifying and outlining research, transfer, and occasionally education objectives for the center.
The National Nanofabrication Center (NNFC), operating independently within the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), is a leading facility in Korea that supports university and industry researchers Guided by a strategic roadmap, the NNFC aims to enhance research capabilities while transitioning to commercial viability by 2010 The center plans to achieve economic self-sufficiency by relying solely on user funding after government support concludes in 2011.
A majority of the research projects at IMEC in Belgium are planned in accordance with internationally defined technology roadmaps, one example being the
The International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS) focuses on achieving cost-effective enhancements in integrated circuit performance and related products Additionally, IMEC conducts various research projects that, while not directly linked to ITRS, are guided by a forward-looking vision of future systems These projects do not primarily cater to immediate contract work for private partners or clients, despite the significant industry involvement at IMEC.
The roadmap model differs from the "top-down" approach to program-level vision and planning, as it does not inherently link a center to policymakers and stakeholders in a hierarchical manner During their site visit to IMEC, the STPI team gained insights into the center's Office of
(OSDM), which, despite its name and seeming function was established to protect IMEC against becoming too closely integrated with the immediate aims and needs of industry
Moreover, these roadmaps do not set a center’s research strategy in stone.
IMEC representatives told the STPI team that the OSDM enables them to
“react rather quickly and change
[research] direction within a couple of months, much more quickly than a university.”
Study Question: How is the level and nature of “end user” involvement determined, and how does it affect the
For most of the centers visited abroad, the
Industry plays a crucial role in center-based research and development, primarily influencing strategy and planning The extent of private companies' involvement often depends on the proportion of funding they contribute Furthermore, government programs, such as those overseeing the Fraunhofer Institutes, mandate a strong industry presence to support and guide research initiatives effectively.
User involvement significantly influences the balance of activities within a center, with its effects varying across different contexts Centers characterized by a strong user presence often experience reduced autonomy in their research direction and planning compared to those that lack a defined roadmap or high user engagement.
Study question: What is required by funds-providing stakeholders in terms of research and management planning?
The expectations of stakeholders in research centers are often influenced by the amount of funding they contribute, with industry stakeholders providing more funds typically having greater input However, higher financial contributions do not necessarily dictate the research agendas of these centers In some cases, when a center relies heavily on a single funding source, management and researchers can still explore various scientific avenues while considering the interests of their stakeholders.
In contrast to IMEC's approach, the NNFC's roadmap is characterized by a "top-down" focus on economic self-sufficiency rather than a research-driven strategy Although the Korean Ministry of Science and Technology, which funds the NNFC with $1.5 billion over a decade, mandates the center to pursue industry funding and partnerships, it does not exert control over the center's research strategy.
The centers visited and studied by the
The STPI team collaborated with diverse industry partners and clients, each exerting different degrees of influence on the strategic management of research and development activities In certain instances, centers were primarily dependent on a single industry sponsor, which significantly impacted the direction of their research initiatives.
University’s National Mold & Die ERC has a large sub-contract from FORD
China's policies are largely influenced by Ford's demands for intellectual property protection, leading to restrictions on communication among permanent center staff Those involved in the Ford project are specifically prohibited from engaging with colleagues working on other industrial initiatives.
The Collaborative Institute for Nano Quantum Information Electronics (CINQIE) at the University of Tokyo RCAST receives significant block funding from major private firms such as SHARP and NEC, indicating their substantial influence in the field.
Hitachi, and Fujitsu Visitors from these companies are given adjunct faculty positions and are influential in guiding the center’s research policies and strategies
In yet other centers that had numerous industry partners and clients, center managers seemed to remain relatively autonomous in the planning and management of their research and development activities
The STPI team noted that each center maintained autonomy over its research agenda, even when collaborating with industry partners These centers primarily concentrated on fundamental research aimed at improving industry partners' competencies in the long term, rather than addressing immediate needs.
Some research centers rely heavily on a single industry partner for funding and direction, but this does not mean that their research is entirely industry-driven An example is the Imperial College-Rolls Royce Vibration University Technology Center in the UK, established in 1990 with a grant from Rolls Royce PLC to focus on aerospace and power generation research As the center's sole industry partner, Rolls Royce plays a significant role, and the center director highlighted the exclusive collaboration, utilizing proprietary equipment and methodologies for their research initiatives.
“most relevant” to the firm
Researcher Affiliation
NSF Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) are led by directors who hold tenured positions in engineering departments, with faculty members consisting of researchers with academic appointments This university-based management structure can present challenges related to management and incentives The STPI team explored both university-based and independent centers, noting that many independent centers were located alongside universities and other research entities Additionally, these centers often employed faculty membership models that differed from the predominantly "all academic" model utilized by most NSF ERCs.
Centers abroad utilize three distinct categories of researchers: academic faculty, research faculty, and research staff Academic faculty, akin to those in NSF ERCs, are doctoral-level researchers who not only contribute to the center's work but also hold academic positions within university departments.
Research faculty are doctoral-level scientists and engineers who work solely within a center, free from departmental affiliations and responsibilities In contrast, research staff, who may hold doctoral or Master’s degrees, engage in development activities that facilitate knowledge transfer but do not possess academic appointments For example, some NERCs in China have employed computer scientists to create products derived from the center's research and development efforts for industry partners and clients.
We found three models for this aspect of center structure, based on the relative proportion of a center’s faculty membership represented by academic faculty, research faculty, and research staff
Some research centers, like the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) ERC for Earthquake Engineering at Seoul National University, employ only academic faculty, mirroring the structure of most NSF Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) During a visit to KOSEF's NanoSystems Institute and other National Centers for Research and Development (NCRCs), it became evident that this model is prevalent in Korean centers, likely due to their design being influenced by the NSF ERC program However, there are other centers that have evolved from the NSF ERC model, showcasing a diverse approach to faculty membership.
Foundation Ireland’s (SFI) Centers for Science, Engineering, and Technology (CSET) program, employ alternate models
The STPI team observed that faculty members at Japanese research centers, such as the Earthquake Research Institute at the University of Tokyo and the Disaster Prevention Research Institute at Kyoto University, have fewer departmental responsibilities compared to their counterparts in the U.S and Korea Similarly, in China, faculty at National Earthquake Research Centers (NERCs) affiliated with universities also experience reduced departmental assignments, allowing them to function more like center-specific faculty This trend highlights a shift in academic roles within these institutions, emphasizing a focus on research and disaster prevention rather than traditional departmental obligations.
3.3.2 Center-only research faculty and staff
Many international centers focus exclusively on center-based research and development, in contrast to NSF Engineering Research Centers (ERCs), which also prioritize educational initiatives and technology transfer alongside their research and development efforts.
The Fraunhofer Institutes consist of research faculty and staff who do not hold dual appointments in academic departments, although they often collaborate with nearby universities While Fraunhofer directors typically have academic roles, such as endowed chairs, they tend to have fewer academic obligations compared to other faculty members in similar positions.
Figure 3.1: Fraunhofer Institutes’ Relationship with Universities
Source: Fraunhofer Gesellschaft handout, Accessed April 6, 2007
The National Die & Mold CAD ERC, similar to other Chinese NERCs, has faculty members with minimal academic obligations, averaging just 100 teaching hours annually In contrast, the WMG in England relies heavily on industry contracts for about 85% of its research funding and primarily employs engineers without academic faculty roles The WMG director noted that interdisciplinary research with academic faculty is ineffective, as they tend to be focused on conventional academic responsibilities like teaching and publishing.
The Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology (RCAST) at the
The University of Tokyo in Japan aims to reduce bureaucratic constraints for researchers by inviting outstanding early-career scholars from both domestic and international institutions to join its Center for a five-year term By organizing these researchers into collaborative clusters instead of traditional departments, the university fosters interdisciplinary collaboration and encourages the free exchange of innovative ideas, allowing them to explore their research interests freely.
RCAST serves as a unique environment for exceptionally talented multidisciplinary researchers, distinct from traditional NSF ERC thematic centers It provides a flexible "space" for researchers who join for a limited term, with their employment costs covered by external funds By separating management and strategic planning from teaching responsibilities, RCAST allows researchers greater freedom in how they allocate their time compared to conventional departments Additionally, the Center features an external board and an elected Director, practices that are relatively uncommon among research centers in Japanese universities.
3.3.3 Center-only research faculty and staff with “reach back” to academic faculty
The CRANN CSET in Ireland features a balanced mix of academic and research faculty, with each group comprising about half of the total faculty The center categorizes its faculty into senior and junior levels, designating senior faculty as principal investigators and junior faculty as associate investigators Typically, principal investigators are predominantly academic faculty, while associate investigators are primarily research faculty.
The Flanders’ Mechatronics Technology Centre (FMTC) in Belgium features a unique faculty composition, with one third being academic faculty and two thirds dedicated to research This model enables FMTC to leverage expertise from the nearby Catholic University of Leuven for industry-funded projects, allowing for rapid adaptation to industry demands By focusing primarily on research faculty, FMTC avoids the complexities of managing academic careers that may not align with industry needs.
The STPI team observed that certain institutions effectively balance the career needs of academic and research faculty A notable example is Zhejiang University in China, where the National ERC for Industrial Automation (NERCIA) offers parallel tracks to support both academically focused and industry-oriented faculty members.
At CRANN and FMTC, the roles of research and academic faculty are distinctly defined, with research faculty dedicated solely to industry-related R&D projects They follow a product development cycle akin to that of industry laboratories and are exempt from traditional academic responsibilities like teaching and publishing.
Academic faculty play a crucial role in guiding and collaborating on research projects with research faculty, while also fulfilling traditional academic responsibilities This dual commitment often limits their ability to engage fully with research centers.
Leveraging Government Funds
NSF Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) must utilize NSF program funds by engaging industry and external partners who contribute annual membership fees, granting them a role in strategic planning and access to center products The STPI team observed that the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) ERCs and National Research Centers (NCRCs) were the only centers employing this membership model to collaborate with industry partners In contrast to most ERCs, these international centers primarily secure additional funding by conducting contract research for their industry collaborators, demonstrating a different approach to financial sustainability.
During our visit to Fraunhofer IISB, we learned about European centers that had ERC-like membership models For example, the European Center for Power
The Electronics (ECPE) research network in Nuremberg is driven by industry leadership, with a unified board that determines research priorities This center is inspired by the ERC Center for Power Electronics Systems (CPES) located at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, showcasing a commitment to advancing power electronics research.
For most centers visited, industry participation was contract-based An example is the Fraunhofer Institute of Integrated Systems and Device Technology (IISB) in
Erlangen specializes in contract-based research aimed at addressing specific medium-to-long-term challenges in semiconductor and microelectronics manufacturing, with up to 65% of its funding derived from industry and project-oriented sources To enhance funding opportunities, Fraunhofer Institutes have formed clusters or "alliances," collaborating to attract additional financial support from industry and entities like the EU A notable example is the "Life Science Alliance," where five Fraunhofer Institutes combined their biotechnology expertise to foster industrial development in biotechnology and bridge the gap between basic research and industry production.
The Warwick Manufacturing Group (WMG) exemplifies a center that effectively utilizes a small portion of government funding to expand its reach, securing 85% of its annual funding—exceeding $100 million—through industry contracts These contracts often involve customized projects developed collaboratively between WMG and its industry partners, referred to as "spin off" projects, distinct from spin off firms WMG's ability to attract a significant volume of industry contracts stems from multiple factors contributing to its success.
beneficial IPR and discouragement of spin off firms that could compete potentially with industry clients (see Chapter 4),
its hiring of predominantly dedicated research (versus academic) faculty
Contract-based research should not be viewed as solely "near-term" research, even when conducted for private companies For example, the WMG model emphasizes "mid to long range basic" research, which involves research and development timelines of 3 to 10 years before reaching the market.
The Collaborative Institute for Nano Quantum Information Electronics (CINQIE) at the University of Tokyo exemplifies how a center can transform government funding into significant industry investment Supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, CINQIE fosters innovation in nano quantum information technology, driving collaboration between academia and industry to enhance research and development.
The Center, supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), collaborates with major firms such as Sharp, NEC, Hitachi, and Fujitsu, which contribute through in-kind support and funding for researchers and students Over the first three years, industry funding amounts to $4 million annually, increasing to $8 million per year for the subsequent seven years, totaling over $136 million in a decade This significant investment has already yielded results, exemplified by the emergence of the spin-off QD Laser, backed by a venture fund predominantly owned by Fujitsu.
Laboratories, and by NEDO) has emerged and has stimulated additional industry interest
Figure 3.2: Collaborative Institute for Nano Quantum Information
Electronics (CINQIE) Team and Organization
Source: Discussion with CINQUE team Center description also available at: http://www.nanoquine.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp/organization-e.html
Overview
The NSF ERC program aims to foster partnerships between universities and private entities, including local and state governments To achieve this, NSF mandates that each funded ERC implement an industry membership program and designate staff to facilitate communication between ERC personnel and industry members Additionally, ERCs must employ an Industrial Collaboration and Technology specialist at the lead university to support these initiatives.
The Transfer Director is responsible for facilitating and coordinating exchanges between the Engineering Research Center (ERC) and its industry partners, as outlined in NSF 07-521 In addition to this role, NSF ERCs aim to achieve significant advancements in emerging fields, innovate engineering education and curricula, and enhance opportunities for underrepresented groups in the field.
Many of the centers studied or visited abroad have similarly strong if not stronger industry-serving goals For example, the overarching goal of the Fraunhofer
Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation (IPA) in Stuttgart, Germany is:
To identify and exploit potential for automation and rationalization at companies in order to strengthen their international competitiveness
(emphasis added) and create new employment opportunities with more cost- effective and environmentally friendly production processes and improved products 38
The international centers examined by the STPI team have a more focused mission compared to NSF Engineering Research Centers (ERCs), and our site visits revealed that these centers maintain distinct and often profound relationships with industry From our observations and research, we propose various alternative mechanisms or "models" for enhancing ERC-industry and user interactions.
Research centers abroad establish diverse partnerships with industry and external users, reflecting the unique national innovation systems of their respective countries These centers perceive the university-industry gap through various lenses, identifying challenges related to infrastructure, social and human capital, and legal barriers such as intellectual property rights (IPR) The STPI team's observations revealed that while the methods for bridging this gap varied significantly among centers, their practices generally fell into four distinct categories.
Operating as bridging institutions or working with external or internal bridging institutions to firms,
Clustering with other facilities to provide value, and
Managing IPR to support innovation in partnering industry or other users
Study question: How far down the “theory to concept to product continuum” do centers participate? When does industry take over?
The STPI team conducted site visits and desk studies to examine center-based research across the entire spectrum, from theoretical basic research to applied research and product development While some centers, such as the Max Planck Institutes, were significantly distanced from market applications, others, like WMG, were much closer, with most centers falling somewhere in between.
The positioning of centers along the innovation continuum can be attributed to perceived gaps in their respective innovation systems This location influences the presence of bridging institutions and the timing of industry involvement in the development process Additionally, it affects the extra R&D activities undertaken by the centers, their collaboration with other institutions, and their co-location strategies.