3. Although united in their goals, the I4.0 policies differ in their policy design, funding approaches and implementation strategies.
PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES
1. Next to overarching strategies or roadmaps defining the objectives and main action steps, the use of call for proposals, working groups, in-depth stakeholder consultations and steering committees were common.
2. In order to finalise the policy design and start the roll out, stakeholder consultations and call for proposals are heavily relied on.
i. In Spain, stakeholder consultations were particularly comprehensive.
ii. During a process of almost 5 months, Spain's CI 4.0 held a series of workshops and meetings involving all types of stakeholders. Three large industry partners – Santander, Indra and Telefonica – helped to set up the strategy and governance model.
iii. In Sweden, the use of expert groups contributed to developing new content l and input for open calls, as well as drawing up visions and propose new initiatives. These expert groups are led by one or two young academic researchers who are likely to become institute or department directors, with links to industry.
RESULTS AND OUTCOMES
Country
|
Title
|
Budget
|
Results achieved
|
France
|
Alliance pour l'Industrie du Futur
|
Approx. 10 billion of public funding and industry contributions
|
> 800 loans to companies; 3400 company assessments for modernising
production, >300 experts identified; involvement of 18 regions
|
Germany
|
Plattform Industrie 4.0
|
€200 million complemented by financial and in-kind contributions from
industry
|
Reducing industry segregation; transforming research agenda into
practice, developing reference architecture & launch of platform with 150
members
|
Netherlands
|
Smart Industry
|
Around €25 million for 2014-2017 period complemented by cofinancing
by industry
|
Setting up 14 field labs by the end of 2016: each field lab has a
turnover of €250.000 to €4 million annually
|
Sweden
|
Produktion 2030
|
€25 million offered by VINNOVA for 2013-2018 period and approx. €25
million from industry
|
Funded 30 projects, involved over 150 businesses, set up a PhD school
and obtained 50% industry co-financing for every activity and instrument
|
Italy
|
Intelligent Factory Cluster (CFI)
|
€45 million based on €34 million in public funding and €11 million in
private funding
|
Creating a platform and manufacturing community and implementing four
priority research projects
|
Spain
|
Connected Industry 4.0
|
€97.5 million for project calls for 2016; €78 million from additional
related programmes
|
Set-up of innovation and research programme in June 2016 and pilot of
enterprise support programme
|
United Kingdom
|
HVM Catapult (HVMC)
|
€164 million in public funds for 2012–2018; for 2015/16: €79.7
million commercial income; €61.3 million public; collaborative R&D €62
million
|
Value of innovation work represented 123% of the target; Every €1 of
public funding generated €17
|
1. Within IdF in France, more than 800 company loans and 3400 diagnoses have been realised whereas the Swedish P2030 funded 30 projects with participation of over 150 businesses.
2. For the German I4.0 initiative, qualitative results stand-out, such as reduced industry segregation, the transformation of research into practical applications and the creation of the platform’s reference architecture with 150 members.
3. The British HVMC's initiative has set up clear targets and monitoring and evaluation cycles. The results from the comprehensive evaluation study show that the value of innovation work represented 123% of the original target in 2013-2015.
OVERALL POLICIES
1. The policies show some variation in how these economic objectives are to be achieved. Most countries, above all Germany, focus on gaining higher productivity and greater efficiency.
i. Delivering next-generation technologies (Italy, UK)
ii. Developing new products and improving industrial processes (Germany, Italy)
iii. Providing support to SMES for innovation and commercialisation (UK, France and Spain)
2. The French and Spanish initiatives both take a market-based approach providing loans to companies participating in the programme.
3. In the case of Spain, the cost covered by the loan depends on the action line and type of company ranging between a cost coverage of 25% to 70%. The French IdF combines a broad range of funding instruments, e.g. loans and tax incentives with private investments in R&D.
4. Sweden’s P2030 is driven and financed heavily by industry ensuring industrial impact and long-term sustainability.
5. The unique element in the UK concerns the provision of industrial scale technology and expertise to companies to de-risk innovation through seven technology centres.
6. In France, IdFA’s platform facilitates the collaboration between public and private industry and technology stakeholders, whereas the German Industrie 4.0 allows policy-makers to push forward leadership in I4.0 issues at all governance levels. The Italian CFI, on the other hand, integrates regional and national I4.0 policies in line with EU guidelines.
7. Internet of Things (IoT) / Cyber-physical Systems (CPS) are only specifically targeted by the German and French policies.
8. Increased sustainability of production is a common impact area targeted by the Swedish and Italian initiatives.
9. Spain seeks to provide information and implementation support to companies to better exploit the opportunities provided by Industry 4.0.
10. In the Netherlands, more flexibility in production volume, efficiency, costs and meeting customer needs are the main expected impacts.
KEY OUTAKES FROM VARIOUS NATIONAL I4.0 POLICIES
1. In terms of financing, the majority of the national I4.0 initiatives examined are primarily financed through public means. However, private sector co-financing has played a part.
2. National Industry 4.0 initiatives tend to focus on technology and infrastructure, with skills development as a secondary goal. A notable exception is Sweden’s Produktion 2030 programme – which includes a National Graduate School in Production.
3. In terms of governance and implementation, most of the national I4.0 policies examined essentially adopted a top-down approach to designing, initiating and implementing the initiatives putting the relevant national governments are in the driver seat.
i. A notable exception is Sweden’s Produktion 2030 programme – where industry, academia and research groups have responsibility for the design and operation of the initiative.
ii. The Dutch Smart Industry (SI) is another exception. SI is grounded on the Triple Helix principle and bottom-up approaches, with involvement of industry, universities and research partners and the public sector in the agenda setting and the execution of core activities.
4. A range of obstacles in different aspects arise. Resource deficiencies and effective engagement of SMEs have challenged the implementation of the initiatives. Like any other large-scale policy project, initial public funding is crucial for I4.0 policies to pick up speed and build up the capacities needed for effective programme operations.
i. In the Netherlands, a reduction in allocated resources calls into question whether a programme office of seven part-time workers can create enough impact to live up to the ambitious objectives of the initiative
ii. The capacity bottlenecks of HVMC, on the other hand, were overcome thanks to the responsiveness of the UK government to increase funding.
iii. Effective SME engagement has been challenging for both HVMC an P2030 in Sweden. One well-known issue concerns the limited capacities of SMEs to fully participate in the often resource intensive engagement. In response to this challenge, a dedicated SME engagement programme – HVM REACH - was established within HVMC.
ISSUES FOR EFFECTIVE I4.0 POLICIES
1. I4.0 policies greatly benefit from setting up clear objectives with measurable targets / milestones supported by qualitative and quantitative indictors, as well as rigorous monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.
2. private co-financing of I4.0 policies is also very important. Therefore, policy-makers should foresee measures to ensure private financing – in voluntary or mandatory form. A higher degree of cofinancing from industry actors is desirable to increase the sustainability of the initiatives.
3. Industry driven approaches (or bottom-up participation) – instead of applying a top-down governance approach – giving a greater say to involved stakeholders – can better ensure the more active involvement of industry stakeholders.
4. More innovative and close-to-market funding instruments, e.g. business loans and tax incentives should also be considered.
5. Effective engagement of SMEs often requires a more customised approach, i.e. the provision of specific funding instruments.
6. Slow implementation speed of projects can reduce the chances to achieve critical mass.
7. The trend is to create large, multistakeholder platforms, but most of the initiatives examined are more oriented towards increasing technological deployment or uptake.
(Source: European Comission)
