Regional Innovation Monitor Plus 2015 - ec.europa.eu · 2.4 Europe’s Key Players in Advanced Manufacturing 13! 2.5 Regional Hotspots of Advanced Manufacturing 16! 2.6 Evidence of

www.technopolis-group.com

21 May 2015

Regional Innovation Monitor Plus 2015

Thematic Paper 1

Mapping advanced manufacturing networks and exploring new business opportunities

To the European Commission

DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs

Directorate J – Industrial Property, Innovation and Standards

Regional Innovation Monitor Plus 2015

Mapping advanced manufacturing networks and exploring new business opportunities

Jacek Walendowski Dr. Henning Kroll

Victoria Eugenia Soto Rojas

(With support of Lorena Rivera Leon – Technopolis Group, Oliver Rothengatter and Mirja Meyborg – Fraunhofer ISI)

Disclaimer

This project has been commissioned by DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs

© European Communities, 2015.

The contents and views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of the Regions, Member States or the European Commission. Copyright of the document belongs to the European Commission. Neither the European Commission, nor any person acting on its behalf, may be held responsible for the use to which information contained in this document may be put, or for any errors which, despite careful preparation and checking, may appear.

Regional Innovation Monitor Plus 2015 i

Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1

1.1 Developing Partnerships to Deliver Results: New RIM Plus Value-Proposition 1 1.2 Re-launch of RIM Plus (2015-2016) 2

2. Regional Patterns of Patenting Activities in Advanced Manufacturing 5 2.1 Advanced Manufacturing as a Key Challenge for Europe 5 2.2 Europe’s Global Position 7 2.3 Member States’ Roles in Advanced Manufacturing 9 2.4 Europe’s Key Players in Advanced Manufacturing 13 2.5 Regional Hotspots of Advanced Manufacturing 16 2.6 Evidence of Cross-Regional Cooperation in Advanced Manufacturing 25

3. Overview of Advanced Manufacturing in FP7 Projects 31 3.1 Analysis of Advanced Manufacturing Networks 31 3.2 Main Components of the Advanced Manufacturing Networks 32 3.3 Network Centrality: Key Actors in Advanced Manufacturing Networks 33

4. FP7 Advanced Manufacturing Process and System Projects 37 4.1 Development of Advanced Materials 37 4.2 Manufacturing Processes 42 4.3 Robotics, Automation and Control Systems 45 4.4 Internet of Things (IoT)-Based Applications 46 4.5 Emerging Results from Mapping Thematic Cooperation 47

5. Conclusions 49

Table of Figures Figure 1 Classification of Advanced Manufacturing ........................................................ 6 Figure 2 Distribution of Patent Applications in ADMAN Processes 2003-2012 ............ 8 Figure 3 Distribution of Patent Applications in ADMAN Systems 2003-2012 ............... 8 Figure 4 Distribution of Patent Applications in ADMAN Processes and Systems 2003-2012 ................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 5 Distribution of Patent Applications 2009-2012 (Advanced Manufacturing Processes) ......................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 6 Distribution of Patent Applications 2009-2012 (Advanced Manufacturing Systems) ........................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 7 Growth of Patent Applications ADMAN Processes 2005-08 vs. 2009-12 ...... 12

ii Regional Innovation Monitor Plus 2015

Figure 8 Growth of Patent Applications ADMAN Systems 2005-08 vs. 2009-12 ........ 12 Figure 9 Regional Distribution of Patent Applications in the Field of Advanced Manufacturing Processes (New Materials, 3-D Printing etc.) ....................................... 18 Figure 10 Regional Distribution of Patent Applications in the Field of Advanced Manufacturing Systems (Industry 4.0, Internet of Things etc.) .................................... 19 Figure 11 Regional Distribution of Patent Applications in the Fields of Advanced Manufacturing Processes & Systems (Large Corporations) .......................................... 22 Figure 12 Regional Distribution of Patent Applications in the Fields of Advanced Manufacturing Processes & Systems (Small and Medium-sized Firms) ...................... 23 Figure 13 Regional Distribution of Patent Applications in the Fields of Advanced Manufacturing Processes & Systems (Public Research) ............................................... 24 Figure 14 European Co-patenting in Advanced Manufacturing (with regard to Processes left, with regard to Systems right) ................................................................. 29 Figure 15 European Co-patenting in Advanced Manufacturing (with regard to Processes left, with regard to Systems right) ................................................................. 30 Figure 16 Key Terms of Advanced Manufacturing Processes ........................................ 31 Figure 17 Key Terms of Advanced Manufacturing Systems ........................................... 31 Figure 18 Network of FP7 Process Projects – Regions at Nuts 1 Level ......................... 33 Figure 19 Network of FP7 System Projects - Regions at NUTS1 Level ........................ 33 Figure 20 Network of FP7 Factories of the Future Projects – Regions at Nuts 1 Level 34 Figure 21 Network of FP7 ARTEMIS -ENIAC Projects – Regions at Nuts 1 Level ....... 34 Figure 22 Network of FoF projects - Participant Organisations ................................... 35 Figure 23 Network of ARTEMIS-ENIAC Projects - Participant Organisations ........... 35 Figure 24 BIOAGROTEX - Development of New Agrotextiles from Renewable Resources and with a Tailored Biodegradability ............................................................ 37 Figure 25 BIOSTRUCT - Complex Structural and Multifunctional Parts from Enhanced Wood-based Composites - eWPC ................................................................. 38 Figure 26 TRAYSRENEW - Development of Innovative Renewable Trays for Poultry Products, based on Biopolymers and Bast Fibers ......................................................... 39 Figure 27 POCO - Carbon Nanotube Confinement Strategies to Develop Novel Polymer Matrix Composites ......................................................................................................... 39 Figure 28 MORGAN - Materials for Robust Gallium Nitride ....................................... 40 Figure 29 ONE-P - Organic Nanomaterials for Electronics and Photonics: Design, Synthesis, Characterization, Processing, Fabrication and Applications ........................ 41 Figure 30 SUSTAINCOMP - Development of Sustainable Composite Materials ......... 42 Figure 31 MINTWELD - Modelling of Interface Evolution in Advanced Welding ....... 43 Figure 32 GLYFINERY - Sustainable and Integrated Production of Liquid Biofuels, Bioenergy and Green Chemicals from Glycerol in Biorefineries .................................. 44 Figure 33 NANOSUSTAIN - Development of Sustainable Solutions for Nanotechnology-Based Products based on Hazard Characterization and LCA ........... 45 Figure 34 ROTOFLEX - Innovative Rotomoulding Development ................................ 46 Figure 35 HYCON2 - Highly-Complex and Networked Control Systems ...................... 47 Figure 36 Advanced Materials and the Associated Manufacturing Processes and Systems ........................................................................................................................... 48

Regional Innovation Monitor Plus 2015 iii

Tables Table 1 Lead Applicants in the field of Advanced Manufacturing Processes ................ 14 Table 2 Lead Applicants in the field of Advanced Manufacturing Systems .................. 15 Table 3 ADMAN Processes and Systems Network Characteristics ............................... 26 Table 4 Top-25 Central Regions in the Advanced Manufacturing Cooperation Networks ......................................................................................................................... 27 Table 5 Structural Indicators of Advanced Manufacturing Networks .......................... 32 Table 6 Central Regions in Advanced Manufacturing Project Networks ...................... 36

Regional Innovation Monitor Plus 2015 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Developing Partnerships to Deliver Results: New RIM Plus Value-Proposition

Context

The effects of the economic and financial crisis which began in 2008 had negative impacts on EU manufacturing. The patterns are far more complex than a mere north-south or east-west divide. Five years onwards, signs of improvement and trends towards a re-shoring of production can be observed in many places across the European Union. In general, however, most companies still have to modernise and most regions have to continue (re-) building their competitive strengths. In a scenario of ‘no action’, it is possible to imagine that a majority of EU regions and countries will be faced with the prospect of faltering manufacturing industries. If that were to happen, negative repercussions on growth and jobs would inevitably follow.

Consequently, boosting advanced manufacturing is a central part of efforts undertaken by the European Commission to harness the speed and growth of innovation in the EU’s industrial base to maintain a competitive edge. In this context, advanced manufacturing is defined as production activities able to improve production speed, productivity, energy and materials consumption, operating precision, waste, pollution management and enabling resource - efficient and low emission production1 and to develop new cross-sectoral industrial value chains across the EU.

In line with the European Commission’s efforts, "Industry 4.0" type of initiatives have been launched by several Member State governments to support the transformation of industry and development of production value chains as well as new business models. Not least with a view to practical implementation, however, regions have equally important role to play in contributing to an industrial renaissance. Particularly, the regional policy challenge concerning manufacturing is to advance what happens in the factories in European regions, i.e. innovation and production, rather than what happens in their research labs. So far, the progress in terms of implementing integrated policy initiatives as a part of strategic agenda for the manufacturing sector varies to a large extent across European regions. While there is a general recognition of urgency among different stakeholders of taking action, too little is happening in terms of cooperation between European regions in this regard. It is often observed that the cooperation is based on bilateral contacts between individual organisations from different regions or in the best case extended to cooperation between global clusters from a limited number of regions.

There are different reasons for why this unsatisfactory situation is the way it is. Less developed regions tend to have a perception that others are world-class leading high-tech regions so that there is no scope of possible cooperation. Likewise, policy choices often focus on other priorities rather than promoting the revival of industrial base. Furthermore, a lack of capacity, capabilities to implement regional innovation policies or other governance issues, can be detrimental for enhancing the cooperation between European regions.

In general, the specific situation in each and every region will naturally have an influence on the perspectives for the collaboration and integration of innovation actors from different regions. Even where governance issues are dealt with rather well and comprehensive strategic agendas have been drawn up, regions might be tempted to support placed-based support measures in isolation, without taking into account the developments taking place in other regions.

1 See: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/amt/mission-scope/index_en.htm

2 Regional Innovation Monitor Plus 2015

Finally, collaboration may simply be difficult because stakeholders participating in networks are wary about giving away their strategic intelligence to stakeholders from other regions that they have never met in person, whose often complementary agendas, interests and capacities they do not know, and whom, by default, they tend to consider as potential competitors. Evidently, therefore, there is a need for action in terms of better connecting EU regions and to establish communication between them.

Moreover, linking up regional centres of competence to strategic partnerships at the EU level will be central to reviving the EU’s industrial base. Quite often, regional clusters are often characterised by a relatively small size and/or are at early stage of development. As a result, they find it extremely hard (despite only few exception) to connect and work together with the EU-level initiatives. By joining forces, however, they demonstrate a sufficient critical mass and thus create new opportunities for driving the development of new industrial value chains.

Five years of RIM activities (2010-2015)

Launched in 2010, the Regional Innovation Monitor was one of the flagship initiatives of DG Enterprise and Industry of the European Commission. It aimed at supporting sharing of intelligence on innovation policies in some 200 regions across EU20 Member States. The RIM 2010-2012 project has made an important contribution to policy assessment by providing an easy access and comparative overview of regional innovation policies.

In December 2012, DG Enterprise and Industry commissioned the Regional Innovation Monitor 2013-2014 (RIM Plus) with a possibility to renew a period of execution of tasks for 24 months. Similarly to the RIM 2010-2012 project, the RIM Plus aimed at helping the European regions to improve their innovation policies based on better and harmonised policy intelligence. Building upon the experience gained and results obtained during the implementation of the RIM in the period 2010-2012, the RIM Plus service has evolved towards providing practical guidance to regions on how to use the collected information, establishing a network of regional experts with thematic specialisation, and organising specialised workshops taking into account the relevance and potential interest among the regional innovation policy makers. Since 2014, the RIM Plus has introduced the focus on advanced manufacturing.

1.2 Re-launch of RIM Plus (2015-2016)

What’s new?

The RIM Plus has entered into the sixth year of its activities and the contract has been extended until December 2016. While providing evidence-based information about regional innovation policies in a general manner is recognised and well appreciated, we understand that there is a demand for introducing a more thematic focus into our activities. Therefore, the RIM Plus 2015-2016 activities are evolving from a general monitoring of innovation policies towards establishing a more thematic orientation than before, with a particular focus on advanced manufacturing.

The decision was taken on the basis of existing evidence presented in the RIM Plus Final Report 2014, which takes stock of lessons learned during the period of 24 months from the design and implementation of initiatives undertaken by European regions to modernise their industries.

Defining thematic areas as part of the process

It is clear that there is a need for stepping up efforts. Our starting point is to provide evidence-based background information based on a synthesis and further analysis of available results from earlier relevant projects, initiatives and databases rather than carrying out another survey or trying to collect new information from scratch by other means. Hence, the first thematic report has served as an input to structure the debate and to prepare the first RIM Plus workshop in 2015.


The objective of this first workshop that took place in April 2015 was to explore the project’s options to establish and/or support cooperation on concrete thematic areas of advanced manufacturing between stakeholders from different European regions. In parallel, it sought to raise broader awareness of and interest in our efforts in this regard and hence – in the long run – increase willingness of collaboration.

During the workshop, therefore, the project team collected expressions of interests from regional stakeholders and gathered additional information needed for subsequent steps in this process of defining the RIM plus project’s exact thematic focus.

Once this exact focus is defined, the following workshops during the 2015-16 period will expand on individual topics of relevance in more detail. Led by a region or a group of regions, these workshops should provide the basis for in-depth interaction on advanced manufacturing activities in a particular area, such as pilot actions, demonstrator plants and existing collaborations. Ideally, they can serve as a seedbed for future cooperation and bring the existing lead initiatives in contact with a broader audience. Thus the RIM Plus project could generate specific added value by promoting and connecting existing EU-funded activities to a broader range of potential partners, users and/or beneficiaries. To achieve this, all workshops should involve practitioners from these actions, if not industry itself that can – during the presentation – provide direct answers to practical questions from the audience. Reinforcing an ambition of the project’s 2013-14 period, a specific focus will be laid on workshop type formats rather than simple, up-front presentations.

New challenges and ambitions

As in the past, the RIM Plus project stands for innovation and delivering useful services to regional policy makers. During the 2015-16 period, the vision of RIM Plus will be to provide a new impetus for the development of new industrial value chains. To this end, the RIM Plus will facilitate the development of new and open spaces of collaboration and exchange in a series of thematic areas in close cooperation with regional stakeholders and relevant initiatives.

It is also in the remit of RIM Plus activities to smartly integrate existing information and promote synergies with the other relevant initiatives and projects with relevance for regional innovation policy and advanced manufacturing alike. In particular, the RIM Plus project’s specific objective is to support and facilitate the process of enhancing the cooperation between regional stakeholders as well as to broaden their access to existing initiatives in the field of advanced manufacturing. Therefore, the RIM Plus project will neither duplicate existing networks nor does it presume to start new manufacturing initiatives and pilots as such. Instead, it will seek to strengthen existing initiatives’ impact to a broader range of Member States and regions and to generate new ideas and motivation for broader collaboration.

In order to ensure making the process more dynamic, it is also foreseen to start collecting good practices which are relevant in relation to advanced manufacturing, in addition to pilot and demonstration projects. The support of regional authorities in the new RIM Plus activities will be of the utmost importance, in addition to the work which will have to be performed by the RIM Plus network of regional correspondents. To this end, a new IT functionality will be deployed allowing the registered users to seamlessly provide relevant information.

Working to foster advanced manufacturing and development of new industrial value chains across the EU is a long and complex process. To succeed, it will be crucial to involve regional stakeholders who genuinely have shared interests and view a possibility of exploring new business opportunities across European cities and regions.


Expected outcomes

The RIM Plus aims through its activities and in close cooperation with the regional stakeholders to:

• Contribute to the development of new and open spaces of collaboration and exchange on advanced manufacturing, each with a clearly defined thematic focus.

• Play an enabling role in providing evidence-based information on specific themes and bring in outside perspective from other regions.

• Map out 75-100 regional practices in support of advanced manufacturing and relevant pilot/demo projects and work towards involving the relevant stakeholders.

• Provide an easy access and comparative overview of regional innovation policies and relevant actions in the field of advanced manufacturing.

• Share the lessons learned with the European Commission services to feed into the preparation of future programmes.


2. Regional Patterns of Patenting Activities in Advanced Manufacturing

2.1 Advanced Manufacturing as a Key Challenge for Europe

As outlined in the Final Report of the Regional Innovation Monitor’s first period, the design of suitable support measures for advanced manufacturing will be one of the key challenges of the 2014-2020 policy period or, more broadly speaking, the next one or two decades.

With Members States facing this challenge from very different starting points and under very different framework conditions, not single ‘route towards advanced manufacturing’. On a conceptual level, last year’s Final Report already outlined that many dynamics in the field of advanced manufacturing are emerging as the result of various actors, thus giving the overall challenge a strongly regional component.

Against this background, this thematic paper seeks to map activities in different fields relevant to advanced manufacturing to help us better understand the nature of the current state of play in the European advanced manufacturing system and – on that basis – develop ideas how to better and more effectively support advanced manufacturing across the European Union to exploit its potential for growth and jobs.

To do so, however, requires keeping in mind a clear definition of advanced manufacturing which is concise yet encompassing and open without lacking a defined centre. Also, it should allow us to differentiate between different aspects of the large field that is advanced manufacturing without becoming unduly complex. Fortunately, a good basis for such a definition is already provided.

‘Advanced Manufacturing’ is a family of activities that:

• depend on the use and coordination of information, automation, computation, software, sensing, and networking, and/or

• make use of cutting edge materials and emerging capabilities enabled by the physical and biological sciences, for example nanotechnology, chemistry, and biology.

This involves both new ways to manufacture existing products, and especially the manufacture of new products emerging from advanced technologies.

(PCAST, 2011; http://www.manufacturing.gov/whatis_am.html)

From this concise definition that resonates strongly with many definitions used in official publications of the European Union, two main conclusions can be drawn:

Advanced manufacturing is about developing new technology-based products and new technological processes to develop products. 3-D printing is an often quoted example in this regard, but the idea extends much further into the field of making practical use of insights from (all) natural sciences to develop new solutions for existing problems. Other prominent examples include new, lightweight materials, new surfaces and organic electronics as well as new solutions in the food industry.

At the same time, advanced manufacturing is about changing processes of production not at the level of the individual approach to the treatment of objects (e.g. moulding or cutting) but to the way the process of production is systematically connected, informed and controlled. This is the field commonly referred to as ‘Industry 4.0’, the ‘Digitalisation’ of Manufacturing or – with respect to their connection – the ‘Internet of Things’. In this context both novel software solutions and micro- or nanosystems play a crucial role.


As can be easily seen, this perspective to understanding the challenges that regions and nations are confronted with differs from the idea of Key Enabling Technologies in focus but not in substance. While it takes a clear position what should be placed firmly in the centre of the analysis (a core of technologies relevant for manufacturing and production) it still draws on a number of cross-cutting capabilities and technologies that have already been discussed and analysed in other contexts.

Consequently, this thematic paper’s analysis will draw on an analytical approach that, firstly, divides advanced manufacturing – to reflect the two main areas mentioned above and, secondly, takes into account complementary technological activities which may not pertain to the core of advanced manufacturing but are of relevance for the respective area – to avoid an unduly narrow focus on production technology.

In short, this study’s classification of advanced manufacturing reads as follows (Figure 1):

• Advanced manufacturing processes with a main focus on the development of either new products or new methods to work on such products (including new materials, nano- or micro-enabled processes, 3-D printing or more general laser processes)

• Advanced manufacturing systems with a main focus on the new methods to coordinate production processes (including industry 4.0, innovative measurement and control technologies, computing, internet of things etc.)

Figure 1 Classification of Advanced Manufacturing

Source: Own concept, developed by Fraunhofer ISI and Technopolis based on various definitions.

For later patent analysis this concept has been translated into IPC codes taken from the KETs Observatory classification combining parts of the KETs Advanced Manufacturing and, insofar relevant for production, Nanotechnology, Advanced Materials, Photonics, and Industrial Biotechnology (Advanced Manufacturing Processes) or Micro- and Nanoelectronics (Advanced Manufacturing Systems).

In the following sections, the challenge ahead will be identified from various perspectives, starting with the community and national level, but later on focusing more closely on a regionally differentiated perspective.


2.2 Europe’s Global Position

In recent years, Europe’s global position with a view to advanced manufacturing has stabilised, yet not improved. As shown in Figure 2 and 3, the U.S. position with respect to both manufacturing processes and systems has weakened and, in particular since 2009, Japan has notably caught up, while the level of patent applications from Europe has remained more or less stable in both fields. While, as such, this is not a bad starting point it needs to be taken into account that with a view to Processes, the large decline in the U.S. can in part be traced back to lessening activities in the field of biotechnology which do not only constitute an emerging weakness but also a shift from research to commercialisation.

Nonetheless, Europe seems to stand at a crossroads with the change to – for once – forge ahead of the United States and at the same time meet the challenge of avoiding that Japan takes over. The lack of dynamism, accompanied by a certain rebound in the U.S. suggests that the time is right to take political action in support of Europe’s key players in advanced manufacturing. At the same time new and serious competition is emerging from Korea. While still far from reaching European or U.S. levels in absolute terms, Korean activities in both fields have tripled in recent years and it appears likely that they will constitute a meaningful challenge to Europe’s industries in selected sectors.

Within Europe, the by far largest share of patenting in advanced manufacturing is applied for from Germany which accounts for nearly half of all European patenting in the field of advanced manufacturing alone. In notable distance, as shown in Figure 4, German activities are followed by France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Italy, Belgium, and Austria. Interestingly, most countries apply for very similar amounts of patents in both fields, arguably indicating a strong degree of interrelation in industrial practice. The exception of this rule is Belgium, where activities are focused on advanced manufacturing processes rather than systems.

In line with the overall findings for the EU28, hardly any Member State has substantially increased or decreased its technological activities in the field of advanced manufacturing in recent years. Other than in the case of all patent applications, even the financial crisis has not significantly impacted on the developments in most countries. Arguably, this underlines that advanced manufacturing technologies (for the purpose of this paper broadly defined as Advanced Manufacturing Processes and Systems) constitute a robust and resilient basis for economic growth and renewal in the European Union.

With regard to advanced manufacturing technologies, Europe is thus well positioned with a view to its global competitors while, at the same time, at a point where commitment and engagement are needed to maintain it. Unfortunately, much of the continent’s capabilities are based on the industrial strength of one single or at least a small group of nations. In its entirety, the European Union does not yet command strong capabilities in advanced manufacturing and there are many regions and even Member States in which such capacities are outright absent.

While, as such, this is not an unusual situation (the U.S. is facing the same at the level of its federal states) it indicates strongly that the diversity of Europe’s industrial system needs to be taken into account as a key aspect in any considerations regarding suitable political actions in support of advanced manufacturing. With a view to the Eu28’s international position in technological competition, it is important to engage the vanguard of those making a difference in absolute terms. With a view to growth and jobs, it is crucial that those regions and Member States which have to build capacity will not be forgotten. Accordingly, the following section will discuss different Member State’s roles in more detail.


Figure 2 Distribution of Patent Applications in ADMAN Processes 2003-2012

Source: Own analysis based on EPO Worldwide Patent Statistical Database.

Figure 3 Distribution of Patent Applications in ADMAN Systems 2003-2012


0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

JP

US

KR

EU28

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

JP

US

KR

EU28


Figure 4 Distribution of Patent Applications in ADMAN Processes and Systems 2003-2012


2.3 Member States’ Roles in Advanced Manufacturing

With a view to the different Member States’ role for the development of European Advanced Manufacturing, four main groups can be distinguished:

• Germany: Representing a lead country in advanced manufacturing, Germany’s firms contribute nearly half to all European patent activity in the field,

• France, the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, and Belgium constitute the upper half of a strong second tier of Member States with original capacities advanced manufacturing,

• Austria, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Spain constitute the lower half of a strong second tier of Member States with original capacities advanced manufacturing,

• All other Member States that do not possess many original capacities in either field of advanced manufacturing, including Portugal, Ireland and the whole of Eastern Europe.

With a view to the recent dynamics of development in the wake of the economic crisis, our analysis shows interesting patterns for those countries, in which the overall number of applications allows a useful comparison between the periods 2005-08 and 2009-12:

With regard to Advanced Manufacturing Processes, the level of post-crisis activities is lower in Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium and Sweden. To the contrary, the number of patent applications in Spain, Finland, Austria and in Poland has increased. In the majority of countries it has been stable within +/- 5% growth or in absolute terms too negligible to show. With regard to Advanced Manufacturing Systems, the picture is similar, yet not identical as Sweden, Belgium, and Denmark have experienced growth, rather than a decrease in patent applications while Finland lost ground (likely a negative NOKIA effect). Moreover, the post-crisis development in France has been positive and that in Italy negative rather than stable. Also, Ireland experienced a decreased. Overall, the picture appears more dynamic.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

DE FR GB NL IT BE SE ATADMAN 1 (processes) ADMAN 2 (systems)


While neither of both patterns reflects an inverse centre periphery structure in which the leader lose and the middle echelon gains, it appears remarkable that many of the in absolute terms best performers had to reduce their technological activities as a result of the crisis and have not yet recovered. To the contrary, some second tier nations have increased their activities, indicating that the notion of advanced manufacturing has trickled down and been taken up in new places, most notably Spain.

With a view to the composition of relevant applicants, Figure 5 and 6 illustrate that part of the German dominance results from the above average contribution that large firms make to the national total, in particular with respect to advanced manufacturing systems in the field of Industry 4.0 where they contribute more than 60% to all patenting. The only other countries where large firms contribute more than 50% in both fields are Denmark, Austria, Sweden and Finland. In many other countries, with the exception of Spain, large companies contribute between 40-50% of all patents in the field. Across the board, their share is somewhat higher with regard to Advanced Manufacturing Systems than it is with regard to Advanced Manufacturing Processes where both Small and Medium Sized Firms and Public Research Organisations seem to be more important.

Among the different Member States, Italy stands out as the nation with the generally highest share of small and medium sized firms in all types of advanced manufacturing technology applications followed by the UK and – mostly with respect to Advanced Manufacturing Systems Sweden, Finland and Austria. Spain, France and to a more limited degree the Netherlands, finally, stand out with a view to the above average share that their Public Research Organisations contribute to the overall technological effort in the field of Advanced Manufacturing.


Figure 5 Distribution of Patent Applications 2009-2012 (Advanced Manufacturing Processes)

Source: Own analysis based on EPO Worldwide Patent Statistical Database and Eurostat, Map created with ESRI Arc Map.

Figure 6 Distribution of Patent Applications 2009-2012 (Advanced Manufacturing Systems)



Figure 7 Growth of Patent Applications ADMAN Processes 2005-08 vs. 2009-12


Figure 8 Growth of Patent Applications ADMAN Systems 2005-08 vs. 2009-12



2.4 Europe’s Key Players in Advanced Manufacturing

The analysis of Europe’s key players in advanced manufacturing clearly illustrates that in both fields of processes and systems, the technological landscape is dominated by a few large players, albeit slightly different ones.

In the field of Advanced Manufacturing Processes, the technologically most active player is Germany’s generalist technological conglomerate, SIEMENS, closely followed, however, by corporations with a stronger focus in the field of chemicals such as BASF, Borealis, DSM, Evonik, and – to a lesser extent - Lanxess. This composition of the leading group reflects the first technological field’s focus on new materials and novel methods of treatment, including, insofar relevant, industrial biotechnology. Likewise, however, engineering companies like Bosch or MTU Aero Engines play an important role.

Likewise, there is a number of mid-sized firms which contribute substantially to the overall level of technological activities. Most are genuinely self–standing while others may be subunits of larger corporations. In any case, their role in regions’ advanced manufacturing systems must not be underestimated. On average, SMEs from the lead group applied for around 15 patents during the past four-year period.

Public activities in the field of product and materials oriented technological development in the field of advanced manufacturing centres around institutes of the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS), the French Atomic Energy and Alternative Energies Commission (CEA), and the German Fraunhofer Society followed in some distance by TNO from the Netherland, the German Max-Plack-Gesellschaft and the French Institute of Health and Medical Research.

In the field of Advanced Manufacturing Systems, the technologically most active player is once more SIEMENS in this case, however, with a much higher overall number of applications and followed closely by Philips Electronics and Bosch. All three of them contribute to the field of Advanced Manufacturing Systems (i.e. Industry 4.0) through their core competences in the field of electronics. Further relevant players are Osram, Endress & Hauser, Continental and Merck. Remarkably, this leading group is next to exclusively made up of German companies, with Philips and SKF as notable exceptions.

As in the case of the first field, however, there is a large group of technologically active, mid-sized companies that substantially add to the work of the leading firms. In this field, most of them appear to be self-standing and to constitute a genuine complement to the corporate sector. As in the field of Advanced Manufacturing Processes, the SMEs sector is less centred on Germany, Austria and the Netherlands than the corporate sector.

Public contributions to the field of systems-oriented advanced manufacturing are in absolute terms somewhat lower than in the first field that is, among other things, closer related to materials research, where the public sector traditionally plays a stronger role. For structural reasons, however, the largest players remain the same: CEA, Fraunhofer and CNRS, complemented by TNO from the Netherlands which in this field occupies the second rank. In this field, the leading group is, after a large gap followed by further organisations and universities from Germany, Belgium, and Denmark.

Overall, Europe’s advanced manufacturing sector can thus be considered as strongly characterised, yet not exclusively dominated by a number of large corporations and national research agencies (most notably from Germany, France, and the Netherlands).

In the following sections, light will be shed on what this implies for regional development.


Table 1 Lead Applicants in the field of Advanced Manufacturing Processes

Large Enterprises

SIEMENS AG DE above 400 BASF SE DE above 400 BOREALIS AG AT above 300 BOSCH GMBH ROBERT DE around 200 DSM IP ASSETS BV NL around 150 EVONIK DEGUSSA GMBH DE around 100 BASELL POLIOLEFINE SRL IT around 100 MTU AERO ENGINES GMBH DE around 90 CONSEJO SUPERIOR INVESTIGACION ES around 85 SNECMA FR around 80 LANXESS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH DE around 80 AIR LIQUIDE FR around 75 APPLIED MATERIALS INC US/DE around 70 NOVOZYMES AS DK around 70 BASELL POLYOLEFINE GMBH DE around 65

Small and Medium Sized Firms

BENEQ OY FI around 50 METABOLIC EXPLORER SA FR around 40 SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS IT IT around 35 MAG IAS GMBH DE around 20 CELANESE EMULSIONS GMBH DE around 20 VIB VZW BE around 20 WEBER MASCHB GMBH DE around 15 SEKAB E TECHNOLOGY AB SE around 15 CYTEC SURFACE SPECIALTIES SA BE around 15 ARDENNE ANLAGENTECH GMBH DE around 15 HEXCEL COMPOSITES LTD GB around 15 COMAU SPA IT around 15 PURAC BIOCHEM BV NL around 15 KOMPOFERM GMBH DE around 15 INEOS EUROP AG CH/BE around 15

Public Research Organisations

CNRS FR above 300 CEA FR above 250 FRAUNHOFER DE around 200 TNO NL around 60 MAX PLANCK GESELLSCHAFT DE around 50 INSRM FR around 40 UNIV LEUVEN KATH BE around 30 KARLSRUHER INST TECHNOLOGIE / FORSCHZENTRUM DE around 25 UNIV PARIS CURIE FR around 25 FORSCHUNGSZENTRUM JUELICH GMBH DE around 25



Table 2 Lead Applicants in the field of Advanced Manufacturing Systems

Large Enterprises

SIEMENS AG DE above 700 KONINKL PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NV NL above 550 BOSCH GMBH ROBERT DE above 550 OSRAM OPTO SEMICONDUCTORS GMBH DE around 200 ENDRESS & HAUSER GMBH & CO KG DE around 150 CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE GMBH DE around 130 MERCK PATENT GMBH DE around 100 SKF AB SE/FR around 100 THALES SA FR around 90 SCANIA CV AB SE around 85 SICK AG DE around 80 NXP BV NL/GB around 70 GRIESHABER VEGA KG DE around 65 CONTINENTAL TEVES AG & CO OHG DE around 60 PHOENIX CONTACT GMBH & CO DE around 60

Small and Medium Sized Firms

ROSEMOUNT TANK RADAR AB SE around 40 SICK STEGMANN GMBH DE around 30 TRIDONIC GMBH & CO KG AT around 25 FLATFROG LAB AB SE around 20 DIALOG SEMICONDUCTOR GMBH DE around 20 SNAP ON EQUIP SRL UNICO SOCIO IT around 20 BAUMER INNOTEC AG CH/DE around 15 ENDRESS & HAUSER WETZER GMBH DE around 15 OPTASENSE HOLDINGS LTD GB around 15 MAPPER LITHOGRAPHY IP BV NL around 15 HYDROMETER GMBH DE around 15 NTN SNR ROULEMENTS FR around 15 HOTTINGER MESSTECHNIK BALDWIN DE around 15 SCHENCK ROTEC GMBH DE around 15 NOVALED AG DE around 15

Public Research Organisations

CEA FR above 200 TNO NL above 120 FRAUNHOFER DE around 100 CNRS FR around 90 DEUTSCH ZENTR LUFT & RAUMFAHRT DE around 25 UNIV BRUXELLES BE around 15 UNIV DRESDEN TECH DE around 15 UNIV DANMARKS TEKNISKE DK around 15 MAX PLANCK GESELLSCHAFT DE around 10 ONERA (OFF NAT AEROSPATIALE) FR around 10



2.5 Regional Hotspots of Advanced Manufacturing

With a view to the regional distribution of patent applications in advanced manufacturing, some more detailed patterns are revealed by Figures 9-10.

In the field of Advanced Manufacturing Processes, they show that Germany’s strengths are concentrated in the South of the country, in Baden-Württemberg followed by Bavaria. Likewise, Rhineland-Palatinate and North Rhine-Westphalia play a major role, most likely since they are home to the country’s main players in the chemical industry. Additionally, a certain cluster of activities can be observed in and around Berlin. In Austria, Upper Austria and Styria stand out as particularly active regions whereas. In Italy, most activities are centred in Emilia-Romagna, followed by many of Northern Italy’s industrial regions just like in France, Rhône-Alpes plays the lead role, followed by Île-de-France, Midi-Pyrénées and some others. In Belgium, most activities are performed in Wallonia (most centrally: Hainaut). In Sweden, Finland and Denmark there is a strong focus on the respective capital regions. In the UK, to the contrary, activities are distributed in a less centralised manner, e.g. involving Scotland as much as the South. In Spain, the Navarra is the only region with above average activities. Finally, most Eastern and South Eastern European countries’ activities remain at a low level and at times limited to a limited number of regions.

Overall, Figure 9 suggests that technological activities in the field of Advanced Manufacturing Processes are concentrated around the location of the strongest manufacturers in the field but also reach out into a number of other regions. Remarkably, hardly any region in Western Europe remains completely without activities in the field as hardly any Member State in Eastern Europe remains completely without any related activities in its economically central regions. Moreover, a comparison between the two periods (i.e. 2005-08 and 2009-12) illustrates that the overall regional pattern of technological activities has not been affected by the crisis. While one can easily discern a certain weakening of activities in many regions, neither the inter-national nor the intra-national core-periphery patterns have been significantly affected or reversed.

With a view to the field of Advanced Manufacturing Systems, Figure 10 illustrates an even stronger dominance of Southern Germany, in this case equally in Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria. Other than in the case of manufacturing processes these two Länder eclipse the activities in other German regions, although those in Berlin and Saxony remain notable. In other countries, hotspots can be found in North Brabant, Emilia-Romagna, Styria, East Middle Sweden, Midtjylland, and Helsinki. Second tier centres of activity are Rhône-Alpes, Île-de-France, Piemonte, as well as some further regions in the South of England, Sweden, Denmark and Finland. In Spain, the Basque Country is the only region with above average activities. Once more, most Eastern and South Eastern European countries’ activities remain at a low level and at times limited to a limited number of regions.

As in the case of Advanced Manufacturing Systems, the regional concentration of technological activities reflects the location of major companies in the field, just that those are in this case located in different regions. The overall international centre periphery pattern has not been substantially affected by the crisis. There have, however, been more notable changes to the intra-national distribution. Interestingly, many of them also reflect positive trends. In Germany, technological activities in some regions, in particular outside of Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg have decreased, an effect that can also be observed in the UK, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands. In many other countries, to the contrary, new regions have joined the national second tier, such as in France, Italy, Finland or Denmark.

In line with the earlier findings on growth and decline at the country level, the general regional analysis thus suggests that capacities are highly unevenly distributed with 20% of the EU28’s regions accounting for 80% of all activities and 60% accounting for hardly more than 5%. Nonetheless, peripheral regions may in relative terms have suffered less from the crisis than they have in other respects.


Certainly, the pattern of development differs from overall economic trends that see leading countries emerging from the crisis stronger, while already weak countries’ economic position is worsening. With a view to technological activities in the field of advanced manufacturing, an opposite trend may be emerging, even if at an indeed very modest level.

These findings can be summed up by identifying five main groups of regions:

• A ‘Vanguard’: Regions which are home to either headquarters of Europe’s most important manufacturing corporations or of outstandingly strong SME clusters. They constitute the core of the European advanced manufacturing system, have been affected by the crisis only in absolute terms and will not lose their leading position anytime soon.

This applies to Southern German regions and selected regions across Western Europe, including Emilia-Romagna, North Brabant, and Rhône-Alpes.

• A first tier: regions that constitute centres of advanced manufacturing in European terms and are among the most central players in leading nations. For them, however, it remains a constant challenge to defend their role in European competition and their regional innovation systems may be less diverse than those of the Vanguard.

This applies to the industrial heartlands of most Western European countries as well as to selected parts of Northern and Eastern Germany, as well as Austria.

• A second tier: regions that constitute relevant players in leading nations or central players in less developed member states. Their technological activities are more limited, as a tendency less diverse, but still reach a certain critical mass, suggesting that they can connect to and process developments in the leading regions.

This e.g. applies to the periphery of Scandinavia, France, Italy, Austria, as well as to the Basque Country or Prague.

• The followers: regions in which dispersed technological activities suggest that there may be some capacities to which future activities in advanced manufacturing, if introduced, might connect. In all of those regions, patent intensity reaches less than a fifth of that in the first tier regions and would have to be substantially extended.

This applies to many regions in Spain, France, Southern Italy, Ireland, the North of the UK, the Baltics, Eastern Europe but also to less developed areas of Sweden, Germany, or Austria.

• Those without any activity: The regional analysis would not be complete without indicating that most of Greece, large areas of Eastern Europe, but at times also rural Spain or Latvia remain entirely without technological activities in the field of advanced manufacturing. From a technological perspective, the only option to raise it would be relocations.

In summary, the regional level analysis has revealed a high level of disparities and capacities in advanced manufacturing remain strongly concentrated not only at an international level, but also within Member States. During the following steps of the analysis, these very different starting points with a view to the subject matter need to be constantly acknowledged.

The following section will analyse this disparities in some more detail, including the dimension of institutional composition.


Figure 9 Regional Distribution of Patent Applications in the Field of Advanced Manufacturing Processes (New Materials, 3-D Printing etc.)

(transnational patent applications per million inhabitants; 2005-2008 left, 2009-2012 right)



Figure 10 Regional Distribution of Patent Applications in the Field of Advanced Manufacturing Systems (Industry 4.0, Internet of Things etc.)

(transnational patent applications per million inhabitants; 2005-2008 left, 2009-2012 right)



With a view to the regional distribution of patent applications according to the institutional type of the applicant involved, the analyses reveals interesting differentiations which can serve to deepen our understanding of Europe’s advanced manufacturing landscape.

Firstly, an analysis of the regional distribution of patenting activities of Large Enterprises strongly resonates with the list of key players in advanced manufacturing which were outlined in the prior section. With regard to Advanced Manufacturing Processes, the map emphasises the role of key players in the German chemical industry in the Rhein-Neckar area as well as in North Rhine-Westphalia and Helsinki. With regard to Advanced Manufacturing Systems it reflects the location of major players in Southern Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart, Northern Bavaria, North Brabant, Styria and Denmark. Regions in Member States that to a stronger extent rely on SME clusters do not appear on the map, resulting in an overall even higher degree of concentration. With well above 80 in both cases, the Gini Coefficient of concentration (which reflects the degree of inequality of a distribution) is notably higher than that of the overall concentration, which amounts to between 76 and 77 in both cases.

Secondly, the analysis of the regional distribution of patenting activities of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises reveals a second, important layer of advanced manufacturing activities that are not in all cases geographically aligned with the centres of gravity set by the continent’s major corporations. With respect to Advanced Manufacturing Processes, notable SME clusters can be found in Upper Austria, Flemish Brabant, Southern Finland, as well as Western and Northern Bavaria. Also, Figure X underlines that SMEs play a larger role than bigger firms in Northern Italy, Southern France, parts of Sweden and Finland and parts of Eastern Germany. In principle, the picture is a similar one for Advanced Manufacturing Processes, with significant SME clusters in Southern Baden-Württemberg and Vorarlberg, followed by Saxony, Emilia-Romagna, and East Middle Sweden. In some cases, such as in Southern Baden-Württemberg, activities in the corporate and the SME sector seem to coincide, in others, such as in Saxony, the focus is on SME alone. To an extent expectable, the extent of regional disparities is lowest for SME applications alone, with a Gini coefficient of about 73 percent, significantly although not substantially below the overall figure of 76-77. However, it seems remarkable that SME based technological activities in either field of advanced manufacturing are totally absent in South-Eastern Europe and in Poland, if at all, found in the Eastern part of the country.

With respect to patent activities in the Public Research Sector, finally, Figure 13 illustrates a degree of regional disparities that match that in the corporate sector or even exceed it. Notably, the regional distribution for Advanced Manufacturing Systems is substantially more uneven than that for Advanced Manufacturing Processes (Gini-Coefficient 85 vs. 79). Other than that, the regional hotspots of activity are nicely aligned with important locations of the key organisations identified in an earlier section. In the fields of Advanced Manufacturing Processes centres of activities can be identified in Western Baden-Württemberg, in and around Berlin, Eastern Saxony, Flemish Brabant, Rhône-Alpes, North Brabant, Eastern Lower Saxony as well as selected areas in North Rhine-Westphalia and Rhineland Palatinate. With regard to Advanced Manufacturing Systems, activities are concentrated even stronger on three main clusters Eastern Saxony, Rhône-Alpes, and North Brabant with a secondary cluster in Southern Baden-Württemberg. Furthermore, it appears remarkable that very few public research activities can be identified in Northern Scandinavia, while there are some in Denmark, reaching over to South Sweden. In Eastern, or at least South Eastern Europe, activities appear patchy and limited to the national capital and few other, selected sites.


In summary, it may be useful to distinguish between four different types of regional innovation ecosystems for Advanced Manufacturing:

Corporate Led Systems: a number of regions – notable those of the ‘Vanguard’ – are dominated by one or several large manufacturers which, quite often are surrounded by a system of suppliers and public research partners that interact with them in the development of new technologies. Beyond that, however, they have strong in-house labs that develop large patent portfolios on their own.

SME based Systems: a number of regions are strong with respect to technological development in the field of advanced manufacturing without relying on one major player. Typically, these are strong clusters of SME with a long industrial tradition; yet often without the backing of strong regional public research sector (e.g. Upper Austria, East Middle Sweden, Emilia-Romagna, Vorarlberg).

Public Led: some regions display outstanding strengths in the public research which, while in absolute terms arguably not substantial, set some regional innovation systems apart from the average. Paradigmatic cases of such regions can for Advanced Manufacturing Systems be found in Saxony and Rhône-Alpes and for Advanced Manufacturing Processes North Brabant, in and around Berlin, and Eastern Lower Saxony.

Fragmented/Ephemeral: in many Southern and Eastern European countries, regional activities are focused on one type of Player only – often a branch of a multinational or a public research unit that does not connect to the regional economy or a limited number of SME failing to make structural change. As mentioned above, many of these systems will not develop momentum with respect to technological development anytime soon.

In summary, we find differently composed regional innovation systems for manufacturing in various countries, so that, despite certain national tendencies (see above) none could be declared characteristic for a single Member State. As a result, it seems obvious that a range of opportunities for inner-European, cross-country cooperation exist that can be leveraged in different ways. Furthermore, we have identified a number of fragmented capacities at the continent’s peripheries that may only come to fruition if connected to international networks which involve Europe’s stronger players as well.

The following section will explore the current status quo of such technological networking in some more detail.


Figure 11 Regional Distribution of Patent Applications in the Fields of Advanced Manufacturing Processes & Systems (Large Corporations)

(transnational patent applications per million inhabitants; 2009-2012; ADMAN Processes left, ADMAN Systems right)


Gini: 81.5 Gini: 80.6


Figure 12 Regional Distribution of Patent Applications in the Fields of Advanced Manufacturing Processes & Systems (Small and Medium-sized Firms)



Gini: 72.8 Gini: 72.8


Figure 13 Regional Distribution of Patent Applications in the Fields of Advanced Manufacturing Processes & Systems (Public Research)


Source: Own analysis based on EPO Worldwide Patent Statistical Database and Eurostat, Map created with ESRI Arc Map

Gini: 79.0 Gini: 85.4


2.6 Evidence of Cross-Regional Cooperation in Advanced Manufacturing

To better understand the potential to network the different types of regions characterised above, an analysis of the current status quo in networking between European regions was conducted for the two fields of advanced manufacturing that this paper analyses. In the following, technological co-operation will be defined as the joint mentioning of two or more inventors in different locations on a patent – irrespective of the applicant’s location.

The pattern of networking reflects that of overall activity. Links between those key regions in Germany and France that contribute the large majority of European advanced manufacturing activities also constitute the backbone of the network of co-patenting in this field. As is the case of overall activities, the strongest nexus of technological cooperation is found between German regions, in part reaching out to Austria and to a lesser extent France. Strong secondary networks can be found among French regions, centred on Île-de-France, Italian regions, centred on Emilia-Romagna and Lombardia, and Swedish regions, centred on Stockholm. Other countries such as the UK or Spain are woven into a web of diverse smaller links but to not participate in the systems main backbone of knowledge exchange. With the exception of the Czech Republic, links to Eastern and South Eastern Europe are mostly absent. The only connections that can be identified are some links to selected Polish, Romanian and Hungarian regions in the field of Advanced Manufacturing Processes.

In general terms, the network in the field of Advanced Manufacturing Processes reaches out further than that in the field of Advanced Manufacturing Systems. Overall, there is a larger number of regions involved in it. Among its central and immediately adjacent regions it is also denser in the sense that the same number of regions display a larger variety of connections between each other.

A characteristics of both networks of technological cooperation but in particular that in the field of Advanced Manufacturing Systems is that the core national networks remain isolated from each other: German regions cooperate with German, French regions cooperate with French and Italian regions with Italian regions while the links across national boundaries are much weaker. While this finding is to an extent typical for all networks of co-patenting in the EU28, the clarity with which it emerges in particular for Advanced Manufacturing Systems stands out as unusual. Language barriers alone do not explain the extent of the findings.

In this context, the apparent co-operation between Alsace and Baden-Württemberg stands out as an exception from the rule. In the field of Advanced Manufacturing Processes some international integration becomes apparent in the BeNeLux area connecting Germany, France, the Netherlands and Belgium, including linkages over to the United Kingdom. The Scandinavian system of cooperation, to the contrary, does not link with Central Europe in any systematic manner. Where it does so, the links appear idiosyncratic and likely traceable to the activities of specific corporations.

In summary, there is a sound network of regional cooperation within many leading member states which with regard to scope and density aligns with these countries overall scale and pattern of activities. Even the linkages between the most active Member States, however, remain underdeveloped. Moreover, large parts of Europe remain disconnected from the system of joint knowledge creation and it is less than obvious how they could be integrated anytime soon.


Table 3 ADMAN Processes and Systems Network Characteristics

Patenting activity Nodes Lines Average

Degree Density Betweenness Centralization

All Patents 273 7,670 56.190 0.206 0.044

Advanced Manufacturing Processes

224 2,246 20.054 0.090 0.093

Advanced Manufacturing Systems

221 1,567 14.181 0.064 0.114

Source: Own analysis based on EPO Worldwide Patent Statistical Database using Pajek.

A closer analysis of the cooperation network in advanced manufacturing at the NUTS 2 level reveals that whereas all of Europe’s 273 NUTS2 regions are somehow connected to the overall network of patenting, this is the case for only 224 regions with regard to Advanced Manufacturing Processes and for only 221 regions for Advanced Manufacturing Systems. In both cases, about 50 regions (> 18%) remain excluded from the network.

Furthermore, the number of reciprocal links is substantially lower for the cooperation network in Advanced Manufacturing than it is for the general network of technological cooperation. On the one hand, this is natural given the delineated technological scope of potential co-operations (the general network reflects any co-patent), on the other hand, it appears remarkable that the total number of reciprocal links is notably higher for Advanced Manufacturing Processes than for Advanced Manufacturing Systems. Hence, the average number of links that a region has to others (degree centrality) as well as the overall networks’ density (the share of potential links which is actually present) differ accordingly.

Finally, the respective networks’ level of betweenness centralisation gives an indication of the role that ‘brokers’ play in the network, i.e. particularly central, mediating nodes through which others have to connect. An example of this would be the role of Paris to which all other French regions relate in a star-shaped fashion, while, at the same time, it entertains a large number of international links. Interestingly, this seems to be a central characteristic of the technological cooperation network in Advanced Manufacturing. Again, the level of centralization thus identified is higher for Advanced Manufacturing Systems than for Advanced Manufacturing Processes.

Table 4 shows the most central regions in the Advanced Manufacturing cooperation networks. The analysis reveals that while these networks are in principle in line with the overall co-patent network’s centres of gravity, they each display certain particularities. Once more, there is a prevalent dominance of German regions, to the extent that, with respect to degree centrality, a mere 5 out of 25 regions are from other countries, most prominently France. With respect to betweenness centrality, the situation is somewhat more balanced. Here the share of German regions in the top-25 amounts to only about 50%, leaving room for national hubs in France, the UK, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Belgium, the Czech Republic and Poland. Nonetheless, German region’s central role remains an unmistakable feature of all networks. Interestingly, however, other region’s role seems higher for Advanced Manufacturing Processes with a view on degree centrality, while, with a view to betweenness centrality, it appears higher for Advanced Manufacturing Systems. Arguably, this results from the abovementioned stronger role of national ‘mediators’ or ‘brokers’ in the latter field.


Table 4 Top-25 Central Regions in the Advanced Manufacturing Cooperation Networks

Degree Centrality, Top-25 Betweenness Centrality, Top-25

All Patents Adv. Manufacturing

Processes Adv. Manufacturing

Systems All Patents

Adv. Manufacturing Processes

Adv. Manufacturing Systems

198 Munich 95 Darmstadt 72 Munich 0.047 Stuttgart 0.099 Darmstadt 0.120 Paris

191 Darmstadt 84 Düsseldorf 70 Stuttgart 0.043 Munich 0.092 Paris 0.069 Munich

180 Paris 81 Paris 70 Paris 0.040 Paris 0.074 Düsseldorf 0.056 Stuttgart

177 Stuttgart 80 Munich 69 Karlsruhe 0.038 Darmstadt 0.043 Stuttgart 0.045 Piemonte

172 Düsseldorf 74 Stuttgart 63 Darmstadt 0.036 Düsseldorf 0.040 Karlsruhe 0.045 Karlsruhe

169 Karlsruhe 73 Karlsruhe 60 Nurembg 0.024 Karlsruhe 0.034 Rhône-Alpes 0.044 Freiburg

159 Köln 72 Ludw.hafen 58 Freiburg 0.024 Berlin 0.033 Berk.Buck.Oxf 0.040 Bristol-Bath

155 Berlin 72 Rhône-Alpes 57 Köln 0.022 Rhône-Alpes 0.033 Berlin 0.039 Cambridge

150 Rhône-Alpes 70 Köln 51 Regensbg 0.022 Köln 0.031 Munich 0.038 Lombardia

146 Ludw.hafen 70 Berlin 48 Ludw.hafen 0.018 Berk.Buck.Oxf 0.030 Cambridge 0.037 Köln

142 Freiburg 64 Nurembg 48 Berlin 0.016 Lombardia 0.030 Madrid 0.037 Berk.Buck.Oxf

139 Nurembg 59 Augsburg 46 Tübingen 0.015 Nurembg 0.029 Augsburg 0.032 Rhône-Alpes

137 BerkBuckOx 56 Freiburg 45 Rhône-Alpes 0.015 Bucure�ti 0.028 Lorraine 0.031 Darmstadt

134 Tübingen 54 Dortmund 42 Düsseldorf 0.015 Catalonia 0.028 Köln 0.030 Berlin

132 Fl. Brabant 52 Alsace 41 Braunschweig 0.014 Tübingen 0.026 Ludw.hafen 0.029 Nurembg

131 N. Brabant 51 Braunschw. 40 Passau 0.014 Augsburg 0.023 Silesia 0.027 Prague

129 Cambridge 50 Tübingen 39 Thuringia 0.012 Ludw.hafen 0.021 Warsaw 0.026 Regensbg

128 Lombardia 50 Würzburg 38 Bielefeld 0.011 Fl. Brabant 0.021 Bielefeld 0.023 Alsace

127 Dortmund 50 N. Brabant 38 Würzburg 0.011 N. Brabant 0.020 Nurembg 0.021 Madrid

127 Alsace 47 Gießen 36 Bayreuth 0.010 Freiburg 0.020 N. Brabant 0.021 N. Brabant

126 Catalonia 47 Berk.Buck.Oxf 35 Münster 0.008 Brussels 0.019 Copenhagen 0.020 Bielefeld

124 Augsburg 46 Hamburg 35 Alsace 0.008 Madrid 0.018 Prague 0.019 Cracow

123 Würzburg 45 Thuringia 34 Dortmund 0.008 Hamburg 0.018 Dortmund 0.017 Basque Ctry

123 S. Holland 45 Münster 34 Schl.-Holstein 0.008 Bielefeld 0.017 Freiburg 0.016 Tübingen

122 Hannover 45 Schl.-Holstein 34 Augsburg 0.008 Dortmund 0.015 Fl. Brabant 0.015 Ludw.hafen Source: Own analysis based on EPO Worldwide Patent Statistical Database using Pajek.


In summary, four types of regions can thus be distinguished:

• Members of a Vertex: Regions in e.g. Germany have are connected by means of multiple and strong links to many other strong regions in an, in principle polycentric systems – even if limited to their nation. They can be considered as part of a genuine inter-regional system of technological cooperation.

• National Hubs: Capital cities, such as Paris or Stockholm as well as industrial heartlands such as Northern Italy constitute the centre of their national network. Hence, their links to other regions may still be strong and diverse, but they will, on average connect them to secondary centres within their own nations, which, on their own, produce less knowledge.

• Those Connected: Many secondary, technology-oriented regions are connected to their national hubs and at times, due to specific corporate set ups, some other leading locations. While their links may be strong, their diversity will rarely be very high. Hence, the scope of their access to knowledge is often limited and their linkages are effects rather than choices.

• Those Disconnected: Many regions with only ephemeral or fragmented activities fail to connect to others even though they do perform some, potentially relevant activities. As the network analysis suggests, many countries are more or less disconnected from the system of European technological cooperation, leave alone its backbone.

A first consequence of these findings on patterns of co-patenting is that interregional cooperation in advanced manufacturing falls behind what might be desirable and, arguably, what is needed to prompt tangible change with respect to more effective and innovative manufacturing activities with relevance for their regional and national economies.

A second consequence is a call for realism. Given the current pattern of networking as well as the pattern of overall activities that fuels it, it would seem audacious to aim at the integration of a majority of European regions in a transcontinental network of knowledge generation. Instead, knowledge transfer and absorption should be an equally prominent consideration.


Figure 14 European Co-patenting in Advanced Manufacturing (with regard to Processes left, with regard to Systems right)

(links weighted by number of co-patents)



Figure 15 European Co-patenting in Advanced Manufacturing (with regard to Processes left, with regard to Systems right)

(links in case more than 10 Co-patents)



3. Overview of Advanced Manufacturing in FP7 Projects

3.1 Analysis of Advanced Manufacturing Networks

In this section, we take a closer look at how the Process, System, Factories of the Future (FoF) and ARTEMIS and ENIAC project networks were constituted with the objective to examine the relative positioning of some regions in FP7 research projects.

The Process Manufacturing related projects subsumes the two main categories, notably those focused on the development of advanced materials and the corresponding methods, which are essential to design enhanced production processes for advanced materials that exhibit the desired functionalities. Figure 16 presents the associated terms with advanced manufacturing processes.

Figure 16 Key Terms of Advanced Manufacturing Processes

Industrial production of the future will be characterised by novel production systems acting in a network. The improved information flows through all levels of a manufacturer needs to other members of the product process are expected to contribute to achieving the improvements in productivity and building the competitive advantage for the EU’s manufacturers. The production systems and the use of the Internet of Things will have impacts on innovation activities and business models and competitiveness of the EU’s industry. As shown in Figure 17, the main components of System Manufacturing include robotics, automation and control tools and devices.

Figure 17 Key Terms of Advanced Manufacturing Systems

We used the social network analysis (SNA) to analyse the regional collaboration networks in FP7 projects where nodes in the network represent regions of the participants in FP7 projects and a tie between a pair of nodes represent their collaboration in a research project. A network can be defined as a set of nodes and a set of ties representing some relationship between the nodes (Brass et al., 2004).


Based on the CORDA database of FP7 projects, it was possible to see how networks were established between participants and their regions as well as how they differed in size and key actors across the four main categories of advanced manufacturing networks explained in the following sections.

One interesting characteristic of the network to be assessed is the position of the actors in the network and to identify central actors. Social Network Analysis metrics make it possible. A central actor is defined as a node with a large number of connections and that is highly influential in the network. There are different ways to address the position occupied by a node in the network, one of them is between centrality2. This approach assumes that a participant is more central if it is more important as an intermediary in the communication network, and is crucial for the transmission of information through the network.

3.2 Main Components of the Advanced Manufacturing Networks

The results from the SNA performed at the level of Process, System, FoF and ARTEMIS-ENIAC projects, show interesting differences in the structure of these networks. Table 5 below presents the main typological features of the advanced manufacturing networks, including a series of indicators widely used in SNA. These indicators are reported comparatively for each network.

Table 5 Structural Indicators of Advanced Manufacturing Networks

Network measures

Processes Systems FoF ARTEMIS-ENIAC

Number of nodes (Participant regions)

285 266 212 188

Number of ties (links between pairs of nodes)

9268 7210 4502 5600

FP7 research projects

476 336 151 100

Density 0,23 0,20 0,20 0,31

Average distance 1,80 1,84 1,83 1,69

Source: Own analysis based on CORDA database.

The network of Process projects with 285 regions participating in 476 projects is large compared to the other networks. System, FoF and ARTEMIS-ENIAC networks also show a high participation of the regions (266, 212 and 188, respectively) in the related FP7 research projects. Regarding the density of the advanced manufacture networks – or the ratio between the number of actual ties and the maximum theoretical number of possible ties – the value of this indicator differs between advanced manufacture networks. In total, more than 30% of all possible one-to-one ties were actually formed in the network of Systems and ARTEMIS-ENIAC projects, compared to 20% in the network of Systems and FoF projects.

2 Betweenness centrality is defined as “the proportion of all geodesics between pairs of other vertices that include this vertex”, or the fraction of shortest paths –the minimum number of lines connecting two nodes- between node pairs that pass through the node of interest.


3.3 Network Centrality: Key Actors in Advanced Manufacturing Networks

In order to identify the most important players in the advanced manufacturing networks, betweeness centrality has been calculated for all participant regions. Figure 18 shows the Process project network based on betweenness centrality. According to centrality scores, the most central participant regions in this network (highlighted in blue) are the Île de France, Upper Bavaria and Inner London. In the case of this network, betweenness centrality can be understood as how crucial is a region to the transmission of information through the network. Thus, the centrality ranks presented should be interpreted as the extent to which these regions are needed as links in the chains of contacts that facilitate the spread of information within the process project network.

Figure 18 Network of FP7 Process Projects – Regions at Nuts 1 Level


Regarding the System project network, Upper Bavaria is at the core of the network tandem with Île de France and Lombardia (see Figure 19). Cologne and Stuttgart also appear as key players in this network.

Figure 19 Network of FP7 System Projects - Regions at NUTS1 Level



The most central regions in the System project network are also similar to the ones in FoF project network. Upper Bavaria shows high centrality scores in both networks, followed by Basque Country, Piemonte and Stuttgart. The Île de France Region, Lombardia and Stuttgart also are key members in the FoF project network. Figure 20 provides an overview of the betweenness centrality scores at regional level in this network.

Figure 20 Network of FP7 Factories of the Future Projects – Regions at Nuts 1 Level


With regards to the ARTEMIS-ENIAC project network, some similarities between this network and the previous ones were found regarding to the most central regions in the network. The Île de France is the most central actor in the ARTEMIS-ENIAC project network as well as in process project network. Lombardia and Upper Bavaria are also in the top-10 in this and other networks. Three regions which are the major actors and are ranked lower in other project networks are: North Brabant, South Holland and the Southern Finland Province. Figure 21 depicts the network of ARTEMIS-ENIAC projects based on betweenness centrality scores.

Figure 21 Network of FP7 ARTEMIS -ENIAC Projects – Regions at Nuts 1 Level



Looking in more detail at the organisations participating in the FoF and ARTEMIS-ENIAC project networks. In the FOF project network, Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der Agewandten Forshung EV, Fundacion Tecnalia Research and Innovation and Centro Ricerche FIAT SCPA appear as the three most central organisations. A graphical representation of the organisations participating in the FoF projects is presented in Figure 22.

Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der Agewandten Forshung EV is also a main actor in the ARTEMIS-ENIAC project network, together with Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives - CEA and Nederlandse Organisatie Voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek – TNO (see Figure 23).

Figure 22 Network of FoF projects - Participant Organisations


Figure 23 Network of ARTEMIS-ENIAC Projects - Participant Organisations



The top-10 central regions for each network are presented in Table 6.

Table 6 Central Regions in Advanced Manufacturing Project Networks

Processes Systems FoF ARTEMIS-ENIAC

Nuts 2 level Centrality (Betweenness)




Île de France - FR10

0,0509 Upper Bavaria - DE21


0,1027 Île de France - FR10

0,0602

Upper Bavaria - DE21


0,0454 Basque Country - ES21

0,0647 North Brabant - NL41

0,0403

Inner London - UKI1

0,0252 Lombardia - ITC4

0,0342 Piemonte - ITC1

0,0413 Lombardia - ITC4

0,0292

Capital Region of Denmark - DK01

0,0246 Cologne - DEA2 0,0289 Stuttgart - DE11


0,0283

South Holland - NL33

0,0216 Stuttgart - DE11 0,0249 Lombardia - ITC4

0,0342 South Holland - NL33

0,0256

Berkshire, Buckingham-shire and Oxfordshire - UKJ1

0,0203 Inner London - UKI1

0,0235 Madrid - ES30 0,0331 Southern Finland - FI18

0,0221

Madrid - ES30

0,0179 Région de Bruxelles Capitale - BE10


0,0328 Rhône-Alpes - FR71

0,0214

Southern Finland - FI18

0,0171 Toscane - ITE1 0,0232 Karlsruhe DE12

0,0279 Piemonte - ITC1

0,0205

Région de Bruxelles Capitale - BE10

0,0163 Attica - EL30 0,0206 Southern Finland FI18

0,0245 Madrid - ES30 0,0202

Lazio - ITE4 0,0162 Cataluña - ES51 0,0205 Attica - EL30 0,0185 Lazio - ITE4 0,0185



4. FP7 Advanced Manufacturing Process and System Projects

Following the quantitative analysis of FP7 research projects presented in the previous section, the aim of this section is to provide a detailed overview of Advanced Manufacturing Process and System Projects funded within FP7. Based on in-depth analysis of a selected number of projects, we have organised the projects according to specific categories relevant to advanced manufacturing, in order to launch the discussion about the thematic focus of the RIM Plus 2015-2016 activities.

4.1 Development of Advanced Materials

Smart fabrics/textiles

In order to cope with the environmental challenges, not only the search for biofuels but also for bio-based polymers and upgrading the value of natural fibres and side products will be required. The overall objective of projects in this group is to develop novel fibres and innovative textile products (smart clothing) but may also involve the fabrication production technologies for MEMS on fabrics/textiles. One of the developing areas concerns textiles and in particular agrotextiles which offer a very attractive end market. A concrete example is the BIOAGROTEX project which envisaged the research and development of new 100 % renewable agrotextiles.

Figure 24 BIOAGROTEX - Development of New Agrotextiles from Renewable Resources and with a Tailored Biodegradability

Source: www.centexbel.be/fr/news/bioagrotex-results-in-industrial-success-story

Other examples of projects:

• NOTEREFIGA - Novel Temperature Regulating Fibres and Garments

• MICROFLEX - Micro fabrication production technology for MEMS on new emerging smart textiles/flexibles

Wood derived materials/forest based industry

The projects belonging to this category aim at the development of new composites from wood derived renewable materials. For example, forest raw resources or by-products of forest connected industry can be used for the production of eco-compatible foams and composites. Another interesting example is the BIOSTRUCT


project, which set out a goal of developing the next generation advanced wood-based composites, so-called enhanced Wood Plastic Composites eWPC that could be used in demanding and high-value technical applications.

Figure 25 BIOSTRUCT - Complex Structural and Multifunctional Parts from Enhanced Wood-based Composites - eWPC

Source: www.biostructproject.eu


WOODY - Innovative advanced Wood-based Composite Materials and Components

FORBIOPLAST - Forest Resource Sustainability through Bio-Based-Composite Development

Advanced packaging

Due to higher prices biodegradable packaging is not as exploited as it could be. In response to this challenge, several efforts were undertaken to develop biodegradable packaging materials and subsequently resulted in obtaining renewable and biodegradable composites for the various packaging applications. As a concrete example, the TRAYSRENEW project provided green packgaging solution for food industry (see Figure 26).


Figure 26 TRAYSRENEW - Development of Innovative Renewable Trays for Poultry Products, based on Biopolymers and Bast Fibers

Source: www.itene.com

Another project, known also as HORTIBIOPACK aimed at the development of innovative biodegradable packaging system to improve shelf life, quality and safety of high-value sensitive horticultural fresh produce.

Other advanced materials

In this group of projects which are characterised by distinctive functionalities are those for example aimed at the development of new multifunctional layer to be integrated into composite structures with ice and fire protection capacity; alternative rubber and latex sources; new multi-functional energy gaining components; or light composite materials (e.g. nanostructuration level required to optimize the carbon nanotubes CNT/polymer composite performances).

Figure 27 POCO - Carbon Nanotube Confinement Strategies to Develop Novel Polymer Matrix Composites

Source: www.poco-project.com

Target applications in the POCO project:

CNT/polymernanocomposite products

for the aerospace, automotive, building and biomedical industries.



EU-PEARLS - EU-based Production and Exploitation of Alternative Rubber and Latex Sources

COST-EFFECTIVE - Resource- and Cost-effective integration of renewables in existing high-rise buildings

Semi-conductors materials

The projects belonging to this category range from those aimed at improving the existing materials to meet specific needs of industry; and designing complex nanometric and molecular systems to process electronic or optical information from the macroscopic to the molecular scale graphene-based nanoelectronic. In addition there are projects like MORGAN, which focused on the development of new materials for electronic devices and sensors that operate in extreme conditions, especially high temperature, high electric field and highly corrosive environment which is presented below.

Figure 28 MORGAN - Materials for Robust Gallium Nitride

Source: www.morganproject.eu


EEMI 450 - European 450mm Equipment & Materials Initiative

COMOSYEL - Complex Molecular-scale Systems for NanoElectronics and NanoPlasmonics

Flexible, Organic and Large Area Electronics

Transparent electronics is viewed as an emerging new technology. Developing high-performance, solution-processable, optically transparent organic semiconductor was the main goal of the Organic Electronics project. Another project, known as ONE-P aimed at designing, synthesizing, processing and supplying the missing materials in the fields of organic electronics and photonics, in addition to developing appropriate methods for micro- and nano-structuring of these materials to be scaled-up to roll-to-roll technologies.


Figure 29 ONE-P - Organic Nanomaterials for Electronics and Photonics: Design, Synthesis, Characterization, Processing, Fabrication and Applications

Source: www.one-p.eu

Battery electric vehicles

Current battery technologies for hybrid (HEVs) and small electric vehicles (EVs) have technological, cost or environmental limitations. Since the global market for HEVs and EVs is expected to grow rapidly, the POLYZION project aimed at creating a new class of fast rechargeable zinc-polymer on ionic liquids battery for hybrid and small electric vehicle applications.


4.2 Manufacturing Processes

Industry specific manufacturing processes

The analysed projects, which are related to the manufacturing processes and involve the use of the advanced materials, are often industry specific. In order to remain internationally competitive, improving the machinability of alloys is necessary for the production of turbine parts and other components in the aerospace and the power generation industry. With the improved cutting process the production costs can be reduced up to 20%.

Among other examples of manufacturing processes identified in the FP7 projects are those related to understanding of binding forces in cement sector (nano-scale forces); obtaining the desired interface properties and new weaving techniques in case of biocomposites and innovative 3D textiles; methods for micro- and nano-structuring of materials for organic electronics and photonics; integrating and tailoring (to specific need machinery sector) of innovative materials to minimise thermally-induced errors; using a nanosystem for sample preparation in liquid process food streams; ensuring the production of stable disentangled polymers which is of relevance during the processing of plastics; developing a universal flexible plastic pipe system suitable for under floor heating, radiator heating and drinking water distribution; applying new nano-processing techniques in advanced packaging; validating the appropriate composite technologies in modern airframes; validating technological solutions for the fabrication of high value-added heterogeneous components and systems; and removing technical barriers to producing high performance polymer nanocomposites for selected automotive and aerospace parts.

A concrete example of projects is the SustainComp, which aimed at the development of a series of new sustainable composite materials and new manufacturing processes for use in a wide array of market sectors, ranging from the medical, transportation and packaging to the construction sector.

Figure 30 SUSTAINCOMP - Development of Sustainable Composite Materials

Source: www.sustaincomp.eu

The vision of SustainComp is to introduce several families of new advanced wood-based bio-(nano)composites for a number of commercial sectors especially in the automotive and electrical industries which use a lot of plastic.



MAMINA - Macro, Micro and Nano Aspects of Machining

NANOTOUGH - Nanostructured Toughened Hybrid Nanocomposites for High Performance Applications

COMETA - Advanced Polymeric COmpounds and Metal Matrix Composites for Excellent Performances in Machine Tools applications

Various industrial manufacturing processes

There are a number of projects which are relevant for manufacturing processes of advanced materials but determining on the basis of available information whether they are industry specifc or not is not always possible. Some examples of aadvanced manufacturing processes relevant for various industries. One of the known processes is additive manufacturing, so called 3D printing and the opportunities arising from it relate to the development of custom-based products.

Among other manufacturing processes are those related to processes of laser cladding, deposition and surface alloying used in modern manufacturing as surface enhancement, rapid manufacturing, tooling and repair processes; design, optimisation and performance prediction multilayered surface systems (MSSs); and micro-scale flows occurring during composites manufacturing (specific to liquid molding) or intelligent design of high performance welded systems and interface which is presented next.

Figure 31 MINTWELD - Modelling of Interface Evolution in Advanced Welding

Source: www2.le.ac.uk/projects/mintweld


M3-2S - Multiscale Modelling for Multilayered Surface Systems

ADAMOD - Plug-in ADAptronic MODules for real-time errors (Thermal & Vibration) compensation and superfine positioning in reconfigurable high precision machine tools


Sustainable and integrated productionof liquid biofuels, green chemicals and bioenergy from glycerol in biorefineries

Process biotechnologies

The green growth and the opportunities arising from it relate to the circular economy, energy efficiency, resource efficiency, renewable energy, waste management, cradle to cradle.

Developing a novel technology based on biological conversion of the glycerol by-product was the main objective of the GLYFINERY project. The ultimate goal was to implement the glycerol bioprocessing line into the biodiesel plant and develop highly demanded bioproducts. As a result the biodiesel biorefinery economics could be improved.

Figure 32 GLYFINERY - Sustainable and Integrated Production of Liquid Biofuels, Bioenergy and Green Chemicals from Glycerol in Biorefineries

Source: www.GLYFINERY.net

There are a number of other bio-based related projects ranging from finding a sustainable option to use plant biomass from agricultural by-products (RENEWAL project) or improving biological generation of chemicals and energy carriers from organic residues generated by agro-industrial activities (ANAMIX project).

De-manufacturing, reuse, recycling

De-manufacturing refers to the reversal of the manufacturing process and essentially aims at reusing the maximum materials. The manufacturers who are designing efficient processes for reusing their products can reduce their operating costs by reusing products or components. Subsequently, the projects can succeed in generating economic gains and equally important are the social as well as environmental benefits.

Activities in the framework of this kind of projects are undertaken to ensure a higher use of recycled materials in plastics processing industry by overcoming the challenge of fixing final product density and quality which is directly affected by viscosity of the blend; recover polymer resources from complex wastes; develop sustainable design, use, recycling and final treatment of nanotechnology-based products and design optimum dismantling activities and infrastructure.


The NANOSUSTAIN project aimed at providing new solutions for the sustainable design, use, re-use, recycling and final treatment and/or disposal of specific nanomaterials and associated products.

Figure 33 NANOSUSTAIN - Development of Sustainable Solutions for Nanotechnology-Based Products based on Hazard Characterization and LCA

Source: www.nanosustain.eu


POLYSENSE - Development of a low cost in-line polymer inspection system to improve the use of recycled materials in plastics processing industry

W2PLASTICS - Magnetic Sorting and Ultrasound Sensor Technologies for Production of High Purity Secondary Polyolefins from Waste

4.3 Robotics, Automation and Control Systems

The activities we have found in this group of projects relate to the development of an automated feed system direct to the rotating mould; introduction of robot assisted manufacturing and assembly; automation in laser polishing and force controlled robot polishing; developing a new generation of reconfigurable robotic handling, positioning and fixturing devices; and development of several components to be merged into an innovative production system for the reliable production of high-precision parts.

One of the projects which involved companies from the moulding sector is known as ROTOFLEX. Specially, it focused on innovative rotomoulding development to improve cycle times and process efficiency whilst facilitating greater flexibility in product design and integrity for the SME-rotomoulding sector (see Figure 34).


Figure 34 ROTOFLEX - Innovative Rotomoulding Development

Source: www.rotoflex-eu.org

The FEMTOPRINT is another project, which aimed at the development of a printer for microsystems with nano-scale features fabricated out of glass to provide the capability of producing own micro-systems rapidly and without the need for expensive infrastructure and specialist knowledge.


ROTOFAST - Development of an efficient heating and cooling technology system for rotational moulding, which will dramatically reduce cycle time, product cost and energy consumption

ROBOFOOT - Smart robotics for high added value footwear industry

POLIMATIC - Automated Polishing for the European Tooling Industry

NET4M - Development of a collaborative network for micro -manufacturing, -assembly and –robotics

EASITAP - Development of a combined and automated hard turning and polishing production system – effective, automated, safe and integrated hard turning and polishing

Today’s major challenges for manufacturing companies, operating under productivity pressures, greater product variability, shorter product development cycles, and environmental constraints will require new types of services to be provided by system integrators.

The objective of one of the projects, know as ‘AMISA - Architecting Manufacturing Industries and systems for Adaptability’ was to develop a methodology for architecting manufacturing lines, product systems and customer services for optimal adaptability to unforeseen changes in stakeholder needs, technology development, and government regulations. Manufacturing systems or products/services designed for adaptability can save 20% either in cost or cycle time.

4.4 Internet of Things (IoT)-Based Applications

The projects we have identified in this category focus on demonstrating the applicability of networked control systems; using of Internet of Things for the system engineering industry incl. sensors, actuators, processing elements, system design tools


and models and design; and integrating process control with quality control for developing factory-level decision.

ICT developments both enable and also enforce large-scale, highly-connected systems in society and industry, however, the knowledge to cope with these emerging systems is lacking. The HYCON2 coordinated activities focused on complex systems to control design methodologies with networking, self-organising and system-wide coordination.

Figure 35 HYCON2 - Highly-Complex and Networked Control Systems

Source: www.hycon2.eu


SPRINT - Software Platfroms for Integration of engineering and things

IOT@WORK - Internet of Things at Work

S-MC-S - Sustainable Mass Customization - Mass Customization for Sustainability

4.5 Emerging Results from Mapping Thematic Cooperation

Based on the above presented analysis of FP7 projects – both manufacturing processes and systems, Figure 36 gives an overview of different kind of projects, which we have identified and subsequently categorised into three groups. The projects which mainly concern the development of advanced materials are marked in ‘red’, whereas ‘green’ is used to depict projects which aim at enhancing specifically process aspects. The manufacturing systems which are closely interrelated to manufacturing processes are presented centrally in ‘blue’.

Taking into account the discussion during the workshop which took place on 29 April in Brussels, the following themes could constitute the focus of the RIM Plus 2015-2016 activities: industry 4.0 and smart systems (robotics, automation, control systems, mechatronics and Internet of Things); lightweight design and polymer technology; bio-economy with a focus on advanced manufacturing; de-manufacturing; advanced packaging; wood derived materials; printed electronics; smart fabrics/textiles; 3d printing; in addition to themes such as developing skills for advanced manufacturing and accompanying actions for companies in transition towards factories of the future.

HYCON 2 aims at stimulating and establishing a long-term integration in the strategic field of control of complex, large-scale, and networked dynamical systems. It focuses in particular on the domains of ground and aerospace transportation, electrical power networks, process industries, and biological and medical systems.


Figure 36 Advanced Materials and the Associated Manufacturing Processes and Systems

Source: Based on the analysis of ECORDA (FP7 projects) database.

Smart fabrics/textiles

Wood derived

materials/forest-based

industry

Advanced packaging

Semi-conductor materials

Other advanced materials

Industry specific manuf.

processes

Various industrial

manuf. processes

Process bio-technologies

De-manuf.reuse/

recycling

Flexible, Organic and Large Area Electronics

Robotics, automation, and control systems &

IoT


5. Conclusions

The Member States and regions of the European Union are facing the challenge to improve their manufacturing capacities through or in the field of advanced manufacturing from a variety of starting points which could hardly be more diverse:

Some, like Germany, Austria, Sweden and to an extent France, are focusing on strengthening their capacities in the fields which have become known as ‘Advanced Manufacturing’. They are among the global leaders in the field and are seeking to gather critical mass for high-level, future oriented investments that can help them match Japan and overtake the U.S. Unsurprisingly, their efforts are thus often pursued under the heading of the relevant technologies themselves (Industry 4.0, Digitalisation, Additive Manufacturing, etc.)

Some like the United Kingdom, Italy as well as parts of France and Spain are trying to reverse processes of deindustrialisation which they have either freely chosen years ago or that has been triggered by the recent financial and economic crisis. With the possible exception of Britain, they still possess large pools of human capital and technological knowledge in the fields. Under the headings of reindustrialisation or 'reconquête industrielle', they are seeking to build new capacities, considering advanced manufacturing technologies as a means to this end.

Yet others are thinking of advanced manufacturing as an opportunity to push forward an up to today incomplete process of industrial transformation following the replacement of planned economies’ production systems. As it stands, many of these often Eastern European countries cannot launch technological programmes for a lack of capacity. With local levels of technological knowledge rising, however, some start to see a better awareness of advanced manufacturing as a possible means to attract firms and revoke trends of brain drain.

Nonetheless, our analysis has yielded some poignant findings that appear relevant for future policy design, relatively irrespective of the specific aim one pursues:

• Europe stands at a crossroads in international competition. If rapid action is taken, it seems well positioned to match Japan and outperform the U.S. Recently, however, growth in the continent’s capabilities has been stagnating.

• Europe is facing a challenge of putting less advanced regions in the position to benefit from advanced manufacturing through technology absorption. While the analysis does not focus on this in detail, there is evidence of a tentative positive beginning.

• 20% of Europe’s regions account for 80% of all technological activities in the field of advanced manufacturing. More often than not, they are locations of major corporate sites. They are, however, distributed across Member States and not always well enough connected across national boundaries to realise their full potential.

• There is a less visible middle echelon of regions with notable capacities that are of substantial relevance for the EU’s system of advanced manufacturing, quite often due to strong clusters of SME. While they do not tend to have a ‘central phone number’, their summary contribution plays an indispensable role.

• 60% of Europe’s regions account for a mere 5% of all technological activities. So far, their connectedness to the European network of Advanced Manufacturing is low and most local activities are ephemeral and/or fragmented. In those, the largest difference can in the coming decade be made through improved technological absorption.

• The analysis of FP7 projects has shown that the most central participant regions in the network of Process projects are Île-de-France Region, followed by Upper


Bavaria and Inner London. In the System project network, Upper Bavaria is ranked first, followed by Île-de-France Region and Lombardy. Cologne and Stuttgart and also appear as key players in this network.

• The most central regions in the System project network are also similar to the ones in FoF project network. Upper Bavaria shows high centrality scores in both networks, followed by Basque Country, Piemonte and Stuttgart. The Île de France Region, Lombardy and Stuttgart also are key members in the FoF project network.

• The ARTEMIS-ENIAC project network shows some similarities between the Process and System project networks. The Île-de-France Region is the most central actor. Lombardy and Upper Bavaria are also in the top-10 in this and other networks. Three regions which are the major actors but are ranked lower in other project networks are: North Brabant, South Holland and Southern Finland.

• The detailed analysis of FoF and ARTEMIS-ENIAC has demonstrated that a small number of actors are the main central participant organisations. There are also a few organisations which play comparatively a much more central position than other participant organisations, however, the network is constituted by the cooperation among a large number of participant organisations.

• The focus of FP7 projects seems to be more on promoting the development of advanced materials and associated processes than on activities which would have direct influence on the activities of the EU’s industrial base, even though some projects relate to the development and integration of advanced manufacturing systems and Internet of Things (IoT)-based applications.

Against this background, this first thematic paper can be concluded with some tentative policy conclusions which are based on the above findings.

Firstly, it indeed seems commendable to unite Europe’s strongest players through actions like ‘Factories of the Future’ or the ‘Vanguard Initiative’. At this end of the spectrum, it is important to unite capabilities to increase critical mass to the highest level possible. At the same time, it should be noted that such actions will not necessarily contribute to reindustrialisation as they are – by intent and definition – made up of the strongest and most resilient players in the field. Quite often, these are not coming from de-industrialised or otherwise industrially ailing countries.

Secondly, there is a need to leverage the potential of second tier regions without a central (corporate) contact point and involve them in existing and, potentially, tailor made support schemes. In short, ways need to be found to support and engage advanced manufacturing SME directly. Likely, ESIF funding and, to an extent, the SME instrument can play a relevant role in this regard. With a view to the findings, renewed emphasis should be placed on strengthening the capacities of as well as on increasing the degree of international cooperation among relevant SMEs.

Thirdly, further policies need to address the needs of those that seek to profit from existing advanced manufacturing technologies to renew their industrial base rather than taking part in developing new technologies themselves. With a view to reindustrialisation and, ultimately, growth and jobs this effort is at least as important as the continuous advancement of the technological frontier. To avoid past fallacies of replication and ignorance of context, lagging regions should thus be vigilant in how they interpret their smart specialisation strategies with respect to advanced manufacturing and which precise measure they decide to take.

To an extent, the success of any such policy or measure will depend on the willingness, interest, and proactive engagement of the regions themselves. Notwithstanding that the European Commission can play an important role in facilitating and enabling related efforts. Not least the finding that the current degree of cross-national networking remains deficient suggests that European-level actions in industrial policy will be needed.


Fourthly, the following areas which could lend to be the focus areas of the RIM Plus 2015-2016 activities include: industry 4.0 and smart systems (robotics, automation, control systems, mechatronics and Internet of Things); lightweight design and polymer technology; bio-economy with a focus on advanced manufacturing; de-manufacturing; advanced packaging; wood derived materials; printed electronics; smart fabrics/textiles; 3d printing; in addition to themes such as developing skills for advanced manufacturing and accompanying actions for companies in transition towards factories of the future.

The second round of workshop (date to be confirmed) will offer an opportunity to define the exact thematic focus and the following workshops during the 2015-16 period will expand on individual topics of relevance in more detail.

technopolis |group| Belgium Avenue de Tervuren 12 B-1040 Brussels Belgium T +32 2 737 74 40 F +32 2 727 74 49 E [email protected] www.technopolis-group.com

Competence Center Policy and Regions Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI Breslauer Straße 48 DE-76139 Karlsruhe Germany T +49 721 6809-181 F +49 721 6809-176 www.isi.fraunhofer.de

Documents

Regional Innovation Monitor Plus 2015 - ec.europa.eu · 2.4 Europe’s Key Players in Advanced Manufacturing 13! 2.5 Regional Hotspots of Advanced Manufacturing 16! 2.6 Evidence of