Chapter 11

Integration of Competitive Intelligence and Watch in an Academic Scientific Research Laboratory¹

11.1. Introduction

Today, there is a perceptible malaise within research and teaching institutions, whether at university level or within research organizations themselves. This, in our opinion, is a symptom showing that simple academic aims (research, among other things) no longer allow us to anchor the work of research groups to reality. The recent financial crisis and its subsequent extension to the rest of the economy raises questions as to the way in which, in the short term (say 2 years), educational and research institutions should be involved in providing support to the production sector to maintain jobs. To put this aim into perspective, we look at research carried out some time ago by Porter [POR 90] and by the Dutch school [LEY 98]. Porter clearly showed that work in “clusters” generates increased innovation and improved performance through public—private sector partnerships. At the same time, the work of the Dutch school, focusing on the triple helix (analysis of public—private sector partnerships for increased rapidity in innovation), showed the solidity of Porter’s vision and, at the same time, highlighted the fact that innovation, as the cornerstone of development, can only reach its full potential through the cooperation of State, research, and educational and industrial institutions.

More recently, work carried out as part of European Union programs [INT 07] has shown that the innovation process consists of transforming competences and knowledge created in publicly funded research centers into money, that is, returns on investment. In our opinion, part of the current malaise can only be explained by the lack of real aims, the distancing of concrete applications from research and the lack of contact with the forces of production of a nation, or the lack of recognition given to finalized (applicable) research compared to the fundamental research sector. A number of countries have understood this new paradigm and established methods and tools to allow them to achieve such results. We may cite [DOU 07b] various reports that show this orientation: the Palmisano report (USA) [PAL 07], the Beffa report (France) [BEF 05], the Commonwealth report (Australia) [AUS 02], the Creativity report (Canada) [CAN 02], etc. and the work of Nagpaul and Roy [NAG 03, ROY 02] on the evaluation of Indian researchers.

11.2. Existing structures in universities and research organizations

Currently we see that, due to a lack of means, a majority of organizations create more or less varied indicators leading to the application of more or less valid labels. In this way, lists of journals (those accredited for publication) are created, authors are split into different groups depending on where they are placed in the author list in bibliographical references, and association with a given organization has effects on productivity. This rather controversial “bibliometric fever” [GIN 08] in some cases has become almost ridiculous [THO 09, CHA 09, FRI 09]. Moreover, through the fact that the career of a researcher is based on publication, these researchers are pushed to adapt their research strategies to the journals in which they should publish (according to rank and classifications developed in the United States). This should not be the case, but in France at least, the National Universities Council (Conseil National des Universités) and the National Center for Scientific Research (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, CNRS) push researchers in this way. The lists of “authorized” journals promote the development of research “adapted to the means of diffusion”, and not the contrary. For example, multidisciplinary research would lead to publication in various journals, not necessarily focusing on the same theme. In this case, the index of dispersion would lead experts at the CNRS, for example, to say that a laboratory is too “dispersed” in its activity and does not focus its potential on a specific subject, where results would be published in even more specific journals with a constant and highly specialized readership, often involving peer review structures based on co-opted committees [CNR 09].

For the sake of good sense and to ensure that French research produces industrial applications that benefit the country, laboratories must establish study and validation systems for production at global level [DOU 93], allowing them to carry out high-quality research that also accords with the strategic needs of the country. By analyzing the problem — the basis of competitive intelligence (CI) and of the creation of knowledge through action — we see that several ingredients are needed to achieve these aims:

– a strategic vision: where do we want to go?

– reliable sources of information that can be analyzed and used to create bridges with industry;

– tools for increasing productivity in the collection and analysis of information;

– multidisciplinary groups of experts (public—private) who analyze relevant information in terms of strengths, weaknesses/opportunities, and threats (SWOT; see www.quickmba.com/strategy/swot/); and

– continuity in this course of action.

At the same time, we need to analyze the expertise of each individual, team, or laboratory to match up aims and means. The development of clusters and organizations such as regional centers for innovation and united economic development in France (poles régionaux d’ innovation et de développement économique solidaire, PRIDES) is an example of this way of working, which leads to a contract of aims associated with a contract of means over several years. There is still a need for general recognition that, over time, these ingredients lead to increases in scientific potential, not only in the original target domain but also, by cross-fertilization, in other domains of collaboration, allowing other goals to be attained. The result of these processes is not a simple response to a specific industrial or societal question, but scientific progress, a source of new potential.

This model should allow us to optimize practical knowledge and competences created within laboratories, both to put them to use in the production sector and to direct their development by setting out new problems to solve at fundamental level. Laboratories, industrial players, and public powers would benefit from engagement in this “virtuous spiral” to create the dynamics necessary for research in France and elsewhere. As an example, we quote from a presentation made by Elias Zerhouni, director of the US National Institutes of Health [ZER 06]: “The success of American scientific research depends on the existing implicit partnership between academic research, the government and industry. The research institutions have the responsibility to develop the scientific capital. The Government finances the best teams by a transparent system of selection. Industry holds the critical role to develop robust products intended for the public. This strategy is the key of American competitiveness and must be maintained”.

We will now examine the information sources on which the development of our propositions will be based. When we look at citations in published work from a research context (in this case, research in scientific disciplines), we see that patents are almost never cited. In the same way, patents have little or no place in laboratory evaluation criteria. However, the field of industrial property is vital for business development, moreover, that which is published within a patent is rarely published elsewhere. Patents are, therefore, key in attracting industrial interest in laboratories, not necessarily because the laboratory or the overarching organization holds patents, but because the laboratory will use and understand this information and apply it to create links between this work and their own research. This would lead to the creation of an attractive “space” promoting public—private sector dialog and bridging with competitiveness clusters.

11.3. Research structures, research actors and evaluation in the context of CI integration

Evaluation is currently at the heart of debates on research. One question raised involves which bibliometric indicators to use for which evaluation. This reflection was the subject of a forum retranscribed in the Life Science Research (Vie de la Recherche Scientifique) [VRS 07]. Using these indicators, not all sectors of science are equal; the blind application of indicators without knowledge of the domain of the fields of research, and even of subsectors within the same scientific domain, creates problems. This is the case with information and communication science and technologies (sciences et technologies de l’information et de la communication, STIC) and with human and social sciences, although, in France, the agency for the evaluation of research and higher education (Agence d’évaluation de la recherche et de l’enseignement supérieur, AERES) modulates its general principles for major research sectors (AERES evaluation grid, July 22, 2008). A report by the Académie des sciences (Institut de France) presented to the French minister for research and higher education on July 8, 2009 includes a very good critical overview of evaluation tools and criteria used in research and teaching of professional ethics and of the choice of evaluators and the relative positions of national and local evaluation [ACA 09]. This report highlights the frequency and format of these evaluations and their use. From our perspective, we consider that this report should be used as an element for internal reflection within institutions, or as a guide to avoid “bias and warping”, intentional or unintentional errors driven by conflicts of personal interests on the part of direct or indirect experts. This is all the more relevant as the increasing autonomy of universities (in France) and the opening of competition between individuals, teams, research structures, universities and so on may lead to conflict situations and to individual or collective conflicts of interests. As an example, we note the possibility of “excellence bonuses”: who will define the criteria for this, how, and with what transparency and durability of criteria? It is important to avoid situations where criteria are variable indicators that depend on a person or on a predetermined aim.

In domains with the greatest potential for business links, that is, those offering the greatest potential for value creation or returns on investment, the separation of individual evaluation and the evaluation of research organizations is a fundamental error. It is through the juxtaposition of fundamental researchers or teams and groups with a more “finalized” or technological focus that strong research dynamics emerge. We must, therefore, adapt this evaluation so that each may “find their place”, without reference to “good” or “bad” research, and without certain unhelpful forms of reflection as seen on occasion within scientific departments of the CNRS, such as “that is not what you are paid to do”, or “that is “feeder” research”. If this is the case, we must avoid considering a research partnership exclusively as a source of finance or as a collective milk cow. If recurring donations to research units were sufficient, service provisions or “feeder” research would exist only for their specific individual interest and could easily be integrated in the framework of technical platforms. In the same way, considering research in industrial partnerships as “subresearch” shows a lack of consideration toward the economic world. A priori, ours is not a period where a company will participate in financing laboratory research “for fun”. Obtaining industrial conventions for research training (Convention industrielle de formation par la recherché, CIFRE) contract is not an easy task and the same applies to industrial bursaries, the CNRS bursaries for doctors of engineering (bourse de docteur ingenieur) or multiannual contracts. Organizations need to maintain unity in their analysis of laboratory and businesses. This is particularly the case for the chemistry section of the CNRS, one of the first to depend on external funding. We cannot belittle this finalized research or research on contracts of aims and produce annual statistics on the number of contracts and patents in organizations. However, we must be careful, as it is rarely the institutions or organizations that are subject to review in such positions, but the representatives of these institutions who maintain outdated methods of working or are directly involved in collective or individual conflicts of interests.

Gingras [GIN 08], professor at the University of Quebec, Montreal, and director of the Observatory of Sciences and Technologies of the Interuniversity Center for Science and Technology Research, talks of “evaluative anarchy” [VRS 08]. For him, statistical indicators, through “their existence and their persistence”, seem to “depend on a social law which states that “any number beats no number””. Quantitative indicators can, of course, be useful but only on the condition that they are replaced in the right context and not applied on a case-by-case basis depending on partisan interests. This quantitative aspect, moreover, is the basis of observatory of science and technology (Observatoire des sciences et des techniques) reports and is used for the comparison of data at national and international levels.

The recent multiplication of ‘spontaneous’ use of evaluation and creation of so-called ‘quality’ indicators have combined to create a certain chaos in the academic world which is not really able to evaluate these measurements. In spite of the multi-dimensional character of research, these indices use a single number to classify and evaluate the quantity of research produced by individuals and organizations. Those who claim to make decisions in light of these so-called ‘objective’ or ‘international’ indicators should leave the evaluation of research to scientists, who spend enough time doing this to be able to distinguish pseudo-metrics from robust indicators. This would probably diminish the risk of losses of control and the pernicious effects generated by measurements and classifications of research which are not worth the paper they are written on.

These same “non-experts” in the matter of indicators should at least apply the ethical principle that an indicator has no value except when it is placed in a broad context, applied to a large number of examples or to a community and validated by this community; consequently, the expert—evaluator must themselves take a position in this community, with the same tools (this remark appears in the report issued by the Académie des Sciences in July 2009 under the subject “choice of evaluators”).

Reflections of this kind are not a recent development, as shown in an article by Thuillier [THU 83]. The conclusion of this article, on the state of evaluation in 1983, is still relevant: “is it not time to escape from a dilemma which, taken at the letter and interpreted in a completely individualistic spirit, may well lead to absurdity?” However, the financial environment of research has completely changed since 1983 and the biases and perversions seen in evaluation systems are even more flagrant.

It is clear that this evaluation parameter for individuals and structures is an aspect that determines the success of laboratory participation in clusters, PRIDES, the French national research agency (Agence nationale de la recherche, ANR) and FEDER. However, questions should be asked: at what moment should indicators, however reliable and robust, be used, and how can we take account of confidentiality clauses and economic interests?

The emergence of clusters has profoundly modified the relationships between public research institutions and businesses, by a change in scale in the financial volumes involved and by administrative setups mixing laboratories, businesses, regional government, the OSEO and the Interministerial Fund (Fond unique interministériel), among other things. Scientific and technico-economic expertise are now mixed and “value creation” is evaluated, estimated, and programmed, as with CIFRE contracts or the OSEO — National agency of research valorization (Agence nationale de valoris ationde la recherche, ANVAR). The system has shifted from a two-dimensional relationship between a laboratory or an expert and a business to a multidimensional setup based on the principle of sharing means and expertise to achieve a contract of aims and produce successful results. This setup may involve regional, national, or international, and therefore political, interests and gives small businesses or start-ups the chance to participate through the formation groups. The system has also become extremely competitive for laboratories, and the value of laboratories used in these programs is not simply analyzed using institutional indicators. Value may be based on the industrial experience, the reliability of engagements, the respect of timings, the notion of mutual respect, and a common goal of creation of value and of jobs. The role of the researcher in these programs is also greatly modified; the researcher becomes a direct actor in “value creation” and participates directly in the CI cycle.

11.4. Clusters and their power of attraction

Clusters are a major focus for development in France. They constitute a meeting place between public, research and industrial institutions, and should allow the creation of knowledge for action and thus considerably shorten the passage from research to production. This issue, which consists of creating a new dynamic, constitutes a beneficial boost for laboratories. However, inclusion in a cluster also involves acceptance by a different community, and candidates must submit themselves to judgment, effectively entering into the “real” world of competition where results are judged in relation to the solution of actual problems and not by publications destined for the international scientific community and for judgment of individual careers. This “publish or die” aspect leads certain individuals to work only for the impact factor of a journal, the level of citations or the “h” factor, in reference to an international system (ISI Web). This is part of the “biases and perversions of the evaluation system of the Académie des Sciences report”. If scientific production must be placed at the disposal of the international community (already the subject of major debate), why not publish everything online with open access? This is the principle behind knowledge platforms, but access to this information is restricted to referenced actors who, by contributing to the platform themselves, generate progress for the whole community.

This community is often multidisciplinary in nature, being itself the sum of scattered expertise brought together in a contract of aims. This demands flexibility and a capacity to understand different languages and ways of working for pooling competences and the attainment of group objectives. In this, we also leave behind individual careerist aims to embrace collective working.

One role of clusters is to promote the development of small and medium businesses, to support them and to allow the development of new products through synergies. These businesses, involved in the creation of large numbers of jobs, often have good ideas (although sharing these ideas is difficult due to fears generated by competition), but also major gaps and difficulties in integrating the results of fundamental research into their development. This demands a two-pronged effort: research results must go through “mediation”, in a manner of speaking, to be better understood and used by the business. In this domain, there is a form of “natural” mediation that consists of the creation of a patent. A patent clearly shows the transformation of research into ideas for new applications and/or products. Reading the patent generates awareness of competitors, their links, technologies, inventors, etc. The time constants of current patents, of those with decreasing use and reaching the end of their useful life and of those in the public domain, are also good indicators. In the same way, strategies developed by different companies or groups of companies are instructive, whether in terms of registration of patents, applications, or the technologies used. Thus, patents can be used to build a solid bridge between fundamental research, the competences of researchers, and the domain or domains of application.

We also note that, for a given territory or through collaboration, clusters promote network-based working. It is evident that synergies develop in this way and their existence requires no further proof. Thus, existing networks, whether in terms of intellectual property or in the framework of interlaboratory scientific collaborations, may now be detected relatively easily using bibliometric techniques. We can identify key subjects and collaborations from bibliographical descriptions found in existing publications or commercial or open-access databases,. There are, therefore, two complementary approaches in the domain of strategic information:

– an approach focused on seeking relevant information using existing resources: databases, the Internet, information from interpersonal networks, etc.

– an approach which, from a certain type of information and using appropriate tools, leads to the emergence of new information with great potential as a basis for reflection and which is suited to ulterior analysis of this information by experts (this is generally the part of the intelligence cycle that deals with the impact of information on the strategic orientations of the business). Extracting “decision information from a mass of scattered information” works using the same logic as that used in chemometrics by specialists in analytical sciences processing masses of information generated by complex equipment, obtained through the use of samples that are often very large. Data processing tools are used for visualization, to identify similarities and differences, and to show links between structural properties and rheological or industrial properties, while going beyond an interpretation based on characterization and identification alone. This parallel continues using the same logic of communication and presentation of results, which remains a task for experts in the domain.

These two approaches currently serve as a guide to a certain number of actors in the research domain in setting up work units to promote the development of public— private partnerships and which will allow the valorization of knowledge, expertise, and competences created in these laboratories. This is in addition to the valorization of products that already exist within these laboratories, which is important but not sufficient. In the following paragraph, we will look at three examples:

– the strategic unit established in the UMR 6239 workgroup, http://gicc.univ-tours.fr (genetics, immunology, chemistry, and cancer): StratéGICC;

– the laboratory of complex chemical systems (laboratoire des systèmes chimiques complexes, LSCC) www.umr6171.net, www.ism2.univ-cezanne.fr (analysis, aging, quality, and traceability of natural products and industrial derivatives) with the development of the strategic intelligence survey (SIS or information and innovation);

– the example of Thailand, with systematic patent analysis using automatic patent analysis (APA) in strategic domains.

11.5. Strategic analysis units, a support for the development of laboratories and of CI

As we have just stated, a critical analysis setting out information available at time “t” allows us to discover new orientations, possible partnerships, pitfalls to avoid, and orientations that should not be validated¹. The three following examples, which show the reality and the development of this movement, highlight (looking at the development of the laboratories concerned) the fundamental contributions of this new approach. This orientation should not be confused with documentation. Through the use of different tools, experts and information sources, it provides a wider vision of the use of competences of the laboratory. In some ways, it acts as a powerful stimulus for changing mentalities and modifying behaviors. The new orientation leads to the shared management of knowledge within a team, to the notion of collaborative laboratories, and to the cross-fertilization, where innovation in one domain may be detected in or come from a different domain, whether or not the two domains are connected. It also leads to the establishment of scientific or technological observatories, shared over secure platforms or otherwise, and to the detection of potential partners and competitors. In all of these results, the temporal aspect is essential. The notion of evolution of reprocessed information places the notion of information for action at the heart of decision, with the result that “what is true at time t is not necessarily true at time t+1”. This remark is particularly important in institutions where the time gap between the moment of decision and possible action, or simply the time needed for contractual implementation of the action, may block the innovative aspect entirely. This leads to reflection on modes of management of laboratories involved in public—private sector partnerships, where the necessity for rapid decision is often barely compatible with systems of annual management where resources cannot be carried over, as in the case of recurring financial contributions, for example.

11.5.1. GICC UMR

This UMR is made up of eight teams under the direction of M. Yves Bigot. Team 8, made up of four people, is led by a doctoral student, M. Fabien Palazzi.

Figure 11.1. GICC team no. 8 Presentation: A strategic development cell was established in the GICC laboratory on 1st March 2008. This led to the creation of the StratéGICC team on 1st January 2009. Our team has a mission to create a valorization strategy for the laboratory in order to create favorable conditions for the establishment of a mixed public-private sector structure and to develop a research able to be transfered and used by industry a special unit was created to analyzed the patent production in the research field of the laboratory, this is illustrated in Figure 11.1.

The aims of the GICC UMR are as follows (for more information, see http://gicc.univ-tours.fr/laboratoire/presentation/equipe8.php?lang=fr&connect=0.):

– carry out strategic watch:

– communicate: integrate and associate all actors concerned with the creation and establishment of the valorization strategy:

– seek partners:

With the person in charge of coordinating work, we looked at the different problems posed by the development of public—private relationships in the laboratory. All aspects discussed in this chapter are concerned by this proactive approach and based on common sense. This strategic team will also benefit from our knowledge in the domain (increased productivity, bibliometric analysis, and APA) through the establishment of a synergy with the strategic analysis workshop of the ESCEM group (Atelier d’intelligence stratégique du groupe ESCEM, ATELIS) [DOU 08b] (For more information, see www.atelis.org.). ATELIS is located in Tours, France, and provides modular teaching on CI and the use of methods and tools for automatic information analysis, both to students and to businesses. ATELIS also delivers a European certificate of value management, but at present this is not a main priority.

11.5.2. The LSCC: strategic intelligence survey unit

We will now look at the way in which this structure was set up within the laboratory. The SIS unit was established at the beginning of 2009 as a result of 20 years of teaching and research experience [DOU 89, KIS 92, KIS 93, KIS 95, KIS 96] and 10 years of experience in the UMR CNRS 6171 complex chemical systems (systèmes chimiques complexes) directed by Jacky Kister (1998–2007) [BAR 06, DOU 08a, ROS 04], followed by the UMR CNRS 6263 bringing together the chemistry department of Paul Cézanne University, Marseille, team AD2EM-LSCC. The difference between this and the previous structure resides in the fact that the laboratory, already engaged in research in partnership with industrial or military institutions for over 25 years and with various national and international clusters, finances the SIS unit through contracts and a specific donation to the global secure communicating solutions (solutions communicantes sécurisées, SCS) center for the fuel quality sensor (FQS) project. This SIS unit is open to industrialists who participate in contracts. The role of the laboratory is to participate in “the design of new materials, products or processes for sustainable development”. A particular feature of this laboratory, which is attached to the CNRS chemistry department (section 13 of the National Committee for Analytical Chemistry) and to the sustainable development department, is that it treats strategic information in the same way as information or measurements generated by analytical equipment in the domain of traceability, quality, and aging of natural or industrially transformed materials. The laboratory is organized into centers of industrial applications behind multidisciplinary competences in analytical chemistry, thermodynamics, experimental research methodology, chemometrics, and all aspects of formulation linked to aging phenomena (thermic, photochemical, bacterial, and ultimate stress factors). This leads to environmental and sustainable development concerns linked to quality control and traceability.

The SIS unit operates using internal expertise specific to major industrial and societal domains (petroleum products and industrial derivatives, the food and phytosanitary industries, cosmetology, galenics, and health products). The organization of this laboratory around watch and CI has been the subject of a number of international presentations in which it serves as a point of reference [KIS 07]. The SIS and its interface between strategic watch, chemistry, and galenic pharmacology won a prize in the national competition run by the French ministry of higher education and research with the OSEO and the ANR, in the Emergence (emerging) category for the year 2009. The award was collected by P. Prinderre on June 25, 2009 from Valérie Pécresse². The award winning work corresponds to the CIFRE (industrial partnership for research) thesis of Christophe Sauzet, defended in March 2009, under the direction of J. Kisterand and P. Prinderre. This thesis, on the border between two disciplines (pharmacology and chemistry), led to the creation of a business youth innovative enterprise (Jeune Entreprise Innovante, JEI) within the inter-university Impulse “incubator”, with assistance from Provence initiation equipment and the SIS [SAU 09]. However, most of the formalization of the SIS unit applies to the subject of “petroleum products and industrial derivatives”.

The STIC cell, precursor of the SIS and initially placed under the responsibility of Mylène Leitzelman [LEI 04a, LEI 04c], a researcher at the ADEME in workgroup UMR 6171, worked on all aspects of strategic information, knowledge management (the CAGOLAB project), the establishment of cross-fertilization between centers of application, and the creation of scientific observatories or interactive platforms with the CEA and the ADEME (network of experts on fuel cells, http://veille.reseaupaco.org, network of sites of energy points in France, www.infoenergie.org) [LEI 04b]. This led to activity in non-presential or virtual scientific communities and to the development of a collaboration methodology, TCAO [LEI 07]. The whole project was self-financing. An active process of strategic information retrieval was also carried out, seeking innovative information through major participation in international congresses and exhibitions. The presentation given in the SIS unit is that produced at the time of its creation (for more information, see www.ciworldwide.org, June 2009). Figure 11.2 shows the logo of the SIS Unit which, for CNRS and University administrative considerations does not had the same name that the laboratory.

Figure 11.2. Information, innovation, and CI platform

The majority of small and medium businesses, industries, and clusters are currently operating in a hostile environment due to the financial crisis. In this difficult period, public research laboratories should use their competences and knowledge to assist companies in establishing processes for the creation of new products with the potential to conquer various parts of the market, principally through exports.

This situation led the LSCC to develop a platform, allowing small and medium companies, public research laboratories, and clusters to collect, process, and analyze strategic information in their domain.

This platform — a technical stage dedicated to strategic information — is available to all potential users of the LSCC.

11.5.2.1. Available facilities

Facilities provided include bibliographies on demand (subject to financial participation). The available tools may be used directly (and free of charge) by companies or after specific training given by experts in the domain (which must be paid for).

The platform also offers APA, Internet surveillance, analysis of structured information, automatic translation into various languages, Internet searches in different languages, international communications via Skype, and advanced Google products. This platform, which is now operational, is the result of collaboration between the LCSS (www.umr6171.net), CIWORLDWIDE (Prof. Henri Dou, www.ciworldwide.org), and two French companies, IMCS (www.imcsline.com) and Matheo Software (http://matheo-software.com).

11.5.2.2. Potential results and user references

Facilities of this kind are already in use by various companies and in various countries, including a wide range of European countries, Brazil, Indonesia, Thailand, etc. They have become part of the “traditional” tool set used for the development of CI through the collection and analysis of information. This platform is also part of various teaching programs developed in China (Shanghai), Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur), Indonesia (ITM Bandung), and France (IMPGT Marseille, Atelis ESCEM Tours Poitiers, and so on).

11.5.2.3. Industrial applications in France (extract)

Industrial applications of this in France include the FQS project, the SCS cluster (a cluster with international aims), QCARSPI (in situ measurement of fuel quality by near infrared (IR) spectrometry) in the context of the CAPENERGIES cluster, and the AIRCLAIR project (amelioration of environmental impact and reduction of consumption in heavy fuel motors using IR analysis) within the framework of the CAPENERGIES and MER-PACA clusters. The following bibliographical references provide a detailed description of the information analysis and the strategic information obtained [DOU 04, DOU 07a, DOU 08c, JOA 06 and LEI 04b].

11.5.2.4. Platform finance

This platform is financed by programs linked to clusters, such as FQS, linked to the SCS cluster, with the participation of the regional council of the Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur region and a CI program financed by the directors of the CNRS with the assistance of the Matheo Software company.

11.5.2.5. Example: Thailand

Systematic mapping of patent information is carried out using the Matheo Patent program in domains of interest for the development of Thai industry and for Thai clusters: www.toryod.com/publicationmapping.php.

From Figure 11.3, we see that different themes used in the development of clusters in Thailand are analyzed from the viewpoint of an industrial property perspective. For the cluster corresponding to tourism in the Phuket area, for example, the “Water Massage” aspect is taken into account. Starting from this analysis, we must simply go to the site and click to access the relevant text. We are thus able to see technical advances that may be used by local industries, patents still in operation in the domain along with those in the public domain, possible partnerships, etc. This method of approach takes all factors of the development of an aggressive cluster policy into account [KEN 03], a policy developed following the methodology set out by Porter and promoted by US AID [USA 09]. This shows that the concept of elaborated information, statistical treatment of information, and patent analysis is already integrated into clusters in developing countries. This example demands reflection, particularly in relation to the French situation. It is based on the use of the same tools as those used in the SIS platform, among other things in the domain of APA.

Figure 11.3. Patent analysis using the Matheo Patent program (to access these works, for example “nano”, see www.toryod.com/pdf/nano_mapping.pdf , June 2009)

Thailand has an aggressive development policy in certain sectors and the country makes considerable use of that which it produces and protects to provide local industries (generally grouped into clusters, or candidates for future grouping) with information allowing them to direct their attention to economically profitable subjects. The process is simple. Based on the worldwide patent database accessible over the EPO server [EPO 09] (European Patent Office), systematic analysis is carried out on certain strategic subjects for the development of Thai industries. Figure 11.4 shows different domains for analysis [THA 09, TOR 09].

Figure 11.4. Use of patent information resources in Thailand

First, we carry out an analysis of the number of patents registered per year (to see whether or not the field is growing) and then we analyze different technologies using the international patent classification [WIP 09]. Then, based on matrices and/or networks, we select important elements for businesses involved in registering patents (whether registered in Thailand, extended to include Thailand, or registered only in other countries, etc.). Finally, we select patents, technologies, and aspects of interest for local industries. Figure 11.3 shows one aspect of the extracts produced in the domain of development of activities linked to coconuts as a basic commodity.

Organization at national level, valorization of information, and the use of clusters are highly sophisticated. By K.I.Asia platform [KIA 09], we can access different information, including a set of data concerning clusters.

The development of clusters in Thailand has been carried out with the same aims as the development of the cluster policy in France. In this way, the integration of research and development laboratories into clusters becomes a major issue. At the same time, governance, the strategic exploitation of information, and internal and external expertise allow us to follow the “route map” and to keep the initial objective in focus.

The steps of development of clusters are carried out following the classic model: geographic delimitation, contributors, route map, and evaluation (using the SWOT method, among others).

Figure 11.5. K.I.Asia platform — “the download center”

Six clusters are currently operational, out of the total 10 in development:

– multimedia and computer graphics,

– agricultural produce with high added value destined for western markets,

– tourism in Phuket,

– gemstones and jewelry,

– transport (cars and lorries), and

– silk.

11.6. Conclusion

We have seen how the development of research units for the processing and expert analysis of strategic information provides benefits for the development of research laboratories. We are now faced with a question: would units for the valorization and treatment of strategic information produce the same results at the level of a university, for example, or within a research organization? In our opinion, the answer to this question is clearly no. A CI unit, as we have described using a number of examples, remains linked to the strategic direction of the laboratory. The desire to deal globally with disparate subjects, often subjects not mastered by users who are not experts in the domain, will not produce scale economies but, instead, lead to dispersion and reduced efficiency. Currently, the success obtained by various units or high performing laboratories seems to be linked to the way in which information is integrated into the process of development of the research programs of these organizations. Although bibliography remains useful as a source of information for researchers, it can no longer be considered the be-all and end-all for strategic organizations and for decision making. The system must be organized in a different manner. Progress currently underway in information sciences, Internet communication, Web 1.0 and 2.0, in management and exchange platforms, and in tools for automatic transfer and analysis, allows us to organize CI units at the level of a research unit.

We thus find ourselves faced with an almost perfect break in alignment, between French national policy, where action is focused on introducing strategic watch and CI systems into small and medium businesses and industry, and the policy of research organizations and the national education establishment, that act in the opposite way, but with recognition accorded to those involved in these actions and to the essential practice of evaluation of the individuals and structures concerned [BIR 08].

11.7. Bibliography

[ACA 09] ACADEMIE DES SCIENCES, L’évaluation individuelle des chercheurs et des enseignants-chercheurs, 2009, available online at: www.academie-sciences.fr/actualites/textes/recherche_08_07_09.pdf.

[AUS 02] COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, Backing Australia’s Ability: The Commonwealth Government’s Commitment to Innovation, June 2009, available online at: www.backingaus.innovation.gov.au/.

[BAR 06] BARTS N., ROSTAING H., KISTER J., “Système d’information d’aide au pilotage de la recherche”, VSST’2006, Séminaire Veille Stratégique Scientifique Technologique, ENIC Télécom, Lille, France, 16–17 January 2006.

[BEF 05] BEFFA J.-L., Pour une nouvelle politique industrielle de la France, La Documentation Française, Paris, France, 2005.

[BIR 08] BIRRAUX C., ETIENNE J.C., Rapport sur l’évaluation de l’application de l’article 19 de la loi de programme pour la recherche France, Assemblée nationale, Sénat, Office parlementaire d’évaluation des choix scientifiques et technologiques, minutes of public session, 16 December 2008.

[CAN 02] GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, Canadian Creativity and Innovation in the Next New Millennium, June 2009, available online at: www.innovationstrategy.gc.ca/gol/innovation/site.nsf/fr/in05177.html.

[CHA 09] CHARLE C., “L’évaluation des enseignants-chercheurs”, Vingtième Siècle, vol. 1, no. 102, April–June 2009.

[CNR 09] CNRS, Rapport du groupe de travail sur la caractérisation des unités de recherche, 2009, available online at: www.cnrs.fr/comitenational/doc/bilan/caracterisation.pdf.

[DOU 89] DOU H., HASSANALY P., QUONIAM L., KISTER J., “Clustering pluridisciplinary chemical papers to provide new tools for research management and trends. Application to coal and organic matter oxidation”, Journal of Chemical Information Sciences, vol. 29, pp. 45–51, 1989.

[DOU 93] DOU H., HASSANALY P., ROUX M., KISTER J., “Stratégie de recherche et Veille Scientifique et Technique. Méthodologie et outils, application à la programmation de recherche”, Politique et Management public 1993, Actes du VI Colloque International Politique et management public, University of Geneva, Switzerland, 25–26 March 1993.

[DOU 04] DOU H., “Benchmarking R&D and companies through patent analysis using free databases and special software: a tool to improve innovative thinking”, World Patent Information, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 297–309, December 2004, available online at: www.ciworldwide.org.

[DOU 07a] DOU H., MANULLANG S., DOU J.M. JR, Competitive Intelligence and Technology Watch for Industry Development, Departement Perindustrian, Indonesia, 2007. Part of this work is available as an Audiobook (in French) at www.ciworldwide.org.

[DOU 07b] DOU H., MANULLANG S., DOU J.M. JR, “Competitive intelligence, public private partnership, innovation, cluster policy and regional development”, Introductive Conference, Competitive Intelligence, University Carlos III, Madrid, Spain, 2007.

[DOU 08a] DOU H., KISTER J., “Valorisation, synergies, innovation and development”, Proceedings of European Trans2tech Conference 06 03 2008 European Commission, 6th framework Programme. Driving Innovation from science to Business, Paris, France, 2008.

[DOU 08b] DOU H., “Strengthening the private and public partnership in actionable knowledge. The case of ATELIS (Strategic Intelligence Workshop of the ESCEM Business School)”, Trans2Tech, Muenster, European Community Program, Münster, Germany, 1–2 October 2008.

[DOU 08c] DOU H., Larrat P., “Strengthening the private and public partnership in actionable knowledge. The case of ATELIS (Strategic Intelligence Workshop of the ESCEM Business School)”, Trans2tech, Muenster, 1–2 October 2008, Germany (European Community).

[EPO 09] European Patent Office http://ep.espacenet.com

[FRI 09] FRIDENSON P., “La multiplication des classements”, Le Mouvement Social, vol. 2, no. 226, pp. 5–14, January–March 2009.

[GIN 08] GINGRAS Y., La Fièvre de l’évaluation de la Recherche. Du mauvais usage de faux indicateurs, Note de recherche, Centre de Recherche Universitaire sur la Science et la Technologie, Bibliothèques et Archives nationales du Québec, 2008, available online at: www.cirst.uqam.ca.

[INT 07] INTERREG, Strategic Intelligence and Innovative Clusters — A Regional Policy Blueprint Highlighting the use of Strategic Intelligence in Cluster policy. Interreg III C (European Community), 2007.

[JOA 06] JOACHIM J., KISTER J., BERTACCHINI Y., DOU H., “Intelligence économique et systèmes d’information, Analyse à partir d’un sujet stratégique: HIV et formulation dynamique”, Information Sciences for Decision Making, vol. 24, no. 336, 2006.

[KEN 03] KENAN INSTITUTE ASIA & J.E. AUSTIN ASSOCIATES, Thailand Competitiveness Initiative, Klongtoey, Bangkok, Special Project Section Competitiveness Public Information, version 22 July 2003

[KIA 09] K.I.ASIA, 2009, available online at: www.kiasia.org/EN/Myresume.asp?.

[KIS 92] KISTER J., RUAU O., HASSANALY P., DOU H., “Utilisation des analyses bibliométriques dans la détermination des stratégies de recherche”, Actes du colloque ADEST “La Scientométrie en action”, M.R.T, Paris, France, 1–2 June 1992.

[KIS 93] KISTER J., RUAU O., HASSANALY P., DOU H.,“Utilisation des analyses bibliométriques dans la détermination des stratégies de recherche, Application au domaine des lourds pétroliers et du charbon”, Les cahiers de l’ADEST, special edition, pp. 104–110, 1993.

[KIS 95] KISTER J., PIERI N., RUAU O., QUONIAM L., DOU H., “Stratégie de recherche et sciences de l’information en chimie analytique, Exemple de la fluorescence UV”, Analysis, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 518–522, 1995.

[KIS 96] KISTER J., “Stratégie de recherche et Veille Scientifique et Technique. Administrer les savoirs: leur production, leur administration, leur application, leur contrôle”, Bulletin du CIFFERSE, Hors Série, vol II, pp. 328–333, October 1996.

[KIS 07] KISTER J., Applications des concepts de l’intelligence compétitive et de la veille stratégique à un laboratoire de recherche: Interactions Etat/Recherche/Industrie: une réponse aux questions sociétales et industrielles. Un modèle transférable à l’Indonésie, Puri Agung-Sahid Jaya Hotel, Jakarta, Indonesia, 11 April 2007.

[LEI 04a] LEITZELMAN M., KISTER J., BARBIER D., CLEMENT D., “Apport de la veille technologique sur une énergie de demain: La pile à combustible pour un développement durable”, Actes des 7^es Journées Francophones des Jeunes Physico-Chimistes, Shanes Palace, Monastir, Tunisia, 19–21 March 2004.

[LEI 04b] LEITZELMAN M., DOU H., KISTER J., “Système d’information de travail collaboratif assisté par ordinateur implémenté dans une UMR de recherche pluridisciplinaire et multisite”, Actes du colloque VSST’2004, Veille Stratégique Scientifique et Technologique, Systèmes d’Information Elaborée, Bibliométrie, Linguistique, intelligence économique, Toulouse, France, 25–29 October 2004.

[LEI 04c] LEITZELMAN M., DOU H., KISTER J., “Modélisation de connaissances et fouille d’informations par la cartographie dynamique: applications de veille technologique avec le logiciel Matheo Analyzer™”, RIAO2004, University of Avignon, France, 26–28 April 2004.

[LEI 07] LEITZELMAN M., LELOUP B., KISTER J., “Une approche centrée utilisateur pour la mise en place d’une plate-forme de TCAO (Travail Collaboratif assisté par Ordinateur): conclusions et perspectives”, Réunion nationale du GDR CNRS intelligence économique, session: information pour l’action, Marseille, France, 6–7 December 2007.

[LEY 98] LEYDESDORFF L., ETZKOWITZ H., “The triple helix as a model for innovation studies” (Conference Report), Science & Public Policy, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 195–203, 1998.

[NAG 03] NAGPAUL P.S., ROY S., “Constructing a multi-objective measure of research performance”, Scientometrics, vol. 56, pp. 383–402, 2003.

[PAL 07] PALMISANO, Analysis of the Palmisano Report by Tamada Shumpeter, a fellow of the RIETI (Japan), June 2009, available online at: www.rieti.go.jp/en/columns/a01_0158.html.

[POR 90] PORTER M., The Competitive Advantages of Nations, Free Press, 1990.

[ROS 04] ROSTAING H., KISTER J., GIMNEZ TOLEDO E., “Système d’information pour l’aide à la gestion stratégique de la recherche dans un établissement public de recherché”, Actes du colloqueVSST’2004, Veille Stratégique Scientifique et Technologique, Systèmes d’Information Elaborée, Bibliométrie, Linguistique, intelligence économique, Toulouse, France, 25–29 October 2004.

[ROY 02] ROY S., NAGPAUL P.S., “Structure and functioning of scientific personnel in CSIR: a quantitative appraisal”, in MUNSHI U.M., KUNDRA R. (eds), Information Management in New Millennium, pp. 466–480, Allied, New Delhi, 2002.

[SAU 09] SAUZET C., PRINDERRE P., DOU H., KISTER J., “Policy cluster in technological research. Pharmaceutical applications: searching for a “cluster” by the use of cropwatch on two aspects: aspect technology (patents) and aspect fundamental research (scientific publications)”, Actes du VSST’2009, Veille Stratégique Scientifique et Technologique, Systèmes d’Information Elaborée, Bibliométrie, Linguistique, intelligence économique, INIST-CNRS, Nancy, France, 30–31 March 2009.

[THO 09] THOMANN B., “L’évaluation de la recherche en question”, Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine, 2009, available online at: www.laviedesidees.fr/L-evaluation-de-la-recherche-en.html.

[THU 83] THUILLIER P., “Publications scientifiques: comment fonctionne le jugement par les pairs”, La Recherche, vol. 14, no. 143, pp. 520–523, April 1983.

[TOR 09] TORYOD, For more information, see www.toryod.com/publicationmapping.php, June 2009.

[USA 09] USAID, www.usaid.gov.

[VRS 07] VRS, Vie de la Recherche Scientifique, no. 370, pp. 48–50, September 2007.

[VRS 08] VRS, “Bibliométrie et évaluation de la recherche: le danger des mauvais usages des indicateurs”, VRS, no. 374, pp. 38–40, September 2008.

[WIP 09] WIPO Resources, For more information, see www.wipo.int/classifications/fulltext/new_ipc/ipcen.html, June 2009.

[ZER 06] ZERHOUNI E., “Intervention”, Congress organized by the American Society of Hematology, December 2006, cited in Perez A., “Quel modèle pour la recherche publique française”, Les Echos, 10 January 2007.

¹ Chapter written by Jacky KISTER and Henri DOU.

1 We might quote Sun Tzu in The Art of War: “if the enlightened Prince and the well-advised General are victorious each time they act, and if their feats are greater than the norm, this is due to prior information”.

2 French Minister for Higher Education and Research since 2002.