1.  INTRODUCTION

  1.1  Business Links exist to offer world-class support to local companies, particularly SMEs, to enable them to successfully compete in world markets. Business Links build on the best of the expertise available from Chambers of Commerce, TECs, Enterprise Agencies, local authorities and government departments in order to provide SMEs with a "one-stop advice shop".

  1.2  The Business Link National Forum's principle objectives include:

—  advising government and national partners on issues affecting the provision of quality services to SMEs;

—  taking the lead in implementing DTI's policies for Business Links; and

—  canvassing, and representing views from regional Business Links.

  1.3  The following comments are pooled from a canvass of Innovation and Technology Counsellors (ITCs) operating in Business Links throughout England.

2.  RECOMMENDATIONS

  2.1  SMART needs increased funding, submissions need to be more regular throughout the year and timed to suit customers.

  2.2  ITCs should be involved in both SMART submissions and the final project and execution.

  2.3  The various LINK technology areas should be open for submissions for longer periods of time and LINK funding needs to be focused on the needs of business as well as that of the university.

  2.4  The Foresight programme needs to be presented in a less academic way which will capture the imagination of SMEs.

  2.5  TCS funding needs to be increased and projects should require a statement of support from their local ITC.

  2.6  Funding should be available which provides SMEs with part/matched funding for "in-house" product/process development.

  2.7.  The bureaucracy involved in accessing schemes should be reduced and delays between a scheme ending and its re-birth months later should be avoided.

3.  SMART

  3.1  Business Links discuss SMART applications with companies, providing impartial advice on project registration.

  3.2  SMART is used by a fair proportion of SMEs and is perceived by many to be a relatively good scheme, but there is some feeling that the previous SPUR programme was better.

  3.3  SMART is felt to need increased funding to enable wider support for feasibility assessment (research) and development for new technologies/concepts leading to new products and processes.

  3.4  Some ITCs have commented on how they are too easily excluded from SMART applications for confidentiality reasons when they have not been involved from the start with the submission of that application. It is felt to be vital for adding value that ITCs are involved in both the submission and the final project and its execution, because of their wider business experience than most GO staff.

  3.5  Submissions need to be more regular throughout the year and timed to suit customer/market needs rather than the availability and timescales of GO staff. The timescales should be shortened.

  3.6  Relatively few companies have been successful in their applications for SMART II.

  3.7  In some areas there has been a perceived gap in what SMART could offer and a new product/process development grant has been introduced. This offers direct funding for projects with a much lower expenditure of a typical SMART project, and therefore complements the SMART scheme.

4.  LINK

  4.1  LINK is much less well used and has proved difficult to access. This has often been due to the timescales involved, as the various technology areas are only open for submissions for short periods of time. This is convenient for the scheme administrators rather than being focused on the needs of the client companies.

  4.2  The feedback provided by companies and universities at presentations of the LINK scheme give a good impression, but the funding appears to be largely focused on the needs of the university.

5.  FORESIGHT PROGRAMME

  5.1  Few SMEs know, and even less understand, how they can make use of this programme. There is a feeling that the programme is good but has not been promoted to SMEs particularly well and is too academic in its appearance.

  5.2  The events which have been organised so far, have lacked focus and have not really struck a chord with SMEs. In addition, little feedback has been received from some local organisers of Foresight events.

6.  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (IPR) AND PATENTING

  6.1  Collaborative R&D generally takes too long to access and companies are concerned with IPR.

  6.2  The cost of other than UK patents often proves to be a limiting factor in applying for patents and registering designs, especially for lone inventors. Innovation credits were a useful aid to overcome this but no longer exist.

  6.3  Assistance in IPR and patenting is often offered through "advice clinics", where one-to-one advice is provided by a patent agent and/or the local patent information service.

7.  TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

  7.1  Basic skills training has often proved vital as companies have moved from traditional engineering into more innovative areas.

  7.2  Various agencies and schemes are used by Business Links to foster technology transfer, eg Sheffield Technopole, FUSE, local Universities. These have involved innovation in product and process technologies, and schemes such as TCS have helped to plug the skills gap as new technologies are introduced.

  7.3  TCS is viewed as a particularly good scheme, but again funding seems to be very limited. Some ITCs have suggested that its essential that they're involved in the monitoring of TCS projects and that they should require a statement of support from the local ITC as is the case with the CBP scheme. The involvement of ITCs will help to maintain a business focus, but there appears to be no facility for inclusion of a budget for ITC time. This is crucial for ITC involvement and would also contribute to the income generation targets for ITCs set by the Business Links.

8.  FINANCING RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

  8.1  The provision of finances "appears" well served via numerous different schemes but many are geared to major projects. Innovation within SMEs can involve relatively small funds, say up to £20K, which is still a major investment to a small company.

  8.2  SMART is generally viewed as one of the best sources of finance, but is significantly underfunded, whilst other forms of assistance are focused on providing matched or part funding of "external" assistance eg from a consultant or university.

  8.3  There needs to be funding available which provides SMEs with part/matched funding for "in-house" product/process development (ie where the main effort does not necessarily include substantial amounts of consultancy/university assistance) that can be accessed by ITCs. This would enable ITCs to be directly involved in particular projects and provide the necessary controls.

  8.4  There is a real need for finance for R&D outside of Government laboratories and Research Agencies to help new ideas grow—many developments come from very small SMEs or inventors.

9.  OTHER RELEVANT BUSINESS LINK SERVICES

  9.1  Innovation and Technology Counsellors and Design Counsellors provide advice/consultancy services to SMEs, drawing on their own skills or directing companies to assistance available from local and national authorities, universities, consultants etc.

  9.2  Business Links assist SMEs in accessing various schemes, eg. SPUR, MiB (Microelectronics in Business), Craft, Recraft and local initiatives, in addition to the ones discussed above.

  9.3  Business Links provide information on national centres of expertise and Benchmark best practice companies, eg by utilising The UK Benchmarking Index.

  9.4  Business Links introduce companies to expertise and facilitate technology transfer from Universities (eg some Business Links have University Brokers who are responsible for this).

  9.5  Some Business Links provide programmes to explore a business process (eg. Product Development). This examines the basic process, provides consultancy to apply best practice in this area, and offers networking/experience sharing opportunities. These programmes also provide access to further schemes, eg SMART.

10.  ACCESSIBILITY AND BUREAUCRACY

  10.1  Most schemes are heavily bureaucratic and so do not encourage access by ITCs or individual companies. It is acknowledged that submissions should be comprehensive, but improving the ease of access to most programmes would encourage more to apply.

  10.2  Administering organisations should in principle be open for submissions throughout the budget year or programme duration. It is appreciated that this may have financing implications but is necessary if we are serious about innovation and want to be able to compete in global markets.

  10.3  There is a general feeling that academia works at too slow a pace.

  10.4  It is particularly frustrating when there is a delay between a scheme ending and its re-birth many months later.

11.  OTHER COMMENTS

  11.1  The research topics publicised in the EPRSC "Newsline" are not applicable to the SMEs that many Business Links deal with as they're at the smaller end of the SME scale.

  11.2  Environmental issues are being widely raised. More support could be given to encourage companies to move towards good environmental practice.

  11.3  Some ITCs feel there is good support for companies wishing to assess/apply new electronics technologies or access EC schemes (eg FUSE).

15 July 1998