CTO Survey 2013
23 Jan 2013
Terhi Marttila, Jussi Kajala,
Laura Kauhanen, Pekka Koponen
Contents
CTO Survey 2013 Introduction
CTO Outlook on 2013
CTO Views on Innovation across Value Chains
CTO Survey 2012
Introduction
CTO Survey covers Finnish CTOs’ views on the
current innovation environment and its future
outlook
Spinverse annually conducts the CTO Survey, targeted to Finnish Chief Technology Officers (CTOs). The survey deals with themes that arise in the semi-annual CTO Forum events.
The CTO Survey 2013 was done in partnership with Sitra, Confederation of Finnish Industries (EK) and Technology Academy Finland (TAF)
The survey received 120 responses from various industries: online responses were complemented by interviewing representatives from large companies.
Almost half (43 %) of the responses were from big corporations.
The results of the survey are compared to the previous years.
Nearly half of the TOP 100 R&D investors in
Finland answered the survey, added by other
significant Finnish companies
• Outokumpu
• Tikkurila
• Ahlstrom
• Sartorius Biohit Liquid Handling
• Logica
• Gasum
• STX Finland
• Beneq
• Okmetic
• NSN
• Ponsse
• Patria
• Santen
• Wärtsilä
• Metso
• Orion
• Kone
• Bayer Schering Pharma
• UPM
• Kemira
• Neste Oil
• Tieto
• Fortum
• Konecranes
• EADS Secure Networks
• Vaisala
Examples
Over 95 % of Finnish R&D investments are done by the top 100 investors. We cover this population well.
The main part of the respondents are
from technology-intensive industries
The top three industries are similar to the surveys of 2012 and especially 2011.
The next two have bigger proportions now than in 2012, and there were no responses
from construction industry in 2012.
33
22
15
13
11
7
6
4
4
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Electronics and ICT
Metal and Mechanical Engineering
Energy and Environment
Life Sciences and Healthcare
Chemical Industry
Forest, Pulp and Paper
Construction
Mining and Metallurgy
Food and Nutrition
Media and Marketing
9
2
14
9
5
10
6
50
11
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Infrastructure
Back-office services
R&D services
Operational services
Sourcing and processing of raw materials
Intermediary products and composites
Assembly of sub-systems
Manufacturing of end products
Marketing, sales, distribution
Nearly half of the respondents place their
companies to their value chain mainly as end
product manufacturers
The responses from the electronics and ICT industry cover
almost the whole value chain. On the other hand, metal and
mechanical engineering mainly belong to the group of end
product manufacturers.
4
4
1
1
1
7
1
1
1
2
1
1
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
8
19
5
5
3
4
4
1
1
1
2
5
1
1
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Electronics and ICT
Metal and Mechanical Engineering
Energy and Environment
Life Sciences and Healthcare
Chemical Industry
Forest, Pulp and Paper
Construction
Mining and Metallurgy
Food and Nutrition
Media and Marketing
Infrastructure
Back-office services
R&D services
Operational services
Sourcing and processing of raw materials
Intermediary products and composites
Assembly of sub-systems
Manufacturing of end products
Marketing, sales, distribution
R&D budgets vary between companies.
In general, SMEs use a bigger percentage of
their revenues to R&D
Almost a half (48%) of SMEs but only 21 % of big companies use more than 10% of
their revenues to R&D.
1
9
17
6
9
21
3
20
14
5
6
5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
N/A
< 2 %
2-5 %
6-9 %
10-15 %
> 15 %
SMEs
Big companies
% of revenues used to R&D
CTO Outlook on 2013
Almost half of the CTOs plan increases to the
R&D budget for 2013 – however, the CTOs are
less optimistic than in the previous years
Only about 13% had decreases in 2012 and 9% had them in sight for 2013.
51%
56%
46%
39% 40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2011 prediction 2011 actual 2012 prediction 2012 actual 2013 prediction
CTOs who increase R&D investments
Diminishing resources have been a challenge
during the years past. The CTO becomes
responsible for leading operative R&D:
methods and processes.
Especially metal, life sciences and food sectors
increased their R&D investments for 2012,
whereas the forest industry decreased those.
30%
55% 47%
62%
36%
0%
17% 25%
50%
0%
24%
9%
0% 8% 9%
29%
0%
25%
0% 0% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Electronicsand ICT (n =
33)
Metal andMechanicalEngineering
(n = 22)
Energy andEnvironment
(n = 15)
LifeSciences
andHealthcare
(n = 13)
ChemicalIndustry (n
= 11)
Forest, Pulpand Paper
(n = 7)
Construction(n = 6)
Mining andMetallurgy
(n = 4)
Food andNutrition (n
= 4)
Media andMarketing (n
= 1)
R&D Budget in 2012
Increase
Decrease
47%
38% 40% 42% 50%
29%
17% 25%
75%
0%
13% 14%
0%
17%
0%
14%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Electronicsand ICT (n =
33)
Metal andMechanicalEngineering
(n = 22)
Energy andEnvironment
(n = 15)
LifeSciences
andHealthcare
(n = 13)
ChemicalIndustry (n
= 11)
Forest, Pulpand Paper
(n = 7)
Construction(n = 6)
Mining andMetallurgy
(n = 4)
Food andNutrition (n
= 4)
Media andMarketing (n
= 1)
R&D Budget in 2013
Increase
Decrease
Even though a third of the companies increases
recruiting in 2013, this number has clearly
declined from the previous years
However, only about 10 % foresee decreases for both 2012 and 2013.
73%
65%
54%
29% 28%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
2011 prediction 2011 actual 2012 prediction 2012 actual 2013 prediction
CTOs who increase R&D recruiting
Many big corporations have decreased the
number of R&D employees. The business
units are tied up with day-to-day work;
a balance should be retained, it is difficult
at the moment.
The biggest drops in recruiting from 2012 to 2013 happen
within the Metal and Mechanical engineering, as well as
Chemical industries.
30% 35%
40%
31%
44%
14%
0%
25% 25%
0%
21%
10%
0%
8% 11%
14%
0%
25%
0% 0% 0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%
Electronicsand ICT (n =
33)
Metal andMechanicalEngineering
(n = 22)
Energy andEnvironment
(n = 15)
LifeSciences
andHealthcare
(n = 13)
ChemicalIndustry (n
= 11)
Forest, Pulpand Paper
(n = 7)
Construction(n = 6)
Mining andMetallurgy
(n = 4)
Food andNutrition (n
= 4)
Media andMarketing (n
= 1)
R&D Employees in 2012
Increase
Decrease
44%
10%
40% 42%
13% 14% 20%
50%
25%
0%
13% 10%
0%
17% 13% 14%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Electronicsand ICT (n =
33)
Metal andMechanicalEngineering
(n = 22)
Energy andEnvironment
(n = 15)
LifeSciences
andHealthcare
(n = 13)
ChemicalIndustry (n
= 11)
Forest, Pulpand Paper
(n = 7)
Construction(n = 6)
Mining andMetallurgy
(n = 4)
Food andNutrition (n
= 4)
Media andMarketing (n
= 1)
R&D Employees in 2013
Increase
Decrease
In 2013, recruiting clearly increases in the Electronics and ICT, Construction, and
Mining and Metallurgy industries.
Over a half of the companies introduce an
increasing number of products or services to the
markets each year
Only 2% decreased the numbers of new products and patents in 2012.
For the year 2013, 2% see decreases in the number of new products and no
one in the number of patents.
54% 53%
33% 28%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
New products -2012
New products -2013
Filed patents -2012
Filed patents -2013
An increasing number of companies is planning
to benefit from external technology sources
28%
21%
9%
5%
11%
9%
32%
28%
14%
11%
16%
16%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Licensing technologies from an externalparty
Licensing technologies to an externalparty
Buying IP/patents from an external party
Selling IP/patents to an external party
Acquiring a company because of itstechnology portfolio
Creating spin-offs
2012
2013
In 2011 and 2012, 23 % of CTOs planned to license out a technology.
Moreover, only 7 % actually did that in 2011, compared to 21 % in 2012.
R&D budgets vary between companies.
In general, SMEs use a bigger percentage of
their revenues to R&D
Almost a half (48%) of SMEs but only 21 % of big companies use more than
10% of their revenues to R&D.
1
9
17
6
9
21
3
20
14
5
6
5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
N/A
< 2 %
2-5 %
6-9 %
10-15 %
> 15 %
SMEs
Big companies
% of revenues used to R&D
CTO Views on Innovation
across Value Chains
Finnish CTOs understand the importance
of customers and suppliers in R&D
51 50 40
13 4 0
32 30
38
24
22
14
11 8
9
6
8
14
2 7 9
22 45
50
4 5 5
36
22 22
0 %
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
70 %
80 %
90 %
100 %
CollaborativeR&D with
universities orresearch
institutes withinour mainindustry
CollaborativeR&D withcustomers
CollaborativeR&D withsuppliers
CollaborativeR&D with other
externalpartners than
the ones listedabove
Crowdsourcing:Utilizing e.g.
end-users in co-creation
Open innovationplatforms: e.g.
Demola, DesignFactory,
Innovation Mill
No opinion
Never
Have tried, once ortwice
Occasionally
Continuously
The occurrence of R&D collaboration of the CTOs’ companies with...
The main benefit of R&D collaboration are product or service
ideas for electronics and energy, flexible knowledge for metal
and life sciences
59% 56%
31% 44% 47% 56%
29% 34%
19% 16%
41% 38% 34% 16%
45% 19%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Electronics and ICT
60% 55% 45% 60% 55%
80% 65%
40%
10% 10% 25% 15% 15%
10% 15%
20%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Metal and Mechanical Engineering
Not important
Important
80%
30%
70% 70%
30%
70%
30%
70%
20%
10%
0% 20%
20%
10%
20%
10%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Energy and Environment
46% 54% 38%
54% 54%
85%
46%
77%
31% 38%
31%
31% 23%
8%
15%
0%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Life Sciences and Healthcare
Not important
Important
Networks are important as a main benefit of R&D
collaboration for chemical, construction and mining
sectors. Forest values customer satisfaction and new
markets.
75% 50%
25%
71%
25% 38% 50% 75%
13% 38%
25%
29%
25%
63% 25%
25%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Chemical Industry
43% 57%
86% 86%
29% 43%
14% 43%
14% 14%
0% 14%
14% 14%
43% 14%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Forest, Pulp and Paper
Not important
Important
50% 25%
50% 50% 75%
100% 75%
100%
50%
50% 0% 25%
25% 0%
0%
0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Construction
33% 33% 33%
67% 67% 67% 67%
100% 33%
67% 67%
33% 33%
0% 0%
0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Mining and Metallurgy
Not important
Important
Collaborative R&D across value chains is
considered to be easy – is it really?
26%
42%
34%
19% 21%
13%
38%
50%
29%
23% 27%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Collaborative R&D withsuppliers
Collaborative R&D withcustomers
Collaborative R&D withuniversities or research
institutes within our mainindustry
Open innovationplatforms: e.g. Demola,
Design Factory,Innovation Mill
Crowdsourcing: Utilizinge.g. end-users in co-
creation
Collaborative R&D withother external partners
than the ones listedabove
SMEs
Big
2% 2%
8%
11%
15%
2%
10%
6% 6%
2%
4%
0% 0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%SMEs
Big
Would like to do more
Find it difficult
The CTOs would like to increase their R&D
collaboration especially with Finnish SMEs
32%
23%
21%
30%
26%
17%
44%
23%
25%
27%
27%
27%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Finnish SMEs
SMEs abroad
Large Finnish corporations
Large corporations abroad
Universities and Research Institutes in Finland
Universities and Research Institutes abroad
SMEs
Big
Ardent, innovative entrepreneurs have
a lot stronger drive than the ones working
in big corporations.
Foreign SMEs and large companies are seen as
interesting, but how to find good R&D partners
among them?
32%
60%
25%
32%
21%
75%
40%
31%
54%
19%
48%
42%
75%
52%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Start-ups Finnish SMEs SMEs abroad Large Finnishcorporations
Largecorporations
abroad
Universitiesand Research
Institutes inFinland
Universitiesand Research
Institutesabroad
SMEs
Big
The amount of CTOs who think that it is easy to find good R&D partners among...
CTOs’ views on networking and
collaborative R&D
Networking is important for the
development work; however, it needs
to be remembered that own skills
are needed in order to absorb new
knowledge.
By developing service business,
a technology supplier can
participate in process and
technology optimisation.
R&D could be developed by improved
networking. CTOs have a central role
in this.
When developing your product portfolio
upstream in the value chain, you need to
remember not to go to your customer’s
area of business.
In order to ensure expertise and an
availability of knowledgeable employees,
It is important to support the research
done at universities. That can often also
be utilised in processes and product
development.
SHOKs are clearly more important for big
companies than for SMEs. EU funding is
only important for a third of the CTOs.
• In 2010 and 2011 figures, the “not utilized” opinion was not used
• 65% of the CTOs who stated SHOKs to be important were from big corporations
77% 77% 75%
31% 40%
26% 28%
33% 36% 34%
4% 4% 1%
30% 5%
8%
24%
9% 4% 9%
14%
42%
40% 37%
19% 20%
10%
39%
55%
25% 24%
48% 60%
21%
0 %
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
70 %
80 %
90 %
100 %
Tekes2010
Tekes2011
Tekes2012
SHOKs2010
SHOKs2011
SHOKs2012
ELY2012
EU2010
EU2011
EU2012
Not important
Not utilized
No opinion
Important
In 2012, SHOK funding was found the most
important by companies within the Forest, pulp
and paper industry, as well as Metal and
mechanical engineering
24% 32%
20%
8% 0%
57%
17%
12%
9% 33%
15%
45%
0%
33%
42% 27%
20%
54%
36%
43%
33%
21%
32% 27% 23%
18%
0%
17%
0 %
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
70 %
80 %
90 %
100 %
Electronicsand ICT (33)
Metal andmechanicalengineering
(22)
Energy andenvironment
(15)
Life Sciences,Healthcare,Pharma (13)
ChemicalIndustry (11)
Forest, pulpand paper (7)
Construction(6)
Not important
Not utilized
No opinion
Important
The importance of SHOK funding remains the
same in 2013
15% 14% 7% 8% 9%
0%
17%
52% 50%
47% 38%
27%
57%
33%
33%
27% 47% 54%
64% 29%
50%
0% 9%
0% 0% 0%
14%
0%
0 %
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
70 %
80 %
90 %
100 %
Electronicsand ICT (33)
Metal andmechanicalengineering
(22)
Energy andenvironment
(15)
Life Sciences,Healthcare,Pharma (13)
ChemicalIndustry (11)
Forest, pulpand paper (7)
Construction(6)
Decrease
No opinion
Stay similar
Increase
A quarter of the respondents were not familiar
with the most common EU funding opportunities
58%
25%
8%
23%
8%
2%
21%
65%
23%
35%
13%
21%
6%
27%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Framework Programme 7 (FP7)
EUREKA, Eurostars
Horizon 2020
Structural Funds (EAKR, ESR)
Joint Undertakings (e.g. ENIAC, ARTEMIS,Clean Sky)
Competitiveness and Innovation FrameworkProgramme (CIP)
None of the ones mentioned
CTOs who find these EU funding opportunities familiar
SMEs
Big
Mining and metal industries need more piloting
opportunities, SMEs and more value added
processing to be done in Finland
• The mines that have been active in Finland for a long time have
active collaboration in technology piloting with their technology
suppliers.
• Technology companies within the mining industry would like to
collaborate more with Finnish SMEs and wish to have new
entrepreneurs within the industry
• The mines that have opened in Finland lately bring new opportunities
for enlarging the collaboration to new metals and production
processes
• Domestic value-added to Finnish ore should be increased
Good technology companies in the metal industry
value chains are quickly acquired by someone.
A problem of small entrepreneurs is credibility.
However, giving opportunities for piloting has been
our policy. [The company] sees new SMEs
beneficial and needed within the industry.
Where will Finnish mining technology be developed
in the future? [...] Core competences should be retained
in Finland.
Conclusions
Even though Finnish CTOs see their R&D investments and recruiting to increase, they are less optimistic than in the previous years: less CTOs see increases coming up.
Most CTOs have R&D collaboration with their customers, suppliers and universities. Big corporations would like to increase R&D collaboration especially with Finnish SMEs. However, only a third of the SME CTOs think that it is easy to find good R&D partners among big corporations.
Building international networks would need additional emphasis to also enable a better gain from international funding opportunities: 25% of Finnish CTOs are not familiar with the most common EU funding opportunities and only a third of them thinks that EU is an important source of public funding.
The interviews revealed that Finnish mining and metal industries need more piloting opportunities, SMEs and more value added processing to be done in Finland.