Building research capacity and strengthening collaboration

The overall design is rated as good and coherent. The formation of eight large research groups (SCCER) was the right choice for building capacities, structures and collaborations overall. The research collaborations had well-designed and appropriate research strategies with a clear content focus. The lack of integration of other Innosuisse-funded energy innovation projects into the funding programme was cited as a weakness. This is also the case for the limited conceptualisation of Knowledge and Technology Transfer (KTT) in the first funding phase. The expert panel and the Foresight conference reiterated the lack of flexibility in funding and of organisation of the research network as other weaknesses of the programme.

The funding programme had a very lean and simple governance structure with three bodies (steering committee, secretariat and evaluation panel). This structure has proven effective. Weak points were the rather modest resources of the secretariat and the insufficient involvement of the Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE) over the course of the programme.

The extent of the outputs of the funding programme in terms of the acquisition of third-party funding, publications and the provision of implementation services (spin-offs, patents, etc.) was considerable. The SCCER have also established themselves as points of contact for their research topics. Extensive collaborations have been established with both research and companies as a result.

a)    Structural impact: The SCCER successfully built research capacity during the funding programme. The evaluation concluded that 40 to a maximum of 65 per cent of this capacity will be retained after programme completion. Companies have also been able to build research and development capacity due to their participation in SCCER. According to the expert assessment, the international positioning in the research area was strengthened.

b)    Knowledge and technology transfer (KTT): The stimulation of new networks and cooperations was rated successful by the evaluation and the expert panel. Numerous contacts have been made in the field from the SCCER. The overall level of KTT activities was high and increased significantly after 2017 due to the introduction of KTT concepts and KTT positions. However, the intensity of the collaborations varied markedly. Joint projects between research and industry as well as traditional methods of communication (publications, etc.) proved to be key instruments. The SCCER were hardly noticed or not noticed by politics or by the general public.

Overall, the initiation and development of non-technical or social innovations and related activities was not a focus of the Energy funding programme. Non-technical topics and content were primarily housed under the umbrella of the social science-oriented SCCER CREST. This was in line with the concept of SCCER. The technologically oriented funding approach and the lack of multi- and interdisciplinarity were rated by the evaluation and the expert panel to be weaknesses of the funding programme.