University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland School of Business Riggenbachstrasse 16 4600 Olten +41 62 957 26 84 franz.barjak@fhnw.ch Evaluation of the existing Swiss institutional R&D funding in- struments for the implementation of the space-related measures On behalf of the Swiss Space Office, State Secretariat for Education, Research, and Innovation SERI D3 Final Report Franz Barjak, Marc Bill, & Olga Samuel University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland School of Business Olten, 30.04.2015 2 Table of Contents 1.  Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 7  2.  Tentative theoretical framework for analysing the impacts of institutional space-related funding .................................................................................................................................... 7  3.  Empirical approach ................................................................................................................ 14  3.1  Approach and methods of data collection ...................................................................... 14  3.2  Samples and responses ................................................................................................. 14  3.3  Expert interviews ............................................................................................................ 15  4.  Results .................................................................................................................................. 15  4.1  Academic institutes in the space sector ......................................................................... 15  4.2  Companies in the space sector ...................................................................................... 17  4.3  Institutional space contracts of Swiss organisations ...................................................... 21  4.4  Influences on space sector activities .............................................................................. 22  4.4.1  Mid-term demand development ................................................................................. 23  4.4.2  Influences on space activities .................................................................................... 23  4.5  Assessment of funding programmes .............................................................................. 24  4.6  Challenges in obtaining institutional space contracts and approaches and measures to resolve them .................................................................................................................. 26  4.6.1  Challenges ................................................................................................................. 26  4.6.2  Dealing with challenges ............................................................................................. 28  4.6.3  Changes of ESA or national funding policies since 2010 ........................................... 28  4.7  Goal attainment and outputs of space projects .............................................................. 29  4.7.1  Goal attainment or effectiveness of the projects ........................................................ 29  4.7.2  Outputs generated by the projects ............................................................................. 32  4.7.3  Project additionality .................................................................................................... 34  4.8  Outcomes of space-related activities ............................................................................. 35  4.8.1  Organisation-related outcomes of space-funding ...................................................... 35  4.8.2  Academic, technological and economic outcomes of funded space-projects ............ 37  4.9  SWOT analysis .............................................................................................................. 38  5.  Summary and conclusions .................................................................................................... 39  5.1  Relevance, effectiveness and effects of the space-related funding................................ 39  5.1.1  Relevance, consistency and coherence ..................................................................... 39  3 5.1.2  Effectiveness ............................................................................................................. 43  5.1.3  Effects ........................................................................................................................ 46  5.2 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 48  List of References ......................................................................................................................... 50  Annex ........................................................................................................................................... 51  Annex 1: Questionnaires ........................................................................................................... 51  Annex 2: Experts interviewed for the evaluation ....................................................................... 62  Annex 3: Additional tables and figures ...................................................................................... 63  4 Management Summary This document is the final report on the project "Evaluation of the existing Swiss institutional R&D funding instruments for the implementation of the space-related measures" conducted by the School of Business, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, on behalf of the Swiss Space Office (SSO), State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation. It analyses the coherence, relevance, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of space-related funding provided to Swiss companies and research institutes through the European Space Agen- cy (ESA) and SSO within the framework of the National Complementary Measures (Activités Na- tionales Complémentaires, ANC). The report draws on 79 interviews, of which 40% were conducted with academic institutes and 60% with companies. The gross sample of the Swiss space sector consisted of 142 organisa- tions, 47 academic institutes and 95 companies (overall response rate of 55.6%). In addition, we collected 135 responses to questionnaires on ESA-funded contracts and 19 responses to ques- tionnaires on ANC projects out of a total of 428 selected contracts (response rate of 36%). The results show that the Swiss space community has gained many more members, in particular companies, in the more recent past. The space business is mainly a European business. It is for many organisations a side business, with a small but growing contribution to the total sales or budget and a small share of employees. The space industry is one of the most research-intensive and innovative industries in Switzerland. The evaluation of the Swiss/ESA space-related funding focused on three key aspects: 1) Rele- vance and consistency, 2) effectiveness, and 3) effects of the funding. Ad 1) Relevance and consistency. The overall positive response on the influence of public fund- ing on space activities and the positive results of the supported projects confirm the relevance of the funding approach. In addition, ESA funding programmes and the ANC were generally as- sessed as well organised and transparent, though, in particular with regard to ESA programmes, the respondents also pointed to some implementation problems and suggested improvements. Dedicated workshops and training on different aspects (e.g. how to write successful proposals, how to read the ESA General Terms and Conditions) would also be useful. The Swiss space community expressed the desire of steering and governing space activities more according to national priorities and independently of the European competitors. This could be done through a Swiss space science and technology plan or programme which complements the Swiss ESA engagement. Coherence and coordination of the space funding with other science and innovation funding should also be guaranteed, e.g. through regular talks with SNF and CTI. Ad 2) Effectiveness. According to Swiss space policy documents, the space related funding should contribute to improving the quality of life in Switzerland, creating innovations and a knowledge society, and positioning the country as a competitive, reliable and irreplaceable part- ner with an image of top quality, reliability, unique competency and internationally highly competi- tive technology. This study provides evidence that the scientific and technological expertise in the Swiss space community is considerable. The specific set-up and partnering requirements of the space funding bring together players from science and industry. However, as the Swiss space community is overall rather small, it is not always easy to find an appropriate Swiss partner and some flexibility of the funding is recommendable to ensure that it can support space-related inno- vation and knowledge production effectively. 5 Furthermore, a public awareness initiative should communicate the successes of the Swiss space sector and convey its positive national and international image to the benefit of the entire country. Ad 3) Effects. The space projects have several short-term and direct results (outputs), such as new knowledge, new or substantially changed products (goods or services), or technical progress (advances of the Technology Readiness Level). Seven out of ten projects would not have been realised without the public funding. Taking a mid- to long-term perspective, the results of funded projects lead to further academic, technological and economic outcomes: for instance growing academic reputation and networks, higher competitiveness, increasing competencies of the per- sonnel, increasing the number of jobs requiring high qualifications, product and process innova- tions, or more sales on space markets. The present study could not address the wider impacts of space-related activities on other socie- tal systems (e.g. health, education, internal security, monitoring of climate or natural hazards) and the quality of life in the country. This should be addressed by future studies and monitoring and reporting activities. Access to qualified space engineers and personnel and to the international space community, including ESA, public funding of space activities and the positive long-term demand development were described as key contributors to success in the space sector. The Swiss Confederation should take further complementary measures to ensure that these factors continue to exert their positive role in the future. We suggest 15 recommendations which can contribute to the success of the funding and improve the general conditions for being successful in space science and industry in the future. Recommendations oriented towards space-related funding Recommendation 1: Continue investing in space activities. Recommendation 2: Work towards a Swiss Space Programme for space science, technology de- velopment, and space data use. Recommendation 3: Provide support – directly or indirectly through involving topic experts, trainers and coaches – on all non-technical (administrative, legal, economic) matters related to the acquisi- tion and management of institutional space projects. Recommendation 4: Enhance the communication of business-related information to the Swiss space community. Recommendation 5: Discuss the needs of the Swiss space community on a regular basis with SNF and CTI and offer joint information events and information material for academic institutes and en- terprises. Recommendation 6: Ensure a flexible approach in the implementation of funding measures (includ- ing ratio between academia and industry, and direct funding to industry) to ensure that the overall goal of creating innovations and a knowledge society can be reached, along the whole value chain. Recommendation 7: Analyse – in discussion with key players from the Swiss space sector – whether further support to innovation, technology development in TRLs 7-9 and product develop- ment is needed, including support to industrialization and cost reduction programmes. 6 Recommendation 8: Analyse possible contributions for stabilising the cash flow of SMEs, such as bridge funding for ESA contracts or reimbursements of costs for preparing offers. Recommendation 9: Communicate clearly the responsibilities of SSO and SSC. Recommendations on additional measures Recommendation 10: Design a public awareness campaign on the successes of the Swiss space community. Recommendation 11: Find – in discussion with key players from the Swiss space sector – ways to support the global business development of the Swiss space industry. Recommendation 12: Explore and support business and public use cases for space-data. Recommendation 13: Discuss with ETH/Universities/UAS representatives possible ways to strengthen the role of "Aerospace Engineering" in the STEM fields (and in particular in postgradu- ate engineering education). Recommendation 14: Pilot and test the acceptance of support to cross-organisational mobility schemes between academia, industry and ESA for graduate students as well as senior engineers and scientists. Recommendation 15: Regular (annual or biannual) monitoring of and reporting on the Swiss space community involving industry associations at national level (SSIG) and at European level (Eu- rospace), as well as ESA and other relevant actors 7 1. Introduction This document is the final report on the project "Evaluation of the existing Swiss institutional R&D funding instruments for the implementation of the space-related measures" conducted by the School of Business, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, on behalf of the Swiss Space Office (SSO), State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SE- RI). It analyses the coherence, relevance, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of space- related funding provided to Swiss companies and research institutes through the European Space Agency (ESA) and SSO within the framework of the National Complementary Measures (Activités Nationales Complémentaires, ANC). Such an evaluation is important and timely for different reasons. First, the Federal Dispatch on Education, Research & Innovation foresees a total of mCHF 528.2 of space-related funding for the time period 2013-2016 (Schweizerischer Bundesrat, 2012). This funding aims at fulfilling im- portant political goals, like contributing to Switzerland's reputation as a scientifically powerful and technologically innovative country; and economic, political and social goals, like transferring the space-related scientific and technological achievements whenever possible to applications and translating them into higher economic growth and social welfare. It is a duty to Swiss tax payers to document how space-related funding is being used and how it benefits society in the form of a summative evaluation of previous funding periods. Second, science, technology and the economy are dynamic. Regular assessments, whether funding arrangements still meet the needs of poten- tial beneficiaries, i.e. firms and research institutes, are consistent with other policies and funding, reach the desired goals and generate positive effects are highly recommendable in guiding on- going funding instruments (formative evaluation). We first develop a theoretical framework for the impact analysis drawing on the academic and evaluation literature in the field. Section 3 summarises the empirical approach and the outcomes of interviews with selected experts of the Swiss space community. In section 4 we present the results, distinguishing between the results of interviews with corporate and academic members of the space community and a survey on space projects conducted with ESA/Swiss (co-)funding. The last section recapitulates the main results and makes recommendations for Swiss space policy. 2. Tentative theoretical framework for analysing the impacts of institutional space-related funding A number of studies have attempted to measure and analyse space-related activities and the consequences of funding provided by ESA or national agencies. However, the overall approach- es, terminology, concepts and definitions vary and, before any data is used and compared, it is of utmost importance to understand properly what it shows and how it was generated. The following figure sketches a logic model of space-related support measures. It distinguishes between the space community, the context (upper part), and space policy (lower part). The space community according to this definition consists of the possible beneficiaries of space-related fund- ing, which are business enterprises or companies and research institutes engaged in space- related activities (OECD, 2012).1 Recipients for space funding are selected from these possible beneficiaries, through applications and contracts and according to defined processes, rules, and 1 Governmental actors are excluded as they are usually not entitled to receiving space-related funding from ESA or Swiss national sources. 8 criteria. These beneficiaries receive the public funding for a specified activity and purpose, for which the requirements are usually defined in the underlying programme and in the project itself. However, whether project goals can be achieved depends not only on the funding, but also on other internal inputs and conditions as well as external inputs and conditions. These contextual conditions plus the success of the project itself also determine any further outcomes which the beneficiaries might obtain plus wider impacts on the society. The following sections elaborate more on this model and the key concepts of this evaluation. They present some results and influences according to the national and international literature. Figure 1: Logic model for the Swiss space-related support measures Source: FHNW. External supportive and limiting conditions International sources generally point out that the space economy is challenging to measure as it does not map well on common industrial classifications. However, it has been perceived as a dynamically growing and innovative sector both at global level (OECD, 2011, 2014; Space Foundation, 2014) as well as in individual countries (see Oxford Economics, 2009, on the UK). However, some observers also noted that the fit between space technology and societal needs has varied over the past decades; whereas up to the mid-1980s this fit was generally given and space-related R&D coincided with society and industry needs, e.g. miniaturization, energy sav- ings, resistance to hostile environment, information processing, knowledge of materials at micro- scopic and atomic level, this fit was lost in later decades. Sectors other than space gained a head start in meeting the new societal needs; the space sector was not cutting edge in all fields and lost out to other industries (e.g. automotive, consumer electronics) with regard to organizational innovations (Bach, Cohendet, & Schenk, 2002). In addition to these more structural developments on space markets and related markets where dual-use (civil/military use) or multi-purpose technologies might be sold, there are also cyclical influences on the space business. Though they have been perceived as generally favourable for 9 the space sector in the last period of economic crisis after 2008 (OECD, 2011) this differs to some degree by industry and country. When measuring the impacts of space funding it is therefore necessary to take into account the structural and cyclical developments which affected funded companies as they influenced the realisation of funded projects and any follow-up activities. Further external influences on funded companies can stem from labour markets, capital markets, and last but not least laws and poli- cies, for instance on tax, labour, or trade issues. For application and service companies, for in- stance in the field of navigation, the access to data generated by satellites/space technologies is more important than the use of such technologies themselves; hence, they depend on reliable data access. Internal supportive and limiting conditions Company strategy also may play a decisive role with regard to reaping the success of space- related activities. Bach et al. (2002) distinguish between a) a space-only, b) a dual use and c) a traditional transfer strategy. Applying a "space-only strategy" firms couple ESA and other space markets to obtain a profitable (space) business. The second strategy of dual use, defined by Bach et al. (2002) to include military and other civil, non-space applications, implies that firms from the very beginning develop dual knowledge which can be exploited in space and non-space activities. The last strategy of transferring space technologies to other industries and terrestrial applications is the least likely to succeed, not only because of the challenges of building up a common knowledge base (which is also required in b), but in particular because of lacking knowledge on non-space markets (Bach et al., 2002). Implementing a consistent strategy can have important consequences for the outcomes and wid- er impacts of space projects. The use on the ground of technologies flown into space will be lim- ited, whenever they are too expensive to be used on the ground. The transfer of technologies used for ground activities is easier to implement, as the cost differences tend to be lower. As components for satellites in Low-Earth Orbit are not anymore at the forefront of technology in all areas (see above), spinning-in COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) technologies from other indus- tries can be a very attractive option from a company-perspective, as the lower costs of ground technologies can open up considerable space markets. Policy interventions and funding The Swiss Space Policy as developed in 2008 describes as the main goals of Swiss endeavours in the space sector:  "Development and use of space applications to improve the quality of life for citizens.  Long-term commitment to space exploration for the progress of innovation and of the knowledge society.  Significant scientific, technological and industrial contributions to make Switzerland a competitive, reliable and vital partner." (http://www.sbfi.admin.ch/themen/01371/01417/index.html?lang=en) The Swiss Space Implementation Plan (SSIP) from 2013 develops this further and highlights the importance of access to space and the development and utilisation of space infrastructures: 10 "Emphasis will be placed on promoting existing and new focal areas of Swiss excellence, consol- idating national activities and securing access to procurements and data on a European and worldwide level, in particular with the aim of  securing access to space;  allowing entry to the critical technological path in the development of space infrastructure (mainly satellites);  fostering the utilisation of space infrastructure through secured data access, build-up of know-how across the whole process and promoting incentives for downstream industry." (Swiss Confederation, Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education, and Re- search, 2013). Switzerland pursues these goals through funding channelled through mainly two instruments: 1) Contributions to the European Space Agency (ESA) allowing participation to a large num- ber of its programmes, 2) Funding of the complementary national activities (Activités Nationales Complémentaires ANC) implemented through the Swiss Space Office (SSO). Ad 1) ESA-Programmes. In the absence of its own space agency, Switzerland pursues its space- related goals mainly through participation in selected ESA programmes. The European Space Technology Masterplan 2014 distinguishes for Switzerland 8 funding areas: 1) General Budget, 2) Scientific Programme, 3) Microgravity, Human Spaceflight & Exploration, 4) Earth Observation, 5) Technology, Telecommunications & SSA, 6) Navigation, 7) Launchers & Guiana Space Centre, and 8) PRODEX (European Space Agency, 2014, pp. 141-143). The SERI website (cf. http://www.sbfi.admin.ch/themen/ 01371/01510/index.html?lang=en) and various ESA sources provide details on the different programme families. After further discussions with the SSO it was decided to distinguish five types of projects which partly run across these programmes and vary by the position of agency (ESA) and contractor: 1) Co-financed technology development (Industry initiated) 2) Technological development (Agency initiated) 3) Development for a mission (built to order) 4) PRODEX 5) Other Ad 2) Complementary national activities. The ANC are implemented in order to improve the Swiss scientific and technological position mainly in European space programmes. The ANC funds are used for funding of selected infrastructures and key projects in specific domains, in particular favouring technology transfer from academia to industry. They serve the following purposes (cf. http://www.sbfi.admin.ch/themen/ 01371/01417/index.html?lang=en):  to ensure that the competences of the Swiss-based research structures involved in ESA- related activities are sustainable,  to create optimal conditions that enable Swiss industry to take part in calls for tender for Eu- ropean institutional programmes, and  to help strengthen technical competences in established scientific and technological fields, foster technology transfer and create new competences. The ANC are being managed by the SSO which is the main competence centre of the Federal government for space matters. SSO prepares and implements the Swiss Space Policy, repre- 11 sents Switzerland in the governing bodies of the European Space Agency ESA, implements the complementary national activities, and coordinates space activities at Federal level. SSO also funds a substantial part of the Swiss Space Center (SSC), a national platform within the Federal Institutes of Technology in Lausanne and Zurich. The SSC supports the SSO in implementing the Swiss Space Policy on specific tasks by networking Swiss actors at national and international level, facilitating access to space projects for established actors and for newcomers, providing education and training, and promoting public awareness of space. Project outputs Project outputs refer to the products generated by space-related projects, e.g. the knowledge, technologies, processes, instruments, infrastructure, services etc. directly invented, developed or built by project participants with the funding. Outputs will often reflect projects' goals or objectives, but not only in theory might unintended outputs, coincidental insights, or serendipitous discover- ies appear as well. Outputs are heterogeneous and usually lack a price tag or common measure that permits for easy aggregation. Evaluations therefore tend to follow one of two approaches for measuring outputs:  Equating output values with input values, i.e. measuring total project budgets including public funding and funding from other sources (Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation, 2008); this approach, however, essentially fails to capture the value that is generated within the projects.  The other approach is qualitative: it presents and (eventually) counts the different outputs generated or advanced through the funding, e. g. scientific publications, new technolo- gies, patents and licences etc. (Academy of Finland, 2004; Amesse, Cohendet, Poirier, & Chouinard, 2002; Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (CSES), 2011). This ap- proach lacks a uniform measure for the different outputs, complicates or even prevents comparisons across programmes and projects, and does not provide monetary values. Still, it is currently the best approach to capture the diversity and richness of outputs. Project outcomes As project outcomes we define all those effects that result with the participants of funded space- related projects due to the project realisation. French scholars distinguished four types of such project outcomes (Bach et al., 2002; Cohendet, 1997):  Technological outcomes are new or improved technologies which are introduced into a market and become product innovations. The target markets can be related to space pro- grammes, but they can also be totally different markets in which the developed technolo- gies are being used.  Commercial effects refer to increased sales of goods or services which do not incorporate technological innovation, but result, for instance, from a grown international co-operation network, new sales contacts, or reputational gains from the involvement in space projects which translate into sales.  Effects on organisation and methods cover process and organisational innovations which result from the high standards imposed by space performance and reliability specifica- tions. Examples are new production techniques, techniques of quality control or project management. 12  Work-related effects refer to the acquisition of skills and qualifications within space pro- grammes. It also includes the creation, maintenance or growth of teams of specialists, scientists, engineers, and technicians which can constitute the "critical mass" of human capital that the company needs in order to be able to enter this market. These outcomes can translate into an increase in sales, cost reductions and/or the existence of a critical mass of space-related specialists. Different studies tried to assess the industrial and eco- nomic returns from public space investments (see Table 1). The results depend, of course, on the structure and focus of a country's space sector and the estimates rely on different methodologies and are therefore difficult to compare and interpret. Table 1: Multiplier effects of public space investments Country (underlying years) Estimated multipliers (annualised) Sources Belgium (2010) 1.4 OECD (2011) Canada (2000-11 for invest- ments realised 2000-08) 1.94 1.78 (without imports) FHNW calculation according to Goss Gilroy Inc. (2010) Denmark (2000-2007) 4.5 3.7 (without spin-offs) Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation (2008) Ireland (2012) 3.6 OECD (2014) Norway (1997-2013) 3.5 (1997) 4.8 (2013) Norsk Romsenter (Norwegian Space Centre) (2014) Portugal (2012) 2 OECD (2014) UK (2012) 1.9 OECD (2014) Source: FHNW compilation. Wider impacts Wider impacts of space-related funding cover in our understanding those which go beyond the participants in funded projects and reach industry, academic organisations, or society as a whole. This does not reflect the distinction between upstream and downstream activities which is fre- quently found in space-related reports (see e.g. Bullock et al., 2009; OECD, 2012; Oxford Economics, 2009).2 In a recent paper Clark et al. (2014) distinguish between economic, social, strategic and environ- mental impacts of space investments. They do not distinguish outcomes and impacts and some of their impacts which accrue to beneficiaries of space funding have already been considered above. Economic impacts can apply to suppliers to organisations benefitting from space funding, e.g. in the form of direct revenues from space-related contracts or indirect effects resulting from tech- nical progress due to sophisticated requirements with regard to the provided technologies. Wider economic effects would also result if other companies (not those directly funded in space pro- grammes) commercialize or use the developed technologies and generate additional revenues or cost savings. Knowledge spill-overs from the space sector would be an obvious (positive) exter- nal economic effect of space activities for which the originating space-related companies or or- ganisations do not receive any compensation. Market spill-overs might occur as well, to consum- 2 The OECD (2012, p. 43) defines the upstream sector as "manufacturers of space hardware and providers of services that enable the launch of systems into space", whereas downstream includes "operators of satellites and providers of space-enabled products and services". 13 ers or producers. Take the use of a meteorological satellite as an example which improves – or not – weather forecasts and reduces the costs resulting from meteorological disturbances (e.g. in agriculture) as organisations and individuals can better prepare for such conditions. ESA publica- tions and brochures list several examples for such technologies and spill-overs into other eco- nomic sectors (see the ESA brochure "Technology Success Stories"). A nice example is the Temprakon quilt sold by the Danish company Quilts of Denmark QOD. It was developed in 2001/2 by QOD together with Outlast technologies based in Colorado, USA. Outlast had in 1991 licenced a temperature phase change material (PCM) from the Triangle Research & Develop- ment Corp. which the latter had developed for NASA space missions to protect astronauts against extreme temperature fluctuations (Vanhaverbeke, Vermeersch, & Zutter, 2012). PCM, developed with NASA funding, became an essential part of a new product (and company) more than 20 years later and on a different continent. The previous example illustrates the challenges with measuring the wider impacts of space ef- forts, which, however, still has been attempted. A report from Oxford Economics (2009) estimates that the indirect economic effects constitute another £1.735 billion of value added in 2006/07 (in addition to the £2.760 billion of direct value added by the space sector). The report also suggests significant spill-overs from space investments in communications, broadcasting, earth observa- tion, navigation, and education. It estimates that they add up to a social return rate of 70%; i.e. for every 100 £ invested in space activities another 70 £ worth of spill-overs result in these key appli- cation domains (in total £892 million in 2006/07). Canadian studies measured ratios of 3.5:1 and 4.2:1 for indirect : direct economic effects of the Canadian ESA participation (Amesse et al., 2002). Strategic effects refer to political effects in defence or international politics, but also reputation gains to companies, scientific organisations and even society as a whole resulting from the reali- sation of space missions (Clark et al., 2014). Social impacts in the understanding of Clark et al. (2014) cover impacts on the quality of life, e.g. through improvements of health, education or general pride in space achievements. Environmental impacts include positive effects resulting from a better monitoring of the environment and global processes, as well as negative effects, e.g. fuel and CO2 emissions or debris resulting from spaceflights. In addition, the impact on envi- ronmental policy-making through problem identification and environmental status monitoring is also mentioned. The measurement of wider impacts is for many reasons challenging (Clark et al., 2014; Cohendet, 1997; OECD, 2012): identifying all impacts and recipients, attributing causality to the space-related funding, putting a price tag or even quantifying impacts require insights and data which are not readily available. In addition, effects will not only be direct, but also indirect – taking the meteorological example above, raised agricultural productivity thanks to more precise weath- er forecasts might have wider economic effects on crops, prices, exports, dietary habits etc. Gen- eral impact evaluations therefore have at most listed the social and environmental effects which could be identified by program participants and beneficiaries of the funding. This can only be con- sidered as anecdotal evidence of limited value. Anything more sophisticated, however, is only possible in the framework of dedicated studies and considerable investment of time and re- sources to compile the necessary data (see the suggestions in Clark et al., 2014, table 4). Due to the lack of well-established measures, the impossibility to realise a dedicated data collec- tion and reach out to beneficiaries and users in the corporate sector, administration, the health sector, or society in general, wider impacts lie beyond the scope of this study. 14 3. Empirical approach 3.1 Approach and methods of data collection The required data refers to three units of observation: a) Policy interventions, i.e. the funding pro- grammes for space-related activities, b) funded space projects, and c) the organisations conduct- ing these space projects. While some data may be collected with comparable quality at any of these three levels, other data is level-specific; e.g. funding regulations and procedures are pro- gramme-specific, whereas the goals or outputs are project-specific. We included all three levels in the data collection and combined projects and programmes. The data collection relies on three methods: 1) Semi-structured face-to-face interviews with organisations have been used in evaluations all around the world to collect data on the impact of space-related funding (Bach et al., 2002; Cohendet, 1997; Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation, 2008; Hertzfeld, 2002; Prognos AG, 2008). Face-to-face interviews were held in this evaluation with twenty key players of Swiss space industry and space research. 2) Structured telephone interviews targeted Swiss companies and institutes with minor and po- tential future involvement in the space sector. 3) A written survey on selected projects of the interviewed organisations collected data on the corresponding programmes, as well as project inputs, goals, outputs, and outcomes. 3.2 Samples and responses The samples consisted of Swiss organisations in the space sector and their space projects. Organisations. We identified 153 separate organisations in the Swiss space sector of which 52 (34%) are academic and 101 (66%) are corporate. 119 organisations conducted ESA or ANC projects (39 academic, 80 corporate). The 153 organisations in the gross sample were then invit- ed to participate in the survey. Out of the 52 academic institutes 2 did not exist anymore or could not be located after continued searching and 3 answered that they had stopped their space activi- ties since receiving the funding. The same happened to 6 companies (3 inexistent or unreachable and 3 stopped space activities). This reduced the gross sample to a total of 142 organisations, 47 academic institutes and 95 companies. In total 79 interviews were conducted, of which 40% with academic institutes and 60% with companies. The overall response rate was 55.6%, nearly 70% among academic institutes and approximately 50% among companies (see Table 2). 20 inter- views were conducted face-to-face (average interview duration of 70 minutes) and 59 by phone (average duration 34 minutes). Interviews were usually recorded and transcribed as summaries. Table 2: Realised sample by sector and funding status Academic institutes Companies Total N in % N in % N in % Cleaned gross sample 47 100.0% 95 100.00% 142 100.00% Respondents 32 68.1% 47 49.5% 79 55.6% with space-related public funding (ESA/ANC) 2010-14 26 55.3% 42 44.2% 68 47.9% without space-related public funding 2010-14 6 12.8% 5 5.3% 11 7.7% Rejections 7 14.9% 5 5.3% 12 8.5% Non-responses 8 17.0% 43 45.3% 51 35.9% Source: FHNW 15 Projects. The organisations in the sample had more than 1'000 different ESA contracts and 31 ANC projects. We included all 31 ANC projects and made a systematic selection of 397 ESA- funded contracts for the project-related survey. Overall we received 154 filled in questionnaires answered by 18 academic institutions and 31 companies. 98 questionnaires were filled in by companies, 56 by academic institutions. The overall response rate was 36% (see Table 3). Table 3: ESA and national space-related contracts to Swiss organisations All contracts per organisations Gross sample Responses N in % N in % N in % Response rate ESA-funded* 1526 98.0% 397 92.8% 135 87.7% 34.0% Mesures de positionne- ment 31 2.0% 31 7.2% 19 12.3% 61.3% Total 1557 100.0% 428 100.0% 154 100.0% 36.0%% * "Contract" refers to the participation of a Swiss organisation in an ESA project. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. Several respondents were unable to recognise projects in the sample conducted by their organi- sations or the correct projects could not be identified (e.g. in the case of universities with one organisational ID for several institutes). Hence, the original aim of putting together a random sample of funded projects for the data collection could not be realised and several respondents had to be asked to select projects on which they wanted to respond. This probably introduced a bias towards more productive and more successful projects. As we do not have any information on 90% of all funded projects we recommend that the project-related results are interpreted with some care. 3.3 Expert interviews Seven expert interviews were conducted during the development of the questionnaires to get a better understanding of the structure of the Swiss space sector (corporate and academic), the goals and measures of Swiss space policy, the role and function of ESA and, last but not least, the general perceptions of Swiss and ESA space-related activities. 4. Results 4.1 Academic institutes in the space sector Structure. A total of 32 academic institutes participated in the analysis. 30 out of these 32 insti- tutes are engaged in space activities, more than three quarters (78.1%) had ESA-contracts be- tween 2010 and 2014, and 28% obtained funding from the National Accompanying Measures (ANC). The median founding year of the academic institutes responding to our survey was 1978 and the median start year of their space activities was 1997; in other words, most of the institutes have considerable experience in their fields and shorter, but still notable, experience in the space sec- tor. Only 3 out of 29 research institutes who provided this information started to work in the space sector within the last 5 years. 16 Eleven or approximately one third belongs to the ETH sector, another eleven belong to universi- ties, five (15.6%) to universities of applied sciences (UAS) and another five to non-university re- search or other institutions (including one federal office). Funding. Among the surveyed academic institutes the share of the space-related activities within the budget was on average 30% in 2013. The ESA-funding itself contributed on average only 3.4% to the total budget (median). Even if only those institutes which carried out ESA-funded activities are included, the average share is very low with approximately 5%.3 Approximately 77% of the research institutes' total budgets come from Swiss sources and 23% from other European countries, including above all ESA and the EU framework programmes for research (see Figure 2). The figures are quite different, when it comes to the space-related part of the budget only; the majority is now from outside the country, above all Europe. However, as the institutional funding of university institutes, space-related teaching and administration from cantonal and federal budgets are included as well, almost half the budget (46%) is contributed from national sources (see Figure 2).4 Figure 2: Share of geographic areas in entire budget and space budget of academic insti- tutes in 2013 in % (arithmetic means) Entire budget n=20. Space-related budget n=19. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. Employment. The 30 academic institutes active in the space sector had on average 36.25 em- ployees of which 8 (22%) actually worked on space activities. Institutes involved in ESA contracts had very similar figures: 37.5 employees of which 9 (24%) worked in space activities. Those not engaged in ESA contracts are only half as big in size and less orientated towards the space sec- tor, with only 1.3 full-time equivalents (7.2%) engaged in space activities (see Figure 3, note that for the latter group n=5 only). 3 However, by no means this should be taken as an indication that ESA-funding is of little relevance for research. First, respondents might not have been fully aware of where funding for a particular contract came from, in partic- ular if it was not a direct ESA contract (but indirect for sub-system providers). This probably leads to an underes- timation of total resources obtained from ESA. Second, the overall budget is not limited to third-party funds, but it includes the institutional funding for teaching provided by the university as well. Third, it should be noted that the arithmetic mean is with 12.5% considerably larger than the median, as there are many institutes where ESA only contributed little and six institutes where ESA-contracts contributed more than 25% to the budget. 4 It needs to be noted that all funding provided through ESA or the EU was considered in this analysis as Europe- an, even if it might stem from Swiss contributions to these multinational organisations. 17 Figure 3: Employees of academic institutes in total and in space activities in 2013 (median) Without ESA contracts n=5. With ESA contracts n=24. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. 4.2 Companies in the space sector Structure. Forty-seven companies answered our questions. Sixty percent (28 companies) are independent and 19 (40%) belong to a group; the groups are predominantly Swiss-based – 13 out of 19. The headquarters of the six companies belonging to foreign groups are based in France (3), Germany, UK, and the US (each 1). 38 of the 47 companies (80.9%) had received ESA contracts between 2010 and 2014 and 16 (34%) had received funding through the ANC. Only one company stated that it is currently not involved in space activities. The Swiss space industry consists mainly of so-called "Tiers 3 and 4" actors (OECD, 2014), i.e. material and com- ponents providers for space and ground systems and scientific and engineering consultancies, with one Tier 1, namely RUAG Space. The companies are on average considerably younger than the academic institutes: the median founding year is 1998/1999 and space activities were started on average in 2004. One third of all companies providing this information had only up to 5 years of working experience in the space business, i.e. they started to work in it in 2009 or later. The industry is dynamic and growing. Sales. The share of space-related sales added up to only 25% of all sales for the surveyed com- panies (see Figure 4). This is slightly lower than in the academic institutes (see above). Sales to ESA were slightly more important for companies (5%) than for academic institutes (3.4%).5 Limit- ing this analysis to the companies which received ESA contracts between 2010 and 2014, the numbers change somewhat and in particular the average (median) contribution from ESA to companies' sales in 2013 rises to 20% (see Figure 4). 17 out of 45 companies (37.8%) worked primarily for space markets (i.e. had sales in these markets of more than 50%). 13 companies (28.9%) realised more than 50% of their sales to ESA, and another 5 made between 25 and 50% of their sales to ESA; this indicates that 40% of the interviewed firms heavily depend on ESA as a client. This confirms the importance and even necessity of an institutional market in the space sector. The Swiss space business is predominantly orientated towards European clients (see Figure 5): for space-related sales Europe is by far the most important market with a market share of nearly 73%. Swiss markets contribute 30% when all sales are considered, but only 11% in space-related sales. The importance of clients in the USA is slightly bigger overall than in the space sector only; with regard to Asia shares are similar. 5 Again, we do not deduce from this that ESA-funding is of little importance for companies (see footnote 3 above). 18 Figure 4: Shares of sales by ESA-funded/not ESA-funded companies in 2013 (median val- ues) Without ESA contracts n=9. With ESA contracts n=38. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. Figure 5: Share of geographic areas in companies' sales in 2013 in % All sales n=39. Space-related sales n=36. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. Space market strategies. We asked companies what strategy they follow with regard to the space market, distinguishing between four possible strategies:  We develop or sell only for/in this market and not for/in other markets (space-only).  What we develop or sell in this market needs to have other market(s) as well (several markets).  We first develop for the space market and then analyse wider sales possibilities (transfer)  Other Most common are the transfer and the several markets strategies (see Figure 6). We generated a variable for segmenting the results on the importance of the space business for the organisation and distinguish three groups: 1) Space is the main business (more than 50% of sales or employ- ees); 2) Space is a side business (more than 5 but less than 50% of sales or employees); 3) Space is a marginal business (less than 5% of sales or employees in space). Out of the 46 com- panies involved in space, for 19 (41%) it is the main business, for 12 (26%) it is a side business, and for 15 (33%) it is a marginal contribution to their sales. Companies which realise more than 50% of their sales on space markets more often pursue a transfer strategy. If the space business is a side business, companies try to be successful with their products or services with space and non-space clients at the same time. Those companies which generate their main business in other markets outside space follow a different strategy than the three pre-defined strategies, usually the transfer of technology and competencies from other markets into the space market. 19 Figure 6: Space-market strategy by degree of involvement in the space sector All: n=46, space is main business n=19, space is side business n=12, space is marginal business n=15. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. Employment. The surveyed companies with space activities are predominantly small and medi- um-sized enterprises. They have on average 18 employees (full-time equivalents). There are several micro companies with fewer than 10 employees and many small firms with up to 50 em- ployees in Switzerland, but a few larger players with 250 or more employees in Switzerland as well (see Table 4). Table 4: Company sizes in 2013 by ESA-funding Employee groups Not ESA funded ESA funded Total Count % Count % Count % Micro (1-9) 3 33.3% 17 44.7% 20 42.6% Small (10-49) 4 44.4% 9 23.7% 13 27.7% Medium-sized (50-249) 1 11.1% 6 15.8% 7 14.9% Large (250 or more) 1 11.1% 6 15.8% 7 14.9% Total 9 100.0% 38 100.0% 47 100.0% Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. R&D and innovation. The space sector is a very innovative part of the Swiss economy by different indicators:  More than 90% of the interviewed companies conducted research and development (R&D) activities in Switzerland and, most notably, 84% percent of them continuously and 16% occa- sionally. Hence, conducting R&D seems to be mandatory for being active in the space sector. In order to compare this to other industries, we use the Swiss innovation survey 2013. This survey referred to the calendar years 2010-2012 and used the same definitions as our survey (see box 1). The most research-driven Swiss industry is the chemical industry where 70% of the Swiss companies answered the question on whether they conducted R&D between 2010 and 2012 with "yes". Hence, the companies active in the space industry more often conduct R&D than the latter industry.  A good measure for the importance of R&D in a company is its research intensity. Either R&D expenditures or R&D personnel are usually chosen as R&D input indicators, and total sales to market or total employment are used to quantify company size. Taking R&D employees di- vided by total employees in the space sector, we get an overall R&D intensity of 25% (median value) – i.e. on average 25% of the companies' employees worked in R&D. Limiting this to the companies' space activities only (R&D employees in space activities/employees in space activities) the value grows to 50%; i.e. 50% of the employees working for space worked on R&D tasks. We lack comparable data from the Swiss innovation survey, where only the data 20 based on R&D expenditure was published. However, according to the most recent waves of this survey the share of R&D expenditures to sales is in the range of 7-10% in the most R&D- intensive industries (Arvanitis, Ley, Seliger, Stucki, & Wörter, 2013; Arvanitis et al., 2014), and considerably lower than in the space sector. Though it certainly influences the results that the indicators draw on different approaches, the finding that the space sector belongs to the most innovative part of the Swiss economy can be confirmed with this innovation input indica- tor as well.6  More than 50% of the surveyed companies introduced product innovations and almost the same share introduced process innovations (defined as below in box 1) related to their space activities (see Figure 7). Including non-space activities as well, more than 70% of all surveyed companies were product innovators and the same percentage were process innovators be- tween 2012 and 2014. Only seven companies indicated that they had not innovated in this period whereas 85.1% innovated. The indicator confirms again that space sector companies belong to the most innovative Swiss companies: they are on a par with or even more innova- tive than companies in the vehicle and chemical industries (approximately 80% of all firms in- troduced innovations according to Arvanitis et al., 2014). Figure 7: Innovating companies between 2012 and 2014 by type of innovation in % (arith- metic means) Total: n=47, in space: n=46, outside space: n=47. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. Box 1: Definitions of research and innovation indicators (translated from the Swiss innova- tion survey, Arvanitis et al., 2013) Research refers to basic research and research activities with direct relationship to specific appli- cations (applied research). Development refers to the utilisation of established scientific knowledge for producing new or im- proving existing products and processes. 6 International case studies also confirm that the space industry is considerably more R&D intensive than manu- facturing as a whole (see OECD, 2014): in Canadian space manufacturing R&D expenditures constituted in 2012 approximately 28% of its GDP (6 times the value for manufacturing) and in Italy approximately 11.5% (8 times the value for manufacturing). 21 Product innovations are technically new or significantly improved products from the perspective of your enterprise, i.e. products which are new or significantly improved or changed with regard to their capability of use, quality, or the physical or interactive components employed in their produc- tion. No product innovations are simple esthetical modifications of products (e.g. colouring, style) and product variations, e.g. because of client specifications which do not change at large the product (good or service) with regard to its technical basics and use characteristics. Process innovations refer to the first use of technically new or significantly improved manufactur- ing or process technologies for producing goods respectively services for persons or objects. Though the product may change as well, raising efficiency is in forefront. New manufacturing tech- nologies developed by you and sold to other enterprises are product innovations. Simple organisa- tional or management changes are not subsumed among process innovations. 4.3 Institutional space contracts of Swiss organisations Data on the activities conducted by the Swiss space community was gleaned from 154 filled in questionnaires answered by 18 academic institutions and 31 companies. A total of 98 question- naires were filled in by companies and 56 by academic institutions. This represents only a small share of approximately 10% of all ESA- or ANC-funded contracts to Swiss organisations (see Table 3 above) and we must assume that the responses are rather a positive selection of all con- tracts. Note that part of the questions does not cover entire activities, but only the part for which the responding Swiss participant was responsible. Concerning ESA activities, it has to be recalled that most of them are not stand-alone activities, but are (or are aiming at being) integrated in big ESA programmes with many other actors. Academic institutes are more often project leaders or partners than enterprises (see Figure 23 the annex). In contrast, a higher share of enterprises than academic institutes served as suppli- ers/sub-contractors. Not surprisingly players whose main business is space most often act as project leaders and entities who earn less than 5% of their budget through space activities most often participate as sub-contractors in funded projects (see Figure 23 the annex). The majority of space projects were rather small with up to 4 participating organisations (75% of the projects on which academic respondents reported and 87% of the projects of companies, see Figure 8a) and almost 60% having a volume of less than 500'000 EUR (see Figure 8b). Very small projects are more common among companies which reported that every second project was smaller than 250'000 EUR. Still, there is also a non-negligible share of very large projects with a volume of more than 2 million Euros. Most of the projects in the sample have been started in the last four years (see Table 16 in the annex). 30% of the projects are still ongoing, most of the completed projects lasted one year. Companies realised more long-lasting projects than academic institutes. 22 Figure 8a and b: Project sizes by sector of project participants a) Number of participating organisations b) Total budget (in EUR) a) Academic institutes n=51, Companies n=87. b) Academic institutes n=45, Companies n=76. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. Nearly half the projects were agency-initiated. These technological development projects were equally important for both sectors. Academic institutes additionally were highly involved in PRO- DEX projects, which were less common for enterprises. Only companies reported on develop- ments for missions and ANC projects (for the latter academic respondents were not surveyed). Figure 9: Main type of project by sector of respondent Academic institutes n=53, Companies n=98. Only companies were surveyed on ANC projects. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. 4.4 Influences on space sector activities We also included a number of influences on space sector activities in the survey and asked re- spondents to what extent these influences had a positive or negative impact on their space activi- ties. 13.7% 62.7% 15.7% 7.8% 20.7% 66.7% 9.2% 3.4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 1 organisation 2 to 4 organisations 5 to 9 organisations 10 or more organisations Academic institutes Companies 28.9% 26.7% 20.0% 8.9% 15.6% 47.4% 11.8% 14.5% 9.2% 17.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% < 250000 250000 to 499999 500000 to 999999  1 Mio. to 1.99 Mio.  2 Mio. or more Academic institutes Companies 11.3% 49.1% 3.8% 28.3% 0.0% 7.5% 6.1% 45.9% 20.4% 8.2% 19.4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Co‐financed technology development (Industry initiated) Technological development (Agency initiated) Development for a mission (built to order) PRODEX ANC other Academic institutes Companies 23 4.4.1 Mid-term demand development In a first question we assessed the demand in the period 2012-14 and the (expected) future de- mand development in 2015-17. For both periods, the demand developments are evaluated as rather positive with little difference between corporate and academic respondents. Notably, ex- pectations for 2015-17 are slightly more positive than past developments 2012-14. It should be noted, however, that the majority of interviews was conducted before the Swiss National Bank abolished the minimum exchange rate, and the expectations of export-oriented companies are probably less positive today than they were end of 2014. Figures 10a and b: Mid-term demand development for space activities a) Experienced in 2012-14 b) Expectations for 2015-17 2012-14: Academic institutes: n=29, companies: n=45; 2015-17: Academic institutes: n=26, companies: n=43. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. 4.4.2 Influences on space activities Next, we asked companies and academic institutes about eight different influences. We asked them whether these influences had a positive, negative or no influence on their space activities and whether any influence was strong or weak. The central values which split the response distri- bution in two halves (medians) are shown in the annex (Table 11 and Table 12). The partner net- works and public subsidies, not differentiating between funding from cantonal, national or interna- tional sources, had a positive influence for both types of institutions (see also Figures 11a & b). Corporate respondents also pointed to a positive influence of long-term demand growth. Having highly qualified employees is a key influence on being successful in space research or industry and in particular academic institutes pointed to problems with filling open positions for qualified staff. Both academic institutes and companies frequently recruit foreign engineers in order to maintain their level of space activities and benefit from their international networks. Raising the share of Swiss employees requires increased efforts in Switzerland to educate and train a suffi- cient number of qualified personnel. Other issues that were mentioned as influential are: aspects of ESA governance (e.g. decision-making, lobbying of larger countries), the strong Swiss Franc, the reputational benefits of working in the space sector, infrastructure (either positively as an en- abler and precondition for doing certain projects, or as restriction, limiting the space activities because of missing lab and office space), relations with EU. 24 Figures 11a and b: Influences on space activities 2012-14 by sector of the respondent a) Academic institutes b) Companies See Table 11 and Table 12 in the annex on the data. Academic institutes: n≥ 28 (other influences n=13), companies: n≥ 39 (other influences n=20). Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. 4.5 Assessment of funding programmes Importance of funding programmes. To assess the level of awareness of the different programs at European and national level participants were asked an open question on which programs they found particularly important for their organisation. ESA and EU programmes were mentioned by most respondents. For ESA programmes, the ESTMP 2014 provides an overview of the im- portance of different programme families for Swiss organisations (European Space Agency, 2014, p. 142): in 2014, Earth Observation received the biggest share of the Swiss contribution to ESA, followed by Science (including PRODEX), Technology/Telecommunication, Launchers, Human Spaceflight/Exploration, and Navigation. Among the national funding sources academic institutes listed most often SNF followed by the SSO programmes (MdP/ANC), and the CTI. Companies pointed most often to SSO, CTI and SNF, as well, but with a lower priority for SNF. Every fourth enterprise was not aware of any na- tional program. Application procedure and programme management. We asked respondents how strongly they agree or disagree with statements on the programmes to which the projects on which they re- ported belonged. This serves to assess the perception of the application procedure and pro- gramme management during project execution. For sake of better legibility we reduced the origi- nal five-point scales to three-point scales in this report (e.g. "strongly agree" and "agree" were combined to "agree"). For most aspects of the application procedure and programme management the median values are neutral and do not differ between academic and corporate respondents. Respondents do not have a strong positive or negative opinion on the application procedure (see Table 5). Academic institutes slightly more often found that the application resulted in a lot of paper work (see Table 17 and Table 18 in the annex). 25 During project execution the majority of respondents experienced an efficient communication with the programme management which itself was mostly judged as being well organised and trans- parent (see Table 5). Table 5: Opinions on application procedures and criteria and programme management Disagree Neutral Agree Total count Median Procedure and criteria were hard to understand. 45% 34% 21% 154 Neutral We benefitted from the support of other Swiss organisa- tions. 36% 37% 27% 154 Neutral The application resulted in a lot of paper work. 21% 36% 43% 154 Neutral The funding decision was made quickly. 23% 38% 39% 154 Neutral The programme management was well organised and transparent. 15% 28% 57% 154 Agree We waited long for the payment after invoicing. 29% 38% 33% 154 Neutral Communication between programme management and the project was efficient. 13% 27% 60% 154 Agree The administrative work required during project execu- tion was too complex and time-consuming. 31% 36% 33% 154 Neutral Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. Figure 12: Opinion on application procedure and programme management by programme type (difference between the share which agreed and disagreed in percentage points) Bars show the range between the share of respondents which agreed and the share of respondents which disa- greed to the statement. Negative values stand for a higher share of disagreement than agreement. ESA programmes: n=135; National complementary measures ANC n=19. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. Comparing ESA programmes with the national complementary measures ANC which are admin- istrated by SSO with support from SSC, we get a more positive assessment for the ANC for all questions (see Figure 12). In particular, the application procedure and realisation are less bu- reaucratic, communication is judged as more efficient and payment terms are more reliable. However, these results have to be understood in the specific context of the funding: ANC projects are stand-alone, aiming to push small pilot activities between industry and academia, while ESA projects are quite often elements of big, multinational and multiannual development programmes 26 which per se are more complex to implement (but eventually also with considerably larger im- pacts). 4.6 Challenges in obtaining institutional space contracts and approaches and measures to resolve them 4.6.1 Challenges One set of questions in the interviews asked respondents about the challenges they encountered in applying for ESA-funding and how they overcame these challenges. In addition, they were asked to suggest measures that could help the Swiss space community to become more suc- cessful with ESA applications. Table 6: Challenges in obtaining ESA contracts Rank Academic institutes Companies 1 Timing Finances 2 Communication Administration 3 Finances Timing 4 Administration Communication 5 Politics Politics 6 Finding partners Authorisation 7 Authorisation Further challenges 8 PhD students - 9 Further challenges - Note: Academic institutes n=30. Companies n=38. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. In terms of timing academic institutes most often criticized project cycles. The time available for writing and submitting bids is being considered as too short and it is often followed by an unpre- dictable waiting period for the funding decision. This causes multiple problems: it prevents bidding for other projects due to eventual resource limitations (in case several bids are won); if the deci- sion time is overtly long, academic staff is without funding which raises job insecurity and eventu- ally even causes job changes or work on other projects out of necessity. This results in staff shortages if the funding decision is positive. It also implies financial losses. Additionally, the pro- ject start usually has to follow immediately after the funding decision has been made. All in all, an efficient task and resource planning and management are made nearly impossible. Schedules and the achievement of milestones have often been described as overambitious during project realisation. For companies timing also posed a challenge though it was mentioned slightly less often than in the academic sector. The difficulty of being available on short notice was often men- tioned. The short-term availability of resources for writing bids and starting projects also pose challenges for the surveyed companies. Also frequent and short-term changes, e.g. in the form of additional requirements, are being considered as very challenging. The projects are generally subject to significant time pressure, while at the same time proposal plans are hardly followed. Resource planning and management poses a challenge for enterprises as well. Financial issues. Probably the most challenging problem for companies is delays of payments. Several companies complained of advance work to ESA which can put severe cash flow con- straints on the company. Additionally, due to project milestones the partial payments are a plan- ning risk as well. The devaluation of the Euro and delayed payments generated financial prob- lems for the funded academic institutes and companies as well. ESA projects and budgets for 27 certain programmes and topic areas fluctuate which makes planning for academic and corporate entities more difficult. Some SMEs struggle with the high costs of writing ESA proposals. Very specialized companies also mentioned difficulties in the pricing of tailor-made products. Some enterprises regret that they have no access to science funding from SNF. Above all academic institutes described settings with indirect communication as challenging; this can refer to communication with ESA via project partners, but also with project partners or clients outside of Europe via ESA – the higher the number of players involved in projects the more com- plex the communication gets and the higher the overhead that it generates. It comes with little surprise that finding the right information and the person in charge of certain topics also raised the challenges of obtaining ESA contracts for enterprises as well as for academic institutes. Addi- tionally, changing priorities over time as well as decision making processes at ESA which are sometimes perceived as being tedious are considered as troublesome. Moreover, presenting the technology in an understandable language to ESA experts and convincing them of industrial standards is being described as not easy. Several respondents praised the ESA personnel for its technological knowledge and competences; however they wish that economic aspects of the de- velopment and provision of technology would be given higher attention. Different respondents also pointed out that they perceived a more open and comprehensive information policy on ESA matters in other ESA member countries than in Switzerland; however, it was also stated that this has improved in recent years. The writing of bids was described by academic institutions as a highly administrative task which is more complicated than for SNF or CTI proposals, e.g. with regard to demonstrating the necessary knowledge and capability to deliver the promised results. The amount of paperwork was men- tioned often as a cause for a large overhead (see above). Companies often pointed to the long and intense procurement procedure. The complexity and workload of project administration com- pared to project size and output were criticized as well as a perceived growth of ESA rules and requirements. For academic institutes, politics plays an important role. Some actors’ perception is that other countries apply more pressure on ESA compared to Switzerland. Several enterprises feel that the political dimension plays a more important role than the commercial one in ESA decisions and that in international competitions political power of the country seems to play an important role in the funding decisions. In terms of partnerships some seem to have difficulties of finding partners or feel disadvantaged compared to the prime contractors which enter proposals as standing con- sortia. Authorisation questions such as liability or Intellectual Property ownership are usually dealt with by applying the General Terms and Conditions of ESA. This was considered as considerable administrative "overkill" and raised many questions and insecurity in academic institutions and companies. Following the compliance rules of ESA contracts was also perceived as challenging. One academic respondent commented: “We sign the contracts blindly.” Additionally, distinct ex- port and customs regulations in Switzerland and the EU cause delays and raise costs. Academic institutes face further challenges such as the employment of PhD students. ESA pro- jects are seen as an opportunity for PhD students; however, due to the uncertainty of time and budget, it is a risk for the students as well as the academic institute to depend on ESA funding. For small enterprises the dependency on ESA projects is very large and thus a weakness among others due to the project cycles. Several respondents mentioned “that you already need to be an expert” before you stand a chance of winning a bid. 28 Six academic institutes and three companies reported that they never had any challenges in ob- taining an ESA and/or Swiss contract. 4.6.2 Dealing with challenges Respondents were also asked about their approach to overcome the above mentioned challeng- es. Networking and maintaining contacts to ESA were described as essential in order to over- come these challenges and gain access to an ESA contract by academic institutes (n=19). Build- ing collaborations and partnerships refers to the mobilisation of external resources which is also necessary for being successful. Being well informed and knowing the rules and guidelines of ESA is essential. Previous experiences with ESA projects considerably raise chances to win a bid which underlines the importance of "space heritage" and the difficulties encountered above all by new players when trying to enter the space community. Trial and error is seen as another solution to overcome challenges. Respondents also describe having a specialized team ready with the necessary competencies as a plus. In terms of finances, academic institutes cross-fund and complement ESA projects with co-funding from other sources. Enterprises (n=32) – just like academic institutes – pointed to networking and lobbying as the main measures to overcome challenges. At some point being pushy and persistent also contrib- utes to success. Another tactic is described in creating a stand-by situation in order to be ready as soon as the bid is tendered. Gradually gaining experience with ESA contracts and proving one's competencies with small contributions was described as an approach to incrementally build up reputation within ESA. Forming collaborations with other, more experienced partners, being highly innovative and at the same time specialized also contributed to success. In terms of fi- nances, enterprises are also focusing on internal process optimization (salaries, production costs, location). Four enterprises stated that they had found insurmountable problems in the application process and had abandoned projects. 4.6.3 Changes of ESA or national funding policies since 2010 We asked in the interviews for changes of ESA or national funding policies since 2010 which had an impact on the organisation. Half of the academic institutes (n=25) perceived an increase of administration and also in compe- tition with regard to ESA funding. However, an increase of transparency was also mentioned. Others describe the funding policies as stable. The availability of the national complementary measures and Calls for Ideas were mentioned positively. Five respondents reported no changes. Compared to the academic institutes the enterprises (n=31) answered with a stronger focus on national funding policies. The work of SSO and of the Swiss Space Center (SSC) has improved from the enterprises’ perspectives. The access to SSO and to information in general is described as more open. The interviewees also made comments in favour of the national complementary funding and the perceived focus on niches (Swiss Space Implementation Plan) and smaller play- ers. At ESA level, an increase of administration and higher influence of the EU is described as a challenge. Respondents reported increasing delays in financial payments and a higher risk aver- sion which also contributes to more administration.. Twelve respondents reported no changes. 29 4.7 Goal attainment and outputs of space projects Another section of the project questionnaires asked questions on (1) Goal attainment or effectiveness of the projects, (2) outputs generated by the projects, (3) and project additionality. 4.7.1 Goal attainment or effectiveness of the projects Almost all academic and corporate respondents saw technological goals in the ESA projects on which they reported; more than 80% of the academics also perceived scientific goals and three quarter of the surveyed firms perceived economic goals in "their" ESA projects (see Figure 24). Environmental and social goals were mostly irrelevant. Figure 13: Percentage of projects for which the specific goal was applicable by sector Academic institutes: n≥ 45, companies: n≥ 74. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. Figure 14: Projects by type of goals and level of goal attainment (in %) Scientific n=98, technological n=134, economic n=91, environmental n=30, social n=42. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. In addition to their mere existence, we requested information on the attainment of certain goals. Overall, goal attainment was rather high and quite similar from the perspective of academic and corporate respondents (see Figure 14 below and Figure 24 in the annex). Economic goals were the exception, as almost 50% of the projects (for academic institutes even the majority) reached the economic goals only barely or not at all. We do not know which economic goals were pursued 30 by the projects (and project participants) and why they were not reached in the view of the re- spondents, but overall this suggests a more critical opinion towards short-term economic results; economic results rather materialized mid- to long-term and after the funded projects had ended (see Table 10, p. 38). Figure 15: Percentage of projects for which a goal type was applicable and which fully reached the goals by project type Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. 31 One might suspect different project types to have different goals, e.g. technological development projects might not have to fulfil economic goals. Figure 15 shows that industry initiated projects in general aim for a higher number of goals than the other project types. However, they do not fare so well with regard to fully reaching these goals, in particular the technological and economic goals are often not fully reached. Technological development projects are less ambitious (fewer goals), but they fully reach their goals slightly more often. Respondents found that 86% of the PRODEX-projects pursued also economic goals, however only 11% of these projects also fully attained the economic goals. PRODEX-projects fare considerably better with regard to the at- tainment of scientific and technological goals. Built to order projects mainly pursue technological goals and they also reach these more often than the other project types. All other goals are less common among this type of projects. In ANC projects, goal achievement was above average for social and economic goals but below average for scientific goals. Environmental goals were not fully reached by any PRODEX or ANC project, however, n are fairly low for this type of goals and results should be considered with caution. Multiple goals are very common in the space sector. Over 60% of the projects wanted to reach at least three of the specified goals. The more goals a project seeks to achieve the lower is the level of complete goal achievement. For instance, projects with only one goal reach this goal in 100% of cases, whereas merely 40% of the projects with four goals also reach these goals. Still, pro- jects reach more goals when they have set more goals. There might also be a critical mass of goals; 13% of the projects with five goals did not achieve any of the goals (see Table 7). Table 7: Multiple goals and goal achievement % of all projects Number of achieved goals (fully or mostly) Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 Nu mb er of ap pli - ca ble go als 1 14% 0% 100% - - - - 2 26% 6% 19% 75% - - - 3 36% 2% 4% 29% 65% - - 4 14% 0% 0% 26% 32% 42% - 5 11% 13% 0% 0% 7% 40% 40% Total 100% 4% 20% 34% 29% 10% 4% Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. Table 8: Simultaneous goal achievement (fully or mostly) Scientific Technological Economic Environmental Social Scientific (n=93) 100% 92% 39% 18% 27% Technological (n=127) 68% 100% 36% 20% 26% Economic (n=47) 77% 98% 100% 19% 34% Environmental (n=25) 68% 100% 36% 100% 72% Social (n=36) 69% 92% 44% 50% 100% Percentages refer to the total number of projects which achieved the goal in the rows; e.g. 92% of the projects which achieved their scientific goal also achieved their technological goal. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. It is also of interest to see which type of goals is likely to be attained jointly. Table 8 shows the percentage of jointly achieved goals as a share of the total number of projects which achieved the other goal (row wise). For instance, 92% of the projects which had a scientific goal and reached this goal also reached their technological goal. Whatever goal a project attains, it is also very likely that it reaches its technological goals; for instance, if a project reached its economic goals it is virtually given that it also reached its technological goals (98%) (and less probable that scien- 32 tific goals were reached as well). But no matter which other goals are achieved, only in 4 out of 10 projects the economic goal is simultaneously achieved (see Table 8). 4.7.2 Outputs generated by the projects We asked for seven possible project outputs which could of course appear in combination (multi- ple responses): New data, new knowledge and understanding, advancement of existing technol- ogies, new technologies, new applications, product innovations, and other output. For both, aca- demic and corporate respondents, the most common project outputs were new knowledge and the advancement of existing technologies. Most other output categories were more or less equal- ly likely generated except for new data, which more often resulted from the projects on which academic institutes reported (see Figure 16a). Additionally the questionnaire asked for the main output of a project. In both sectors, new knowledge was most often the main output followed by the advancement of existing technologies (see Figure 16b). Figure 16a and b: Resulting project outputs a) Resulting outputs (multiple responses) b) Main output (single response, all outputs=100%) Academic institutes n=56, companies n=98. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. Box 2: Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) TRLs are a set of management metrics that enable the assessment of the maturity of a particular technology and the consistent comparison of maturity between different types of technology - all in the context of a specific system, application and operational environment. Level Definition Engineering/R&D Terms TRL 1 Basic principles observed and reported Scientific research TRL 2 Technology concept and/ or application formulated Systems analyses, Pre-phase A studies TRL 3 Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-of-concept Laboratory experiments TRL 4 Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment Component, breadboard TRL 5 Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment High-fidelity breadboard, brassboard, engineering breadboard, function- oriented model 46.4% 67.9% 75.0% 44.6% 32.1% 35.7% 17.9% 30.6% 64.3% 57.1% 32.7% 32.7% 41.8% 10.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% (a) New data (b) New knowledge and understanding (c) Advancement of existing technologies (d) New technology/technolo… (e) New application(s) (f) Product innovation(s) (g) Other outputs, please summarise: Academic institutes Companies 5.9% 25.5% 19.6% 17.6% 5.9% 13.7% 11.8% 10.3% 25.6% 16.7% 12.8% 10.3% 16.7% 7.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% (a) New data (b) New knowledge and understanding (c) Advancement of existing technologies (d) New technology / technologies (e) New application(s) (f) Product innovation(s) (g) Other outputs Academic institutes Companies 33 TRL 6 System/subsystem model or prototype demon- stration in a relevant environment (ground or space) High-fidelity lab prototype, engineering qualification model, subsystem model, development model, system model TRL 7 System prototype demonstration in a space environ- ment System demonstration TRL 8 System completed and “flight qualified” through test and demonstration (ground or space) Theoretical first unit, flight unit, flight spare TRL 9 Actual system “flight proven” through successful mission operations Mission operations, flight qualified hardware We also asked the respondents about the technology readiness levels (TRLs) of the technologies at project start and at project end (see Box 2 on the definitions of TRLs). Figure 17 shows that the distribution of TRL levels in funded space projects significantly differs between project start and end. Funding contributed to reaching TRL levels 8-9 which were literally inexistent at project start. Figure 17: TRL-levels of projects at start and end (in % of all projects) Project start n=99, project end n=103. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. No real difference between the TRLs in projects of academic institutes and enterprises at project start and end appears (see Table 19 in the annex). Given their different missions and responsibili- ties this might come as a surprise, as we might essentially expect that research institutes focus on the lower TRLs and companies on the higher TRLs. However, this result might also be due to the specific focus of the funding and the resulting rules and requirements of project selection (which resonates with one of the criticisms to ESA funding mentioned in the expert interviews, see section 3.3, p. 15ff.). Partly this can be unveiled through differentiating the development of TRL levels by project type (see Figure 18). Built to Order and PRODEX projects most advance technologies, but also for industry-initiated and agency-initiated projects we see some technologi- cal progress. ANC projects, which in our sample were only reported by companies, mostly re- mained at TRL levels 1-4; however, it should be noted that the aim of this programme is to build up scientific and technological competences related to space activities and reaching TRLs 3-4 starting at lower TRLs. 34 Figure 18: Percentage of projects with TRL-level at... a) … project start b) … project end Industry initiated: n=7, agency initiated n=47, built to order: n=12, PRODEX: n=16, ANC: n=13. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. 4.7.3 Project additionality In order to get a better understanding of whether the projects mobilised additional inputs and pro- duced additional outputs, which would not have been obtained without the funding, we asked hypothetical questions on whether and how the respondents would have realised the projects without public funding. Most of the projects relied strongly on public funding from ESA and the Swiss Space Office: 70% would not have been realised without it. Only one out of six projects either would have possibly been realised with funding from other sources, would have taken longer to carry out, or would have been smaller. In one out of ten the respondents think that the consortium of partners would have been different without the funding. The differences between projects on which academic institutes reported and projects on which companies reported are negligible (see Figure 25 in the annex) and they are not clear-cut if we differentiate organisations by the importance of the space business (see annex Figure 26). Figure 19: Realisation of project without public funding by project volume in Euro Note: <250'000: n=71; 250'000 - 1 M.: n=48; > 1 M.: n=32. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. 35 Additionality by project size. Differentiating by project size we find that three quarter of all projects with a budget larger than 250'000 Euros would not have been realised without ESA funding – in small projects (with a budget of less than 250'000 Euros) this would have been only two third of the projects. Additionally, one quarter of the small projects would have been funded by other sources. The larger projects are, the lower respondents perceive the chances of realising it with- out the public funding and a different size, duration and funding configuration (see Figure 19). Additionality by project type. For ANC projects we note considerably more often than for ESA- funded projects that other funding alternatives or project set-ups would have been possible (see Figure 20). Figure 20: Realisation of project without public funding by type of project Realised with ESA funding n=135; realised with ANC funding n=19. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. All in all, additionality is slightly higher and windfall effects are less likely for ESA projects than for ANC projects and the larger projects get. 4.8 Outcomes of space-related activities 4.8.1 Organisation-related outcomes of space-funding In the organisation-related interviews companies and research institutes were asked whether the space funding contributed to different outcomes: describing the internal organisation of the fund- ed organisations, their competitiveness, reputation, networks and competencies. The contribution could be positive or negative (or non-existent) and strong or weak. Most items were put to both, research institutes and companies, except for competitiveness and introduction of new organisa- tional procedures which were only asked to companies and academic reputation which was only assessed for academic institutions. Looking only at the share of respondents in each sector that made a positive assessment (see Table 13 and Table 14 in the annex and Figures 21a and b), we find generally a more positive assessment of the funding among research institutes: more than 80% of the academic respond- ents assessed the contribution to academic reputation, the size of the global academic network, employees' competencies, and the recruitment and training of staff as positive. The ESA/ANC projects had among academic institutes rather little impact on the internal organisation, organisa- tion of work, and size of the global corporate network. 36 Figures 21a and b: Organisation-related outcomes of ESA/ANC projects by sector a) Academic institutes b) Companies See Table 13 and Table 14 in the annex on the data. Academic institutes: n≥ 22, companies: n≥ 34. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. Among companies the influence on competitiveness and also on competencies were evaluated as positively by three out of four of the respondents; for companies little effects resulted on the internal set-up, be it internal organisation, project management practices, process reorganisation, or work organisation and decision-making. In an open-ended question we also gave the respondents the opportunity to express their view on any additional outcomes of ESA/ANC projects on their organisations. Many respondents pointed to the positive effects on the reputation of their organisation resulting from the institutional space projects. They attract good employees and contribute to developing other funding/business (see Table 15 in the annex). We would expect that outcomes of the funding are more pronounced the more organisations are committed to space activities. Figure 22 shows this is not generally the case. Some internal out- comes, in particular changes of the internal organisation, new methods of work organisation and decision-making, growing competencies of employees, and better recruitment and training of new staff as well as (positive) effects on the global linkages to companies are more common among companies for which the space business is (just) a side business that contributes less than a quarter (but more than 5%) to sales/funding. How can this be explained? A few suggestions result from the interviews: 1) Companies very involved in the institutional space business frequently stated that they are organised in a way that makes this business possible; they rejected a particu- lar contribution of the funding in this regard, stating at the same time that their business models are shaped according to the ESA business; 2) Organisations from both sectors of the space community stated that even at European level the space business depends on rather few players; after having been involved in a few projects it is not so likely to further extend one's network. 37 Figure 22: Positive organisation-related outcomes of ESA/ANC projects by importance of space activities for the organisation (in % of all responding organisations) * Only asked to companies; ** only asked to academic organisations. Space is marginal business: n=18 (*n=12; **n=6); space is side business: n=24 (*n=11; **n=13); space is main business: n=27 (*n=19; **n=8). Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. 4.8.2 Academic, technological and economic outcomes of funded space-projects In a similar set-up, the project questionnaires contained questions on different academic, techno- logical (product innovations, process innovations, patents) and commercial outcomes (such as volume and diversification of sales, cost reductions). Most items were put to both, research insti- tutes and companies, except for scientific publications, academic theses and academic education offers, which were only asked to academic institutes. The contribution of the public space funding to academic outcomes, measured as academic scientific publications and academic theses, was mostly rated as positive; for academic education offers it was as often considered as relevant as not (see Table 9). Table 9: Generation of or contribution to academic outcomes of funded projects Negative contribution No contribution Positive contribution Median Not applicable Total Academic institutes Scientific publications 0% 7% 93% Positive 3 54 Academic theses (e.g. PhD, MSc) 0% 38% 63% Positive 4 53 Academic education offers (courses, programmes) 0% 53% 47% No con- tribution 7 53 Percentages only refer to cases where the outcome was rated as applicable. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. The funded projects contributed above all to technological outcomes, in particular product innova- tions on space markets (five out of six projects agreed to this, see Table 10). Only patents or oth- er Intellectual Property Rights resulted in few projects. With regard to commercial outcomes we also often see a positive contribution of the institutional space projects to sales on space-related markets, a diversification of clients and of target markets. 38 Table 10: Contributions to technological and economic outcomes of funded projects (in %) Negative contribution No contribution Positive contribution Median Not applicable Total Product innovations for space-related markets 0% 15% 84% Positive 17 150 Product innovations for non-space markets 2% 36% 62% Positive 34 150 Process innovations 2% 34% 64% Positive 32 149 Patents or other Intellectual Property Rights 2% 78% 20% No cont. 44 150 Sales on space-related markets 1% 38% 61% Positive 45 150 Sales on non-space markets 0% 64% 36% No cont. 58 150 Diversification of clients 0% 42% 58% Positive 41 148 Diversification of target markets 1% 43% 56% Positive 40 148 Cost reductions of space activities 4% 69% 27% No cont. 52 150 Cost reductions of non-space activities 2% 82% 15% No cont. 65 150 Percentages only refer to cases where the outcome was rated as applicable. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. The picture does not vary fundamentally if we distinguish between academic and corporate re- spondents. For technological outcomes there is virtually no difference between both sectors (see Table 20 in the annex). We find that commercial outcomes are not applicable for half of projects on which academic institutes reported (see Table 21 in the annex). If commercial outcomes were relevant, the funding in few cases contributed to reaching these outcomes. In companies, the average funded space project contributed positively to the following outcomes: sales on space- related markets, the diversification of clients and of target markets. There was no contribution to the sales on non-space markets and to cost reductions neither of space nor of non-space activi- ties. The contribution to outcomes did not differ systematically from the overall results for the fol- lowing classifications/variables (results are therefore not shown in the report): TRL-level classes, programme families, project size (budget), project type and main business of the organisation. 4.9 SWOT analysis Academic institutions (see annex Table 22) and companies (see annex Table 23) share similar future outlooks in terms of internal strengths and weaknesses and external opportunities and threats (SWOT). While academic institutions describe their high expertise as the strongest asset followed by being a niche player and their good reputation, enterprises perceive their networks, strong expertise and their skilled employees as major internal strengths. Additionally, enterprises judge their flexi- bility as a particular strength which echoes the rather small average size of the companies in the Swiss space industry. In terms of weaknesses, both organization types fear that too few employ- ees (academic) or being a small organization (companies) are disadvantages in the space mar- ket. Another major weakness that concerns especially academic institutes is the dependence on individuals and the risk of losing qualified staff. For enterprises, missing access to key ESA or other industry decision-makers and liquidity constraints are key weaknesses (see also section 4.6 above). In terms of external opportunities academic institutes foresee an increasing demand for their knowledge, competencies and technologies. Privatization and commercialization of the space business are also considered as opportunities. Threats are identified in uncertain funding policies, the political environment (e.g., Masseneinwanderungsinitiative), and fluctuating demand. For en- terprises the largest opportunities are also seen in growing markets plus privatization and com- 39 mercialization; four corporate respondents connected strong opportunities with advancing from made-to-order to serial production. Enterprises described the exchange rate Swiss Franc/Euro as a key threat - mostly already before the recent abolition of the minimum exchange rate by the Swiss National Bank. In addition, Switzerland's status outside the EU is considered by some re- spondents as a danger for their space activities. The economic as well as the political environ- ment can also pose threats to enterprises. 5. Summary and conclusions 5.1 Relevance, effectiveness and effects of the space-related funding The terms of reference suggested that this evaluation of Swiss/ESA space-related funding focus- es on three key aspects: 1. Relevance, consistency and coherence of the instruments and their implementation rules, 2. Effectiveness, referring to the degree of goal attainment, 3. Effects, distinguishing between type of effects, beneficiaries, sustainability and additionali- ty of the funding. The following section will summarise the findings of the analysis with regard to these three con- structs and give recommendations which can help to further develop the strengths of the funding, fill some gaps and further improve the impact of the funding. 5.1.1 Relevance, consistency and coherence This section discusses 1) the relevance of the funding with regard to the needs of the Swiss space sector; 2) coherence and complementarity of the ESA and national space-related support (internal consistency); and 3) coherence and synergies with other Swiss national institutions, ac- tors or funding instruments (external consistency). Relevance We consider the overall positive response on the influence of public funding on space activities, the confirmed relevance of the funding approach, the positive results of the supported projects, the high level of technological goal achievement, and the stated input additionality – the funding supports mostly projects which would not be conducted at all or at least at very different scale – as proofs for the general relevance of the space funding and the need to continue it. It should be noted that 7 out of 10 projects would not have been realized without the contribution from ESA programs or the national complementary measures. In addition, certain funding schemes introduced more recently – at national level the complemen- tary national measures (ANC), at ESA level a PhD funding scheme and framework contracts for laboratory support – were mentioned as functional for specific needs. With regard to the ANC two different opinions came to light: on the one hand the ANC were described as functional to in- crease the stability of funding for the space sector, given the fluctuations and insecurities inherent to ESA funding. They are a good measure, too, to promote national interests at low TRLs. On the other hand, it was criticized that they focus on low TRLs only. One interviewed expert stressed 40 that funding would be needed as well for higher TRLs and the commercialization and conversion of developed technologies into products. With our Recommendation 1 we endorse the recommendation "Continue investing in space activ- ities” made in the previous Evaluation of Switzerland’s Investments in Space Activities (Balthasar, Inauen, & Walker, 2011). At the same time, it seems that certain areas require more attention to ensure Switzerland's long- term success in the space sector. It needs to be secured that new technological opportunities are not ignored because of a (too) strong focus on existing technologies and players. "Companies will always try to make the maximum use of their technologies and products and not push for the best or most innovative solution. So this type of projects can be adverse to innovation. For some technologies we have come to the point that the academic work is completed, but no company wants to pick up the technology and we cannot commercialize it, we "put it in the freeze" so to say and go to the next technology." (Academic interview AF134) Several interview partners openly stated that they see little benefit in making access to ESA/national space-funding easier for new players as long as the "overall cake" does not grow. Still, some interview partners pointed to the ongoing transformation of our understanding of space and the merger between space and aerospace with new flight technologies for altitudes below low earth orbit. Others stressed that the commercial and public use of space-borne data in Swit- zerland lags behind other European countries, which in our understanding is also confirmed and explained in the SSIP with the good ground networks and infrastructure (Swiss Confederation Federal Department of Economic Affairs Education and Research, 2013). According to our inter- views, in particular the development of business and public use cases for space-data uses lags behind the practice in other countries. Together with the relevant players from the Swiss space community but also by means of collecting information on the state-of-play in other countries, the SSO could explore and support such business and public use cases (Recommendation 12). Our interviews provide clear evidence that public funding can positively influence the success of space science and space business. However, it also points to other influences which are of key importance (see section 4.4). The question is: Can space policy also shape these factors? With regard to two of them we see a need for space policy to become and remain active: 1) Qualified personnel and 2) partner networks. 1. Qualified personnel. Obtaining and keeping space heritage at organisation level is a key re- quirement for long-term success. At the same time, it is a specific problem for research institutes, as institutes might be reorganised or even shut down when scientists retire. Moreover, knowledge generally moves with the scientists and researchers when they take on new positions in industry or abroad. In addition, the availability of young engineers with an appropriate basic qualification for becoming space engineers has been frequently mentioned as a challenge. Many other Euro- pean countries offer degrees in "Aerospace Engineering" which, as far as we know, does not exist in Switzerland. Higher education institutions (HEI) should be made aware of the needs of the space community and the job opportunities for qualified aerospace engineers (Recommendation 13). A cost-effective approach to setting up such an offer could consist of pool- ing the distributed competencies across HEI. In addition to a solid basic science and engineering education, training on the job has been de- scribed as essential for the qualification of space engineers. Personnel exchange schemes be- tween academic institutes and companies contributes to the transfer of skills and knowhow and increases the mutual understanding of the requirements and restrictions. We received positive comments on "industrial PhD" schemes as well as the exchange of senior scientists and engi- 41 neers. However, in particular SMEs tend to lack the internal resources to engage in such schemes and it should be tested under which conditions and funding constellations their uptake could be advanced in SMEs (Recommendation 14). 2) Partner networks. We were frequently told that one key ingredient to success in the space sec- tor is the network of academic and corporate partners as well as good linkages to ESA. Organisa- tions have built these relationships over time and being involved in funded projects reinforces them. This requires also knowing, as early on as possible about new space initiatives, technologi- cal needs and requirements, consortia being formed and more. Several respondents still uttered their frustration with obtaining information on time and finding the right person in charge. Staff exchange or visitor programmes which include ESA and take into account the restrictions of SMEs with regard to time and resources could contribute to weaving tighter networks (see Rec- ommendation 14). Our interview partners suggested that the Swiss Space Office, the Swiss Space Center and other intermediary organisations in the Swiss space sector could play a stronger role as well, make their contact networks available and open doors to the right people at the right point in time (i.e. when new technology generations are being launched and it is possible to join new consortia that are being formed for this purpose). The various funding opportunities with space relevance, in particular those at national level and those in relation with ESA, but also the EU Framework Pro- gramme for R&D (Horizon 2020), the European Research Council (ERC), the European Science Foundation (ESF), or the European Institute of Innovation & Technology (EIT) require a profes- sional approach to networking and communication. In particular for SMEs and minor academic or corporate players in the space sector, this is too costly. It seems that the previous evaluation and the corresponding recommendation "Enhance Swiss ESA participation by providing information and advice to potential ESA contractors" (Balthasar et al., 2011) has already started this professionalization and contributed to improving the situation. The SSO and SSC – the latter mandated by SSO – have started several activities and the im- provement was recognised by the Swiss space community (more transparency, more communi- cation). However, further improvements and widening the impact should be still an objective (Recommendation 4). SSO and SSC could support companies in at least two ways: 1) Let Swiss organisations participate as much as possible in their networks and involve them as early as pos- sible in the preparation and design of new initiatives. 2) Push the key information to Swiss organi- sations in real time through customised electronic services (e.g. RSS feeds, tweets etc.) and of- fering comprehensive information on the web for Swiss organisations. Internal consistency First and foremost, the European (ESA) and national space-related support measures (Activités Nationales Complémentaires, ANC) have generally received positive marks from the respondents to our interviews with regard to their consistency. Our interview partners agreed that the ANC can support early technology development and the build-up of competencies for being successful in subsequent ESA calls. SSO, with the support from SSC, provides services that are being consid- ered as very useful for acquiring and successfully running institutional space-projects with the prime contractors and big players in Europe. The ESA projects themselves generate new knowledge and advance existing technologies (see section 4.7) and contribute to scientific, tech- nological and commercial outcomes (see section 4.8). However, a number of interviewees missed an overarching (scientific or technological) strategy in the national measures and some of 42 the ESA programmes. In addition, some interviewees criticised that the ESA measures oriented toward R&D and innovation were overambitious and underfunded creating potentially a catch 22 situation for successful tenderers. This frequently led to the comment that a space science/space technology plan and well- equipped space programme at Swiss level would be needed. An additional advantage of such a programme at national level would be the smaller administrative overhead and shorter lead times. Some interviewees linked such a space programme to the call for a Swiss Space Agency and a more pronounced role of space policy as well as more federal funding for space activities in gen- eral. If more funding would be provided it should not be routed through ESA or other international organisations, but become the financial basis for a Swiss Space Programme which formulates and pursues national goals (Recommendation 2). Notably, such a programme should ideally not lead to a reduction of the Swiss ESA engagement, as different types of activities need different scales; mid-sized and large activities still need the European level, and small national initiatives could constitute an ideal bridgehead for further strengthening the Swiss influence at European level. However, this should not be understood as a mere call for more money. It rather expresses the desire to increase the possibilities of technology development according to national priorities and to steer and govern these activities independently of the European competitors. Several of our respondents perceived that the competition for space-related funding has increased over the past few years. The question about changes in European or national funding policies usually led to a discussion about the role of Switzerland in European politics and a need for more lobbying and influence on European space policy. A second point refers to the Swiss public support infrastructure for working in the space business or engaging in space research. The services provided by SSO, SSC and others have been con- sidered as relevant and generally useful. However, the writing of proposals, fulfilment of formal requirements and – in case of success – administration of funded projects is still seen as chal- lenging; especially by smaller or not mainly space-orientated organizations which have no dedi- cated resources for this type of work. They benefit considerably from external support and even- tually even the outsourcing of some of the work. The legal complexity of ESA contracts and Gen- eral Terms and Conditions even asks too much of experienced players in the space sector as we frequently heard in the interviews. One of our interview partners, an expert in the field of space law, suggested dedicated workshops and training for companies/academic institutes (and their lawyers) on laws and regulations relevant for entities in the space sector. We can only endorse this with a broader scope on general framework conditions to do space activities. We recommend that general but also topic-specific (e.g. on space law) workshops and training offers, or (subsi- dised) coaching from competent specialists or public intermediaries should be provided on a regular basis (Recommendation 3). Such offers should help to increase the understanding for all administrative matters related to the institutional space business in the Swiss space community. Providing general support to the acquisition and implementation of space projects is again one of the tasks of SSO with the support of SSC. This report stresses the strong necessity of such ser- vices. At the same time, some interviewees complained that the division of labour and the con- nections between SSO and SSC are not fully clear. This adds to the perceived intransparency and time and efforts needed for getting started on space projects. The division of labour between both institutions, i.e. the mandate given to the SSC, should be intuitive and well communicated to the Swiss space community (and organisations wishing to enter this community, see also Rec- ommendation 9). 43 External consistency This section refers to the consistency of space-related funding with other related funding sources: at national level SNF and CTI funding and at European level the Framework Programmes for Research & Development. The views on SNF and CTI differ to some extent:  SNF was acknowledged as one of the main national funding channels for space research: "We build instruments with 80-90% ESA funding. […] However, we build these instru- ments to answer scientific questions and this work is funded by SNF or the university it- self." (Academic respondent AF137). SNF grants are also used to co-fund PhD projects and secure funding over the entire duration of a PhD. Though funding is not always seamless and, of course, subject to considerable efforts in proposal writing, academic re- spondents generally evaluated SNF and ESA as functional for covering different aspects in the value chain of space-related research. The only exception mentioned was the fund- ing of infrastructure and operational part of missions for which it is challenging to obtain support from any type of funding agency. Some corporate respondents criticized the ori- entation of SNF to basic research and academic institutions which had led to their exclu- sion from grant proposals even though their academic collaborators had endorsed and justified their participation.  CTI was mentioned by all respondents, corporate as well as academic, rather few times though some had participated in CTI-funded projects. In particular for companies this is surprising, as several corporate respondents stated that their main current development focus is in the area of product development and the conversion of made-to-order produc- tion or services into serial production. SSO, SNF, and CTI must discuss the needs of Swiss space research and space industry on a regular basis. In addition, we would suggest that joint information events and information material could be an important contribution to making academic institutes and companies aware of their offers (Recommendation 5). This would contribute to further enhancement of the network quality and align funding possibilities and it might lead towards a consolidated offer of the SSO and the two funding agencies for the Swiss space community. EU funding, above all the framework programmes for R&D (FP 6 and 7, Horizon 2020), are known widely in the community and used above all by academic institutes. Companies tend to perceive this as an instrument that mainly supports R&D and no other aspects of innovation and therefore view it as less relevant for their needs. 5.1.2 Effectiveness A second key concern of any evaluation is to what degree the measures and instruments reach their goals. In the current report this does not refer to the goal attainment of individual measures and instruments which would have overburdened the analysis; for instance, the specific objective of the Swiss national measures is to contribute to optimizing the Swiss scientific and technologi- cal positioning in European space programmes. In order to evaluate whether this goal is reached, it would not only be necessary to analyse the projects in detail, but we would need to look at the trajectories of technologies and partnerships in order to see whether they lead to ESA or com- mercial follow-on projects. Doing this – and corresponding work for the multiple ESA programmes – requires a different project set-up and timelines. We suggest that such work is facilitated through regular monitoring and reporting activities (Recommendation 15). Such activities should 44 include regular surveys, but also the analysis of existing administrative data from contract man- agement (OECD, 2014, p. 32). This report needs to take a more "bird's eye perspective" and focus on the contributions of the funding to meeting the goals of Swiss space policy. From a policy perspective, Swiss space- related funding should contribute to a) Developing and using space applications with the goal of improving the quality of life in Switzerland, b) Ensuring Swiss long-term commitment to the exploration of space to the benefit of creat- ing innovations and a knowledge society, c) Supporting the provision of important scientific, technological and industrial contributions through which Switzerland can position itself as a competitive, reliable and irreplaceable partner (Staatssekretariat für Bildung und Forschung, 2008, p. 2, FHNW translation). In addition to this latter point, Swiss ESA participation should contribute to reinforcing the image of "Swissness" as a synonym for top quality, reliability, unique competency and in- ternationally highly competitive technology (Dispatch on Education, Research and Innova- tion 2013-16, p. 3250). Improving the quality of life in Switzerland The final goal of scientific and technological progress in the space sector as well as in any other domain will be to raise the well-being and quality of life in Switzerland. As we tried to argue above (see Figure 1 above on the logic model) this can be achieved in an extended cause-effect chain, which requires internal (within organisations in the space community) and external contributions in all phases as well as the transfer of technology, applications, and data from the space sector to other sectors in the economy and society as a whole, e.g. the health system, the public systems for monitoring weather and climate, earthquakes or other natural hazards, the military and internal security system and the like. This is a long-term cause-effect chain that covers the use of knowledge on space and its influences on life on earth, technologies created for space missions, ground technologies, as well as the use of data on space or originating in space. Analysing it would require coverage not only of the space community, but all these other societal domains and organisations benefitting from the work of the space community in one way or another. This, of course, is not possible within this study. As we frequently stated in this section, the analysis lets us believe that Switzerland punches over its weight in the exploration of space and development of space technologies. Securing the societal benefits of the space funding should be one of the top priorities of all space-related activities, as this is the final aim of this investment and a neces- sary justification of any future investment in space. The "Integrated applications push" described in the SSIP (Swiss Confederation Federal Department of Economic Affairs Education and Research, 2013) seems to be one important step in this direction, as well as Swiss participation to the exploitation phases of operational space infrastructure programmes such as Galileo or GMES/Copernicus. Dedicated analyses of the wider impacts of space activities on different socie- tal areas in Switzerland could become part of the suggested regular monitoring and reporting activities (see Recommendation 15). Conceptualising and better measuring both the upstream and downstream sectors of the space community should also be included in this exercise (see footnote 2, p. 12). 45 Creating innovations and a knowledge society Though we did not collect any information from peers nor subjected Swiss space science to any scientometric analyses (i.e. analysis of scientific output and impact by means of publications and citations), we learned in the conversations with academic and non-academic interview partners that Swiss space science is very well reputed internationally in its core fields. Our survey stressed that Swiss space industry is nationally among the most research-intensive and innovative indus- tries. The space-related funding supports this commitment to research and innovation activities. In other words, we find considerable scientific and technological expertise in both parts of the Swiss space community. The specific set-ups of the ESA science and technology funding and the national complementary funding measures ensure that academic institutes and companies pool their expertise and collab- orate in the preparation of scientific experiments and R&D for space technologies. This has with- out doubt several advantages and is a good way to strengthen linkages between both sectors. However, there are a number of reasons for flexibility in the funding arrangements, if the main view is to create innovations and knowledge:  Swiss space industry and space science are both small communities which frequently makes it challenging to find adequate partners.  Interests of scientists and companies still differ, even if they join forces in joint projects; it can be challenging to combine scientific breakthroughs and technological progress, and, it might raise overall success and support the realisation of innovative projects, if one ob- jective is relaxed in order to achieve the other.  Existing companies might not want to pick up academic inventions, because of many rea- sons, not least because of already existing profitable solutions. In practical terms this implies that certain situations require some degree of flexibility of funding regulations, for instance with regard to the condition of working with Swiss partners, or the re- quirement of a specific share or funding of partners from industry/science (Recommendation 6). The necessity of flexible solutions and even direct funding to SMEs to support research and inno- vation was already suggested for Swiss innovation policy several years ago (OECD, 2006). SSO's Business Incubation initiative is aimed at stimulating entrepreneurship and innovation in the space sector. However, a few things need to be taken into account in this context: first, for start-ups it is often challenging to work in ESA contracts (for the same reasons that apply to other SMEs, see section 5.1.3) and it rarely goes beyond research funding. Second, Swiss public sup- port is concentrated on research and development and low Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) of usually up to TRL 5. This makes it challenging for start-ups to develop a technology up to high- er TRLs or create a product because of a lack of funds. To avoid that ideas and companies "die" between TRLs 5 and 9 support measures for technologies at higher TRLs should be evaluated (Recommendation 7). Supporting the image of Switzerland as a source of high technology and high quality The recent and spectacular successes of the Rosetta mission to comet Churyumov– Gerasimenko and the significant contributions of Swiss science and industry to this success doc- ument better than our data the positive reputation effects that can result from space missions. Our respondents generally agreed that the European space community – in science as well as in industry – is well aware of the Swiss contributions. However, the Swiss general public, parliamen- 46 tarians and decision-makers at Federal and Cantonal levels might not yet be aware of this. As the institutional space business depends on public money and the willingness of taxpayers and gov- ernments to dedicate funds to it, a public awareness initiative could be an important means to make the Swiss public aware and proud of its space community (Recommendation 10). This res- onates with the recent OECD (2014, p. 10) suggestion that "the flow of evidence-based infor- mation to decision-makers and citizens needs to be improved". Components of such an initiative were suggested by different interview partners: systematically informing policy-makers and deci- sion-makers in society about the space community, exploring the possibilities to cooperate with Swiss TV channels to produce documentaries on space, using social media for spreading infor- mation and creating communities of followers which can serve as multipliers (the recent short video "Switzerland in Space", was praised as a good start). 5.1.3 Effects Outputs and outcomes Outputs. Outputs are the short-term and direct results of funded projects. Our survey found that (see section 4.7):  Two out of three projects generated new knowledge,  More than 35% of the projects directly generated new or substantially changed products (goods or services),  Projects contributed to technological progress and advanced the TRLs considerably,  Seven out of ten projects would not have been realised without public funding. Outcomes. Taking a mid- to long-term perspective, the results of funded projects lead to further academic, technological and economic benefits (see section 4.8); benefits in other societal do- mains could not be analysed in this study though it is likely that they exist as well.  Academic institutes assessed the contribution of public space funding to academic repu- tation, the size of the global academic network, employees' competencies, and the re- cruitment and training of staff as positive. Public space funding contributes to academic outcomes, i.e. academic scientific publications and academic theses,  Companies attributed a positive contribution of public space funding to competitiveness and to competencies of their personnel.  Technological outcomes are quite prominent for most types of projects, usually in the form of product innovations or process innovations, and for both, space markets as well non-space markets.  Positive commercial outcomes are mostly related to sales (and little to costs) and space markets (compared to non-space markets). The contribution of public space funding to innovations is often indirect and not direct. In other words, projects conducted with the participation of Swiss companies generated considerably more often new knowledge and understanding than new applications or product innovations. Also enhancement of competencies and a general increase of competitiveness are of key importance among the mid- to long-term outcomes of the engagement in publicly supported space projects. Converting the results of funded projects into innovations requires considerable follow-up activi- ties by companies and immediate economic returns to the funding are therefore rather the excep- tion than the rule. Together with the above mentioned challenges of ESA/space-funding, this 47 stresses the requirement of a long-term strategy and long-term funding security before the deci- sion to enter the space business is being made. This provides a logical background for the calls for more funding of development work in higher TRLs made by companies for industrialization and the reduction of costs. However, this would eventually also raise the risk of more windfall effects, i.e. public funding of activities which companies would be able and willing to fund from other sources/their own funds as well. Still, the question whether more public support is needed to secure the conversion of new knowledge and technologies at low TRLs into marketable offers needs to be discussed in the Swiss space community (Recommendation 7). Sustainability With few exceptions the space business is for both, academic institutes as well as business en- terprises, predominantly a European business, and neither a national nor a global one. All in all, it seems that the surveyed academic institutes are less focused on space activities than the sur- veyed companies though they have been active in the space sector for considerably longer (on average more than 10 years). However, space companies dedicate a larger share of their em- ployees to space activities and they obtain a higher share of their budgets from ESA. Though this share was on average only 5% for all companies with space activities, it grew to 20% for those companies actually receiving ESA funding between 2010 and 2014. For four out of ten compa- nies in the Swiss space industry ESA is a key client which was responsible for at least 25% of their total sales in 2013. This strong dedication to institutional space activities was often stated as necessary to obtain space heritage and maintain critical mass, which were described as precon- ditions for success. A considerable built up of knowledge, long-term investment in material as well as immaterial assets (e.g. contacts and networks), and critical mass are essential to be success- ful. At the same time the space business has been described as a challenging business by both, research institutes and companies. Competition is high and margins are rather low. The main client in Europe, ESA, is like many other large multinational organisations by no means an easy client: processes are complex and can be slow, reputation and track records of successful pro- jects are preconditions for being considered in funding decisions, decisions are subject to multiple influences, and generally the timing of decisions can be difficult to predict, making it nearly im- possible to plan resources and activities. This can translate into considerable fluctuations of ac- quiring ESA contracts over time. This combination of long-term upfront investment and considerable funding insecurity creates a potentially unsustainable situation for the Swiss beneficiaries, above all for SMEs and start-ups with little cash flow, strong dependency on timely ESA payments, and lack of capital and buffers. The ANC might be one remedy to this (see above), however, it is also an application-based fund- ing measure, pursues specific and narrow goals and is not appropriate in all situations. A key goal for many space companies should be to diversify their clients and find additional customers, ei- ther from the non-European institutional space sector, the commercial space business or non- space markets. Such business development is essentially the task of every company. However, the current situation also demands that companies put a focus on reducing costs and increasing efficiency. Our findings endorse the focus on "internationalisation and export" of the SSIP (Swiss Confederation Federal Department of Economic Affairs Education and Research, 2013) and sug- gest allocating additional effort and resources to this (Recommendation 11). Another related problem stems from the fact that ESA payments are subject to an authorisation procedure that has been described as complicated and lengthy the lower an organisation is 48 placed in the hierarchy of a contract. Requesting interim payments is often not a solution (at least for subcontractors), as this essentially creates additional administrative work which the main con- tractors avoid. This creates and exacerbates cash flow problems of SMEs for which market solutions seemingly do not exist. According to some interviewees banks are unwilling to provide bridge funding as they cannot assess the involved risks with reasonable costs; export risk insurances, such as the Swiss Export Risk Insurance SERV, provide protection against non-payment of foreign debtors – delayed payments from subcontracts to international contracts are difficult to cover with this. Companies, in particular SMEs will rarely be able to find satisfactory solutions for bridge funding and first steps to finding a solution would be to analyse how other countries deal with this situa- tion and whether adequate solutions exist or can be found with the involved stakeholders, includ- ing ESA (Recommendation 8). 5.2 Recommendations We distinguish two types of recommendations: the first type refers directly to the space-funding implemented by SSO and ESA. The second type concerns additional measures which can guar- antee the success of the funding and improve the general conditions for being successful in space science or space industry. The latter measures tend to require the input of other institutions in the public sector, business associations and private companies themselves in order to be ef- fective. However, SERI and its supporters in the space sector could be important moderators and present the needs of the Swiss space community. Recommendations oriented towards space-related funding Recommendation 1: Continue investing in space activities. Recommendation 2: Work towards a Swiss Space Programme for space science, technology de- velopment, and space data use. Recommendation 3: Provide support – directly or indirectly through involving topic experts, trainers and coaches – on all non-technical (administrative, legal, economic) matters related to the acquisi- tion and management of institutional space projects. Recommendation 4: Enhance the communication of business-related information to the Swiss space community. Recommendation 5: Discuss the needs of the Swiss space community on a regular basis with SNF and CTI and offer joint information events and information material for academic institutes and en- terprises. Recommendation 6: Ensure a flexible approach in the implementation of funding measures (includ- ing ratio between academia and industry, and direct funding to industry) to ensure that the overall goal of creating innovations and a knowledge society can be reached, along the whole value chain. Recommendation 7: Analyse – in discussion with key players from the Swiss space sector – whether further support to innovation, technology development in TRLs 7-9 and product develop- ment is needed, including support to industrialization and cost reduction programmes. 49 Recommendation 8: Analyse possible contributions for stabilising the cash flow of SMEs, such as bridge funding for ESA contracts or reimbursements of costs for preparing offers. Recommendations on additional measures Recommendation 9: Communicate clearly the responsibilities of SSO and SSC. Recommendation 10: Design a public awareness campaign on the successes of the Swiss space community. Recommendation 11: Find – in discussion with key players from the Swiss space sector – ways to support the global business development of the Swiss space industry. Recommendation 12: Explore and support business and public use cases for space-data. Recommendation 13: Discuss with ETH/Universities/UAS representatives possible ways to strengthen the role of "Aerospace Engineering" in the STEM fields (and in particular in postgradu- ate engineering education). Recommendation 14: Pilot and test the acceptance of support to cross-organisational mobility schemes between academia, industry and ESA for graduate students as well as senior engineers and scientists. Recommendation 15: Regular (annual or biannual) monitoring of and reporting on the Swiss space community involving industry associations at national level (SSIG) and at European level (Eu- rospace), as well as ESA and other relevant actors 50 List of References Academy of Finland. (2004). Research Programme for Space Research ANTARES 2001-2004. Evaluation Report. Helsinki: Academy of Finland. Amesse, F., Cohendet, P., Poirier, A., & Chouinard, J.-M. (2002). Economic Effects and Spin-offs in a Small Space Economy: The Case of Canada. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(4), 339- 348. Arvanitis, S., Ley, M. C., Seliger, F., Stucki, T., & Wörter, M. (2013). Innovationsaktivitäten in der Schweizer Wirtschaft - Eine Analyse der Ergebnisse der Innovationserhebung 2011 (Vol. 39). Zürich. Arvanitis, S., Seliger, F., Spescha, A., Stucki, T., Veseli, K., & Wörter, M. (2014). Die Entwicklung der Innovationsaktivitäten in der Schweizer Wirtschaft 1997– 2012. Strukturberichterstattung Nr. 51. Studie im Auftrag des Staatssekretariats für Wirtschaft: Staatssekretariat für Wirtschaft SECO. Bach, L., Cohendet, P., & Schenk, E. (2002). Technological Transfers from the European Space Programs: A Dynamic View and Comparison with Other R&D Projects. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(4), 321-338. Balthasar, A., Inauen, M., & Walker, D. (2011). Evaluation of Switzerland’s investments in space activities. Report commissioned by the State Secretariat for Education and Research SER. Lucerne: Interface. Bullock, M., Patureau, J.-P., Varlet, F., Villain, R., Guilmet, E., & Pastor, M. (2009). European Space Industry Survey 2003 -2007. Retrieved 16.09.2014, from http://emits.sso.esa.int/emits- doc/ESA_HQ/2003-2007industrysurveyreport-Published.pdf Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (CSES). (2011). Interim Evaluation of FP7 Space. Final Report. Clark, J., Koopmans, C., Hof, B., Knee, P., Lieshout, R., Simmonds, P., & Wokke, F. (2014). Assessing the full effects of public investment in space. Space Policy, 30(3, Part A), 121-134. Cohendet, P. (1997). Evaluating the industrial indirect effects of technology programmes: the case of the European Space Agency programmes Policy Evaluation in Innovation and Technology: Towards Best Practices (pp. 189-223). Paris: OECD. Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation. (2008). Evaluation of Danish Industrial Activities in the European Space Agency (ESA). Assessment of the economic impacts of the Danish ESA membership. European Space Agency. (2014). European Space Technology Masterplan. (11 ed.). Noordwijk: ESA- ESTEC. Goss Gilroy Inc. (2010). Summative Evaluation of the 2000-2009 Canada/ESA Cooperation Agreement. Final Report.: Canadian Space Agency. Hertzfeld, H. R. (2002). Measuring the Economic Returns from Successful NASA Life Sciences Technology Transfers. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(4), 311-320. Norsk Romsenter (Norwegian Space Centre). (2014). Årsberetning 2013. NRS-rapport 2014/4 [in Norwegian]. Oslo: Norsk Romsenter. OECD. (2006). OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: Switzerland. Paris: OECD. OECD. (2011). The Space Economy at a Glance 2011. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD. (2012). OECD Handbook on Measuring the Space Economy. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD. (2014). The Space Economy at a Glance 2014. Paris: OECD Publishing. Oxford Economics. (2009). The Case for Space: The Impact of Space Derived Services and Data. Prognos AG. (2008). Evaluierung der österreichischen Beteiligung an ESAWahlprogrammen sowie des österreichischen Weltraumprogrammes des BMVIT. Berlin. Schweizerischer Bundesrat. (2012). Botschaft über die Förderung von Bildung, Forschung und Innovation in den Jahren 2013–2016. Retrieved from: http://www.admin.ch/opc/de/federal- gazette/2012/3099.pdf. Space Foundation. (2014). The Space Report 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.spacefoundation.org/ sites/default/files/downloads/The_Space_Report_2014_Overview_TOC_Exhibits.pdf. Swiss Confederation Federal Department of Economic Affairs Education and Research. (2013). Swiss Space Implementation Plan within Education, Research and Innovation for 2014-2023. Bern. Vanhaverbeke, W., Vermeersch, I., & Zutter, S. d. (2012). Open Innovation in SMEs: How can small companies and start-ups benefit from open innovation strategies? Retrieved from: http://www.flandersdc.be/sites/default/files/Flanders%20DC%20Study%20- %20Open%20Innovation%20in%20SMEs.pdf. ESA SUPP CODE: «HARM_SUPP_CODE» / Project ID: «IDproj» Annex Annex 1: Questionnaires Survey "Impact of space-related funding in Switzerland" (Version CF) This survey is conducted on behalf of the Swiss Space Office, State Secretariat for Education, Research & Inno- vation SERI, by the School of Business, FH Nordwestschweiz. For questions or comments please contact: Olga Samuel, olga.samuel@fhnw.ch, +41 62 957 2403 or Prof. Dr. Franz Barjak, franz.barjak@fhnw.ch, +41 62 957 2684 All your answers will be treated as strictly confidential. Module A. General questions 1. In 2013, was your enterprise part of an enterprise  group?   A group consists of two or more legally defined enter‐ prises under common ownership. Each enterprise in  the group can serve different markets, as with national  or regional subsidiaries, or serve different product  markets. The head office is also part of an enterprise  group.  ☐  Yes     In which country is the head office of your group  located? Klicken Sie hier, um Text einzugeben.  ☐  No  If your enterprise is part of an enterprise group: Please  answer all further questions about your enterprise  only for the enterprise for which you are responsible  in Switzerland. Exclude all subsidiaries or parent en‐ terprises.  2. In what year was your enterprise established?  Please exclude mere legal status changes.  Klicken Sie hier, um Text einzugeben.  3. How many employees (FTE) did your enterprise  have in Switzerland at the end of 2013?  Include apprentices; please calculate full‐time equiva‐ lents (FTE) also for part‐time positions.  a)  Overall:   … … … …   b)  In space activities:*  … … … …   A space activity is considered to be any activity related  to hardware or software which is either flown into  space or used on the ground to enable utilization of  space and space‐derived data.    4. What was the share of space activities of the total  market sales of goods and services of your enter‐ prise in 2013?  a)  Share of space activities: … … %  c)  Share of sales to ESA:        … … %  5. Please estimate the shares of different geographic  markets in 2013 (in percent)?   Market region  Overall  sales  Only space‐related  sales  Switzerland  … %  … %  Europe (without  CH)  … %  … %  USA  … %  … %  Asia  … %  … %  Other markets  … %  … %  Total  100%  100%  6. What is the mid‐term development of demand  for your space market goods and services?    Strong   decrease    Strong  increase ‐2  ‐1  0  +1  +2  In the period 2012‐ 14  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  In the period 2015‐ 17 (expected)  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  Module B. Supportive and limiting conditions B.1 Innovation activities and research and de- velopment activities 7. Has your enterprise realised research and devel‐ opment (R&D) activities in Switzerland from  2012‐14?   ☐  Yes  ☐  No  Please continue with question 10.  Research refers to basic research and research activi‐ ties with direct relationship to specific applications  (applied research).   52 Development refers to the utilisation of established  scientific knowledge for producing new or improving  existing products and processes.   8. How frequently have you realised R&D activities in  Switzerland?  ☐  Occasionally  ☐  Continuously  9. How many employees (FTE) of your enterprise  were engaged in research and development  (R&D) in Switzerland at the end of 2013?  a)   Overall:   … … … …   b)   In space activities:  … … … …   10. Did your enterprise introduce innovations in the  time period 2012‐2014 in space and non‐space  segments?    Space‐ related  Non‐  space  Yes, product innovations.  ☐  ☐  Yes, process innovations.  ☐  ☐  No, we neither introduced  product nor process innova‐ tions.  ☐  ☐  Explanation:  Product innovations are technically new or significant‐ ly improved products from the perspective of your en‐ terprise, i.e. products which are new or significantly  improved or changed with regard to their capability of  use, quality, or the physical or interactive components  employed in their production.  No product innovations are simple esthetical modifica‐ tions of products (e.g. colouring, style) and product  variations, e.g. because of client specifications which  do not change at large the product (good or service)  with regard to its technical basics and use characteris‐ tics.  Process innovations refer to the first use of technically  new or significantly improved manufacturing or pro‐ cess technologies for producing goods respectively ser‐ vices for persons or objects. Though the product may  change as well, raising efficiency is in forefront. New  manufacturing technologies developed by you and sold  to other enterprises are product innovations. Simple  organisational or management changes are not sub‐ sumed among process innovations.  B.2 Space-related conditions 11. In what year did your organisation start its space  activities?   (e.g. conclude the first contract, make the first invest‐ ment, build up competencies or the like)  Klicken Sie hier, um Text einzugeben.  12. How do you summarise your current strategy on  the space market?  Please select only one single answer which describes  best your main strategic approach.  ☐  We develop or sell only for/in this market and not  for/in other markets (space‐only).  ☐  What we develop or sell in this market needs to  have other market(s) as well.  ☐  We first develop for the space market and then  analyse wider sales possibilities (transfer)  ☐  Other, please describe Klicken Sie hier, um Text  einzugeben.  13. How was the influence of the following factors on  your space‐related activities in 2012‐14?     Str on g p osi ‐ tiv e in flu ‐ en ce  Po siti ve  in‐ flu en ce  No    inf lue nce   Ne gat ive   inf lue nce   Str on g n ega ‐ tiv e in flu ‐ en ce  I d on 't k no w.   Short‐term de‐ mand fluctuations  (business cycle, 3‐5  years)  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐ Long‐term demand  developments (5‐10  years)  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐ Supply of qualified  labour  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐ Supply of capital  (equity, credits)  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐ Your network of  partners  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐ Public subsidies to  R&D or innovation  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐ Political framework  (e.g. with regard to  taxation, labour, or  trade)  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐ Other factors, plea‐ se summarise: Kli‐ cken Sie hier, um  Text einzugeben.  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐ Module C. Policy interventions and funding pro- grammes 14. Which ESA/European funding programmes or  sources for space‐related activities do you know?  53 Klicken Sie hier, um Text einzugeben.  15. Which Swiss funding programmes or sources for  space‐related activities do you know?  Klicken Sie hier, um Text einzugeben.    Please answer the following question 16 only, if you  have tried to obtain funding either from   - the European Space Agency ESA or from  - Swiss National Complementary Measures (Activi‐ tés Nationales Complémentaires, ANC), previou‐ sly called Mesures de positionnement technolo‐ gique (MdP).  16. Challenges of ESA and/or Swiss funding  a) What challenges have you had in trying to ob‐ tain ESA/Swiss contracts?  Klicken Sie hier, um Text einzugeben.  b) How have you overcome the challenges?  Klicken Sie hier, um Text einzugeben.  c) What measures or changes do you suggest to  help Swiss firms in accessing ESA contracts?  Klicken Sie hier, um Text einzugeben.  17. Have there been any changes in the European or  national funding since 2010 which affect your en‐ terprise?   Klicken Sie hier, um Text einzugeben.  18. Has the Swiss/ESA space funding to your enter‐ prise contributed to any of the following out‐ comes between 2012 and 2014 in your enter‐ prise?     Str on g p osi tiv e  con trib uti on   Po siti ve  con ‐ trib uti on   No    con trib uti on   Ne gat ive  co n‐ trib uti on   Str on g n ega ‐ tiv e c on trib u‐ tio n No t a pp lica ble .  Organisation‐related outcomes  Competitiveness of the  enterprise  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  Change of the internal  organisation (e.g. creation  of a new unit, outsourcing)  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  Change of project man‐ agement practices  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  New organisational proce‐ dures (e.g. supply chain  management, re‐ engineering, lean produc‐ ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐    Str on g p osi tiv e  con trib uti on   Po siti ve  con ‐ trib uti on   No    con trib uti on   Ne gat ive  co n‐ trib uti on   Str on g n ega ‐ tiv e c on trib u‐ tio n No t a pp lica ble .  tion, quality management,  etc.)  Methods of organising  work responsibilities and  decision‐making (e.g. new  system of team work, integ‐ ration or de‐integration of  units, new education or  training systems)  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  Size of the Swiss academic  network   ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  Size of the international  academic network   ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  Size of the Swiss network in  industry  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  Size of the international  network in industry  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  Quality of the network (e.g.  strength of ties, cohesive‐ ness, density of interaction)  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  Competence and skill‐related outcomes  Competencies of existing  staff  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  Hiring and training of new  staff  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  19. Has the Swiss/ESA space funding generated or  contributed to any other outcomes in your enter‐ prise?   ☐  No  ☐  Yes, please summarise: … … … … … … …   Module D. Outlook 20. If you look ahead 3‐5 years:   a)  Where do you see the main internal strengths and  weaknesses of your enterprise's space activities?  Klicken Sie hier, um Text einzugeben.      b)   Where do you see the main external opportunities  and threats for your enterprise's space activities?  Klicken Sie hier, um Text einzugeben.      ESA SUPP CODE: «HARM_SUPP_CODE» / Project ID: «IDproj» Project questionnaire ‐ CORPORATE Survey "Impact of space-related R&D funding" This survey is conducted on behalf of the Swiss Space Office, State Secretariat for Education, Research & Inno- vation SERI, by the School of Business, FH Nordwestschweiz. For questions or comments please contact: Olga Samuel, olga.samuel@fhnw.ch, +41 62 957 2403 or Prof. Dr. Franz Barjak, franz.barjak@fhnw.ch, +41 62 957 2684 All your answers will be treated as strictly confidential. Introduction According to our data you participated in the following project «CONT_Title» (contract no. «CONT_ID») which obtained ESA funding from the programme «IP_PROGRAM_DESCRIPTION». We would like to evaluate your experience with partici- pating in this programme, the goal attainment of this particular project and its outputs and impacts on your organisation. Module A: General information 1.  What was the role of your enterprise in the project?  ☐  Project leader  ☐  Sub‐contractor/supplier  ☐  Partner  ☐ Other, please specify: Klick‐ en Sie hier, um Text ein‐ zugeben.  2.  In what year did the project start?  Project start refers to the start date included in the contract.  … … … … …  ☐ I don't know.  3.  In what year did the project end?  Project ending refers to the end of the contract and ext. funding.  … … … … …  ☐ The project is still ongoing.  4.  What was the total budget of this project?  … … … … … … … … …  ☐in Euro ☐in Swiss Francs  ☐ I don't know.  5.  How many different organisations participated in  this project?  (Please include your own organisation.)  … … … …  organisations                ☐ I don't know.  6.  What was the project's main type?  Please select only one type.  ☐  Co‐financed technology development (Industry initiated)  ☐  Technological development (Agency initiated)  ☐  Development for a mission (built to order)  ☐  PRODEX  ☐  Other, please summarise: ……  Module B: Funding programme This section refers to the programme in which the project was funded. 7.  Do you remember any particular strong or weak  points of the application procedure and criteria?    Agree    Disagree +2  +1  0  ‐1  ‐2  Procedure and criteria were  hard to understand.  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ ☐  We benefitted from the sup‐ port of other Swiss organisa‐ tions.  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ ☐  The application resulted in  a lot of paper work.  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ ☐  The funding decision was  made quickly.  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ ☐  8.  Do you remember any particular strong or weak  points of the programme management?    Agree    Disagree +2  +1  0  ‐1  ‐2  The programme management  was well organised and trans‐ parent.  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ ☐  We waited long for the  payment after invoicing.  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ ☐  Communication between  programme management and  the project was efficient.  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ ☐  The administrative work  required during project  execution was too complex  and time‐consuming.  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ ☐  55 Module C: Effectiveness and effects of the pro- ject 9.  How would you have realised the project without  the ESA funding?  Multiple responses are possible.  ☐  Not at all  ☐  With funding from other sources  ☐  The project would have taken longer.  ☐  The project would have been smaller.  ☐  The consortium of partners would have been dif‐ ferent.  10. Has the project reached its goal(s)?    Ful ly  Mo stly   Ba rel y  No t a t a ll  No t a pp li‐ cab le  Do n't   kno w  Scientific  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  Technological  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  Economic  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  Environmental  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  Social  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  Other goals, please  summarise: Klicken Sie  hier, um Text einzuge‐ ben.  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  11. What outputs resulted from the project?  Project outputs are understood as the results genera‐ ted during project realisation by the participants.   Multiple responses are possible.  ☐  (a) New data  ☐  (b) New knowledge and understanding   ☐  (c) Advancement of existing technologies  ☐  (d) New technology/technologies  ☐  (e) New application(s)  ☐  (f) Product innovation(s)  ☐  (g) Other outputs, please summarise Klicken Sie  hier, um Text einzugeben.  12. Main project output  a)  What was the main project output?   Insert one letter from question 11 above: (……)  b)  At project start: What was the Technology  Readiness Level TRL of the main project out‐ put?  TRL …  ☐ Not applicable.  c)  At project ending: TRL of the main project  output?  TRL …  ☐ Not applicable.    TRLs are a set of management metrics that enable the assessment  of the maturity of a particular technology and the consistent com‐ parison of maturity between different types of technology ‐ all in  the context of a specific system, application and operational envi‐ ronment.  Level   Definition   Engineering/R&D Terms   TRL 1  Basic principles observed  and reported   Scientific research  TRL 2   Technology concept and/ or  application formulated  Systems analyses, Pre‐phase  A studies  TRL 3   Analytical and experimental  critical function and/or char‐ acteristic proof‐of‐concept  Laboratory experiments  TRL 4   Component and/or bread‐ board validation in labora‐ tory environment   Component, breadboard   TRL 5   Component and/or bread‐ board validation in rele‐ vant environment   High‐fidelity breadboard,  brassboard, engineering  breadboard, function‐ oriented model  TRL 6   System/subsystem model  or prototype demonstra‐ tion in a relevant environ‐ ment (ground or space)   High‐fidelity lab prototype,  engineering qualification model,  subsystem model, development  model, system model  TRL 7   System prototype demons‐ tration in a space environ‐ ment  System demonstration  TRL 8   System completed and “flight  qualified” through test and  demonstration (ground or  space)   Theoretical first unit, flight  unit, flight spare  TRL 9   Actual system “flight proven”  through successful mission  operations   Mission operations, flight  qualified hardware  Module D. Project outcomes 13. Has the project generated any of the following  technological or commercial outcomes or con‐ tributed to them in your enterprise?   Project outcomes are understood as the (short‐ to mid‐ term) effects resulting from the project during and af‐ ter project realisation on the participants' premises.     Str on g p osi tiv e  con trib uti on   Po siti ve  con ‐ trib uti on   No    con trib uti on   Ne gat ive  co n‐ trib uti on   Str on g n ega ‐ tiv e c on trib u‐ ti No t a pp lica ble   Technological outcomes  Product innovations  for space‐related  markets  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  Product innovations  for non‐space mar‐ kets  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  Process innovations  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  Patents or other In‐ tellectual Property  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  56   Str on g p osi tiv e  con trib uti on   Po siti ve  con ‐ trib uti on   No    con trib uti on   Ne gat ive  co n‐ trib uti on   Str on g n ega ‐ tiv e c on trib u‐ ti No t a pp lica ble   Rights   Commercial outcomes  Sales on space‐ related markets  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  Sales on non‐space  markets  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  Diversification of  clients  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  Diversification of  target markets  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  Cost reductions of  space activities  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  Cost reductions of  non‐space activities  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  14. Has the project generated or contributed to any  other outcomes in your enterprise?   ☐  No  ☐  Yes, please summarise: … … … … … … …   ESA SUPP CODE: «HARM_SUPP_CODE» / Project ID: «IDproj» Survey "Impact of space-related funding in Switzerland" (Version AF) This survey is conducted on behalf of the Swiss Space Office, State Secretariat for Education, Research & Inno- vation SERI, by the School of Business, FH Nordwestschweiz. For questions or comments please contact: Olga Samuel, olga.samuel@fhnw.ch, +41 62 957 2403 or Prof. Dr. Franz Barjak, franz.barjak@fhnw.ch, +41 62 957 2684 All your answers will be treated as strictly confidential. Module A: General questions 1. To which type of organisation does your institute  belong?  ☐  ETH sector  ☐  University  ☐  University of applied sciences  ☐  Non‐university research institute  ☐  Other, please describe Klicken Sie hier, um Text  einzugeben.  Please answer all further questions only for your re‐ search institute and not for the entire organisation un‐ less this is requested explicitly.    2. In what year was your institute established?  Please exclude mere status changes.  Klicken Sie hier, um Text einzugeben.  3. What was the total budget of your institute in  2013?  a)  Overall:   … … … … CHF  b)  For space activities*:  … … … … CHF   c)  From ESA:  … … … … CHF  A space activity is considered to be any activity related  to hardware or software which is either flown into  space or used on the ground to enable utilization of  space and space‐derived data.  4. Please estimate the contributions of different  geographic areas to your funding in 2013 (in per‐ cent)?   Area   Overall  budget  Only space‐related  budget  Switzerland  … %  … %  Europe (without  CH)  … %  … %  USA  … %  … %  Asia  … %  … %  Other areas  … %  … %  Total  100%  100%  5. How many employees (FTE) did your institute  have at the end of 2013?  Include PhD students, apprentices; please calculate  full‐time equivalents (FTE) also for part‐time positions.  a)  Overall:   … … … …   b)  In space activities: … … … …     Module B. Supportive and limiting conditions 6. In what year did your institute start its space ac‐ tivities?   (e.g. conclude the first contract, make the first invest‐ ment, build up competencies or the like)  Klicken Sie hier, um Text einzugeben.  7. How was the influence of the following factors on  your space‐related activities in 2012‐14?     Str on g p osi ‐ tiv e in flu ‐ en ce  Po siti ve  in‐ flu en ce  No    inf lue nce   Ne gat ive   inf lue nce   Str on g n ega ‐ tiv e in flu ‐ en ce  I d on 't k no w.   Short‐term de‐ mand fluctuations  (business cycle, 3‐5  years)  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐ Long‐term demand  developments (5‐10  years)  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐ Supply of qualified  labour  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐ Supply of private  funding  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐ Supply of public  funding  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐ Your network of  partners  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐ Political framework   ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐ Other factors, plea‐ se summarise: Kli‐ cken Sie hier, um  Text einzugeben.  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐ 58 8. What is the mid‐term development of demand  for your space activities?    Strong   decrease    Strong  increase ‐2  ‐1  0  +1  +2  In the period  2012‐14  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  In the period  2015‐17  (expected)  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  Module C. Policy interventions and funding pro- grammes 9. Which ESA/European funding programmes or  sources for space‐related activities do you know?  Klicken Sie hier, um Text einzugeben.  10. Which Swiss funding programmes or sources for  space‐related activities do you know?  Klicken Sie hier, um Text einzugeben.  Please answer the following question 16 only, if you  have tried to obtain funding either from   - the European Space Agency ESA or from  - Swiss National Complementary Measures (Activi‐ tés Nationales Complémentaires, ANC), previou‐ sly called Mesures de positionnement technolo‐ gique (MdP).  11. Challenges of ESA and/or Swiss funding  d) What challenges have you had in trying to ob‐ tain ESA/Swiss contracts?  Klicken Sie hier, um Text einzugeben.  e) How have you overcome the challenges?  Klicken Sie hier, um Text einzugeben.  f) What measures or changes do you suggest to  help Swiss research institutes with accessing  ESA contracts?  Klicken Sie hier, um Text einzugeben.  12. Have there been any changes in the European or  national funding since 2010 which affect your in‐ stitute?   Klicken Sie hier, um Text einzugeben.  13. Has the Swiss/ESA space funding to your institute  contributed to any of the following outcomes be‐ tween 2012 and 2014 in your organisation?     Str on g p osi tiv e  con trib uti on   Po siti ve  con ‐ trib uti on   No    con trib uti on   Ne gat ive  co n‐ trib uti on   Str on g n ega ‐ tiv e c on trib u‐ tio n No t a pp lica ble   Outcomes with regard to internal organization  Competencies of existing  staff  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  Hiring and training of new  staff  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  Change of the internal  organisation (e.g. creation/  closure of a lab or group)  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  Change of project man‐ agement practices  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  Methods of organising  work responsibilities and  decision‐making   ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  Outcomes with regard to external collaboration  Academic reputation  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  Size of your Swiss academic  network   ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  Size of your international  academic network   ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  Size of your Swiss network  in industry  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  Size of your international  network in industry  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  Quality of the network (e.g.  strength of ties, cohesive‐ ness, density of interaction)  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐  14. Has the Swiss/ESA space funding generated or  contributed to any other outcomes in your organ‐ isation?   ☐  No  ☐  Yes, please summarise: … … … … … … …   Module D. Outlook 15. If you look ahead 3‐5 years:   a)  Where do you see the main internal strengths and  weaknesses of your institute's space activities?  Klicken Sie hier, um Text einzugeben.      b)   Where do you see the main external opportunities  and threats for your institute's space activities?  Klicken Sie hier, um Text einzugeben.    59 Project questionnaire ‐ Academic Survey "Impact of space-related R&D funding" This survey is conducted on behalf of the Swiss Space Office, State Secretariat for Education, Research & Inno- vation SERI, by the School of Business, FH Nordwestschweiz. For questions or comments please contact: Olga Samuel, olga.samuel@fhnw.ch, +41 62 957 2403 or Prof. Dr. Franz Barjak, franz.barjak@fhnw.ch, +41 62 957 2684 All your answers will be treated as strictly confidential. Introduction According to our data you participated in the following project [project title] (contract no. [no.]) which obtained ESA funding from the programme [programme name]. We would like to evaluate your experience with partici- pating in this programme, the goal attainment of this particular project and its outputs and impacts on your organisation. Module A: General information 1.  What was the role of your institute in the project?  ☐  Project leader  ☐  Sub‐contractor/supplier  ☐  Partner  ☐ Other, please specify: Kli‐ cken Sie hier, um Text ein‐ zugeben.  2.  In what year did the project start?  Project start refers to the start date included in the contract.  … … … … …  ☐ I don't know.  3.  In what year did the project end?  Project ending refers to the end of the contract and ext. funding.  … … … … …  ☐ The project is still ongoing.  4.  What was the total budget of this project?  … … … … … … … … …  ☐in Euro ☐in Swiss Francs  ☐ I don't know.  5.  How many different organisations participated in  this project?  (Please include your own organisation.)  … … … …  organisations                ☐ I don't know.  6.  What was the project's main type?  Please select only one type.  ☐  Co‐financed technology development (Industry initiated)  ☐  Technological development (Agency initiated)  ☐  Development for a mission (built to order)  ☐  PRODEX  ☐  Other, please summarise: ……  Module B: Funding programme This section refers to the programme in which the project was funded. 7.  Do you remember any particular strong or weak  points of the application procedure and criteria?    Agree    Disagree +2  +1  0  ‐1  ‐2  Procedure and criteria  were hard to understand.  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ ☐  We benefitted from the sup‐ port of other Swiss organisa‐ tions.  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ ☐  The application resulted in  a lot of paper work.  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ ☐  The funding decision was  made quickly.  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ ☐  8.  Do you remember any particular strong or weak  points of the programme management?    Agree    Disagree +2  +1  0  ‐1  ‐2  The prog. management was  well organised and transpar‐ ent.  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ ☐  We waited long for the  payment after invoicing.  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ ☐  Communication between  programme management and  the project was efficient.  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ ☐  The administrative work  required during project  execution was too complex  and time‐consuming.  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ ☐  Module C: Effectiveness and effects of the project 9.  How would you have realised the project without  the ESA funding?  Multiple responses are possible.  ☐  Not at all  ☐  With funding from other sources  ☐  The project would have taken longer.  ☐  The project would have been smaller.  60 ☐  The consortium of partners would have been dif‐ ferent.  10. Has the project reached its goal(s)?    Ful ly  Mo stly   Ba rel y  No t a t a ll  No t a pp li‐ cab le  Do n't   kno w  Scientific  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  Technological  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  Economic  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  Environmental  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  Social  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  Other goals, please  summarise: Klicken Sie  hier, um Text einzuge‐ ben.  ☐  ☐ ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  11. What outputs resulted from the project?  Project outputs are understood as the results genera‐ ted during project realisation by the participants.   Multiple responses are possible.  ☐  (a) New data  ☐  (b) New knowledge and understanding   ☐  (c) Advancement of existing technologies  ☐  (d) New technology/technologies  ☐  (e) New application(s)  ☐  (f) Product innovation(s)  ☐  (g) Other output, please summarise Klicken Sie  hier, um Text einzugeben.  12. Main project output  a)  What was the main project output?   Insert one letter from question 11 above: (……)  b)  At project start: What was the Technology  Readiness Level TRL of the main project out‐ put?  TRL …  ☐ Not applicable.  c)  At project ending: TRL of the main project  output?  TRL …  ☐ Not applicable.    TRLs are a set of management metrics that enable the assessment of the  maturity of a particular technology and the consistent comparison of  maturity between different types of technology ‐ all in the context of a  specific system, application and operational environment.  Level   Definition   Engineering/R&D Terms   TRL 1  Basic principles observed  and reported   Scientific research  TRL 2   Technology concept and/ or  application formulated  Systems analyses, Pre‐phase  A studies  TRL 3   Analytical and experimental  critical function and/or char‐ acteristic proof‐of‐concept  Laboratory experiments  TRL 4   Component and/or bread‐ board validation in labora‐ tory environment   Component, breadboard   TRL 5   Component and/or bread‐ board validation in rele‐ vant environment   High‐fidelity breadboard,  brassboard, engineering  breadboard, function‐ oriented model  TRL 6   System/subsystem model or  prototype demonstration in a  relevant environment (ground  or space)   High‐fidelity lab prototype,  engineering qualification model,  subsystem model, development  model, system model  TRL 7   System prototype demonstra‐ tion in a space environment  System demonstration  TRL 8   System completed and “flight  qualified” through test and  demonstration (ground or  space)   Theoretical first unit, flight  unit, flight spare  TRL 9   Actual system “flight proven”  through successful mission  operations   Mission operations, flight  qualified hardware  Module D. Project outcomes 13.  Has the project generated any of the following outcomes  or contributed to them in your organisation?   Project outcomes are understood as the (short‐ to mid‐ term) effects resulting from the project during and af‐ ter project realisation on the participants' premises.     Str on g p osi tiv e  con trib uti on   Po siti ve  con ‐ trib uti on   No    con trib uti on   Ne gat ive  co n‐ trib uti on   Str on g n ega ‐ tiv e c on trib u‐ tio n  No t a pp lica ble   Academic outcomes  Scientific publications ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ Academic theses (e.g.  PhD, MSc)  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ Academic education  offers (courses, pro‐ grammes)  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ Technological outcomes  Product innovations  for space‐related  markets  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ Product innovations  for non‐space mar‐ kets  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ Process innovations  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ Patents or other In‐ tellectual Property  Rights   ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ Commercial outcomes  Sales on space‐ related markets  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ Sales on non‐space  markets  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ Diversification of  clients  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ 61   Str on g p osi tiv e  con trib uti on   Po siti ve  con ‐ trib uti on   No    con trib uti on   Ne gat ive  co n‐ trib uti on   Str on g n ega ‐ tiv e c on trib u‐ tio n  No t a pp lica ble   Diversification of  target markets  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ Cost reductions of  space activities  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ Cost reductions of  non‐space activities  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ 14. Has the project generated or contributed to any  other outcomes in your organisation?   ☐  No  ☐  Yes, please summarise: … … … … … … …   62 Annex 2: Experts interviewed for the evaluation Name Function and organisation Dr. Stéphane Berthet Commission fédérale des affaires spatiales (CFAS) Dr. Gabriela Seiz Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss Interdepartmental Coordination Committee for Space Affairs (IKAR) Johann Richard Swiss Space Office Swiss Delegate to ESA for Technology, Telecommunications and Navigation Pro- grammes Prof. Werner Schmutz President of the Swiss Committee on Space Research Prof. José Achache Lead AP-Swiss, ESA-IAP Ambassador Platform Dr. Peter Guggenbach President of the Swiss Space Industries Group (SSIG) Prof. Volker Gass Director Swiss Space Center, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) 63 Annex 3: Additional tables and figures Figure 23: Role of responding entity in space project a) by sector b) by level of space involvement Note: Academic institutes n=55, Companies n=98, Space is marginal business n=14, Space is side business n=48, Space is main business n=84. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. Table 11: Influences on space activities in the academic sector Negative influence No influence Positive influence Median N Business cycle 18.5% 70.4% 11.1% no influence 27 Long-term demand 13.8% 37.9% 48.3% no influence 29 Supply of qualified labour 26.7% 60.0% 13.4% no influence 30 Supply of capital/ private funding 13.8% 75.9% 10.3% no influence 29 Partner network 0.0% 6.9% 93.1% strong positive influence 29 Public subsidies 17.2% 17.2% 65.5% positive influence 29 Political framework 3.6% 64.3% 32.2% no influence 28 Others 46.2% 15.4% 38.5% no influence 13 Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. Table 12: Influences on space activities in the corporate sector Negative influence No influence Positive influence Median N Business cycle 15.0% 52.5% 32.5% no influence 40 Long-term demand 4.7% 32.6% 62.8% positive influence 43 Supply of qualified labour 15.0% 57.5% 27.5% no influence 40 Supply of capital/ private funding 15.4% 61.5% 23.1% no influence 39 Partner network 4.8% 11.9% 83.3% strong positive influence 42 Public subsidies 7.0% 23.3% 69.8% positive influence 43 Political framework 9.7% 56.1% 34.2% no influence 41 Others 30.0% 15.0% 55.0% positive influence 20 Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. 56.4% 23.6% 18.2% 1.8% 51.0% 18.4% 29.6% 1.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% Project leader Partner Sub‐ contractor/suppli er Other, please specify: Academic institutes Companies 28.6% 28.6% 42.9% 0.0% 50.0% 22.9% 25.0% 2.1% 58.3% 16.7% 23.8% 1.2% 0% 50% 100% Project leader Partner Sub‐ contractor/sup plier Other Space is marginal business Space is side business Space is main business 64 Table 13: Contribution of space funding to organisation-related outcomes in academic institutes Positive contribution No contribution Negative contribution Not appli- cable Median N Competitiveness [not asked] Internal organisation 41% 56% 0% 4% No contribution 26 Project management 56% 37% 0% 7% Positive contribution 25 Reorganisation of processes [not asked] Methods of work organisation and decision making 44% 48% 0% 7% No contribution 25 Academic reputation 93% 7% 0% 0% Strong positive contri-bution 27 Academic network in CH 52% 37% 4% 7% Positive contribution 25 Academic network worldwide 89% 7% 0% 4% Positive contribution 26 Corporate network in CH 59% 26% 0% 15% Positive contribution 23 Corporate network worldwide 41% 37% 4% 19% No contribution 22 Quality of the network 67% 30% 0% 4% Positive contribution 26 Competencies of the employees 93% 7% 0% 0% Strong positive contri- bution 27 Recruitment and training 85% 15% 0% 0% Positive contribution 27 Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. Table 14: Contribution of space funding to organisation-related outcomes in companies Positive contribution No contribution Negative contribution Not appli- cable Median N Competitiveness 74% 26% 0% 8% Positive contribution 39 Internal organisation 32% 62% 6% 24% No contribution 34 Project management 44% 50% 6% 24% No contribution 34 Reorganisation of processes 39% 58% 3% 17% No contribution 36 Methods of work organisation and decision making 34% 63% 3% 20% No contribution 35 Academic reputation [not asked] Academic network in CH 49% 49% 3% 14% No contribution 37 Academic network worldwide 53% 47% 0% 11% Positive contribution 38 Corporate network in CH 49% 51% 0% 14% No contribution 37 Corporate network worldwide 55% 45% 0% 11% Positive contribution 38 Quality of the network 57% 43% 0% 14% Positive contribution 37 Competencies of the employees 81% 19% 0% 14% Positive contribution 37 Recruitment and training 47% 50% 3% 24% No contribution 34 Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. 65 Table 15: Other outcomes of Swiss/ESA space funding Outcomes Type Grosse Vorsicht bei der Projektakquise im öffentlichen Raumfahrtsektor und Einschät- zung, dass industrielle Märkte attraktiver sind. caution with regard to public institutional space business We get the best PhD students that you can get because of space. It brings in very good people. Money is unimportant, it does not stay. The products resulting from the money are not important. employees positive reputation Without the support of the SSO space projects would be impossible for us. We would lose the qualified personnel, because you cannot let people wait for 2 years until an ESA contract finally starts. It is a strong message for us: without the Swiss funding it would be very hard for us to maintain the critical mass and realise ESA projects. If you cannot keep the people you will not be able even to win future projects, as this is a key criterion in evaluations of proposals. It is a challenge to keep qualified people with the insecurity of ESA business and it is not easy to find replacements. We always search at global level. We would be dead in some areas without ESA and in particular SSO, and now we are at the forefront. So it is good. employees critical mass Es ist möglich, besser qualifizierte Mitarbeitende zu gewinnen, die sonst nicht zu unse- rem Unternehmen kommen würden. Wir haben z.B. jemanden dank unserer Zusammen- arbeit mit Space X und Beteiligung bei ExoMars bekommen, den wir sonst sicher nicht gewonnen hätten. employees positive reputation Die ESA-Finanzierung hat letztlich die Voraussetzungen geschaffen, auch SNF- Forschungsprojekte aufzugleisen, die dann mit den im Weltraum gewonnenen Daten arbeiten. further funding Resultate der Projekte sind kommerziell interessant, z.B. in der Form von lizenzierbarer Software oder Dienstleistungen further funding/business Erschliessung von neuem, potentiellem Geschäftsfeld further funding/business Impact on company strategy, entering into space applications opened new business opportunities. further funding/business Sensibilisierung auf hochtechnologischen Märkten. Da sind ganz andere Bedingungen. Reinräume. Anforderungen an gesamte Wertschöpfungskette sind sehr hoch. growth of competencies Durch die FuE für die ESA baut man insbesondere Kompetenzen auf, gleichartige Prob- leme auch lösen zu können, und weniger Produkte, weil die Serien sehr klein sind. Lö- sungen werden nur einmal oder zwei Mal gebraucht. Wir sind sehr erpicht auf den Auf- bau von Knowhow und Kompetenzen. Mit dem Erfolg wächst auch das Selbstvertrauen, dass man nicht nur mitspielen kann, sondern auch innovative und relevante Dinge anstossen und realisieren kann. growth of competencies Obtained scientific knowledge on how the devices operate. growth of competencies ESA Projekte unterstützen den Einstieg in den kommerziellen Markt [der aber noch nicht vollzogen ist, sondern nun kommen soll]. Es hat uns gepusht, neue Kompetenzen aufzubauen und zu akquirieren; ohne ESA funktioniert das nicht. Sonst müsste man den Raumfahrtmarkt wie die Arzneimittelindust- rie oder Halbleiterindustrie, mit immensen Investitionen am Anfang und dann grossen Stückzahlen. Das wird aber in absehbarer Zeit nicht möglich sein. [Zu Auswirkungen auf das Projektmanagement] Z.B. Internal Design Review - bevor wir zu einem IDR gehen, machen wir es zuerst intern, weil wir wollen nicht 2000 Review Item Discrepancies RID bekommen. Das ist also 1:1 auch in den anderen Geschäftsbe- reichen übernommen. Die Befruchtung ESA - kommerzielles Geschäft ist klar wichtiger als Space-Non space. Klar im Bereich Supply Chain Management haben wir ein System für Space/Non space, das sehr stabil läuft. Auch hinsichtlich Formalia, wie man Lieferan- ten betreut und kontrolliert, zum Beispiel, gibt es Befruchtungen. growth of competencies The Swiss mesures d'accompagnement are well suited to test new technologies and share the financial risks of high-risk projects and techniques. They give opportunities to both, the academic partners and the companies to try out and further develop techniques and find the limits and capabilities before too much money is invested. This is better than investing a lot, like for instance the Americans do, and then getting stuck in a technology. Product development can cost millions and if you have not tested everything you can be blocked by small parameters somewhere which forces you to start again. This can be avoided due to these measures. "For me, this [the national accompanying measures] is a risk mitigation to test some funny things invented by universities." It helps to make pre- paratory work and be better positioned when new ESA calls are published. We are al- ways willing to participate when proposals, which usually come from institutes, have a business case behind. growth of competen- cies testing technological ideas 66 Outcomes are very important for our business and technology development. Therefore from time to time we may participate in other areas outside our main business. For in- stance, we just qualify for "space soldering" investing 600k CHF from our own pockets. And now we may try to amortise this by doing soldering work for others as sub- contractors, because we have the tools, facilities and qualifications. Wir sind eine der wenigen Niederlassungen des Unternehmens, die auch Produkte hat. Die haben wir in den ESA-Projekten entwickelt, weil es keine Lösungen gab, die wir in unsere Systeme übernehmen konnten. Das gibt es nicht viel bei uns und deswegen bringen wir auch der Firma global etwas und unsere Kollegen an anderen Standorten fragen das auch nach. Aber es ist ein Nischenmarkt, weil selbst bei den Ground- Produkten die Anforderungen im Raumfahrtbereich höher sind, als sie in anderen Märk- ten gebraucht werden. Aber de facto haben uns diese Entwicklungen, die wir dank ESA machen konnten, auch anderes Geschäft gebracht. Die Koreaner wären sonst nie zu uns gekommen. product development further funding/ business [on mesures de positionnement] We did an MdP pre-development with IMT to demon- strate an idea. Then we developed the product to sufficient maturity and now it is nearly qualified. The initial investment just gave us the idea to trigger the customer on the add- ed value we could offer with this. Then it was our investment, 2 or 3 times the initial in- vestment to bring it to maturity. Now we try to sell it globally. We had the luck of getting a first opportunity. The funding allowed us to follow a product approach and demonstrate that we can do that. We learned some lessons and we improved our industrial processes. With the pro- gramme approach you bring up the credibility and build up a background and experience. A track record is key, showing that in this product you can perform. Demonstrating that you have (flight) experience is what is important. Without the institutional programmes our company would not be here. [Is the construction of funding to work with universities ok?] If we have the hand of the university, as it was in MdP, and we can say what we want them to do, then it is power- ful. If you go through TRP or GSTP: it is an underfinanced activity where the only aim is to show that I am doing something, then it is useless. All the TRP that we have done are useless from an industrial point of view. We have never gained anything. Maybe this will change, but so far we never got a building block or technology out of this. If you want to do activities with half or a third of the necessary funding then it won't work. I would say that the people defining the activity do not have any understanding of what it will cost. They have a budget and then they write the call for the activity. This is the fundamental problem that the people defining the jobs have no understanding of the costs. For us only the MdP and some GSTP measures have worked out, but definitely not TRP. product development growth of competen- cies Technology spin-off and spin-in: we once had an ESA project that generated a new tech- nology which then was used for developing a new system for re-winding mechanical watches. So we have this transfer of technologies into other areas. So space helps other markets to develop. And we also have the opposite direction where we use technologies from other areas in space. technology transfer Erkenntnisse für Produkte ausserhalb von Space technology transfer Donne des résultats prometteurs pour d’autres marchés et augmente notre crédibilité face à de grands groupes technology transfer positive reputation Dank der ESA Finanzierung konnte eine "Platform for Advanvced Scientific Computing" eingerichtet werden. Das CSCS hat einen Top-5 Rechner gekauft und unser Know-how aus den ESA-Projekten konnte in 2 weiteren Projekten eingesetzt werden und ist nun für eine Initiative auf Bundesebene relevant. Wir konnten auch neue Projekte akquirieren, weil wir auf Erfahrungen in der Arbeit mit Grafikkarten hinweisen konnten. infrastructure further funding Two things: an annual conference that is facilitated by ESA is a good event; second, the possibility for short term stays at ESA is good to learn the real thing; we have many for- mer people who ended up working for ESA. networking Die internationale Zusammenarbeit im Raumfahrtbereich ist sehr offen und sie fördert. Dies hat einen hohen Stellenwert für mich. networking Partenaires academices dans des autres domaines. networking - collaboration with two other institutes within FHNW - collaboration with PSI - public outreach events (Tag der offenen Tuer, Vortraege, events etc) networking positive reputation Doing ESA projects is like a visit card. It is very good marketing for the institute. positive reputation Wir haben ein sehr gutes Image bei der ESA und man hat uns gesagt: "Wir möchten, dass die folgenden Projekte mit Swissness geleitet werden." positive reputation It has contributed to the perception of our institute. That we have expertise and knowledge. We get enquiries to participate in projects. So it helped us that we are per- ceived as good partners in a team. positive reputation 67 Ich denke, dass die Akzeptanz der Fernerkundung gestiegen ist, dass aber die notwen- digen Strukturen noch nicht bestehen. Das SSO hat mich ja für diesen Film Switzerland in Space auch gefragt. positive reputation A very positive aspect of executing ESA projects has been around reputation and public relations. Our working with ESA has attracted new business to the company and has lifted our reputation in the world. People view us very positively because of ESA con- tracts. positive reputation Increase of reputation, increase of knowledge positive reputation The commercial space business is a very conservative and in order to enter it one needs to have references and experiences. Companies always ask whether one has done this or this. ESA is very good for building up this track record. We would like to do business with Airbus in Toulouse, OHB in Germany etc. and this is impossible if you are not known from ESA. So we had to go through this phase and would like to diversify now. It is also an asset to get into new markets, e.g. watch industry, when they know that you work with ESA. positive reputation More people are sensitised for our work. Prime partner for Swiss Space Systems. Con- tinous work. Sense of pride. positive reputation Man erfährt eine Reputationssteigerung. Erfolgreicher für weitere Eingaben. Ist eine gute Qualifikation. positive reputation Reputationssteigerung. Innovationspreis gewonnen. Hilft in allen anderen Bereichen. Plus die Qualifizierung. Sind die einzige Firma in der Schweiz. Das trägt intern und ex- tern zum Qualitätsverständnis bei. positive reputation Stark positiver Beitrag auf die Weltraumwissenschaft scientific progress Wissenszuwachs, Etablierung neuer Forschungszweige auch dank der ESA-Förderung scientific progress very important: contribution to scientific output scientific progress Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. Table 16: Project start year and duration by sector Project duration in years <1y 1y 2y 3y 4y more than 4y still ongoing Total Academic institutes Project started between 1995-1999 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2000-2004 0 2 2 1 1 5 0 8 2005-2009 1 3 1 3 4 8 2 26 2010-2014 0 3 5 1 1 9 16 57 Total academic sector 1 8 8 5 7 22 18 79 Companies Project started between 1995-1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000-2004 0 2 1 2 3 5 0 13 2005-2009 0 4 7 2 11 13 5 42 2010-2014 4 14 8 5 26 31 24 112 Total corporate sector 4 20 16 9 40 49 29 167 Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. Table 17: Opinion on application procedure and criteria by sector of respondent Disagree Neutral Agree N Median Academic institutes Procedure and criteria were hard to understand. 46.4% 30.4% 23.2% 56 Neutral We benefitted from the support of other Swiss organisations. 37.5% 26.8% 35.7% 56 Neutral The application resulted in a lot of paper work. 17.9% 32.1% 50.0% 56 Neutral/Agree The funding decision was made quickly. 21.4% 35.7% 42.9% 56 Neutral Compa- nies Procedure and criteria were hard to understand. 44.9% 35.7% 19.4% 98 Neutral We benefitted from the support of other Swiss organisations. 34.7% 42.9% 22.4% 98 Neutral The application resulted in a lot of paper work. 22.4% 38.8% 38.8% 98 Neutral The funding decision was made quickly. 24.5% 38.8% 36.7% 98 Neutral 68 Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. Table 18: Opinion on programme management by sector of respondent Disagree Neutral Agree N Median Academic institutes The programme management was well organised and transparent. 8.9% 42.9% 48.2% 56 Neutral We waited long for the payment after invoicing. 19.6% 48.2% 32.1% 56 Neutral Communication between programme management and the project was efficient. 8.9% 37.5% 53.6% 56 Agree The administrative work required during project execution was too complex and time-consuming. 12.5% 44.6% 42.9% 56 Neutral Compa- nies The programme management was well organised and transparent. 18.4% 19.4% 62.2% 98 Agree We waited long for the payment after invoicing. 34.7% 31.6% 33.7% 98 Neutral Communication between programme management and the project was efficient. 15.3% 21.4% 63.3% 98 Agree The administrative work required during project execution was too complex and time-consuming. 40.8% 31.6% 27.6% 98 Neutral Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. Figure 24: Goal attainment by sector Academic institutes: Scientific n=47, Technological n=49, Economic n=25, Environmental n=11, Social n=16. Companies: Scientific n=51, Technological n=85, Economic n=66, Environmental n=19, Social n=26. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. 69 Table 19: TRL level of the main project output by sector of respondent TRL level Minimum Maximum Median Academic institutes Project start 1 7 3 Project end 1 9 5 Increase 0 6 2 Companies Project start 1 9 3 Project end 2 9 5 Increase -1 6 2 Academic institutes: n=43, companies: n=54. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. Figure 25: Realisation of project without public funding by sector of respondent Academic institutes n=56. Companies n=98. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. Figure 26: Realisation of project without ESA funding by level of space involvement Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. 70 Table 20: Generation of or contribution to technological outcomes due to projects by sec- tor Negative contribution No contribution Positive contribution Median Not applicable Total Academic institutes Product innovations for space-related markets 0% 9% 91% Positive 7 53 Product innovations for non- space markets 3% 37% 61% Positive 11 53 Process innovations 0% 41% 59% Positive 13 52 Patents or other Intellectual Property Rights 0% 72% 28% No contr. 14 53 Companies Product innovations for space-related markets 1% 18% 81% Positive 7 97 Product innovations for non- space markets 1% 36% 63% Positive 19 97 Process innovations 2% 32% 66% Positive 12 97 Patents or other Intellectual Property Rights 3% 81% 16% No contr. 27 97 Note: Percentages only refer to cases where the outcome was rated as applicable. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. Table 21: Generation of or contribution to commercial outcomes due to projects Negative contribution No contribution Positive contribution Median Not applicable Total Academic institutes Sales on space- related markets 0% 50% 50% No contr./Pos. 25 53 Sales on non- space markets 0% 88% 12% No contr. 26 53 Diversification of clients 0% 47% 53% Positive 23 51 Diversification of target markets 0% 53% 47% No contr. 24 52 Cost reductions of space activities 6% 72% 22% No contr. 26 53 Cost reductions of non-space activi- ties 0% 88% 13% No contr. 27 53 Compa- nies Sales on space- related markets 1% 36% 63% Positive 10 97 Sales on non- space markets 0% 59% 41% No contr. 22 97 Diversification of clients 0% 41% 59% Positive 9 97 Diversification of target markets 1% 40% 58% Positive 7 96 Cost reductions of space activities 4% 69% 28% No contr. 17 97 Cost reductions of non-space activi- ties 3% 81% 16% No contr. 28 97 Note: Percentages only refer to cases where the outcome was rated as applicable. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. 71 Table 22: SWOT for academic institutes in the space sector Strengths Weaknesses - High expertise - Niche player - Reputation - Infrastructure - Excellent network - Geographic advantage - Lean management (quick) - Local network - High quality - Low fluctuation - Academic freedom - Too few employees/small critical mass - Projects are individually oriented - Personnel fluctuation - One expertise only (niche player) - Small player - Not enough know-how in space activities - Project management - Administration - Finding suitable industry partners - No long-term experience with ESA projects - Not enough engineers Opportunities Threats - Increasing demand for product - Privatization & commercialization - Political environment - International partnerships (e.g. China) - Development to mass-produced article - Funding policies - Political environment - Fluctuating market - Decreasing demand - Increasing demand could not be satisfied - Increasing difficulty of hiring people from abroad - High wage level - No leading position in ESA projects - Swiss status in ESA projects Academic institutes n≥27. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015. Table 23: SWOT for companies in the space sector Strengths Weaknesses - Network - Strong expertise - Skilled employees - High flexibility - Niche player - Innovative - Reputation - Experience in space market - Diversification - Lean management - Quality - Advancement to non-space products - High customer satisfaction - Known for successful space market products - Independent from external funding - Small organization - No or weak network - Liquidity - Administration - Resource constraints - Fluctuation - Space activities are a minor part - Long innovation cycles - Finding skilled personnel - Quality management - Financial dependency from ESA projects - Special projects are no fit in normal workflow Opportunities Threats - Growing space market - Privatization & commercialization - Development to mass-produced article - New market - International outlet - Geographical closeness - Exchange rate - Swiss status (small vs. big player) - Economic environment - Political environment (e.g., geo-return) - International competition - Increasingly difficulty of hiring people from abroad - Not enough STEM professionals - Intransparent policies - Market know-how - Lack of Swiss support (SSO) - Semi-closed market access (USA, China) Companies n≥36. Source: FHNW Swiss space sector survey 2014/2015.