Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Innovation
Policies and
Practices
The present book has been developed as one of the main deliverables to be achieved
within the framework of the NOVAREGIO project.
NOVAREGIO is a project co-financed by the European Commission in the frame of
the 6th FP, under the specific programme “Integrating and Strengthening the
European Research Area – Regions of Knowledge 2”.
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the
Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the information
published in the present book.
The views expressed in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the policies of the European Commission.
For further information on the content of this book, please refer to the web site
http://www.novaregio.net
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, in any form or by any
means, without permission in writing from the editor.
August 2007
II
Acknowledgments from the coordinator
III
Two out of the eleven best practices were selected in Friuli Venezia Giulia: “Sister”
- a practice promoted by AREA Science Park to scout and exploit research results
from Academia and Public Research Organisations – and “Innovation Network” - an
initiative created by AREA Science Park in cooperation with the regional industrial
associations, chambers of commerce and development agencies aimed at
transferring “demand-driven” technology and knowledge to enterprises.
Therefore, NOVAREGIO is a valid pilot experience for managing innovation and its
outcomes are now available to the Regional Governments at a large extent.
I wish to thank the Friuli Venezia Giulia Regional Ministry in charge of Labour,
Education, University and Research, under whose direction the NOVAREGIO
Project has been implemented, as well as the CEI-Central European Initiative and
the CPMR–Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe for the attention
dedicated to the Project.
I also wish to express my sincere thanks to the partners Innova SpA, TIA–The
Public Agency for Technology, FORTH–Foundation for Research & Technology
Hellas, SFG–Steiermärkische Forschungs- und Entwicklungsförderungs GmbH,
ITC–Instituto Tecnológico de Canarias SA, LTC–Länsteknikcentrum i Jönköpings
län AB, STRDA–South Transdanubian Regional Development Agency, for the
qualified contribution and the great spirit of cooperation ensured to NOVAREGIO
during two years of joint work.
Last but not least, I wish to thank the entire structure of AREA Science Park, and
particularly all the staff members who were directly involved, for the commitment
and the competence shown in the complex task of coordinating the Project.
Gabriele Gatti
Director Marketing and International Relations
AREA Science Park
IV
Authors
The content of the Handbook has been developed by a team member of INNOVA,
Antje Klaesener.
A valuable contribution has been provided by all the involved project partners for
the benchmarks’ engineering and description, as well as their process flow design. In
particular, a special thanks is to be given to the members of the Project Management
Committee, namely: Marcello Guaiana and Isabella Aiello (AREA Science Park),
Lidija Fras Zemljic and Mojca Skalar Komljanc (TIA–The Public Agency for
Technology of the Republic of Slovenia), Artemis Saitakis and Kostas Galanakis
(FORTH–Foundation for Research & Technology Hellas), Wolfgang Schabereiter
and Sabine Proßnegg (SFG–Steiermärkische Forschungs- und
Entwicklungsförderungs GmbH), Alma Cruz and Lucía Dobarro Delgado (ITC–
Instituto Tecnológico de Canarias SA), Erik Bunis and Stefan Lind (LTC–
Länsteknikcentrum i Jönköpings län AB), Lorand Szabò and Nikolett Huba Varga
(STRDA–South Transdanubian Regional Development Agency). Further
contributions from their side were made on the main lessons learnt from the selected
successfully implemented RTD and innovation policies.
V
Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................... X
Executive Summary .............................................................................................. XIV
VII
3.3 South Transdanubia.................................................................................... 50
3.3.1 “Baross Gabor” Programme – Support of the innovation
developments of small and medium-sized enterprises in South
Transdanubia .................................................................................... 52
3.3.1.1 Methodology ........................................................................... 53
3.3.1.2 Success Factors ....................................................................... 56
3.3.1.3 Performance Indicators ........................................................... 57
3.4 Styria .......................................................................................................... 59
3.4.1 Skills Development of Qualified Employees.................................... 62
3.4.1.1 Methodology ........................................................................... 62
3.4.1.2 Success Factors ....................................................................... 66
3.4.1.3 Performance Indicators ........................................................... 67
3.4.2 Start-up Entrepreneurs ...................................................................... 69
3.4.2.1 Methodology ........................................................................... 69
3.4.2.2 Success Factors ....................................................................... 73
3.4.2.3 Performance Indicators ........................................................... 73
3.5 Slovenia...................................................................................................... 76
3.5.1 Centre of Excellence......................................................................... 77
3.5.1.1 Methodology ........................................................................... 77
3.5.1.2 Success Factors ....................................................................... 81
3.5.1.3 Performance Indicators ........................................................... 81
3.6 Crete ........................................................................................................... 83
3.6.1 University Students Entrepreneurship Programme – UNISTEP ...... 85
3.6.1.1 Methodology ........................................................................... 85
3.6.1.2 Success Factors ....................................................................... 88
3.6.1.3 Performance Indicators ........................................................... 89
3.6.2 Pancreta Development Fund............................................................. 91
3.6.2.1 Methodology ........................................................................... 91
3.6.2.2 Success Factors ....................................................................... 94
3.6.2.3 Performance Indicators ........................................................... 94
VIII
3.7 Canary Islands ............................................................................................ 97
3.7.1 BIC Canarias .................................................................................... 99
3.7.1.1 Methodology ........................................................................... 99
3.7.1.2 Success Factors ..................................................................... 103
3.7.1.3 Performance Indicators ......................................................... 104
3.8 Småland med öarna/West Sweden ........................................................... 107
3.8.1 Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Development – SMED........ 109
3.8.1.1 Methodology ......................................................................... 109
3.8.1.2 Success Factors ..................................................................... 112
3.8.1.3 Performance Indicators ......................................................... 113
3.8.2 Healthcare Technology Alliance – HCTA...................................... 115
3.8.2.1 Methodology ......................................................................... 115
3.8.2.2 Success Factors ..................................................................... 118
3.8.2.3 Performance Indicators ......................................................... 119
IX
Preface
X
The conducted analysis is focused on the regional perspective, and accordingly
investigates on regional RTD and innovation policies implemented in seven selected
European regions. Bearing in mind the globalisation and the resulting enlarged
competition from the merging economies, Europe is more and more constrained to
raise its own competitiveness. Tackling this challenge at regional and not national
level appears reasonable since sub-national systems have a strong identity and are
rich in resources, dedicated to act at regional level and adapt their economies to
globalisation. Furthermore, due to the proximity of contacts between key players,
the regional approach is appropriate for improving the innovation capacity, and
consequently creating a knowledge society.
Nowadays, in Europe are still observed significant regional differences, comprising
advanced regions that dispose of a greater innovative ability and thus able to adapt
their economies to globalisation, and less developed regions on the other side which
require support to improve their innovation performance.
NOVAREGIO involves seven European regions with very heterogeneous
characteristics, as they differ amongst others in terms of size (e.g. population,
geographical size, natural resources, etc.), political independence and economic
wealth. In this frame, the Friuli Venezia Giulia Region acts as key driver due to its
extraordinary concentration of researchers and the presence of many outstanding
national and international RTD centres and institutes. Furthermore, other regions
belong to countries with traditionally strong states like Austria and Sweden, as well
as further countries which have begun more recently to systematically strengthen
their regions, as for example Hungary, Greece and Spain. Consequently, the regions
do not move at the same pace as regards their innovation capacity. However, all of
the seven regions aim at increasing their investment in RTD and innovation
activities by adopting policy measures that tackle the same topics and concentrate on
supporting the innovation progress within the regions.
Furthermore, the regions are geographically situated where two major European
organisations are operating: the CEI – Central European Initiative and the CPMR –
Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe, both organisations that share
the need of convergence and cohesion of regional policies and strategies as
expressed by the Lisbon Strategy, and tackle as one common issue the improvement
of the regional RTD and innovation development.
The project regions, none the less their uneven progress in regional innovation
performance, have been developing a wide range of expertise as regards regional
RTD and innovation policies, implemented in the programming period 2000 – 2006
of the structural funds. The policies concern the development of innovative projects
and programmes, innovative financing systems and the knowledge society as a
whole by promoting innovation in SMEs and supporting the development of human
capital.
The present handbook looks at the RTD and innovation policies that have been
implemented by the partner regions, by adopting a benchmarking exercise building
on the ‘Benchmarking Consulting Practice’, a model that has been developed by
INNOVA and originally applied to the Network of the Innovation Relay Centres
XI
(IRCs) in the framework of a pilot project initiated in 2001, aimed at improving the
operational efficiency and effectiveness of the IRC Network.
The methodological approach has been adapted to the needs of the NOVAREGIO
project and further improved with new procedural schemes aimed at valorising the
active participation of regional policy makers and key stakeholders involved in
financing and managing RTD programmes.
The handbook is composed of four chapters.
Chapter 1 explains the benchmarking concept: what does benchmarking mean,
especially in the regional context, and why its application can lead to regional
improvements.
Chapter 2 deals with the benchmarking methodology applied to the NOVAREGIO
context. A 4-step model has been developed in order to select the most relevant
practices and to analyse them in detail, making them finally transferable to the other
involved regions and further regions interested in their take up.
Chapter 3 illustrates the outcomes of the benchmarking exercise and presents the
selected benchmarks on regional RTD and innovation policies. A benchmarking
exercise, demonstrating each single part of the implementation and working process,
supports a better understanding and permits to learn how to effectively address
major challenges based upon others’ policy-learning experiences.
Chapter 4 reasons on the main lessons learnt from the successfully implemented
RTD and innovation policy benchmarks. Suggestions are given as regards the
adoption of policies in the future that can favour an inspiring environment for
regional key players, coming from the research and the industry sector and including
both public and private actors.
It has to be pointed out that the intention of the project was not simply to present
regional RTD and innovation policies (all the detected regional RTD and innovation
policies are listed in the Annex), but instead to highlight those policies whose
functional processes resulted to be the most successful ones and who can give an
example to other regions for improving their innovation performance. In this context
the transferability of the selected benchmarks played an important role. A successful
policy which is determined by very specific regional, economic or structural factors
may be less interesting than a less spectacular policy which can be more easily
transferred to another context and thus can serve as an example.
Furthermore, it has to be stated that there does not exist an overall best region,
neither in the project nor from a general point of view, against whom to benchmark.
Some characteristics the regions against whom to benchmark should have, are the
following1:
1
Innovating Regions in Europe (IRE) Secretariat, 2006.
XII
Regions should have consciously implemented a relevant process of
outstanding effectiveness and efficiency so that it makes sense to learn
from them;
Regions should have succeeded under similar circumstances with regard to
their legal framework conditions in order to make the lessons learnt
relevant for a subsequent implementation;
Regions should be motivated to fully share their insights and preferably
even support the transfer of know-how in order to access even sensitive but
crucial information, to speed up the implementation and finally to serve as
partner for continued mutual learning;
Regions should be known as a system which has succeeded in order to
overcome scepticism in the own region against knowledge from outside.
In this context, the conducted benchmarking exercise aims to exploit the generated
knowledge by exchanging experiences and provide the readers of this handbook
with a good insight into the different possibilities of implementing successful
regional RTD and innovation policies. Furthermore, it can help regions to realise
their limits and opportunities and to be more efficient, competitive and sustainable.
Besides this, the exercise can also raise awareness about performance and identifies
relative regional strengths and weaknesses.
XIII
Executive Summary
2
The NOVAREGIO project, coordinated by AREA Science Park, involves 8 partners from 7 European
Regions – Canary Islands (Spain), Crete (Greece), Småland med Öarna and West Sweden (Sweden),
Slovenia, Styria (Austria), South Tansdanubia (Hungary) and Friuli Venezia Giulia (Italy) – representing
outstanding organisations dealing with the management and diffusion of innovation.
XIV
why the practice has become a successful one. Each benchmark has been analysed
and described in detail, illustrating each single working step accompanied by a
process flow-chart, success factors and performance indicators giving evidence to
the effective implementation of the practice in the region.
The 11 benchmarks are the following:
a) SISTER
b) Innovation NetworkTM
c) Baross Gabor Programme
d) Skills Development of Qualified Employees
e) Start-up Entrepreneurs
f) Centre of Excellence
g) UNISTEP
h) Pancreta Development Fund
i) BIC Canarias
j) SMED
k) HCTA
a) The SISTER project aims at increasing technology transfer activities in the region
Friuli Venezia Giulia by enhancing the economic value of research results
accomplished by the Public Research Organisations (PROs) located in the region.
Through the adoption of a new valorisation process, those research results are
brought to the market that are representing high potential for being applied and
successfully exploited by industry.
b) Innovation NetworkTM is an initiative sustaining also technology transfer activities
in Friuli Venezia Giulia but through the improvement on the industry side by
enhancing technology demand. The initiative established a Network of specialised
Competence Centres for the different production areas of the region, aiming at
boosting the spreading of new technologies at regional level and offering enterprises
innovation services of added value.
c) The Baross Gabor Programme aims to improve the local innovation potential in
the region South Transdanubia, addressed specifically to the small and medium-
sized enterprises in the region. The programme is executed through a Call for
Proposals tailored to the specific regional needs, objectives and the six core sectors
of the region.
d) The programme Skills Development of Qualified Employees supports an efficient
and goal-oriented training in the region Styria in order to strengthen the
competitiveness of the local companies and the competences of their personnel. The
programme is addressed to different kinds of employees and provides financial
XV
assistance for high-quality training schemes with an innovative concept going
beyond standard courses and seminars.
e) Start-up Entrepreneurs is a programme of the region Styria that provides support
to a new establishment or the starting up of an activity that contributes to a
fundamental change in product management or production. The programme offers a
tailor-made approach to different kinds of entrepreneurs and supports in particular
those projects that improve the potential fields of strengths identified by the region.
f) The Centre of Excellence is a programme set up in Slovenia, bringing together key
players from the scientific-research sector and the economy environment. The
programme supports technology transfer activities through facilitating the
implementation of innovative projects in the region, focalised on selected
technology areas. The establishment of a Centre of Excellence underlies strict
requirements as regards the partnership and the financial liquidity of the participants.
g) UNISTEP – University Students Entrepreneurship Programme – is an initiative
implemented in the region Crete and aimed at counteracting the brain drain existing
in the region by creating a positive environment for cultivating entrepreneurship
among university students. The programme includes a theoretical and practical part.
Trainings on entrepreneurship are offered and laboratories are made available for the
creation, development and testing of prototypes which could be later exploited on
the market through a new technology based enterprise.
h) The Pancreta Development Fund is a funding source for high-risk entrepreneurial
incentives, completing the financial instruments existing in the region Crete. The
fund provides in particular support to SMEs and start-up companies, focusing
mainly on new technologies, innovative products and further activities particularly
with regard to tourism development and the exploitation of local resources.
i) BIC Canarias is an initiative set up in the Canary Islands and aimed at integrating
organisations and resources in order to provide services to the entrepreneurs in four
selected islands. On each of these four islands, a Business Promotion Unit (BUP) is
established, supporting innovative business ideas of local entrepreneurs. The
activities of BIC Canarias include a pre-incubation phase in which extensive project
search activities are carried out and an incubation phase in which direct services are
offered to selected companies.
j) SMED – Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Development – develops big ideas
in small companies in the region Småland med öarna so as to let more innovators
reach the market and stimulate new product development for increasing the
existence of competitive companies in the region. The programme informs
companies about financing possibilities and focuses on product development,
product innovation and product design.
XVI
k) The HCTA – Healthcare Technology Alliance is an initiative supporting the
development of new products and services in healthcare technology in the region
West Sweden. HCTA functions as a network and encompasses a large number of
companies, organisations and research and development institutions working in the
healthcare technology field. The alliance is a good opportunity to set up
development projects and thus to strengthen the regional innovation system for
healthcare technology.
The detailed description of the benchmarks supports the sharing and the
implementation of best practices on RTD and innovation policy design within the
seven project regions, as well as further interested regions, reinforcing thereby the
innovation performance of the regions and contributing to the goal of turning
European regions into knowledge-based societies. According to the aim of the
project, the benchmarking exercise led to a real mutual knowledge transfer among
the project regions, setting the basis for generating substantial improvements in
efficient and adequate policy management.
As the programming period 2007 – 2013 for the structural funds shows, the topics of
the identified benchmarks are lying all in the target areas to be strived for in the near
future. Core issues considered to lead to efficient innovation policies are public-
private partnerships, particularly set up in the form of the triple-helix model,
involving government, academia and industry, all of them players that are bringing
to the partnership a special expertise of strategic importance. Furthermore, the
building of clusters is advisable for stimulating innovation and productivity growth,
achieved through the facilitated knowledge spill-over and increased information
flow. The investment in high-skilled human resources is mandatory for generating
new ideas and products, and thus sustaining the innovation performance of a region.
Innovative financing instruments, such as venture capital funds, are a further issue to
be considered in regional policy design. Innovation activities are related to risk
intensive undertakings and hence need a greater initial investment which often is not
provided by banks, especially when requested from financially weak SMEs.
All these objectives can be best achieved when being approached at regional level,
since the regional approach permits the direct involvement of regional key actors
and allows for designing policies that are tailored more directly to the specific
regional needs.
The transfer of the benchmarks into other regional contexts provides a good initial
point for realising the objectives set by the EU in the single regions. However, the
11 benchmarks should be considered as reference models for the future policy
design. Of course, they cannot be applied within the environment of each region
automatically: adaptations and adjustments to the characteristics of each single
region, such as the environmental conditions, legal framework, industrial core
sectors, structure of the local companies, existing organisations and institutions for
promoting research and industrial growth, available human resources, etc. will be
always necessary.
XVII
The transfer of the benchmarks should be intended as a broad activity, transversal to
the whole benchmarking exercise and running since the beginning of the project. It
is not only a matter of transferring results but also to allow a more comprehensive
knowledge transfer process related to the benchmarking model, the process flow
development, the selection process and the validation and engineering of each single
benchmark. Best results can be achieved when embedding the benchmarking process
into the strategic policy design and implementing it in relation to the regional policy
making process, thus serving as an on-going policy impact assessment and
evaluation tool.
XVIII
Chapter 1. The concept of
Benchmarking, definition
and objectives
The concept of Benchmarking, definition and objectives
Benchmarking stems from private sector business and over the past years, this
management technique has been adopted and adapted from the private sector in
public policy. In fact, benchmarking has become increasingly popular for political
systems given the fact that nations and regions are facing increased competition
from other competing systems. Today, it has become necessary for regions to
improve and invest in their competitiveness.
In this regard, regional benchmarking, derived from the term territorial
benchmarking, has been developed, a rather new form which looks at the
2
The concept of Benchmarking, definition and objectives
performances of regions and the causes of their performance3. Questions that one
should ask in this context are:
▪ How do other regions perform?
▪ How important are the performance gaps between the regions?
▪ Which are the regions showing outstanding performances?
▪ Which practices are sustaining best performance?
Regional benchmarking means that a specific region conducts a benchmarking
process in order to improve its regional development or selected foci of it. Usually,
this kind of benchmarking process comprises the collection, analysis and
documentation of good practice cases, ensuring at the same time the devoted
participation of key stakeholders in the process in order to encourage commitment to
using the knowledge generated in the policy design.
There do not exist overall best regions against whom to benchmark. Instead it is
crucial to select adequate and appropriate regions against whom to benchmark. What
an adequate region depends on heavily is the main purpose of the benchmarking
exercise and the nature of the region to be benchmarked. If a region for example
uses benchmarking for primarily strengthening its own position within the country,
it makes sense to benchmark against other domestic regions. If instead a region is
interested in learning how to handle a particular challenge, regions should be
identified with a very similar challenge and which have successfully faced this
particular challenge.
When considering regional strategies and guidelines designed to boost the economic
development of regions, the term policy benchmarking comes into play. Policy
benchmarking aims at evaluating alternative policies, implementing strategies and
improving performance by understanding and adapting successful strategies
implemented in further regions. The main objective of the exercise is to provide
policy makers with examples of best practices by identifying adequate, well defined
and successfully implemented policies. Policy benchmarking goes beyond the
assessment of the indicators determining observed performance but provides
furthermore an understanding of the processes, skills and capabilities that create
superior performance.
3
Innovating Regions in Europe (IRE) Secretariat, 2006.
3
The concept of Benchmarking, definition and objectives
the insight on what makes processes effective and efficient. ‘Process’ implies a
sequence of activities made up of tasks and steps that cross the boundaries between
functions. Focusing on the process, distinguishes benchmarking from stocktaking.
The act of appraising a present situation, condition or degree of progress in a
systematic comparison to previous situations, conditions in other systems, as e.g.
regions, or strategic objectives is described. In practice, benchmarking usually
encompasses:
▪ regularly comparing aspects of processes’ performance with best
practitioners;
▪ identifying gaps in performance;
▪ seeking fresh approaches to achieve improvements in performance;
▪ following through with implementing improvements;
▪ following up by monitoring progress and reviewing the benefits.
Although benchmarking involves making comparisons of performance, it is not a
merely competitor analysis but instead is best undertaken in a collaborative way in
order to learn about the circumstances and processes that underpin superior
performance. In this regard, regional benchmarking explicitly aims to exploit the
generated knowledge by defining and implementing adequate policies in a regional
context. Consequently, it is required that the benchmarking process is embedded into
a strategic policy process (policy benchmarking). This means that the exercise
should be implemented in relation to the regional policy making process and can
serve as an on-going policy impact assessment and evaluation tool.
4
Generally, a region is an extensive, continuous geographically defined part of the earth’s surface. The
term is used for vast parts of the earth like Asia/Pacific as well as for areas which constitute a small part
of a country, as e.g. a city and its surroundings. Considering the work programme Regions of Knowledge
in which NOVAREGIO has been set up, the term region is used throughout the project and therewith also
within this document to describe any geographically defined functional system at sub-national level
(Slovenia, being a small nation is referred to as region as well).
4
The concept of Benchmarking, definition and objectives
5
Public Sector Benchmarking Service (PSBS).
6
Innovating Regions in Europe (IRE) Secretariat, 2006.
5
The concept of Benchmarking, definition and objectives
6
The concept of Benchmarking, definition and objectives
There are almost as many types of benchmarking as there are definitions. The
various definitions depend on what an organisation or any other system intends to
benchmark. In the following table, the main types of benchmarking are illustrated.
Table 1.1 – Types of Benchmarking
7
The concept of Benchmarking, definition and objectives
Process
Depth of understanding, Potential benefits
Benchmarking
Performance
Benchmarking
It has been discovered that actual improvements following benchmarking arise from
consideration and observation of the processes rather than from the output measures.
That is why a large extent of time and effort is needed when carrying out a
benchmarking exercise. In a first step, the questions and areas to be investigated
need to be established and agreed on. Obtaining data, completing questionnaires and
any subsequent analysis are also issues that are very time consuming.
If the output of the analysis is merely a set of statistics, then the return on investment
will be minimal and subsequently, the results are not worth the effort that has been
made before. Indeed, a thorough analysis of the processes and procedures that
support the figures must also be undertaken if major improvements are to be made.
For these reasons, many benchmarking exercises try to obtain both measures of
performance and process, in order to know not only who does what best, but also to
discover how such good performers get there.
8
The concept of Benchmarking, definition and objectives
9
The concept of Benchmarking, definition and objectives
7
The “Benchmarking Consulting Practice” has been originally developed within the Benchmarking
Exercise conducted by the company INNOVA Europe, subsidiary of INNOVA, for the Innovation Relay
Centres Network throughout the period 2001-2005. Further successful applications and adaptations to
other European networks have followed since 2004.
10
The concept of Benchmarking, definition and objectives
In the following pages, a detailed description of the 4 moments that form the IVEM
Benchmarking Cycle8 is provided:
Identification
There are many ways in which potential benchmarks can be identified. Depending
on the type of study to be undertaken, one might consider using questionnaires,
direct interviews, ad hoc visits, etc. in order to spot interesting practices.
A carefully designed benchmarking questionnaire, containing both qualitative and
quantitative questions, is always a good start in the search of the potential
benchmarks. Once the information has been gathered through any of the means cited
above, the data must be analysed. This analysis must involve a deep understanding
of current process practices as well as of their performance indicators. On the basis
of this analysis, there is a first selection of practices that should be further examined
and evaluated before they can be considered benchmarks. At this stage, additional
information on the selected practices are collected and the material to evaluate and
validate them is prepared (a useful hint to accomplish this task is to prepare a list of
questions and a draft of the process flow-chart to be discussed with the organisation
that “owns” the potential benchmark).
Validation
The Validation phase together with the Engineering phase are the most
distinguishing features of the Benchmarking Consulting Practice. Validation, as the
word indicates, refers to the verification of the collected information and the
acquisition of additional information. The validation activity is usually carried out
through visits and direct interviews to the organisation that “owns” the potential
benchmark.
The acquisition of information of various types (quantitative and qualitative) and
formats (manuals, software, brochure and so on) is essential to complete the whole
picture of a given practice and should be done in an ordered manner, planning in
advance the type of information to be requested and structuring the questions to be
asked. Furthermore, in order to optimise resources, it would be highly recommended
to prepare a draft of the process flow chart, representing the potential benchmark
and discuss it with the organisation’s manager(s).
Engineering
This phase represents the core of the current Benchmarking Consulting Practice.
Once all the information about a practice has been gathered and validated, the
engineering comes into play. This is accomplished through the following actions:
- identifying all the elements that are part of that particular practice;
- breaking them down into the smallest possible pieces;
8
INNOVA Europe, 2003.
11
The concept of Benchmarking, definition and objectives
- pulling them back together, reconstructing the puzzle, in a logical and structured
manner.
Engineering therefore, involves structuring the potential benchmarks into logical and
sequential steps in order to understand what is behind the benchmark and how it has
been achieved.
The idea that any practice is performed in a step-by-step manner, with a beginning,
an end and tasks in between can be illustrated using a process flow. The flow-chart
clearly shows the elements in which a specific benchmark has been broken down
and therefore decodes the knowledge and the know-how built in the benchmark.
Representing all the stages in the process makes the benchmark understandable in all
its parts and clarifies how it has been achieved. Once this is fully understood, the
benchmark can be transferred or adapted to other organisations. When the best
practices have been identified, the processes in the partner organisation are
communicated and studied and a scheme for implementation of these processes is
established: what needs to be looked at is why the best are the best, what processes
have they followed to reach where they are. These are questions that will lead to a
workable road map for improvement.
Monitoring
Benchmarking is a continuous and recursive process, not a snapshot that is
performed once and disregarded afterwards. Monitoring and reviewing is necessary
to see how the benchmarks evolve over time; it should involve looking at the
evolution of the performance indicators, by measuring on a regular basis the
performance achieved, as well as observing the process flow to detect any changes
in the steps or in the activities undertaken.
Monitoring can be directed to the identification of new areas of work to be further
analysed and/or to new benchmarks in those same areas as well.
In order to close the loop and ensure that benefits do materialise, it is essential to
review the implementation of the practices and whether the adopted practices have
managed to fill a performance gap.
12
The concept of Benchmarking, definition and objectives
resources’ development in S&T and last but not least with the raising of public and
private funds.
Specific knowledge is being brought to the forefront, finally giving project partner
regions as well as further regions the opportunity to adapt and apply proven
successful methodologies to their own regional policies’ design.
13
14
Identification of the
Identification of the
benchmarking sample
Streamlining of
Streamlining
Streamlining of of
areas/business
to beprocesses
benchmarked
to be benchmarked
IDENTIFICATION
Questionnaires
Questionnaires
Benchmarks Benchmarks IDENTIFICATION
IDENTIFICATION Visits
Visits
Monitoring Identification Interviews
Interviews
Analysis
Analysis of of
practices & performance
practices & performance
indicators.
indicators. 1st 1st
Selection of practices
Selection of practices
Contacts
Contacts to to
gather moremore
gather information
information
Preparation
Preparation of material for thefor
of material validation visit
the validation visit
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING Process Flow
Process Flow
MONITORING Review
MONITORING
MONITORING Review&&Updating
Updating
Chapter 2. The IVEM
Methodology applied to the
NOVAREGIO context
The IVEM Methodology applied to the NOVAREGIO context
9
The Central European Initiative (CEI) - www.ceinet.org - is the oldest and largest of sub-regional co-
operation initiatives that emerged in Central and Eastern Europe after the collapse of the communist
system. Founded by Austria, Italy, Hungary and Yugoslavia in 1989, as Quadrilateral co-operation, its
membership increased to 10 by 1994, to 16 by 1996 and to 17 in 2000 with the accession of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia. Other CEI Member Countries are Albania, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia
and Ukraine. The CEI, as an intergovernmental body is involved in the NOVAREGIO project through its
Science and Technology Network.
10
The Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe (CPMR) - www.cpmr.org was founded in
Saint-Malo in 1973 on the initiative of the Region of Brittany, at the same time as the United Kingdom,
Ireland and Denmark entered the European Community. Today, the CPMR’s membership includes 154
Regions from 27 States – both members and non-members of the EU – all located in one of Europe’s
main sea basins.
16
The IVEM Methodology applied to the NOVAREGIO context
Figure 2.1 – Central European Initiative (CEI) & Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions
of Europe (CPMR)
CEI CPMR
Out of 25 RTD and innovation policies implemented within these seven regions,
eleven have been validated, engineered and thus benchmarked for finally being
transferable to further regional contexts of the involved partner regions as well as to
regions lying outside the project context.
As already underlined before, there do not exist overall best regions against whom to
benchmark; instead it is crucial to select adequate and appropriate regions against
whom to benchmark. NOVAREGIO comprises regions that are all concerned with
improving their regional RTD and innovation performance, and in this regard they
all set similar foci for reaching this goal, which are amongst others the enhancement
of technology transfer activities, clustering activities and the support of
entrepreneurship within the regions.
The ultimate objective of the project is to diffuse expertise knowledge on RTD and
innovation policies’ benchmarks and to ensure a more efficient use of structural
funds in supporting RTD investment. In the long run, the project activities aim to
sustain a greater convergence towards a knowledge-based society in Europe, along
with fostering networking and providing guidance to policy makers in RTD matters.
It would be an overstatement to claim that Benchmarking represents a formula
which guarantees success, but it does represent an approach which has been
independently tried and proven by many organisations around the world.
Benchmarking is to be an action-oriented exercise and in the context of the
NOVAREGIO project the lessons learnt should lead to better-targeted policies and
knowledge based strategies. The final results should be taken into account in the
policy design as well as in the policy implementation. The precondition for reaching
this goal is the active participation of relevant stakeholders in the process, ensuring
their commitment to use and adapt the knowledge generated through the
benchmarking exercise in the future policy design.
17
The IVEM Methodology applied to the NOVAREGIO context
▪ The processes and practices used to reach a better RTD and innovation
performance are identified: It is worth mentioning that whether practices
are called “best” or “good”, they are seldom the ultimate that can be
achieved, given that best practice is always contextual. It should be
therefore noted that best is a moving target in today’s world, and also
situation-specific.
▪ There is commitment from policy makers and further relevant stakeholders
and willingness to act upon the results: By learning from comparing,
regional policy makers can implement improvements in a manner that is
consistent with their regional conditions and culture. The right term is to
adapt, not necessarily to adopt. It is rare to find a process that a region can
simply transfer to its own context. Instead, regions must assimilate the good
practice/methodologies, shape them to their own environments and
circumstances, test them to make sure they work in their settings, and then
make the changes to their specific conditions.
The purpose of the benchmarking exercise is to support a new way of thinking
among the project regions that considers benchmarking as an useful tool for
incremental improvements in terms of managing innovation concerns through
implemented policies. What’s more, the results of the exercise should be accessible
and easily understandable by all stakeholders, thus the outcomes have to be
illustrated in a simplified and understandable way.
19
The IVEM Methodology applied to the NOVAREGIO context
The Benchmarking Practice already explained and illustrated in the previous chapter
(see section 1.4) has been tailored and applied to the NOVAREGIO context, as
illustrated in Figure 2.2. The adopted methodology follows a 4-step model
consisting in:
1. identification of the areas/processes to be benchmarked;
2. identification of the benchmarking sample;
3. streamlining of areas/processes to be benchmarked;
4. application of the IVEM Benchmarking Cycle.
20
The IVEM Methodology applied to the NOVAREGIO context
21
22
Streamlining of Streamlining of
Streamlining
Streamlining of of Streamlining of
areas/business 6 interest area
to beprocesses
benchmarked to be benchmarked
to be benchmarked
IDENTIFICATION
Questionnaires
Questionnaires Benchmarking
Questionnaires fact sheets
Benchmarks Benchmarks IDENTIFICATION
IDENTIFICATION Visits
Visits Visits
Direct contacts
Monitoring Identification Interviews
Interviews Interviews
Analysis
Analysis of of
practices & performance
practices & Contacts topractices
gather
indicators. 1st Selection of practices
Analysis of
1st Selection ofmore information
& performance
25 Good
performance indicators. 1st Selection of practices
Practices
Contacts to gather
indicators. more information
1st Selection
of practices Preparation of Fact sheets
Visit and
Visit
Visitand
and Evaluation Panel
VALIDATION Direct Interview
VALIDATION
VALIDATION Direct
DirectInterview
Interview
Presentation of 25 Practices
Verification of the information acquisition
to regional of further information
representatives
acquisition
provided of further
and informationof
acquisition
Qualitative and quantitative
further information Performance indicators
11 Benchmarks selected
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING Process Flow
Process Flow Process Flow for each
Process Flow
selected benchmark
Break -
Break-down of practices into
sequential
structured steps.
and sequential Break -
Final process flow-chart for
sequential steps.
each benchmark & approval
steps
by regional authorities
23
The IVEM Methodology applied to the NOVAREGIO context
As a result, for each of the selected 25 Good Practices a fact sheet with the main
information details was elaborated, as presented in the Annex of this handbook.
24
The IVEM Methodology applied to the NOVAREGIO context
Good Practices promoted by the other involved regions. Each Practice was voted
with a mark between 1 and 3, meaning:
▪ 1 = low interest
▪ 2 = medium interest, and
▪ 3 = high interest.
Furthermore, more detailed information on regional quantitative and qualitative
performance indicators for the final 25 Good Practices were collected by project
partners through regional documentations and statistical publications made available
on official websites such as EUROSTAT. Although the more detailed investigation
revealed that published indicators are not complete due to not elaborated regional
data, the eventually gathered indicators represent none the less a supporting tool and
scientific component that allow, through the interpretation of statistics, quantitative
comparisons and thus the assessment of a region’s performance in innovation and
RTD in a qualified way.
The validation of the potential benchmarks was carried out through site visits or via
e-mail/phone contact with the regional key actors involved in the Regional
Evaluation Panels, by presenting each of the 25 Good Practices to the Panels
according to the fact sheets elaborated during the identification phase.
Besides the particular interest on the regions’ side towards the transfer and adoption
of specific practices to their own contexts, the selection process of identifying out of
the validated 25 Good Practices the final potential benchmarks was based on certain
criteria established by the Project Management Committee. The following principles
were considered:
▪ each interest area (‘hot topic’) has to be covered with at least one
practice;
▪ those practices are selected who get the highest voting from the Regional
Evaluation Panels;
▪ no more than two practices can be chosen from each partner region;
▪ at best, each region should be represented in the sample in order to
maintain the geographical balance.
Each Regional Evaluation Panel, consisting of up to 7 key actors, gave in a two
months period its final vote for each of the 25 Good Practices.
Considering the above described criteria, it emerged out of the final Evaluation
Matrix that 11 RTD and innovation policies and initiatives can be considered as
benchmarks. These practices are of specific interest to the regions and their final
acceptance and approval was achieved during the SSC Meeting held in Trieste in
February 2007.
The following table 2.2 illustrates the final 11 benchmarks according to their interest
area and regional origin. These benchmarks that are engineered in the following
25
The IVEM Methodology applied to the NOVAREGIO context
phase of the IVEM Benchmarking Cycle, represent the focus of the whole
benchmarking exercise and the subsequent knowledge transfer activities conducted
within the project.
26
The IVEM Methodology applied to the NOVAREGIO context
27
The IVEM Methodology applied to the NOVAREGIO context
lying outside the project scope but potentially interested in learning and taking up
successful RTD and innovation policies.
28
Chapter 3. RTD and
innovation Benchmarks
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
30
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
Development of
Skills ▪ Innovative education concept
Human
Development of
Styria Resources in ▪ Different degree of funding
Qualified
Science and according to geographical area
Employees
Technology
▪ Tailor-made approach for
different kinds of entrepreneurs
Start up Entrepreneurship
Styria ▪ Reimbursement only after project
Entrepreneurs – Start-ups
completion and presentation of
supporting documents
▪ Compulsory involvement of
research and industry / public and
private actors
Centre of Technology
Slovenia ▪ Companies have to demonstrate
Excellence Transfer
50% of co-funding; public
institutions 25% which has to
come from the private sector
31
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
32
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
In the following sub-chapters it will be highlighted why those RTD and innovation
policies are considered to be the best, thus providing suggestions and
recommendations to policy makers how to improve regional innovation
performance.
Each region is described firstly with a brief overview of its main characteristics.
Subsequently, an in-depth description of each benchmark is provided, illustrating
main conducted activities, overall objectives and the methodology according to
which each benchmark has been implemented in the regional context. Furthermore,
process criticalities that are rendering each practice successful as well as the
illustration of quantitative and qualitative performance indicators is presented.
Concerning the qualitative performance indicators in particular, as already
mentioned previously, due to not fully existing qualitative regional data it was not
feasible to indicate for all benchmarks qualitative performance indicators. Therefore,
also quantitative indicators have been taken into consideration which represent an
effective supporting tool to allow for quantitative comparisons and thus for a
meaningful assessment of the benchmarks’ performance.
Finally, each benchmark is illustrated graphically in a process flow-chart that has
been designed in cooperation with the ‘owner’ of the practice through brainstorming
on major process tasks and interviews with questions regarding quantitative and
qualitative information.
33
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
The Friuli Venezia Giulia Region has an area of 7.840,13 km2 and lays between the
Alps and the Adriatic Sea, among Austria, Slovenia and the Veneto Region. The
region consists of four Provinces, whose chief towns are Trieste, the regional capital,
Udine, Pordenone and Gorizia.
Friuli Venezia Giulia (FVG) is one of the four Italian autonomous regions on the
base of a special statute. As a consequence, the Regional Administration is able to
adopt local laws targeted to match the local socio-economic needs. As access door to
Eastern Europe thanks to its natural geographical position, the region has always
been acknowledged the role of a strategic logistic region and nodal point for
international trade flows to and from Eastern Europe.
Besides its historical vocation to international trade, Friuli Venezia Giulia is among
the European Union’s most advanced areas thanks to its balanced industrial structure
with sectors of excellence at world level as well as due to its significant tradition in
the field of science and innovation.
Industry system
The industrial system of Friuli Venezia Giulia is characterised by a core of large
national and international enterprises, operating with full capacity and
competitiveness on the European and world markets in the production of capital
goods (steel, industrial plants, machine tools), consumer durables (household
appliances, furniture) and shipbuilding.
The system is also characterised by a diffused tissue of about 100.000 small and
medium-sized firms and a wide network of craft firms, some of which are
concentrated in integrated export-oriented areas specialised in the production of
consumer goods.
The composition of the industrial workforce is mainly based on the mechanical
industry and wood furniture. Furthermore, additional relevant sectors are transport
and agro-food.
Most SMEs are clustered in six particular industrial districts: Pordenone (mechanics
and components), Maniago (cutlery production), San Daniele (ham production),
Manzano (chair production) and Alto Livenza (furniture production) and Trieste
(coffee), with high level of export. Each of the mentioned districts is an active
promoter of innovation, and small high-tech enterprises are growing in the region as
providers of services for the more traditional sectors.
34
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
11
Research-driven cluster are concentrations of research organisations (public research centres,
universities, not-for-profit bodies), enterprises (large firms, SMEs), regional or local authorities (local
government, regional development agencies) and where appropriate local entities such as chambers of
commerce, savings banks and banks, operating in a particular scientific and technological domain or
economic sector.
12
Source: Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2006
35
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
▪ life sciences
▪ physics, materials and nanotechnologies
▪ electronics, informatics and communication
▪ environment and energy
AREA Science Park is managed by a national research institution, the Consorzio per
l’AREA di Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica di Trieste (briefly AREA), that
operates under the vigilance of the Italian Ministry of University and Research. The
AREA’s board of directors includes representatives of the regional and local
administrations, of the three regional Universities and of several scientific and
economical institutions, as well as of the local associations of labour and industry.
Networked co-operation is the strategic factor to develop advanced research at
international level and to exploit research results at a large extent; as a consequence,
AREA builds up cluster-based initiatives involving innovation stakeholders and
economic operators, such as industrial companies, science and research institutions,
education and training organizations, technology transfer and business support
structures, financial institutions.
One of the leading cluster initiatives is the TDMB - the regional Technology District
of Molecular Biomedicine – established in AREA at the end of 2003. The TDMB is
an innovative knowledge district officially endorsed by the Italian Ministry of
University and Research and focused on life sciences, where development
programmes driven by research and industry stakeholders are strongly supported
both by public and private funds and advanced value-added services and excellent
research infrastructures as well. The TDMB results from the converging and
common objectives of industry, research and finance.
The TDMB is managed by the CBM–Consortium for the Centre of Biomolecular
Medicine, a public company controlled by AREA as the main shareholder. The main
goals of the TDMB are to create a strong network of international competences, to
offer advanced research facilities to researchers and investors and to promote the
creation of hi-tech start-ups in the field of bio and nanotechnology, focusing on a
number of therapeutical areas which are all extremely relevant at world level:
oncology, vascular cardiology, neurosciences, hepatology and regenerative
medicine.
The two benchmarks identified in the region and presented in the following are both
dealing with the enhancement of technology transfer activities. While the first
illustrated benchmark, SISTER, is addressed primarily to the world of research
(technology offer), the second benchmark, Innovation NetworkTM, sustains the
improvement on the industrial side (technology demand) and thus is mainly
addressed to the enterprises located in the region, especially to the SMEs.
36
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
3.2.1 SISTER
The project SISTER stands for the creation of a permanent system developed by
AREA Science Park and addressed to ease the introduction of new technologies on
the market. In this regard, SISTER aims at increasing the economic value of
research results by activating projects devoted to develop their economic potential in
order to turn them into marketable intellectual property rights and/or products.
Researchers from PROs (universities and research institutions located in the region)
are supported in setting up first contacts with the world of industry, resulting finally
in the fostering of technology transfer activities through stronger relations between
academia and business.
SISTER was implemented within the period 2001 and 2005 and was funded to
100% by the regional government, the Autonomous Region of Friuli Venezia Giulia,
covering completely all the costs arisen through personnel and consulting activities.
The project has designed a new valorisation process for bringing those research
results to the market that are representing high potential for being applied by
industry. In this regard, SISTER staff has supported researchers by offering them a
huge service spectrum concerning technology transfer services.
Outcomes of SISTER are the valorisation of innovative technologies transferable to
enterprises, the filing of patents, the launching of new collaboration activities as well
as the starting up of entrepreneurial initiatives (spin-offs) resulted from research.
3.2.1.1 Methodology
The impulse for starting the SISTER project in Friuli Venezia Giulia gave a regional
opportunity analysis carried out by AREA Science Park which resulted in the need
of implementing a technology and know-how transfer system due to the existing
imbalance between technology offer and technology demand in the region.
The methodology followed for setting up such a system and making it functioning
successfully is illustrated in figure 3.1. Basically, SISTER can be structured in four
main phases:
▪ Establishment Liaison Office;
▪ Scouting and first documentation analysis;
▪ Validating of result performances;
▪ Planning of technology exploitation track.
In the following, these four phases are explained in detail.
Phase 1. Establishment Liaison Office
The implementation process starts with setting up the ‘SISTER Liaison Office’ at
the premises of AREA Science Park. The setting-up of the Liaison Office was
performed by co-ordinating the activities of already existing technology transfer
offices (three amongst the regional PROs) and by providing services to PROs where
37
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
from a market launch. The phase ends with an evaluation on the opportunities to
further invest in result valorisation.
Phase 3. Validation of result performances
When all the above verifications have been successfully run, a project dossier is set
up by the Liaison Office. This dossier consists of a draft programme in which all
valorisation activities needed to introduce successfully the results into the specific
market are identified, together with an estimation of time, costs and resources
necessary for the implementation.
The project dossier is submitted to the PROs whom the researchers belongs to, for
its approval: the PROs are asked to decide if there is an interest to continue the
valorisation process and to introduce the technology to the market.
Would PROs agree on the programme, the Liaison Office performs a detailed
examination, based upon the results collected in the project dossier, of the spotted
market aiming to find the most efficient exploitation track for the research result.
So far the exploitation track has been decided, the Liaison Office launches the
planned validation activities. A first set of activities is aimed to protect the results
IPR: to this end the Liaison Office supports the required patent filings accordingly to
the results of the patentability assessment and to the defined protection strategies. A
second set of activities is aimed to assess how the result performances fit with the
selected market requirements: to this end the Liaison Office supports the required
testing asking, when possible, a third party to run the test. By this way an
independent judgement to be used as market introduction for potential users is
reached. The intermediate results of validation activities are compared with the
different market requirements, and a risk map is compiled allowing the Liaison
Office to evaluate which exploitation track shows higher potential.
Phase 4. Planning of technology exploitation track
As far as the validation results are available, the Liaison Office in strict co-operation
with the PROs, defines how the technology could be successfully exploited.
In this regard, three basic alternatives of exploiting the technology are investigated:
- the acquisition of the technology finding by companies, thus its
commercialisation;
- the setting up of a partnership in research and development; or
- the creation of a spin-off research company.
Each of these alternatives entails a coordinated series of operations and services that
provide support to PROs. For all three opportunities, the Liaison Office offers
support regarding financial and organisational questions as concerns for example
issues related to the contract management. In specific, for the first alternative
(commercialisation), potential users interested in obtaining the result are identified
and contacted as well as provided with the technical documentation. The Liaison
Office supports the preparation and the drafting of contracts and sustains the PROs
39
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
▪ 337 research findings passed the second phase “Scouting and first
documentation analysis”;
▪ 184 research findings proposed for valorisation;
▪ 340 valorisation activities supporting research findings;
▪ 32 Italian patent applications;
▪ 18 international patent applications;
▪ 34 new established cooperations;
▪ 6 research spin-offs.
41
42
Creation of a No
spin-off company Patent
filing Yes
PROs interested
support in continuing?
Financial and Technology
Partnership in R&D Market to be Project Set up
organisational presentation project
support examination validated for Yes
the market No to PROs dossier
Validation of
Commercialisation exploitation
(Transfer into opportunities
the market)
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
3.2.2.1 Methodology
The initiative resulted from an opportunity analysis regarding the socio-economic
development of the region. The analysis revealed core production sectors of the
region with a high innovation potential. These sectors, most important for the
industrial development of the region, are wood & furniture, agro-industry, business
management, environment, molecular biomedicine, the nautical sector, plastics &
new materials, energy and metallurgy.
The implementation procedure of Innovation NetworkTM followed a schematic
approach as demonstrated in figure 3.2 and described in the following. There are
four main phases:
▪ Network set-up;
▪ Needs verification and evaluation;
▪ Project development and implementation support;
▪ Follow-up.
The phases 2 and 3 are not necessarily consecutive steps and thus, as a matter of fact
they can be accomplished at the same time. Indeed, a first verification and
evaluation of the companies’ needs has to be done before implementing a concrete
project but at the same time, the actual project development can require further
verifications which emerge only during the implementation phase. While phase 2
43
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
describes the whole range of services provided to the enterprises, phase 3 depicts the
concrete interaction between competence centre and client once a specific project
idea has been come up.
44
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
the client at his premises for collecting further information as regards the client’s
service request.
Following the visit and based on the information gathered, the technology broker
verifies and evaluates the collected information. This first evaluation and
verification process deals with a first assessment and the studying of the companies’
innovation needs. Related to the specific request made by the client, the competence
centre offers a wide range of services, all aimed at providing the enterprise with a
reliable and independent support all the way up to the implementation of the
innovation. The services offered are:
- Technology Auditing:
Technology audits in this context are understood as ‘short term actions’ to
assess areas of expertise, technology and equipment by means of questionnaires
or direct interviews with staff members. The final aim is to evaluate the need for
innovation within the enterprise and the existing surrounding opportunities and
then to identify the most likely mechanisms or routes for exploitation of each
opportunity. Potential solutions are identified and tried to be maximised by
building on areas of strengths previously detected within the company.
Furthermore, technology audits in this context shall increase awareness and
motivate personnel in terms of being open to new ideas and starting innovative
methods for fabricating new products, introducing new processes and seeking
for new management practices.
- Information on patents, document retrieval and business intelligence:
Another important service offered by the competence centre is the provision of
ample knowledge to the client as regards his industry sector and issues linked to
innovation processes, such as patent issues and the state-of-the-art of considered
technologies. Activities that are conducted here are the retrieval of documents
of scientific, technical and industrial interest and the subsequent analysis of the
resultant information synthesised. Personalised reports on technological
scenarios are elaborated, thus providing the enterprise with a broad picture of
new possibilities and helping direct its RTD activities into promising fields.
Moreover, a monitoring service regarding competitors and their technological
innovations is provided, consequently giving on the one hand the chance to be
informed and keep step with changing environmental conditions and on the
other hand to facilitate the opportunity of concrete collaborations among
businesses.
- Planning of innovative solutions for implementing innovation projects:
The interventions made for assisting in realising an innovation project normally
take more time since the study to be undertaken is rather complex. Together
with the enterprise, innovative solutions are planned and further developed; last
but not least a prior conducted technology audit will have shed light on the
current situation of the enterprise. The assistance furthermore includes technical
and economic feasibility studies in order to assess the impact of innovation on
the company structure. It will be evaluated in how far a company has the
45
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
The previously described types of interventions are the ones that are applied most
frequently. In the course of time and depending on the enterprises specific needs,
new types of interventions stimulating the innovation activity may be implemented.
The result of this second phase is the thorough evaluation of the innovation
necessities of the enterprise under study, meant to link the company’s demand with
those competencies that are able to provide suitable innovative solutions.
Phase 3. Project development and implementation support
In case the first evaluation results to be positive and the client’s idea to be a valuable
one, the further development of the project starts. At first, the technology broker
presents a first project scheme to the client, containing the results of the analysis
made. After that, technical aspects concerning the specific case are deepened with
the scientific experts identified during the previous phase. Outcome of this deeper
and more detailed analysis is the set-up of a work plan proposal presented to the
client and including issues such as costs and time spent for the idea implementation
46
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
as well as main objectives to be achieved within the enterprise. Afterwards the work
plan is verified with the client, analysing the economic availability on the client’s
side in order to implement the innovation idea successfully.
If the client agrees with the work plan and there exists the economic availability, the
implementation of the project idea starts. In this phase, the competence centre offers
an extensive implementation support to the client. Throughout the entire process the
client is supported in relating with the expert who takes care of the idea
implementation. In this regard, problems that may occur are solved and contingency
plans set up in order to guarantee still a successful project realisation. Furthermore,
at the implementation’s finalisation the client’s satisfaction is verified and it is
discussed in how far the aspired objectives are achieved.
The third phase ends with the successful implementation of the innovation project.
Phase 4. Follow-up
The last phase is dedicated to the consolidation of the relationship between the client
and the competence centre. The service offered to the client should not remain a
‘one-shot’ activity but should instead imply the beginning of a long lasting
relationship in order to carry out further technology transfer activities supporting the
enterprise’s innovation improvement and therewith also the added value brought to
the region.
In this context, each competence centre organises technical workshops addressed to
the enterprises of the sector. The workshops are aimed at keeping the enterprises up-
dated on the latest achievements made, dealing with topics, such as innovative
techniques, materials and processes existing in the sector.
Furthermore, the relationship consolidation process is maintained through periodical
contacts with the client and the verification of new opportunities for product-,
process- or management innovation as well as the client’s involvement in initiatives
and areas of interest.
47
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
means a faster and more tailored response to the innovation requests of enterprises
located in the region. In the long run, a territorial system of competitiveness and
attractiveness is built up, thus expanding the regional business system and
supporting the start-up of new entrepreneurship.
Furthermore, the straight contact with the client achieved through visits and the
extensive support provided throughout the entire development- and implementation
process constitute a further key success factor of the initiative. The client is not only
supported in structuring his project idea in a practical scheme but is also assisted in
the further step of realising his idea most efficiently and tailored to his needs. The
verification if the client has been satisfied with the work accomplished as well as the
maintenance of a continuous relation between client and competence centre
including the offering of technical workshops close the circle of service offer and set
the basis for new collaborations.
48
Figure 3.2 – Innovation NetworkTM process flow
Coordination by AREA
Yes
Decision point
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
The South Transdanubian Region is located in the Southern part of Hungary. In the
North, the region is bordered by Lake Balaton, in the East the river Danube serves as
a natural border, while in the South the region has a common border with Croatia.
South Transdanubia is composed of the counties Baranya, Somogy and Tolna,
inhabited by nearly 1 million people (9,8% of the total population of Hungary) and
spread over an area of 14.169 km2 (15,2% of the total territory of Hungary). The
region’s strong rural character comes across through its lack of medium sized towns
and the consequent fragmented settlement structure.
The regional economy is dominated by the agricultural sector and agro-food
industries where meat and milk processing and the production of beer, wine and
sugar play a key role. Although some large industrial companies are situated in the
Region, industry is still not as competitive as it is in the western or central regions of
Hungary. As regards the tertiary sector, tourism is of vital importance to South
Transdanubia, in particular the areas surrounding the Lake Balaton. During the last
years, the availability of business support services has been increasing throughout
the Region. In 2003, the unemployment rate was 7,9%.
The South Transdanubian Region hosts some of the most renowned Hungarian
agricultural higher education institutions. For this reason, the region offers a large
number of highly qualified human resources in this field. The regional volume of
R&D activities in the agricultural sector is the highest in the entire country.
The region elaborated, as all the other Hungarian regions, a Regional Innovation
Strategy (RIS) for the period 2004 – 2010, an innovative programming method with
a tried-and-tested approach to the promotion of innovation. The five main objectives
of this strategy are:
1. to initiate regional dialogue;
2. to support the direct involvement of all relevant organisations in shaping
innovation policy;
3. to analyse regional innovation needs and capacities;
4. to select priorities for innovation support;
5. to develop action plans and pilot projects.
In conjunction with the elaboration of the Regional Innovation Strategy of South
Transdanubia, the Regional Innovation Agency STRIA (South Transdanubian
Regional Innovation Agency) was set up as a division of the South Transdanubian
Regional Development Agency (STRDA). The Regional Innovation Strategy was
formulated by STRDA and approved jointly with the Regional Innovation Council
as well as further actors involved in regional innovation activities. STRDA, as all the
other Regional Innovation Agencies in the country, aims at supporting the
50
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
implementation of its innovation strategy within the region and at developing and
co-ordinating the regional innovation policy.
Furthermore, STRDA is the coordinator of a three-year lasting project (2005 to
2007), supported by the government and which aims at establishing and
coordinating a Regional Innovation Agency Network (RIA Network). The network
will operate as a complex, easy-to-reach system of services, guaranteeing the
support to the innovative development of SMEs, the increase of the technology
transfer capacity of universities and the development of innovation services based on
the Regional Innovation Strategy. The network is made up of prominent innovation
actors of the region: in addition to the coordinator STRDA, the two universities
providing the knowledge base and so-called technology transfer organisations are
the members. Besides the network, STRDA will also set up a regional innovation
information system and database linked to national and international innovation
databases and networks.
Regarding international cooperation in the field of innovation, the South
Transdanubia has established close collaborations with the regions Friuli Venezia
Giulia (Italy), Shannon (Ireland) and Yorkshire & Humber (United Kingdom). In
particular with the two latter regions South Transdanubia has worked together under
the framework of its Regional Innovation Strategy (RIS).
51
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
3.3.1.1 Methodology
The implementation procedure of the “Baross Gabor Programme - Support of the
innovation developments of small and medium-sized enterprises in South
Transdanubia” followed a schematic approach illustrated in figure 3.3 and described
in the following. The process flow is an attempt to model the way the Regional
Innovation Agency STRDA developed the specific Call for Proposals and managed
the implementation of the programme in the region. It is a simplified description of a
more complex process, but it is nonetheless useful to identify and bring to light the
key activities that add value to the entire process of supporting SMEs and their
innovation potential in the region, and finally making the programme successful.
The description of the “Baross Gabor Programme - Support of the innovation
developments of small and medium-sized enterprises in South Transdanubia” is
given below highlighting the three focal “moments” that add value to the process
flow:
▪ Call and Proposal Preparation;
▪ Proposal Evaluation & Funding;
▪ Implementation Support.
Phase 1. Call and Proposal Preparation
The RIS project conducted in the period from 2002 until 2004 resulted in the
elaboration of a mid-term innovation-oriented strategy (for the period until 2010),
accomplished by the Regional Innovation Council (RIGB) and STRDA, and
principally addressed to the enterprise promotion in the region South Transdanubia.
The Innovation Strategy revealed that there are six core sectors in the region whose
development regarding innovative activities has to be supported by enhancing and
promoting the competitiveness of the local SMEs who are the main industrial
players of these sectors:
- Food industry and agriculture innovation;
- Environmental industry;
- Health services;
- Textile and Leatherwear industry;
- Mechanical-, Metal- and Electronics industry;
53
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
- Computer science.
Furthermore, as mentioned previously, in the framework of the Innovation Strategy
the Regional Innovation Agency STRIA was set up as a division of the South
Transdanubian Regional Development Agency (STRDA).
The Regional Innovation Strategy gave the main impulse to set up a Call for
Proposals under the framework of the “Baross Gabor” Programme. Based on the
results of the Innovation Strategy, the Call set up in South Transdanubia was
addressed to sustain the development of SMEs operating in specific industry sectors
by strengthening their R&D activities, supporting the development of new
technologies and tasks related to the establishment of innovation structures and
model plants, building up public/private partnerships and developing network
cooperation. Innovation is deemed to enhance the competitiveness of companies and
by supporting innovation developments in the six listed sectors, the region expected
a high contribution to the establishment of a harmonised and structured regional
innovation system.
Once the Regional Development Council and the Regional Innovation Agency
STRIA have been agreed on the decision of implementing a Call for Proposals in the
region, the call preparation process starts. The work programme and the application
form are prepared by STRIA. The application form, set up in Hungarian language, is
similar in its structure to the Call for Proposals published within the Framework
Programme of the European Commission. The application is built up in two main
parts containing the following information:
- administrative information on the participants of the consortium and budget
request;
- project information (scientific and technological objectives; potential
impact; etc. ).
Furthermore, the funding margins are decided. The programme supported SMEs,
and the intensity of the support was at maximum 50% of the whole budget of a
project. For all identified six key sectors one Call for Proposals has been elaborated.
The RIA Network supported to a great extend the call preparation process through
the consultation and the measuring of the demand of local SMEs. The development
of the Call was a long process that took more than half a year.
After its finalisation, the Call for Proposals has been approved by the Regional
Innovation Council who announced subsequently the publication of the Call online
on its website (www.deldunantul.com) and on the website of the RIA Network
(www.ddriu.hu). According to the Hungarian rules, STRDA had to communicate the
Call through nationwide newspapers and through the regional press as well. The Call
was open for one month.
In order to encourage a high number of proposal submissions by local enterprises,
STRDA started an extensive proposal preparation support in the region, offering
the following activities:
54
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
55
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
involvement of the most important innovation actors in the process, sustains the
accurate preparation of a Call for Proposals that is in line with the regional
requirements and that is tailored to satisfying the needs of local SMEs.
Furthermore, the proposal preparation support accomplished by STRDA represents a
critical moment in the entire proposal preparation process. The active support of
STRDA, provided through sectoral workshops and additional consultation services,
motivates on the one hand enterprises to present a project proposal and on the other
hand increases also the quality of the submitted proposals, thus resulting finally in a
higher number of projects which comply to the requirements set in the Call and
which are therefore eligible for funding.
Last but not least, the proposal evaluation through the Expert Committee instead of
STRDA itself represents a further success factor. The suitability of the project to
contribute to the regional innovation development can be assured since the
Committee is set up of representatives of governmental and regional bodies in
charge of regional development and innovation, including therefore actors
concerned with the implementation of projects that are promoting the innovation
development of local micro enterprises or SMEs efficiently.
57
58
SME/ Technical
Feasibility
Micro capacity
Formal eligibility
Proposal Preparation Support by STRDA
fulfilled? Formal
Proposal
Consist Innovative Sustaina professional Sectoral Information
submission to
ency ness bility Yes evaluation Consultation Workshops
STRDA Dissemination
No by STRDA services on project (website, flyers)
development
Proposal
accepted by
the Expert No
Committee?
Yes Input/Output
Implementation Support
Proposal evaluation
& assessment Activity
completed
Innovation Development Support by STRDA
Contract Innovation project
Proposal Formal Interim- Process
Proposal Signing & Implementation External implemented
approved and ex-post
Yes approved Funding support expertise successfully
by RIGB? monitoring
No with KPI
Decision point
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
3.4 Styria
The Region Styria is the second largest in Austria, with an area of 16.387 km2
(covering 20% of Austria) and inhabited by 1,2 million people. Styria encompasses
17 districts and 542 municipalities. The region has a number of population centres
including Leoben, Kapfenberg, Bruck/Mur, Mürzzuschlag, Liezen and the Styrian
capital Graz. The capital is the second largest city in Austria with a population of
230.000 inhabitants. In 2003, Graz was awarded the ‘European Capital of Culture’.
Styria is characterised by a long industrial tradition, based on its coal and mineral
natural resources as well as forestry and water. Today, the region is characterised by
three existing fields of strength which are:
▪ Automotive Industry/mobility;
▪ Wood/paper;
▪ Materials.
Potential strengths that the region has identified for the future are:
▪ Energy and environmental technology/Renewable energy;
▪ Human technology;
▪ Creative industries;
▪ Food technology;
▪ Nano/Micro technologies;
▪ Simulation/Mathematical modelling;
▪ Engineering/Plant construction;
▪ TIME (Telecommunication, Information technologies, New Media,
Electronic).
Economic Development Situation
The company size structure in the region in recent years has moved towards a higher
number of smaller firms. Currently, there are 40.221 companies located in the region
with 430.000 employees. 95% of these companies are small and medium-sized
enterprises.
There is a good supply of education and training facilities in Styria. The region
disposes of five universities, two technical colleges and 18 competence centres
which aim to improve the competitiveness of enterprises through strategic co-
operation between the science and industry sectors. The high R&D rate is giving
evidence to this fact: in 2004, the rate, calculated on the basis of the gross regional
product (GRP), was 3.55% and therewith above country average which was 2.21%
in 2004.
59
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
Within the universities, considerable recent growth and spin-off potential is evident
in the area of synthetics and materials. A number of technology and new firm
formation centres have been created as part of the regional renewal effort, offering a
range of services from administrative support through to technology transfer and
consultancy.
Regarding its relation with foreign markets, especially with South East Europe,
Styria augmented its export volume in 2005 to 12.5 billion, representing an increase
of 20.5% compared to the previous year 2004.
The main promoter of regional development in the Region Styria is the Styrian
Business Promotion Agency (SFG, Steirische Wirtschaftsförderung). SFG is an
independent service enterprise, majority-owned by the Province of Styria, that aims
with its activities to improve the overall local conditions of the regional industries
and make a contribution to the structural improvement and the economic growth of
businesses that have their headquarters located in Styria as well as of disadvantaged
regions.
SFG offers a variety of services to its customers who are primarily businesses
currently in their foundation phase as well as existing businesses and business
cooperations. However, the services are also offered to public bodies, natural
persons and legal entities and further legal subjects whose activities are suitable for
making a valuable contribution to the achievement of the region’s economic
objectives.
Independently from the type of business and the industry branch, SFG offers to its
clientele extensive advice on funding possibilities, the preparation of information,
contacts and cooperation possibilities according to the type of business and industry
branch. Furthermore, the Agency offers monetary support for the realisation of
projects in the following fields:
▪ Human resources;
▪ Research & development;
▪ Knowledge and technology transfer;
▪ Networks;
▪ Internationalisation;
▪ Equity generation;
▪ Business foundation;
▪ Integral business development;
▪ Business related services;
▪ Innovative investments;
▪ Infrastructure.
60
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
Half of the funding of qualification measures for businesses with headquarters in the
Structural Funds Objective 2 Area is co-financed with subsidies from the European
Social Fund (ESF).
The region revealed two policies considered as benchmarks. The first illustrated
benchmark is addressed to improving the expertise knowledge of employees in the
region, while the second benchmark deals with supporting the entrepreneurial
activities.
61
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
3.4.1.1 Methodology
A regional need analysis conducted by SFG revealed that there exist problems as
regards the satisfactory training of qualified employees working in the enterprises
located in the region. This circumstance is caused by the kind of training offered,
meaning that its nature is not always matched to the supply of suitable jobs in the
regional labour market.
Based on these findings, SFG decided to implement the present programme in order
to support training schemes that are better adapted to the specific needs of the
qualified employees and the enterprises. The implementation and the execution of
the programme follows a relatively simple scheme composed of three consecutive
phases as described in the following (see figure 3.4):
▪ Programme Preparation;
▪ Programme implementation;
62
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
63
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
64
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
For enterprises situated in the New Objective 2 area half of the grant is co-
financed by the ESF.
Enterprises that are instead located in Greater Graz are granted an aid intensity of:
▪ 35 % for general training, and
▪ 20 % for special training.
The application form is divided in two main parts. While the first part includes
general data of the company, the second part is addressed to information on the
specific project, thus on the training measures that will be accomplished.
Information on the training participants and their degree of qualification have to be
provided as well as a qualification concept elaborated for the specific qualification
project, expounding the qualification deficit as well as the planned education
measures, their necessities and the subsequent benefits resulting for the participants
and the enterprise. In detail, the following points have to be highlighted in the
concept:
▪ Description of the project on the basis of the existing situation of the
involved businesses;
▪ Objectives and strategies of the project;
▪ Action plan/education activities/education institutions;
▪ Description of the expected benefits for the employees, the businesses
and the region.
65
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
66
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
67
68
3.4.2.1 Methodology
The methodology underlying to the implementation and the working process of this
action programme is quite similar to the action programme “Skills Development of
Qualified Employees” explained previously in section 3.4.1. The graphical
presentation of the action programme “Start-up entrepreneurs” is illustrated in figure
3.5. As in the case of the first Styrian benchmark, also this benchmark’s process
flow is structured in the three phases:
▪ Programme Preparation;
▪ Programme implementation;
▪ Funding request & Project implementation.
The regional need analysis conducted by SFG disclosed a lack of new
entrepreneurial initiatives in the sectors identified as areas of strengths for boosting
the economic development in the region. Based on this perception, SFG decided to
set up the action programme as presented in the following.
Phase 1. Programme Preparation
Phase 1 deals with setting up the action programme and the application form
prepared by SFG.
The action programme contains information such as who are the beneficiaries of the
programme, what are the eligible projects and costs and to what extent is the
financing provided.
As concerns the beneficiaries, there are three different types of start-up
entrepreneurs within the target group of the programme:
69
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
71
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
The application form is, as in the case of the first benchmark, divided into the two
parts general data of the company and information on the specific project. In total,
there exist three application forms tailored to the following project types:
▪ Business start-up project;
▪ Consulting project;
▪ Investment project.
All three application forms are made up of a first part asking for general information
of the company. The second part differs according to the project type. While all
three application forms comprise information requests in terms of the start-up
project (project title, project location, project duration, basic description of the
project, estimation of arising costs), the application form addressed to consulting
projects requires also information on the consulting services foreseen and the related
expenses. The application form of conducting an investment project asks for
information on the market situation existing before starting the start-up as well as
information on the target groups and the strategies followed for reaching those
groups.
Phase 2. Programme Implementation
After the elaboration of the action programme and the three application forms, the
documents are presented for approval to the Regional Council. A Contact point
established at the SFG premises and functioning as expert of the programme, is
available for information requests coming from interested parties. At the same time,
information on the programme is disseminated through info days as well as by
means of a programme brochure.
Once the action programme including the application forms have been approved by
the regional council, detailed information on the programme is published on the
SFG homepage.
The second phase terminates with the availability of the full information set on the
programme, accessible on the SFG homepage and including all its relevant forms to
be downloadable.
Phase 3. Funding request & Project implementation
The proposal submission to the Contact point at SFG is effected either through the
start-up itself or through a assignee represented for example by a financial institution
or a consultancy firm.
After the submission, the proposal evaluation process starts in which the Contact
Point examines the provided documents in detail, by analysing the underlying
financial issues in terms of the economic efficiency and the sound financial
management of the start-up as well as technical issues related to the professional
competencies in order to carry out the envisaged endeavour.
In case of positive evaluation results, SFG decides on the funding. Before
determining the type and amount of financing, other funding possibilities are taken
72
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
o 2004: 3.844.
As regards the second indicator, it has to be underlined that the numbers provided
cannot be related only to the implementation of the programme; however it can be
stated certainly that the programme significantly contributed to the creation of
business start-ups in the region, considering also the high number of projects that are
supported every year.
74
Figure 3.5 – Start-up Entrepreneurs process flow
Eligible Eligible
Beneficiaries
projects costs
Action
Programme Publication Action programme
Financing Approval by
Subsidiarity/ Further terms online &
character & Regional
accumulation & conditions on SFG Application forms
-intensity Council
homepage available
3.5 Slovenia
76
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
3.5.1.1 Methodology
The motivation for implementing the Centre of Excellence programme resulted from
a regional analysis bringing to light the innovation deficit existing among the main
regional actors and the related shortfall in technology transfer activities. Basically,
the implementation process, as demonstrated in figure 3.6, is structured in three
parts:
▪ Programme preparation;
▪ Proposal evaluation;
▪ Centre of Excellence implementation.
77
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
81
82
Programme preparation
Work programme set up
Coordinator Proposal
Academic Signing
Company/ies (public research Funding submission to
institution/s funding
institution) agreement Contact Point
contract
ERDF
3.6 Crete
The region of Crete, the largest island in Greece, has a population representing the
5.5% of Greece (Census 2001). The island is considered as one of the most
advanced regions in the country, although it lacks significantly in terms of its
infrastructure. Nowadays, Crete is one of the few Greek regions that exceeds the
80% level of the EU25 average GDP per capital, bypassed only by the regions
related to the metropolitan area of Athens (Attiki and Sterea Ellada) and the highly
touristy developed region of Notio Aigaio.
The main activities of the island are undertaken in the Service Sector, which
employs more than 62% of the total workforce and produces the 78% of the regional
GDP (GRP). On the other hand, as regards the Agriculture Sector there has been
noted a decline in terms of employment and the proportion of the GRP, although the
sector tends to turn its activities to higher margins and quality products (e.g. organic
products). The Industrial Sector has been constantly developing during the last few
years and is mainly concentrated in low-to-medium technology activities.
RTD and innovation
RTD and innovation policies are centrally designed by the Government and thus the
Regional Authorities have limited power and abilities to design and implement
policies according to the regional needs and capabilities. The total expenditure of
RTD in Greece is approximately 0.6% of the total GDP. Although there is no
official data for the region of Crete for the last few years, the 1998 record gives a
proportion of 0.9% of the GRP. In 2001, the combination of the Government sector
and the Higher Education Sector gave a 0.88% of GRP expenditure for Crete, as
compared with the 0.64% of all sectors in Greece. This higher performance is due to
the large concentration of academic and research institutions on the island
established during the last 25 years. Crete concentrates the 18% of the expenditure
allocated to public research centres and the 8% of the expenditures to the higher
education institutes in Greece. However, even the higher degree of RTD effort in
Crete in comparison with the rest of the Greek regions is significant lower than the
average European level and much lower than the Barcelona Strategy of 3% of GDP
spending in RTD, of which 2/3rds will be from the private sector.
The main reason for the under-investment in RTD in Crete and in Greece in general
is that the private sector’s investment is negligible. RTD private investment is less
than 0.2% of the GDP in Greece (of which only 0.66% is invested in the region of
Crete), a factor that does not allow much optimism for reaching the Barcelona
targets in 2010. The low performance of the private sector results in a low
production of innovation output (e.g. very few patent applications are originated
from Crete).
Additionally, the private sector is not active to promote life-long learning activities
in order to renew skills of the employees. The connection between business and
research world is weak and as a result technology transfer activities appear to be
problematic. The main technology transfer effort is generated through technology
83
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
dealers who promote their products to the various enterprises that are active in Crete.
This, however, does not promote innovation and the firms are not able to reach
world-class level since they continuously lack behind the state of the art of the
technological and organisational developments.
Economy
Crete’s economy, although if based on traditional sectors such as tourism,
construction, food and beverages, transportation and agriculture, is active and is
growing fast. The rates of employment are high while the unemployment rate is
lower than the national average. The region attracts an increasing number of
immigrants and there has been noticed a higher proportion of working women
during the last decade.
The population and the economic activities are more intense in the Northern cities of
the island and especially in Heraklion. The universities, research centres and
scientific institutes are based mainly at Heraklion and less at Chania and
Rethymnon. These institutes, among which the University of Crete (established in
1977), the Technical University of Crete (established in 1984) and the Foundation
for Research and Technology – Hellas (FORTH, established in 1983), have
integrated infrastructures and carry out high quality research, thus creating a very
high concentration of RTD and innovation activities compared to the objective 1
regions of the EU.
However, this advantage of a high accumulation of research institutions in the
region, is not translated into business activities in the areas where research is taking
place, due to several factors, amongst those the following:
▪ the lack of central strategic planning on innovation policy;
▪ the practical non-existence of private funding for R&D and innovation;
▪ the lack of entrepreneurial culture in the scientific community; the lack of
venture capitals and risk funds;
▪ the very low foreign investment; and
▪ the limited connection between public research and private sectors.
The climate, life style and the geographical position of Crete attracts highly educated
people from all over Europe to live at the island, but these people usually are not
economically active (e.g. retired). If an increased proportion of young highly skilled
persons from Europe decided to place their activities and their investment in Crete,
then the entrepreneurial culture may change and push the local activities to new
directions. Additionally, the increase of environmental concern has created a new
area of economic activity, around sustainable development and renewable energy
sources. Hence, together with the traditional economic activities this sector could be
considered as the next potential source of economic growth for the region.
84
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
3.6.1.1 Methodology
The implementation process of UNISTEP is illustrated graphically in figure 3.7. The
motivation to set up this programme was based on the Regional Innovation
Programme CRINNO which tends to support through its sub-programmes the
development of the regional economy based on knowledge and technology
innovation and aims furthermore to create a regional identity and an environment of
continuous improvement. UNISTEP represents one of its 13 sub-programmes.
The functioning of UNISTEP can be structured in three main phases plus a
horizontal activity:
▪ Framework set-up;
▪ Proposal submission & evaluation;
▪ Programme implementation;
▪ Promotional activities & awareness raising.
“Promotional activities & awareness raising” is a horizontal activity that goes
through the entire programme duration. However, in order to simplify matters, this
activity is described in the end.
The CRINNO programme, implemented throughout the period 2000 to 2006,
recognised as one main regional need the improvement of entrepreneurial activities
in the scientific community, leading finally to a superior innovation performance in
the region. That is why it was decided to use a bottom-up approach and to tackle the
85
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
problem at the base when potential future entrepreneurs are still in their learning
phase.
Phase 1. Framework set-up
The UNISTEP programme initiated with establishing the institutional and thematic
framework, set up by the main programme promoters, the University of Crete
(UoC), the Technical University of Crete (TUC) and FORTH in conjunction with
the Science and Technology Park STEP-C.
As first step a Steering Committee was nominated whose members were selected
among key persons of the two Universities, FORTH and STEP-C. The Steering
Committee has to be understood as the central part of the programme, maintained
throughout the entire programme duration and designer of the main programme
activities and principles.
Key activities and criteria of the UNISTEP programme are:
▪ The two Universities and FORTH provide access to the use of large and
expensive laboratory equipment (under the supervision and direction of
academic personnel), necessary for the successful development and
testing of prototypes, while STEP-C offers space for the placement of
created enterprises.
▪ Training of the University students taking part in the programme. Four
training modules are offered: Introduction to Entrepreneurship,
Entrepreneur and the Legal Environment, Developing a Business Plan,
and Financing of a New Venture.
▪ Creation of a Network of Mentors, built up of successful entrepreneurs as
well as professors from the universities;
▪ Budget:
o 45.000 Euros spent for the training of students,
o 335.000 Euros for the ‘Incubator of Ideas’ where students are
collaborating with the laboratories of the universities,
o 20.000 Euros for the Network of Mentors involved in the
programme;
o Maximum amount provided for funding for each student is 6.000
Euros.
Along with the creation of the Steering Committee, three Contact Points were
established at the two universities (UC, TUC) and at STEP-C, available for student
requests and responsible for disseminating information on the initiative among the
students. Each Contact Point disposes of a database of students interested in
participating to the programme as well as of a pool of contacts of mentors and
professors available for participating to the initiative by carrying out activities, such
86
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
as the collaboration with students on their ideas, offering them assistance in turning
their ideas into valuable products and the accomplishment of training modules.
Phase 2. Proposal submission & evaluation
Point of departure of the second phase is that the student or the group of students
contact one of the three Contact Points, presenting an idea regarding the
development of an innovative product or a novel service offer. The idea in its basic
essentials is discussed with the Contact Point. If after the first discussion and
information exchange the idea seems to be realisable and promising and thus its
content should be deepened and elaborated further on, the student/group of students
deliver a full project proposal to the Contact Point. The proposal includes more
comprehensive information on the idea, such as technical issues and its
innovativeness, main objectives to be achieved and benefits to be reached as well as
the potential time frame needed for the idea’s realisation.
The Contact Point conducts a thorough evaluation process of the presented idea,
discussing the proposal also with the mentors and professors as experts of the
specific thematic. If the idea after the detailed analysis is still considered to be
interesting and innovative, the student/group of students are selected to be included
into the programme.
Phase 3. Programme implementation
The first activity, once the students are involved in the UNISTEP programme, is the
attendance of an extensive training programme that prepares the students for their
future potential entrepreneurial activity. The training as said before deals with
administrative and entrepreneurial issues. In total, four courses of approximately 100
hours are held and the training is compulsory for the students involved in the
programme.
Once the training has been finalised, the actual idea implementation takes place.
UNISTEP provides implementation support to the students over a period of eight
months. In these months, administrative and technological assistance is given as
regards for example the handling of contractual issues also with regard to
intellectual property rights as well as the managing of technical aspects. In this
context, mentors involved as experts in the programme are available for continuous
mentoring, supporting the students in developing their prototypes and helping them
develop their business plans, to seek additional funding and establish start-up
companies. Moreover, facilities at the two universities are provided, such as
laboratories and equipment to be used in order to process the ideas and transform
them into promising products.
During the implementation phase, students have to hand in mid-term reports as well
as a final report demonstrating the course of evolution, including information on
targets achieved and problems met.
Once the project idea has been fully implemented, a prototype has been generated
which will be used as example, basis or standard for being elaborated further on and
exploited on the market. Each of the three involved institutions (UC, TUC,
87
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
88
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
89
90
3.6.2.1 Methodology
The decision to create the Pancreta Development Fund in the region of Crete was
based on the perception that, although the region disposes of a high innovation
potential due to its large concentration of academic and research institutions, there
does still exist a considerable lack of entrepreneurial culture in the scientific
community. Moreover, it was observed that there does almost not exist private
funding for RTD and innovation, especially because of the shortfall of venture
capitals and risk funds. Consequently, financial support had to be provided for
boosting innovation in the region.
The set up of the fund and its mode of operation are illustrated in figure 3.8,
consisting in the following three phases:
▪ Set-up Pancreta Development Fund;
▪ Idea presentation & Investment screening;
▪ Business idea implementation.
In the following, these three phases are described in detail.
Phase 1. Set-up Pancreta Development Fund
The first measure that has been undertaken to launch the fund was the creation of
Pancreta Ventures, founded by the Pancreta Cooperative Bank, the 4 Chambers of
Commerce and Industry, and the University of Crete. Pancreta Ventures, located
within the premises of the Pancreta Cooperative Bank, is the managing company of
91
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
the Pancreta Development Fund and responsible for the implementation of the
financing programme. An Investment Committee has been set up, consisting of five
representatives of the founding institutions of Pancreta Ventures and acting as the
responsible body for making decisions on investment proposals and their funding.
Once the institutional framework has been created, the financing programme is set
up, defining the main beneficiaries of the programme, its funding and further
essential key criteria.
The target group benefiting from the funding and which the programme is addressed
to are mainly small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) as defined by the EU, but
also start-up businesses. Furthermore, the applicant should be from Greece and
should invest in the region of Crete.
The funding is provided to 50% by NEDF and to 50% by the Pancreta Cooperative
Bank. The total budget amounts to 6.000.000 Euros. The loans that are given to the
beneficiaries have a duration of up to five years, the interest to be paid depends on
the business and on the collaterals. The maximum amount of granted funding is 1.2
million Euros per request; the lower limit is open. As regards investments, open and
silent investments can be made with a capital of up to 1.2 million Euros; also in this
case the lower limit is open.
As key criteria the programme includes the following considerations:
▪ Priority investments comprise: new technologies, high innovative ideas,
alternative service regarding tourism (as the region’s main income
source); the fund does not invest in sectors such as shipbuilding, coal or
steel industry, automobile manufacturers or parts, real estate, gambling,
or firms that have suspended their operations;
▪ The applicant has to show a strong and committed leadership as regards
its managerial capabilities as well as a promising market potential
concerning the product or service it should be invested in;
▪ The beneficiary must take at least half of the risk involved. Additionally,
if requested, the applicant must offer a security and is personally
responsible (negotiable from case to case);
▪ Personal presentation and commitment are mandatory in order for the
investment to take place.
Once the programme has been defined in all its particulars, Pancreta Ventures can
start its operation. In order to raise awareness on the programme and spread
information, Contact Points are established at the bank branches of the Pancreta
Cooperative Bank throughout Crete, acting as first contact for funding and
investment requests.
Phase 1 completes with the successful foundation of the fund. Throughout the entire
programme duration, promotional activities, such as the organisation of open
meetings and the publication of articles and press releases, are undertaken in order to
92
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
93
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
Outcome of the last phase is the successful implementation of the business idea.
94
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
▪ During the period of twelve months, 5 open meetings were organised for
promoting the programme (at an average one meeting each two to three
months). Furthermore, the programme was promoted through the
participation to 7 further meetings and through the publication of articles
and press releases.
95
96
Contact Point
Pancreta
Set-up Pancreta Development Fund Ventures
Programme definition
Establishment
Establishment Bank Venture Capital
Investment
Pancreta Target Key branch Fund set up
Committee Funding
Ventures group criteria completed
(5 people) Bank Bank
branch branch
Contact Points
Pancreta
Pancreta Cooperative Bank
Bank
4 Chambers of Commerce & Industry Bank Bank Promotion
branch branch
University of Crete
Bank
branch
Yes
The Canary Islands are an archipelago of the Kingdom of Spain consisting of seven
major islands (El Hierro, La Palma, La Gomera, Tenerife, Gran Canaria,
Fuerteventura and Lanzarote), all of which are of volcanic origin. The Canary
Islands are located in the Atlantic Ocean, off the north-western coast of Africa
(Morocco and the Western Sahara) at a distance of some 1.100 km from the Spanish
Mainland. They form an Autonomous Community of Spain consisting of two
provinces, Las Palmas and Santa Cruz de Tenerife whose capitals (Las Palmas de
Gran Canaria and Santa Cruz de Tenerife) are co-capitals of the Autonomous
Community.
The mixture of geographical elements which come together in the Canary Islands
enables residents to enjoy an enviable quality of life, in an exceptional climate (the
average temperature varies between a maximum of 24°C and a minimum of 15°C)
and a unique natural environment. The profuse and varied plant life of the islands
and the beauty of the landscapes are two of the most attractive features, making the
Canary Islands not only one of the favourite holiday destinations for the citizens of
the European Union but also a superb place of residence.
The strategic location of the Canary Islands in the middle of the Atlantic, between
three continents, transformed them long ago into a place of transit of people and
goods, and consequently, into a privileged location as a welcoming platform for
companies involved in intercontinental business.
Population and Economy
In 1982, the islands had 1.431.045 citizens and the division of the Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) per person was 3.273 Euros. At the end of 2005, the population
exceeded to 1.970.000 inhabitants (18.879 Euros GDP per person). This population,
in a total area of 7.447 km², makes the region one of the most densely populated
regions in Spain. In 1982, there were three million tourists per year and now there
are ten million who provide the largest amount of the GDP.
The Canary Islands have traditionally looked out at the African and Latin American
markets and are, therefore, an excellent trading platform for north-south exchanges
as they sit astride one of the major international trading routes. This special geo-
strategic position favours the establishment of centres of business and financial
operations, capital transfers, technology transfer and the exchange of services.
From 1996 to 2005, the regional GDP in the Canary Islands has shown a positive
growth rate. This growth is mainly based on the performance of the service sector
and private consumption, an aspect which facilitated the increase in employment.
Mainly because of the tourism as the engine of the Canary Islands’ economy, the
Service Sector is the leading sector for the Islands’ economy, accounting for 78% of
regional GDP, followed by the Construction Sector (around 10% of GDP) and the
Industry Sector (around 8-9% of GDP). The Agricultural Sector represents the
smaller share of regional GDP, accounting for about 3%. The contribution of the
97
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
primary sector to the regional GDP has decreased over the last few years. Over the
same period, its contribution to regional employment has also been reduced and in
relative terms it is below the contribution of the sector at national level.
The local firms make up 4.2% of Spanish companies. The majority of them are
micro-firms (94%), followed by a small percentage of SMEs (6%). Big enterprises
exist only to a small number: 139 up to a total of 117.863. 53,28% of the Canarian
companies work in the service sector, 30.15% in trade, 11.21% in building and the
remaining 5.37% in the industry sector.
Education and Technology
In the Canary Islands there are two higher education institutions. The prevailing
academic specialisations are on social/legal sciences, engineering and technology,
humanities, health sciences and experimental sciences. The number of graduates in
areas directly related with Science and Technology is similar to the Spanish average
but less compared to European average.
The lack of water, the special conditions of the climate (with many hours of sun and
wind), the insular conditions and the big amount of graduates has converted the
Canary Islands into a world reference centre as regards the production of drinking
water, the desalination and the purifying of water from the sea and other natural
sources and the use of renewal energies for producing water and electricity.
Furthermore, the special geographical situation and the height of the islands together
with the transparency and the astronomical quality of their sky have contributed to
consider the Canary Islands a worldwide reference in astrophysics.
In the area of Research and Development, the Canary Islands have, together with
other Technology Centres, the Canary Islands Institute of Technology (ITC), a
company belonging to the regional government, attached to the Ministry of Industry,
Commerce and New Technologies and with its headquarters in Tenerife. ITC is the
representative in the Canary Islands of the Network of Innovation Relay Centres
(SEIRC), the Network of European Business and Innovation Centres (EBN) and the
Regional Economy Agencies (EURADA) and has as its main purpose to encourage
the interaction between those bodies which are involved in the technological,
industrial and business process: the Canary Islands Government, the Universities
and other Centres of Research and Development, publicly and privately-owned
companies and the Agencies of the Spanish State and the European Union. Their
purpose is to serve as an example in the process of transfer of research and
development to demonstration and production, mainly based on applied research
groups in the Canarian universities.
98
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
3.7.1.1 Methodology
The Canary Government and the Canary Islands Institute of Technology (ITC) have
been developing several kinds of studies during the last years, among them the
Regional Innovation Strategy (RIS), the RTD Integrated Plan and the IN.TRACK
project, financed by the European Commission and aimed at promoting the
formulation of knowledge-based regional policies, ensuring the support of local
actors and stakeholders. The conducted studies revealed the necessity of creating a
knowledge economy which could generate business sectors in the Canary Islands
that are able to be competitive in the global market and that consequently can
overcome the existing barriers due to the insular and peripheral conditions.
Furthermore, the evidence of a big amount of university students in the region and
the difficulties of starting a new base of technology companies made the creation of
tools essential that support the early years of the starting-up of new companies.
Based on the above said, the Canary Islands Government together with ITC decided
to set up BIC Canarias in order to boost the knowledge based economy in the region.
The methodology applied for implementing the initiative is illustrated in figure 3.9
and structured in the following three main phases:
▪ Framework set-up;
▪ Pre-incubation;
▪ Incubation & Service offer.
99
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
100
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
Phase 2. Pre-incubation
During the pre-incubation phase, each BPU carries out an extensive project search
activity in order to generate a pool of innovative project ideas ready for being further
developed and exploited within the facilities of the incubator. The project search is
performed through the accomplishment of different activities. First of all, by
collaborating with local universities, ideas of students can be easily detected.
Furthermore, the monitoring of RTD results generated in research institutions in the
region as well as the launching of so-called ‘competitions of ideas’ among students
and further would-be entrepreneurs helps identifying and gathering information on
potential business proposals. In addition, BIC Canarias accomplishes broad
promotional activities to possible entrepreneurs by means of mass media, such as
newspapers and the radio, and the organisation of awareness events. Based on these
activities, each BPU evaluates the collected project ideas. Those proposals that are
evaluated as interesting and innovative, are included into a database which contains
the most promising project ideas.
The contact with the BPU starts when the interested entrepreneur presents a
Business Plan to the BUP with the most important information regarding the
innovation profile of the idea. In some cases, also video presentations are used for
illustrating more clearly the endeavour to the BPU. Project ideas can come from
individuals who for the first time want to start up a business, from new companies
who are already in their start-up phase and last but not least from already established
SMEs who have a new idea regarding an innovative business activity. In this
context, there are some general criteria for accepting the idea and validating the
business plan:
▪ the business plan of the company has to be innovative and should concern
the technological area;
▪ as regards Start-up companies:
o if the company has been already created, it should have less than
one year of activity;
o if the company has not been yet created, they have three months
for the registration;
o independent companies, not belonging to an existing company.
▪ the product has to be ready for the market (not only research activities);
▪ industrial activities are not allowed (there are no facilities available for
this purpose).
After having received the business plan, the BPU staff, in its function as expert,
analyses the report based on the information provided by the entrepreneur. If the
expert staff considers the business idea as promising and important for the regional
development and thus worth for being developed further on, the idea is presented to
the Selection Committee of the BPU who evaluates the idea by conducting a risk
analysis in terms of the business planning, following in specific the technical report
101
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
of the BPU expert staff. In case of positive results an innovative business proposal
has been discovered which is taken into the pool of innovative ideas, qualified for
moving into the business incubator or for using the services externally, thus making
the most of the incubator’s facilities.
Phase 3. Incubation & Service offer
The duration in which start-up companies and SMEs stay in the BPU and use the
facilities and services, depends on the single BPU and on the agreements made
between ITC and the key actors of each island, thus the insular authorities or the
universities. The duration a company can stay varies from 18 up to 30 months; for
example in Gran Canaria the maximum incubation time are 18 months, in Tenerife a
company can stay up to three years.
During their stay, start-ups and SMEs enjoy a thorough mentoring in terms of their
entrepreneurial performances and take advantage of the facilities provided by the
BPU which include in particular the offices, meeting rooms, the assembly hall,
printing services as well as videoconferences and WI-FI (wireless fidelity).
Especially to start-ups, thus companies that are in the process of creating their
business, are offered the following specific services:
▪ Feasibility analysis in the phase prior to creation;
▪ Strategic guide for business planning;
▪ Financial methodological guide;
▪ Rapid guide available on the creation of companies: business plan
preparation, directory, forms of societies, procedure to start up the
company, tax and accounting principles, etc.
Further services that are addressed to start-ups as well as to SMEs inside the
incubators include:
▪ Evaluation of the business plan;
▪ Access to technology and promotion of technology transfer, through the
IRC Network and other services of ITC;
▪ Legal assistance (accounting, tax and labour issues);
▪ Intellectual and industrial property rights assessment;
▪ Access to financing (agreement with banks);
▪ Project collaboration: access to European projects and advise for
accomplishing RTD projects.
Additionally, training courses in entrepreneurship are offered twice a year (May-
October), dealing with start-up companies, business plan and management issues.
What’s more, there are several seminars offered on topics such as IPR, negotiation,
marketing and internationalisation, financing technological start-up companies and
technological projects.
102
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
Further services that are offered within the BPU and which are addressed to all the
companies located in the incubator include the derivation of services to other
organisations in order to put the companies into contact with main regional key
actors that can support the further consolidation of the business ideas, especially
once the companies are moving out of the incubator. These actors are amongst
others the chambers of commerce, business one-stop shops, employment agencies
and island and municipal local development agencies, associations connected with
rural development (AIDER, ADER, etc.) and the association of young
businesspeople of the Canary Islands.
Last but not least, business development and marketing activities are carried out.
These activities include the direct external promotion of the companies at fairs and
other events in cooperation with public companies from the Canary Islands
Government, such as PROEXCA-SOFESA and the chambers of commerce amongst
others.
When it comes to the structure of BIC Canarias in specific, the particular condition
of having different islands grouped together to one region functioning as
autonomous community has to be taken into account, specifically when considering
103
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
the great coordination effort that has to be performed in order to reach the common
set goals.
In this regard, one important feature of BIC Canarias is that each BPU has its own
selection committee for deciding on which innovative business ideas will move into
the incubator. The selection committees include next to the technical experts also
representatives of the institutions that finance the incubators and so also public
administrations. The involvement of these policy makers into the decision process
supports the development of policies and regulations in the region that favour the
creation of innovative technology-based companies and at the same time sustains
those business ideas that can contribute effectively to the regional development.
Furthermore, a significant success factor of BIC Canarias is that the services of the
BPUs are addressed not only to companies that are in the creation process but also
to SMEs, thus already established companies that would like to develop and test a
new business idea. This extended service offer gives a larger community in the
region the opportunity to take advantage of the BPUs’ services and thus facilitates
also the innovation development of the regionally located companies.
Finally, the wide range of dissemination and promotion activities conducted by each
BPU is a further feature that contributes to the great success of BIC Canarias.
Companies located in the incubators are supported in getting into contact with
important regional institutions, such as chambers of commerce or employment
agencies that can help developing and consolidating the company in the business
environment also after its incubation time and turn the endeavour in a fruitful
activity. The conducted marketing activities, such as the presentation of the
companies at fairs, are a further important factor contributing to the success of the
hosted companies also after their incubation period.
104
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
105
106
BIC Canarias
Framework set-up Business Promotion Units BPU Committee
Interested in (BPU) set-up Tenerife (Tenerife)
participation? Selection Partners
Need of ITC Presentation
Meeting ITC of (Universities,
establishing contacts of idea to BPU Committee
with Regional institution Banks, etc.)
Business Insular Insular Yes Gran Canaria (Gran C.)
Government
Incubators Authorities Authorities
No Funding
Key
(regional
activities BPU Committee
funds)
La Palma (La Palma)
BPU Committee
El Hierro (El Hierro)
18-30 months
Derivation of through Selection events)
services to other Technology Strategic Committee
organisations transfer guide
Business One Stop Valuable idea?
Shops, Chambers
Legal Financial
of Commerce, Diagnosis
assistance guide No
RDAs, etc.) (technical
Yes
report)
IPR “Rapid”
Business assessment guide
development Project
Business Plan
and marketing ideas
Access to presentation
Fairs, Mentoring to BUP
Financing Database
other events
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
Sapa Profiler in Vetlanda. Furthermore, strong business networks are an integral part
of the community in Jönköping County. In particular, cooperation between business
and the public sector has produced successful initiatives in a number of fields.
Education and Research
Halmstad University is a university that crosses boundaries - for innovation and
creativity. The university offers a wide choice of study programmes to
approximately 7.000 students. Most of the study programmes lead to either a
Bachelor's or Master's degree. The university has well-developed research
environments, most with a unique national or international profile.
To meet growing international competition in goods and services, knowledge and
research is needed. Jönköping University offers a wide range of study programmes
and courses in Swedish and English through four schools of which each has a clear
identity: Jönköping International Business School, the School of Education and
Communication, the School of Engineering and the School of Health Sciences. They
are located in the city centre, forming a modern campus with an inspiring
atmosphere for 9.000 students.
108
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
3.8.1.1 Methodology
The decision to implement the SMED programme was taken after ALMI
Företagspartner made an investigation among the companies in the region to find out
their needs and to understand how the companies wanted to be supported in
developing their ideas into real products. The need analysis resulted in a lack of
innovation activities in the business processes of the regional companies, in specific
SMEs.
The implementation and working process of SMED, illustrated graphically in figure
3.10, is structured in three phases:
109
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
110
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
111
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
Objective 5b13 (170.000 Euros). The funding through the funding cheques covers
maximum 50% of the external costs connected to the project idea implementation.
During the implementation phase, SMED is giving great support to the project’s
development so as to guarantee that the funds provided to the idea’s development
are exploited accordingly and efficiently. In this regard, the SMED Contact Point
gets in contact with consultants who are technical experts in the specific field of
interest and who can support the successful development of the innovative product
idea. Furthermore, additional partners such as other companies and networks dealing
with similar issues are detected who can support the implementation phase
considerably.
The third phase ends with a successfully into the market implemented project idea
and the continuous monitoring of the project in order to see if everything runs the
way it should be, and to counteract in case of problems that may arise and that may
affect a successful performance in the market.
13
Measures for Objectives 2 and 5b regions consist of regional measures aimed chiefly at funding non-
material investments for SMEs and business services targeting quality and innovation.
112
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
hand it guarantees that the selected ideas are promising projects which can
effectively support the regional economic development.
113
114
Figure 3.10 – Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Development – SMED process flow
4 years
Chamber of Commerce
Jönköping County Administrative Board Continuous dissemination activity
ALMI Företagspartner (programme
LänsTeknikCentrum AB presentation at
regional events, seminars, etc.)
3.8.2.1 Methodology
Throughout a large-scaled investigation at the University of Halmstad, the region
could ascertain that there are a lot of companies working within the area of
healthcare technology. The authority of home nursing had also seen a lot of
development potential in this area, necessary in order to guarantee the quality in the
medical attendance even in the future. This was the outset of the Healthcare
Technology Alliance.
The process of implementing and making the network initiative operative is
composed of two main phases (see figure 3.11):
▪ Alliance set-up
▪ Service offer
Phase 1. Alliance set-up
HCTA involves governmental, scientific and sector related regional players. The
Alliance was started off by the Municipality of Halmstad and Halmstad University
115
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
and was partly financed by the County Council’s fund for technical purchase and
product development (LFTP) and local businesses in order to guarantee a financial
backing. In 2005, the initiative was taken over by the Halland Regional
Development Council and became one of the region’s prioritised areas of growth.
The Coordination Unit of the Alliance was set up at the County Council of Halland
in Halmstad which is taking care of the overall surveillance of the network’s
activities. In addition, a more operative division has been established as Contact
Point at the University of Halmstad where five persons are engaged with the daily
work of the Alliance, as will be described in the following phase (Service offer), and
at the Municipality of Halmstad where one person is coordinating projects in
cooperation with the member companies and the University.
In order to put the Alliance into practice, the key players of the sector had to be
involved, thus the healthcare technology companies, organisations and institutions.
Their involvement was achieved through the work accomplished by the Contact
Point at the University of Halmstad, hence the five HCTA employees, who
contacted all the companies, organisations and RTD institutions dealing with
healthcare technology in the region, and presented to them the initiative, its
principles, objectives and the benefits resulting for the members. In case of interest
on the company’s or RTD institution’s side, an agreement on the HCTA
membership was made and the members delivered information on the
company/organisation/RTD institution as regards the
company/organisation/institution profile and the work carried out in the health care
technology sector, specifying products developed or dealt with, research activities
accomplished and giving an assessment on the overall performance in the sector.
This procedure finally resulted in the generation of a pool of healthcare technology
companies and organisations and a pool of research institutions, consequently
covering a great part of the entire healthcare technology sector of the region, both
the industrial and scientific part.
At the same time, a Steering Committee (SC) as the central part of the Alliance was
set up. The Steering Committee joining governmental, scientific and industrial
health care technology actors of the region, is a permanent institution that guides the
initiative and facilitates the interaction and information exchange among the
members. Today the Committee includes the Halland Regional Development
Council, the County Council of Halland, the six Counties of Halland, the University
of Halmstad, the Health Care Administration as well as selected healthcare
technology companies acting as supervisors of the development projects that are
conducted within the network. Key criteria such as the Alliance’s main objectives
and working principles were established through the Committee.
The specific objectives the HCTA aims to achieve are the following:
▪ Development and strengthening of the innovation system for healthcare
technology, so that the region becomes a leading one in the development
of healthcare technology products and services within ten years;
116
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
117
RTD and innovation Benchmarks
If the results of the first examination process, conducted by the Contact Point, reveal
a promising project proposal which is worth to be elaborated further on, the proposal
is presented to the Steering Committee. Subsequently, the SC carries out a second
proposal evaluation, based on the details provided by the Contact Point and
considering the scientific and technical opinion of the SC members as well as
analysing the financial support needed for implementing the project idea. If this
second more detailed analysis turns out to be positive as well, the idea on developing
a specific product has been qualified for funding and the financial support is
provided through LFTP. The Steering Committee is the body that makes the final
decision about the funding of projects.
Next to this project-specific service, the HCTA offers further services which are
addressed to all the members of the network. Seminars are conducted twice a year
that deal with different themes in the area healthcare, depending on the members’
necessities, and that are aimed at promoting the knowledge transfer among the
members. Furthermore, training sessions for end users of the developed products are
carried out. These trainings are accomplished on demand and not on a regular basis.
In order to support the straight contact among the members’, network meetings are
performed 5 times a year in which the companies, RTD institutions and further
organisations get in contact, exchange information and knowledge on sector specific
topics, ongoing initiatives as well as get the possibility to set up partnerships for
carrying out projects.
119
120
Training Steering
on demand Committee
Pool of research
Network meetings institutions
(5 times per year) Coordination Unit: County Council of
Halland in Halmstad
4.1 Conclusions
also in the future when setting up new development programmes. The policy
benchmarks according to their outcomes have been all successful in their respective
regions and most of them are still ongoing. Problems are met though when the
financing period for these programmes and projects ends. There is no point in
terminating the programmes when they resulted to be so crucial for the regional
development and therefore, follow-up financing has to be generated for their
continuation. Funds from regional development and innovation programmes can be
considered as well as resources from national or European programmes.
A significant alternative to public financing is the raising of financial resources from
the private sector. Generally speaking, private investments lead to the strengthening
of the market discipline and the avoiding of moral hazard (i.e. the encouraging of
imprudent or unsustainable behaviour by creditors or debtors), since private
investors carry partly the burden of possible financial crises. Some of the involved
regions, as Styria and Småland med öarna/West Sweden, have created the conditions
for benefiting from private financing through the establishment of clusters, uniting
companies from the same sector, and which are taking care of the follow-up
financing of initiated activities in the specific sectors. Furthermore, the region Crete
has set up a venture capital fund in order to create a funding source generated partly
through the private sector and aimed at supporting innovative projects that cover the
local market needs. Nevertheless, today Crete and in particular also the regions
South Transdanubia, Slovenia and the Canary Islands are characterised by an
underdeveloped investment in RTD, especially from the private sector’s side, and
which therefore does not allow optimistic predictions for reaching the goals set in
the Lisbon Strategy.
A further approach for assuring the continuity of implemented programmes and
projects which is rather long-term oriented is the translation of these initiatives into
laws. This was already done in particular by the region Friuli Venezia Giulia where
the two benchmarks presented in this handbook, due to their demonstrated great
economic impact, were encompassed into regional laws addressed to support the
development of regional SMEs and to enhance research activities in the region14.
14
The Friuli Venezia Giulia Region has already spent several years facing the challenge of building and
developing a strong and coherent Regional Innovation System. In a systemic perspective, innovation is
not generated in an “isolated point” but derives from a dynamic and virtuous interaction of five sub-
systems: 1) enterprise; 2) research and technological transfer; 3) training; 4) finance and 5) public
administration. The Regional Authority effort for actively supporting activities of research, development
and enterprise innovation is a fact. Since the end of the 1970s (with the Regional Law 47/1978), it has
allowed reaching and consolidating positions of excellence in this sector. Particularly, much has been
enacted since then in favour of industrial enterprises, with incisive and growing incentives for pre-
competitive research and development activities carried out by industrial enterprises, autonomously or in
cooperation with public bodies or research laboratories. Starting from this experience and from requests
by category associations, in the latest years the range of actions of the Regional Authority has broadened,
encompassing interventions in favour of research and development activities carried out by handicrafts
enterprises, actions in favour of technological transfer and innovation diffusion, a specific support to
competitive development of SMEs and initiatives of diffusion aimed at improving enterprises awareness
that innovation is necessary to compete. Innovations, introduced by the regional laws below reported,
belong to this trend. They are aimed at improving and broadening the action of existing tools, as well as at
123
Lessons learnt and outlook for the future
One more important characteristic that has been observed during the exercise and
which ties up to the above stated is that all of the detected RTD and innovation
policy benchmarks support public-private partnerships. What is more, when
analysing the benchmarks in detail and identifying the single processes that have
been adopted for implementing them in the regions, the strong involvement of three
main regional actors in nearly all of the policies’ development processes can be
pointed out: local and regional governments, businesses and business associations,
universities and research institutions.
This approach, based on the so-called triple-helix model, brings together
governmental, industrial and academic institutions, all of them players dealing with
innovation policies, even though from different perspectives: the government as
policy maker, academia as innovation creator and industry as innovation end-user.
Pursuing this approach produced noteworthy effects in the regions and thus, resulted
to be appropriate for accelerating the regional innovation development. The
interaction of these actors supports the generation of successful policies since
innovation tracks can be anticipated and trends can be followed that enhance the
development of new technologies in different phases.
introducing new financing lines (above all in favour of enterprises working in the sectors of trade, tourism
and services). Particularly, they are targeted at organising the actions undertaken by the Regional
Authority for innovation and research development in an ambitious and consistent plan, in order to
orientate them towards the overall innovation of the Regional System, also with the contribution of
productive sectors. For the purposes of this paper on the main RTD policies in the Friuli Venezia Giulia
Region, the following laws and provisions are worth to be highlighted:
Regional Law 26/2005 - General discipline for innovation, scientific research and technological
development
With the adoption of Regional Law no. 26 of 10 November 2005, “General discipline regarding
innovation, scientific research and technological development”, the Regional Authority intended to
further reinforce and qualify its action, with the objective of turning Friuli Venezia Giulia into an area
strongly oriented towards innovation. Presently, this action has entailed a contribution of €57.75 million,
plus additional €90 million, for supporting enterprise innovation, regional research centres activities and
training of human resources to be dedicated to aid enterprises and the system of services in the process of
acquisition of new technologies and innovation in general.
Regional Law 4/2005 - Participations for the support and competitive development of regional
SMEs
The logic inspiring this Law is that of increasing SMEs managerial culture and competitive development
skills, by acquiring strategic intelligence that prevails on traditional incentives on structures and
infrastructures. This Law originates from a preliminary investigation aimed at outlining the regional
economic situation, the weak points of SMEs in the region and the crisis of the traditional competitive
model. Particularly, the size of SMEs is an issue that must be tackled, as it affects their capacity to face
the ever-growing complexity of the markets they work in. To overcome this weakness, the Law supplies
incentives based on competitive development plans tabled by SMEs, to increase enterprise
competitiveness and strengthen enterprise structures. This is beneficial for the economy as a whole, as
this is boosted. This instrument awards regional SMEs the role of driving force for the economy. This role
must be taken care of and maintained through measures of industrial policy that must be specific and
preparatory for supporting competitive development projects.
124
Lessons learnt and outlook for the future
Based on the knowledge gained through the benchmarking exercise and further
discussions arisen in the conducted seminars and workshops, in the following some
implications are given with reference to important aspects that should be considered
when setting up future innovation policies that can effectively contribute to the
economic development and the creation of the knowledge society in general.
125
Lessons learnt and outlook for the future
4.2 Outlook
The detected RTD and innovation benchmarks are in line with the objectives set in
the programming period 2007 – 2013 of the structural funds, which are in specific:
▪ Promoting innovation in SMEs;
▪ Cooperation between public research and business (in the form of
regional knowledge clusters);
▪ Local innovation centres or start-up schemes;
▪ Promote human capital and building of knowledge society;
▪ Access to venture capital and micro-credits.
As demonstrated in the present handbook, the spotted benchmarks respond to these
objectives set for the new programming period. Therefore, the regions need to tie up
to the already successfully implemented policies and establish new strategies for the
future that support continuously the reaching of the above mentioned goals.
Since the overall aim of successful structural fund programmes is to encourage
project generation, for creating new jobs and bringing growth and investment in the
regions, and finally for stimulating innovation and change, the following key aspects
have to be carefully considered:
15
New Horizons in Graz, 2006.
126
Lessons learnt and outlook for the future
support early in their development until they are ready for implementation (and
funding), or project proposals are submitted in the framework of calls for proposals
and compete for funding with other similar developed projects.
Related to the first alternative (development approach), business incubators or
technology parks are very useful for early stage business development. Preferably,
an incubator or technology park should provide the framework for creating synergies
between different regional actors, such as start-ups, SMEs, research institutions,
universities, private investors as banks, and public authorities. As concerns the
competitive approach on the other side, preparatory actions are important before
launching a call for proposals, so as to create the right environment for the
establishment of potential project leaders and local networks (clusters) for
generating good projects. Furthermore, support in the actual development of the
project proposals is advisable.
In both cases, and specifically with regard to RTD and innovation projects, it is
important to promote project ideas that include all relevant regional key actors. This
practice, as already explained in section 4.1, follows the principle of the triple-helix
model, and supports best the economic development through the generation of
strong public-private partnerships. The projects need to adopt a demand-pull
approach, generated within a network of different regional actors who are operating
as knowledge intensive tank of intentions, strategies and projects that add surplus
value by reorganising and harmonising the political and economic structures.
Clustering
Moreover, as regards the development of policies enhancing innovation activities in
the regions, the building of clusters is a main issue that needs to be supported.
According to Porter16, clusters are a “geographically or virtually proximate group of
interconnected companies and associated institutions in a particular field linked by
commonalities and complementarities. Clusters encompass an array of linked
industries and other entities important to competition including governmental and
other institutions such as universities, standard setting agencies, think tanks,
vocational training providers and trade associations.”
Clusters provide a favourable environment for sharing knowledge and networking,
thus generating new ideas and synergies for the development of innovative products
and processes which can lead to a further regional growth diversity. In fact, building
on existing clusters or creating new ones based on the regions’ strengths, can be a
fruitful alternative to move forward. Cooperation between research institutions and
enterprises in particular can provide a mutually rewarding opportunity for sharing
knowledge (ideas are based on experiences) and putting new research findings into
practice. In specific, innovative clusters can stimulate innovation and productivity
growth, foster long-term business dynamics and generate new jobs and economic
growth. Through the knowledge spill-over and information flow which takes place
16
Porter, 1998.
127
Lessons learnt and outlook for the future
Innovative Financing
The access to financing sources is a further important issue to be paid particularly
attention to when setting up innovation policy measures. Especially companies
located in less developed regions have difficulties in attracting capital investment.
This is above all the case for micro companies and SMEs, and particularly when
implementing innovative projects and ventures. One of the main reasons for this
situation is the increased risk adverse behaviour of the banking sector and the
conditions laid down by banks and lenders which are not feasible to be sustained by
small companies. Therefore, new financial instruments combined with grant
programmes have to be offered, in particular for SMEs and for innovative, future-
oriented projects. Usually, grants cover only a percentage of the project costs and
that is why they need to be matched by private funding sources. In this regard, the
term “venture or risk capital” comes into play, that is generally a large amount of
money invested in exchange for a stake in the business in the hope of future returns.
Due to the higher degree of risk on the investors’ side, a higher potential return than
for safer loan investments is expected. One of the main advantages of venture capital
investments is that the investment is long-term and does not require capital
repayments in the short- or medium-run. Consequently, it can provide a capital base
128
Lessons learnt and outlook for the future
for the future growth and development of the company including an increased debt
capacity.
Moreover, it has to be noted that in general, private financing can be best generated
when offering a favourable environment for private-sector decision-making. This
can be best achieved through an improvement in the transparency of policy design
and by promoting the adoption and adherence of standards in the regions that should
facilitate the risk management on the investors’ side. In this regard it is also
important for regional authorities to maintain regular contacts with private market
participants and to ensure the regular provision of information on economic
developments and policies as well as to keep up the communication, both in good
times and also when possible difficulties in the region’s economic situation begin to
emerge.
17
Soete, 2006.
129
Annex
Annex
NAME OF THE Art. 8 and Art. 9 of Regional Law 26/2005 (former Art. 21 and Art. 22
PROJECT of Regional Law 47/1978)
REGION Friuli Venezia Giulia (Italy)
TIME SCALE 2000 - 2005
The Regional Law 26/2005 - General discipline for innovation, scientific
research and technological development supports research development and
RATIONALE promotion, innovation diffusion and the transfer of knowledge and know-how
(also technological) in favour of enterprises, research and innovation centres and
the Welfare and Public Administration system.
AREA OF
Raising public and private funds
INTEREST
Promoting innovation of the industrial structures of the region;
OBJECTIVES Favouring knowledge and innovation transfer to the regional production system,
particularly to industrial small and medium-sized enterprises.
Projects of industrial research and/or carrying out of pre-competitive
development activities to introduce technological improvements in production
products and processes needing or not the establishment or enlargement of
KEY
laboratories aimed at the development of the above-mentioned projects;
ACTIVITIES
Placement of research orders by SMEs to RTD performer;
Purchase of patents and exploitation rights;
Placement of orders for the creation of projects to be tabled at EU level.
Industrial companies of any size and their consortia;
industrial research centres and companies with autonomous legal status;
KEY ACTORS
consortia involving industrial companies and public institutions;
SMEs performing the task of creating projects to be tabled at EU level.
Capital grants up to 50% of eligible expenses for industrial research (25% for
pre-competitive development activities). Eligible expenses can or cannot include
the setting up of a laboratory;
10% increase for projects carried out in cooperation with universities or for
FUNDING laboratories located in development areas targeted at scientific and technological
INFORMATION research;
10% increase for SMEs proposals;
5% increase in the 87, 3 and c) areas;
Capital grants up to 50% for placing orders concerning feasibility studies and
creation of projects to be tabled at EU level.
Year Applications Eligible investment Investment granted
approved
2000 109 49.756.486,97 16.366.998,54
2001 92 37.669.040,09 10.583.854,22
OUTCOMES 2002 86 34.952.206,99 8.927.116,46
2003 160 82.624.310,69 18.477.953,32
2004 195 107.801.427,78 34.357.353,49
131
Annex
132
Annex
NAME OF
THE SISTER
PROJECT
REGION Friuli Venezia Giulia (Italy)
TIME SCALE 2001 - 2005
SISTER is a project that favours the introduction on the market and the enhancement
of research in universities. The system has been developed by AREA Science Park
and offers a wide selection of services for the transfer of technologies, as for
RATIONALE
example the assessment of the technological potential of the idea, applicability of the
innovation, market analysis, protection of the intellectual properties and the support
for the creation of new enterprises.
AREA OF
Technology Transfer
INTEREST
SISTER-Liaison Office is dedicated to enhance research in the Friuli Venezia
Giulia Region and to increase the economic value of research results.
OBJECTIVE
Construction of a technology and know-how transfer system, aiming at
S
coordinating and integrating the Technology Transfer Offices (TTO) of the Friuli
Venezia Giulia’s Public Research Organisations (PRO).
SISTER activates projects which aim at developing the research results in order to
turn them into marketable IPRs and/or products. SISTER’s activities include:
IPR Consulting and Management;
Patents filing and maintenance;
Technology assessment;
Prototyping;
Market Analysis;
Strategic Advice on Technology Transfer Agreements;
Supporting Technology Transfer Agreements negotiation.
The project is divided in two main phases:
KEY
2001-2004:
ACTIVITIES
Design, test and improvement of the technology and know-how transfer system
in order to enhance the Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) to interact with the
market;
Design and test of a process supporting the activities needed to transfer research
results to the market.
2004-2006:
Optimisation of the technology and know-how transfer system in order to
enhance the TTOs to interact with the market;
Improvement of the process supporting the activities needed to transfer research
results to the market;
Mapping the regional Public Research Organisations’ knowledge in order to
make them available to organisations involved in technology transfer.
Area Science Park
KEY Regional Research Institutions
ACTORS All the 40 Research Organisations located in Friuli Venezia Giulia are involved
in the project
FUNDING All the Personnel and Consulting Activities are completely funded by the Project
INFORMATI (100% from FVG Region).
ON Technology assessment and prototyping activities are co-funded between SISTER,
133
Annex
134
Annex
NAME OF THE
PROJECT
INNOVATION NETWORKTM
135
Annex
further developed.
Elaboration of technical and economic feasibility studies in order to
assess the impact of innovation on the company structure.
Launching of contacts with the research sector in order to set up
collaborations and to support enterprises in developing and refining
projects together with research institutes so to achieve original and
innovative solutions and encourage local technology transfer.
4) Validation of business ideas
Addressed to researchers and potential entrepreneurs who want to
evaluate their innovation ideas and business suggestions in terms of their
operability and practicability.
Identification of technical, normative, organisational and marketplace
parameters and evaluation in how far they will influence the success of
new business initiatives both in a positive and negative way.
5) Sector and multi-sector studies
Sector specific analyses by examining a specific area and its progress
towards new technologies, thus supporting a broader view of the state-
of-the-art of technologies belonging to different sectors.
Multi-sector studies (public, private, non-profit) that investigate the
technological trends of widespread industrial relevance, thus identifying
complex issues.
6) Benchmarking
Analysis of company efficiency using Bench-ProfileTM, the
benchmarking tool developed by AREA Science Park to identify
opportunities for the improvement in the use of production resources.
AREA Science Park
Industrialist associations
KEY ACTORS
Chamber of Commerce
Territory and Innovation Development Agencies
Innovation NetworkTM started up with AREA funds, but recently it has been
FUNDING
financed by the Friuli Venezia Giulia Regional Authority with € 750.000,00 per
INFORMATION
year, according to art. 13 of Regional Law no. 11/2003.
Creation of a interconnected Network of Competence Centres located in strategic
positions;
Availability of technical professional figures, able to link supply (research) and
demand (companies) of innovation;
Activation of partnerships with reference entrepreneurial structures (associations
of entrepreneurs, industrial areas, productive districts);
Direct contact with enterprises to effectively promote demand for innovation and
guide them along paths of competitive growth.
So far, the following numerical outcomes can be presented:
8 Innovation Centres (Agro-food, Environment, Molecular Biomedicine, Ship
OUTCOMES Building, Energy, Business Management, Wood and Furniture, Plastics and New
Materials);
12 Partnerships activated with local industry and innovation stakeholders
(Industrialist Associations, Industry clusters, Consortiums for industrial
development, Science and Technology Parks);
Establishment of contacts with 434 enterprises;
304 visits to enterprises (70% of the contacts);
150 Innovation Initiative implemented.
136
Annex
137
Annex
NAME OF THE
PROJECT
D4
138
Annex
2005-2007 ACTIVITIES
In the second phase, the D4 Project is even more focused on fostering collaboration
and integration among companies (mainly SMEs), universities, research centres and
scientific institutions throughout the reproposition of individual grants as:
Allowances to PhD and Post-doctoral students;
Financial support to the mobility outbound/inbound Friuli Venezia Giulia;
Financial support to innovative BA thesis.
Relying upon the experience gained in 2002-2004, great importance is given to the
mobility of researchers (about half of the available grants, up from 25 in 2002-2004).
It is important to remark that in 2005-2007 the inbound grants are extended to the
regional researchers working abroad willing to come back to Friuli Venezia Giulia.
The analysis about R&D and innovation in Friuli Venezia Giulia continues.
D4 is managed by an “Associazione Temporanea di Imprese” (A.T.I.) that connects
organisms working at high level in fields as research, training, socio-economic
analyses and services addressed especially to enterprises.
Partner A.T.I.:
AREA Science Park (Project leader)
KEY ACTORS AGEMONT SpA
CRES SpA
DGR Consulting Srl
IRES FVG
UNIVERSITY OF TRIESTE
UNIVERSITY OF UDINE
The D4 Project is a long-term scheme promoted and funded by the Central Office for
Work, Training, University and Research in the FVG Region, within the Regional
Operational Programme, Objective 3, 2000-2006, Priority D, Measure D4, dedicated
to “improving human resources in the sectors of research and technological
development”.
Total funds: more than € 5.600.000, of which:
European Social Fund Contribution: 45%
FUNDING
Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia contribution: 44%
INFORMATION
Ministry of Welfare contribution: 11%
D4 grants to BA, PhD, post-doctoral students and researchers to carry on research
projects in partnership with companies (mainly SMEs), universities, scientific
centres, aimed to the innovation of the regional territory through technological
transfer and development. In addition, the project finances also a study to assess the
level of innovation in the Region FVG by using the indicators of the European
Innovation Scoreboard.
2002-2004 RESULTS
356 graduated, researchers, workers involved, of whom 286 have received
individual grants and 70 have attended 6 long-term training courses (500 hours
each, 3.000 altogether, plus extended periods of work experiences), with
significant cases of full-time employment after the expiring of the grant and a
substantial female participation to the activities of the Project;
OUTCOMES 230 companies involved in R&D projects;
2 research reports.
The results obtained show that a flexible system of grants paid directly to young
researchers to carry out innovative projects in partnership with companies,
universities and centres of research can foster regional innovation and growth.
139
Annex
140
Annex
NAME OF THE
PROJECT
Regional Innovation Strategy Project
141
Annex
play a key role in the regional economy, and on the other hand the health, cultural
and environmental industries, which show considerable growth potential.
Based on the results of the sectoral working groups and on the outcomes of the
surveys on the innovation potential and innovation support services, the RIS
Managment Group developed the System of objectives and priorities of the Regional
Innovation Strategy in South Transdanubia (RIS-ST), following the programming
methodology of the European Union. The sectoral and horizontal priorities aim to
attain the defined objectives.
The Programme was co-ordinated by the South Transdanubian Regional
Development Agency (STRDA)
The members of the consortium were:
Transdanubian Research Institute (of the Centre for Regional Studies, Hungarian
Academy of Sciences)
KEY ACTORS
Yorkshire & Humberside Regional Technology Network Ltd. and
Shannon Development.
The creation of the regional innovation policy took place with the participation of
the stakeholders of innovation development and of the business sector, the prominent
persons of the existing regional institutional system.
The project was supported within the 5th Framework Programme of the European
FUNDING
Union.
INFORMATION
Project size: 460.000 EUR, Total contribution: 345.000 EUR
Sector based strategy according to the programming methodology of the
Structural Funds – most important financial resource for the Region;
Increased co-operation of the regional innovation institutions and service
suppliers (approx. 20 institutions) – basis for the Regional Innovation Agency
(RIA) network;
OUTCOMES
Accepted by the Regional Development Council as programming document of
the Region – increasing account of innovation policy within the regional
development policy;
Basis for regional grant programmes and the South Transdanubian Regional
Operational Programme 2007-2013.
STRDA – South Transdanubian Regional Innovation Agency
CONTACT
Address: H-7621 Pécs, Mária u. 3. Hungary
AND
Anita Derjanecz
REFERENCE
Ph: +36 -72-513-766
DATA
derjane@ddrft.hu
142
Annex
NAME OF THE
PROJECT
Development of the regional system of innovation support 2004-2005
143
Annex
144
Annex
145
Annex
146
Annex
NAME OF THE
PROGRAMME
EU Phare 96 and 97 Regional Pilot Programme Fund
147
Annex
148
Annex
NAME OF THE
PROGRAMME
Consulting Services
149
Annex
NAME OF THE
PROGRAMME
Impetus Centres
150
Annex
151
Annex
NAME OF THE
PROGRAMME
Skills Development of Qualified Employees
152
Annex
153
Annex
NAME OF THE
PROGRAMME
Start up entrepreneurs
154
Annex
155
Annex
NAME OF THE
PROGRAMME
EUREKA
REGION Slovenia
The programme started in 1994 and is still running. It will run at least until 2010
TIME SCALE (this is one of the aims within the Slovenian National Research and Development
Programme).
The main problem of the Slovenian economy in the past was the very weak
knowledge transfer environment. Therefore, companies did not have a strong support
to be innovative. It was a too high risk for companies to collaborate in European
RATIONALE
industrial /applicable - research projects without scientific institutes’ background.
EUREKA project and its application conditions provide an opportunity to solve this
kind of problems.
AREA OF
New Product Development - Innovation
INTEREST
Increasing the collaboration of Slovenian enterprises in the European EUREKA
program by the co - funding of innovative/applicable projects;
OBJECTIVES Enhancing the European competitiveness through the support to businesses,
research centres and universities who carry out pan-European projects to develop
innovative products, processes and services.
Through its flexible and decentralised Network, EUREKA offers project partners
rapid access to a wealth of knowledge, skills and expertise across Europe and
facilitates access to national public and private funding schemes.
The internationally recognised EUREKA label adds value to a project and gives
participants a competitive edge in their dealings with financial, technical and
KEY
commercial partners.
ACTIVITIES
Through an EUREKA project, partners (companies and institutes of knowledge )
develop new technologies and products with higher added value for which they
agree the Intellectual Property Rights and build partnerships to penetrate new
markets. Project can be run as an individual one or a project in the frame of clusters
or umbrellas. Each project can last max. 3 years with the possibility to extend it.
Slovenian Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology
KEY ACTORS
Target groups are companies and institutes of knowledge.
The project is run by the Slovenian Ministry of Higher Education, Science and
Technology that covers
FUNDING
25 % of all justified costs for Slovenian research and development activities in the
INFORMATION
frame of an Eureka project. For each project - including all Slovenian partners – the
funding is limited and it amounts to ca. 50.000 EUR.
Slovenia has been taking part in EUREKA since 1994. There are approximately 50
projects running at the moment, which places Slovenia on the second position
regarding a successful participation in the programme EUREKA.
The project gives applicable results for companies, because it has to be innovative
and market oriented. Therefore it forces companies into research and economy
development.
OUTCOMES The EUREKA programme leads to the following outcomes:
transfer of knowledge from institutes/universities to companies;
development of new products or technologies in the Slovenian companies, with
emphasis on the innovative products/technology progress;
increase of the cooperation between the scientific-research environment and
economy;
increase of the cooperation between Slovenian and EU partners (at least two
156
Annex
157
Annex
NAME OF THE
PROGRAMME
YOUNG RESEARCHER FOR INDUSTRY
REGION Slovenia
The programme started in 2002 and is still running. It will be run at least until 2010
TIME SCALE (this is one of the aims within Slovenian National Research and Development
Programme).
Most of the companies in Slovenia that collaborated with the institutes of knowledge
have developed or created highly technological products. Therefore, the priority has
to be to keep a good and continuously bond between these two partners, which will
then lead to a better and easier fluctuation of cadre from industry to knowledge
institution and vice versa. The programme of “young researcher for industry” was
created to provide a good platform where young candidates can receive great
experiences in the industry during their PhD educations. That will make it easier for
RATIONALE them to cope with the challenges of innovative products or technologies.
One of the things that a candidate does is to make a good foundation for
development of specific products and technologies in the company and then to link
up the same company with appropriate research institutions. The proven fact is that
the young and highly educated people are necessarily needed in order to establish a
research division in companies, which is the first step to produce products of added
value. Conducted analyses showed that Slovenian companies are still weak on their
own research division set up.
AREA OF
Development of Human Resources in Science and Technology
INTEREST
To build conditions for an effective transfer knowledge environment;
To obtain a higher education level of people employed in the industry;
OBJECTIVES
To enrich the companies with young educated people;
To increase the research division set up in companies.
Financing postgraduate study and research training for young researchers from
industry is an important policy instrument in Slovenia. Young researcher candidates
can be applied by a legal or natural person (exactly by its research group) who is
involved into economic activity according to the valid law. The research group has
to be registered in evidence of its research performance and development activity at
the Slovenian Research Agency.
The Emphasis (or stress) of the programme is focused on the research work and
KEY
problems which are of interest and importance for the companies, the aim is however
ACTIVITIES
that young researchers become accustomed to the new conditions in the economic
society.
Features of the industry young researcher programme are:
Young researchers participate in research work in the companies during their
postgraduate studies;
They are involved into applied research projects;
They have regular, fixed-term employment contracts.
The project has been running by the Slovenian Research Agency. The Agency
KEY ACTORS finances the pay, social contributions as well as material and non-material costs for
research and postdoctoral study.
Funds for the training of “young researchers for industry” are allocated for a fixed-
term, up to a maximum of four years and six months for a science PhD programme
FUNDING
(doctorate). The average annual cost of financing one young researcher is SIT 6.6
INFORMATION
million (ca. EUR 27.500). It is financed by the Slovenian Research Agency.
158
Annex
159
Annex
NAME OF THE
PROGRAMME
Centre of Excellence
REGION Slovenia
TIME SCALE 2004-2006 ( - 2008)
A Centre of Excellence brings together people from the scientific-research
environment and the economy environment in order to improve the Slovenian
innovation system and therewith the activities in the frame of different research-
RATIONALE
technological projects. With its activities the programme aims at reaching the Lisbon
Strategy and Barcelona objectives through innovative projects based on the transfer
of knowledge.
AREA OF
Technology Transfer
INTEREST
The programme supports the development of new technologies at priority areas of
research and technological progress which are in particular:
Telecommunication technology;
New and advanced materials;
OBJECTIVES
Biotechnology;
Pharmacy;
Technology for the stableness of the economy (environmental technologies);
Leading technologies in process control and measurement,…
At least three partners have to apply for a Centre of Excellence – project. The group
of at least three partners has to comprise obligatory a company/companies. The
supporting investor of a Centre of Excellence (partner/coordinator of the project
responsible for research activities) – project is a public institute which fulfils the
conditions to perform research activities. The partners are obliged to realise the
following operative aims in the field of knowledge and technology transfer:
New products;
KEY
New technologies;
ACTIVITIES
New patent;
New jobs;
etc.
A Centre of Excellence is much more than a programme office because it remit is to
provide a continuous overview across the department’s portfolio of programmes,
therefore its activity is not just the co-ordination and reporting on the programmes
but also the challenge of what must be delivered and how it has to be delivered.
The project is run by the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology and
KEY ACTORS
the Ministry for Economy.
The Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology in cooperation with the
FUNDING
Ministry of Economy are exhausting financial sources from the European Regional
INFORMATION
Development Fund. In total, 15.367.388 EUR is available for this programme.
On the basis of this programme, international competitiveness of the Slovenian
economy and the Slovenian’s GDP will grow. Until today the following results can
be highlighted:
10 Centres of Excellence have been established, through which has been achieved:
Intensively knowledge transfer into products and technologies with high added
OUTCOMES
value;
Increase in applicable research investment at the priority areas of technological
development and research;
Strengthening of R&T co-operation and its mobility as well as higher education
level at companies.
160
Annex
161
Annex
NAME OF THE
PROJECT
Insular Regions Knowledge TRACKer – IN.TRACK
162
Annex
163
Annex
NAME OF THE
PROGRAMME
University Students Entrepreneurship (UNISTEP)
164
Annex
NAME OF THE
PROGRAMME
Pancreta Development Fund
165
Annex
NAME OF THE
INITIATIVE
BIC Canarias
166
Annex
167
Annex
168
Annex
NAME OF THE
PROJECT
TALLER DE DINAMIZADORES®
169
Annex
carried out in Las Palmas, but the third one has been carried out in the two
provinces of Canary Islands.
“Dinamizadores”:
Young people with an university degree in charge of “dynamising” the activities
of the companies and the research unit of the universities.
Companies:
They include the recent graduates in their data bases.
Universities and research units:
They will show their developments and technologies in order to spread the
technologies of the universities which are able to be transferred to enterprises.
External Experts:
They give professional technical training in all areas required by the recent
graduates. Their work includes the supervision of the work developed by the
graduates in the enterprises and orientation when redacting the proposals.
The initiative is financed by the regional government with a co-financing of 80%
of the ESF;
FUNDING The training is free and the “Dinamizadores” receive a grant during the five
INFORMATION months;
The work of the graduate is free for the companies and the research centres.
Annual budget: € 750.000 (2006: 100 “Dinamizadores” in two provinces)
Quantitative results (2003, 2004 & 2005)
136 diagnosis reports and innovation proposals;
107 Research, Development and Innovation projects detected;
191 graduates;
141 “Dinamizadores” in enterprises;
48 projects proposal pre-accepted by the CDTI (Centre for the Development of
Industrial Technology The main Spanish public entity for promoting innovation
in Spanish companies) as potential projects to be financed by public funds;
52 of the “Dinamizadores” are working permanently for the enterprise they
worked for or in other companies and organisations carrying out activities
related to RTD areas;
OUTCOMES Several contacts carried out between researchers and enterprises;
17 Actions and proposals for Research, Development and Innovation projects.
Qualitative results
Companies start to know Innovation tools and innovation culture, by the daily
work of an employee during the four months;
Practical experience for the recent graduates, letting them take part in the
activities of real enterprises;
Companies start to know that there are research centres in the region that could
offer them support to develop new technologies;
Research Centres of the universities increase the knowledge about the real
necessities of the regional companies and start to build up technologies adapted
to the demand.
CONTACT Unit of Promotion of the Innovation
AND +34 928 458254 – +34 928 457219 / +34 922 319914
REFERENCE lucia@fulp.ulpgc.es / innova@feu.ull.es
DATA www.tallerdinamizadores.es / www.feu.ull.es/dinamizadores
170
Annex
NAME OF THE
PROJECT
NETWORKING
171
Annex
172
Annex
NAME OF THE
PROGRAMME
SMED (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Development)
Overall costs of SMED: € 1.500.000, financed by regional funds, structural and other
funds and Vinnova.
1.898 companies have presented a new idea;
OUTCOMES 1.352 ideas have been analysed in detail and accepted for funding;
1.002 new products have been developed.
Almi Företagspartner AB
CONTACT Klubbhusgatan 13 - 553 03 Jönköping (Sweden)
AND Thomas Malmborg
REFERENCE Ph: +46 36 306522
DATA thomas@smed.nu
www.smed.nu
173
Annex
NAME OF THE
INITIATIVE
Healthcare Technology Alliance (HCTA)
174
Annex
175
Annex
NAME OF THE
PROGRAMME
ReFine
176
Annex
177
Annex
NAME OF THE
PROGRAMME
Tekniklots
178
Annex
179
Bibliography
Bibliography
Bogan, C.E., English, M.J. (1994): Benchmarking for Best Practices: Winning
Through Innovative Adaptation. New York, McGraw Hill.
Fong, S.W., Cheng, E., Ho, D. (1998): Benchmarking: a general reading for
management practitioners. Management Decision 36/6, pp. 407-418.
INNOVA Europe (2003): Benchmarking: the Search for Innovation Relay Centres’
Effective Marketing Practices, Intrasoft International, May.
Loet Leydesdorff (2005): The Triple Helix model and the study of knowledge-based
innovation systems, Int. Journal of Contemporary Sociology 42(1), pp. 12-27.
181
Bibliography
Luc Soete (2006): Promoting knowledge transfer: networks and exchanges, The
regional innovation challenge, UNU-MERIT, University of Maastricht.
New Horizons in Graz (2006) – Shaping Best Practice IV, 15th to 17th November.
Porter, Michael E. (1998): Clusters and the New Economics of Competition, Harvard
Business Review, Nov.-Dec..
Reh, F. J. (2005): Management – Benchmarking: Who's best? How good are they?
How do we get that good? Internet, URL:
http://management.about.com/cs/benchmarking/a/Benchmarking.htm.
Zairi, M., Jarrar, Y. (2000): Best practice transfer for future competitiveness: a
study of best practices. Total Quality Management, vol. 11, no. 4, 5 & 6, pp. 734-
740.
182