NOVAREGIO Handbook. Regional RTD & Innovation Policies and Practices

8/7/2019 NOVAREGIO Handbook. Regional RTD & Innovation Policies and Practices

1/200

Regional RTD &

InnovationPolicies andPractices

Reviewing the past to besuccessful in the future

A benchmarking exercise, investigating on successfully

implemented regional RTD and innovation policies

NOVAREGIO: Innovative Network for coordinated actions on RTD policies atregional level


2/200

II

LEGAL NOTICE

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 theEuropean Research Area Regions of Knowledge 2.

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of theCommission is responsible for the use which might be made of the informationpublished in the present book.

The views expressed in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarilyreflect the policies of the European Commission.

For further information on the content of this book, please refer to the web sitehttp://www.novaregio.net

Coordination: AREA Science Park

Author and Editor: Innova S.p.A.

Cover design: TIA The Public Agency for Technology of the Republic of Slovenia

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, in any form or by anymeans, without permission in writing from the editor.

August 2007


3/200

III

Acknowledgments from the coordinator

Moving from industrial society to knowledge society entails creating new

development models based on innovation and integration of research, education andindustry, which represent the edges of the knowledge triangle. Particularly, theintegration of regional governments, industries and academic or research institutionsis increasingly gaining ground, thus favouring the development of innovationprocesses.

European regions are gaining an increasingly relevant role in the development andmanagement of a knowledge-based society. Indeed, locally embedded social,cultural and institutional arrangements are a source of knowledge, learning andinnovation. Moreover, innovation is an interactive process to be shared by a varietyof institutions and at the same time interregional collaboration is a tool forinnovation.

To this aim, AREA Science Park, the multi-sector science and technology park of the Friuli Venezia Giulia region and one of the leading parks in Europe, haslaunched the NOVAREGIO Project-InNOVative Network for coordinated actionson RTD Policies at Regional Level, co-financed by the European Commissionwithin the 6th Framework Programme known as Regions of Knowledge II,connecting 8 partners belonging to 7 European regions with non-homogeneoussocial, economic and political characteristics: Canary Islands (Spain), Crete(Greece), Styria (Austria), South Transdanubia (Hungary), Smland med arna/WestSweden (Sweden), Slovenia and Friuli Venezia Giulia region (Italy).

NOVAREGIO is aimed to establish and diffuse more effective innovation policiesand practices within the European framework to increase the competitiveness of theregions involved in the project.

NOVAREGIO objectives include identifying the best innovation policies andpractices to be promoted and taken on as models, as well as providing assistance toregional public administrations for self-evaluating their innovation policies, so thatnew knowledge for increasing the competitiveness of the territories and theirrelevant economic and productive systems can be acquired.

The NOVAREGIO self-evaluation process was developed through the collectionand selection of the innovation policies and practices implemented in the sevenregions involved, which were later assessed by experts in the fields of technologytransfer and innovation management.

In this context, eleven best practices which are described in this handbook -were identified, exchanged and diffused among the NOVAREGIO partners andregional policy makers and innovation practitioners as well.


4/200

IV

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 resultsfrom Academia and Public Research Organisations and Innovation Network - aninitiative created by AREA Science Park in cooperation with the regional industrialassociations, chambers of commerce and development agencies aimed attransferring demand-driven technology and knowledge to enterprises.

Therefore, NOVAREGIO is a valid pilot experience for managing innovation and itsoutcomes 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 NOVAREGIOProject has been implemented, as well as the CEI-Central European Initiative andthe CPMRConference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe for the attentiondedicated to the Project.

I also wish to express my sincere thanks to the partners Innova SpA, TIAThePublic Agency for Technology, FORTHFoundation for Research & TechnologyHellas, SFGSteiermrkische Forschungs- und Entwicklungsfrderungs GmbH,ITCInstituto Tecnolgico de Canarias SA, LTCLnsteknikcentrum i Jnkpings

ln AB, STRDASouth Transdanubian Regional Development Agency, for thequalified contribution and the great spirit of cooperation ensured to NOVAREGIOduring two years of joint work.

Last but not least, I wish to thank the entire structure of AREA Science Park, andparticularly all the staff members who were directly involved, for the commitmentand the competence shown in the complex task of coordinating the Project.

Gabriele GattiDirector Marketing and International RelationsAREA Science Park


5/200

V

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 forthe benchmarks engineering and description, as well as their process flow design. Inparticular, a special thanks is to be given to the members of the Project ManagementCommittee, namely: Marcello Guaiana and Isabella Aiello (AREA Science Park),Lidija Fras Zemljic and Mojca Skalar Komljanc (TIAThe Public Agency forTechnology of the Republic of Slovenia), Artemis Saitakis and Kostas Galanakis(FORTHFoundation for Research & Technology Hellas), Wolfgang Schabereiterand Sabine Pronegg (SFGSteiermrkische Forschungs- undEntwicklungsfrderungs GmbH), Alma Cruz and Luca Dobarro Delgado (ITCInstituto Tecnolgico de Canarias SA), Erik Bunis and Stefan Lind (LTCLnsteknikcentrum i Jnkpings ln AB), Lorand Szab and Nikolett Huba Varga(STRDASouth Transdanubian Regional Development Agency). Furthercontributions from their side were made on the main lessons learnt from the selectedsuccessfully implemented RTD and innovation policies.


6/200


7/200

VII

Contents

Preface....................................................................................................................... X Executive Summary ..............................................................................................XIV

Chapter 1. The concept of Benchmarking, definition and objectives................ 1 1.1 Defining Benchmarking what is regional Benchmarking?........................ 2 1.2 Benefits from Benchmarking why engage in regional Benchmarking? .... 5 1.3 Types of Benchmarking ............................................................................... 7 1.4 The Benchmarking Methodology............................................................... 10

Chapter 2. The IVEM Methodology applied to the NOVAREGIO context ... 15 2.1 Objectives of the NOVAREGIO Coordination Action .............................. 16 2.2 The 4 step model of the Benchmarking Methodology applied to

NOVAREGIO............................................................................................ 20 2.2.1 Identification of 25 successful RTD and innovation policies........... 23 2.2.2 Validation of 25 Good Practices and selection of 11 potential

benchmarks....................................................................................... 24 2.2.3 Benchmark engineering and modelling ............................................ 26 2.2.4 Publication and transfer of results, monitoring................................. 27

Chapter 3. RTD and innovation Benchmarks ................................................... 29 3.1 The 11 NOVAREGIO Benchmarks ........................................................... 30 3.2 Friuli Venezia Giulia .................................................................................. 34

3.2.1 SISTER............................................................................................. 37 3.2.1.1 Methodology........................................................................... 37 3.2.1.2 Success Factors .................................................... ................... 40 3.2.1.3 Performance Indicators ........................................................... 40

3.2.2 Innovation NetworkTM................................................... ................... 43 3.2.2.1 Methodology........................................................................... 43 3.2.2.2 Success Factors .................................................... ................... 47 3.2.2.3 Performance Indicators ........................................................... 48


8/200

VIII

3.3 South Transdanubia................................................................. ................... 50 3.3.1 Baross Gabor Programme Support of the innovation

developments of small and medium-sized enterprises in SouthTransdanubia ....................................................... ............................. 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


3.4.2 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


3.6 Crete ........................................................................................................... 83 3.6.1 University Students Entrepreneurship Programme UNISTEP ......85


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


9/200

IX

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 Smland med arna/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

Chapter 4. Lessons learnt and outlook for the future ..................................... 121 4.1 Conclusions ......................................................... ..................................... 122 4.2 Outlook..................................................................................................... 126 Annex .................................................. ............................................................ ....... 131 Bibliography...................................................................... ..................................... 181


10/200

X

Preface

The NOVAREGIO project Innovative Network for coordinated actions on RTDpolicies at regional level is an attempt to showcase best practices in thedevelopment and implementation of RTD and innovation policies and initiatives,aimed at fostering networking activities, providing guidance to policy makers and

consequently exploiting structural funds more efficiently.The NOVAREGIO project, coordinated by AREA Science Park, involves 8 partnersfrom 7 European Regions Canary Islands (Spain), Crete (Greece), Slovenia,Smland med arna and West Sweden (Sweden), Styria (Austria), SouthTransdanubia (Hungary) and Friuli Venezia Giulia (Italy) representing outstandingorganisations dealing with the management and diffusion of innovation:

AREA Science ParkConsorzio per lAREA di Ricerca Scientifica eTecnologica di Trieste (Italy);

INNOVA SpA (Italy);

TIAThe Public Agency for Technology of the Republic of Slovenia(Slovenia);

FORTHFoundation for Research & Technology Hellas (Greece);

SFGSteiermrkische Forschungs- und Entwicklungsfrderungs GmbH(Austria);

ITCInstituto Tecnolgico de Canarias SA (Spain)

LTCLnsteknikcentrum i Jnkpings ln AB (Sweden);

STRDASouth Transdanubian Regional Development Agency (Hungary).

The NOVAREGIO project is managed by two dedicated international boards,namely the Project Management Committee (PMC) and the Strategic SteeringCommittee (SSC). The first one, composed by the partner organisationsrepresentatives, is in charge of the coordination at consortium level of the technicaland administrative activities. The second one, composed by European experts ininnovation, has the mandate to define strategies and tools necessary to increase theproject efficiency and efficacy as well as its long-term sustainability.

With the aim of fostering networking activities, providing guidance to policy makersand exploiting structural funds more efficiently, NOVAREGIO, started in January2006 with a two-years duration, promotes with its activities the building of aknowledge society and contributes therefore to the realisation of the Lisbon Strategyaccording to which the European Union in March 2000 set itself the ambitious goalof becoming the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-driven economy in theworld by 2010, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobsand greater social cohesion.


11/200

XI

The conducted analysis is focused on the regional perspective, and accordinglyinvestigates on regional RTD and innovation policies implemented in seven selectedEuropean regions. Bearing in mind the globalisation and the resulting enlargedcompetition from the merging economies, Europe is more and more constrained toraise its own competitiveness. Tackling this challenge at regional and not nationallevel appears reasonable since sub-national systems have a strong identity and arerich in resources, dedicated to act at regional level and adapt their economies toglobalisation. Furthermore, due to the proximity of contacts between key players,the regional approach is appropriate for improving the innovation capacity, andconsequently creating a knowledge society.

Nowadays, in Europe are still observed significant regional differences, comprisingadvanced regions that dispose of a greater innovative ability and thus able to adapttheir economies to globalisation, and less developed regions on the other side whichrequire support to improve their innovation performance.

NOVAREGIO involves seven European regions with very heterogeneouscharacteristics, as they differ amongst others in terms of size (e.g. population,geographical size, natural resources, etc.), political independence and economicwealth. In this frame, the Friuli Venezia Giulia Region acts as key driver due to itsextraordinary concentration of researchers and the presence of many outstanding

national and international RTD centres and institutes. Furthermore, other regionsbelong to countries with traditionally strong states like Austria and Sweden, as wellas further countries which have begun more recently to systematically strengthentheir regions, as for example Hungary, Greece and Spain. Consequently, the regionsdo 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 innovationactivities by adopting policy measures that tackle the same topics and concentrate onsupporting the innovation progress within the regions.

Furthermore, the regions are geographically situated where two major Europeanorganisations are operating: the CEI Central European Initiative and the CPMR Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe , both organisations that sharethe need of convergence and cohesion of regional policies and strategies asexpressed by the Lisbon Strategy, and tackle as one common issue the improvementof the regional RTD and innovation development.The project regions, none the less their uneven progress in regional innovationperformance, have been developing a wide range of expertise as regards regionalRTD and innovation policies, implemented in the programming period 2000 2006of the structural funds. The policies concern the development of innovative projectsand programmes, innovative financing systems and the knowledge society as awhole by promoting innovation in SMEs and supporting the development of humancapital.

The present handbook looks at the RTD and innovation policies that have beenimplemented by the partner regions, by adopting a benchmarking exercise buildingon the Benchmarking Consulting Practice, a model that has been developed byINNOVA and originally applied to the Network of the Innovation Relay Centres


12/200

XII

(IRCs) in the framework of a pilot project initiated in 2001, aimed at improving theoperational efficiency and effectiveness of the IRC Network.

The methodological approach has been adapted to the needs of the NOVAREGIOproject and further improved with new procedural schemes aimed at valorising theactive participation of regional policy makers and key stakeholders involved infinancing 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 regionalimprovements.

Chapter 2 deals with the benchmarking methodology applied to the NOVAREGIOcontext. A 4-step model has been developed in order to select the most relevantpractices and to analyse them in detail, making them finally transferable to the otherinvolved regions and further regions interested in their take up.

Chapter 3 illustrates the outcomes of the benchmarking exercise and presents theselected benchmarks on regional RTD and innovation policies. A benchmarkingexercise, demonstrating each single part of the implementation and working process,supports a better understanding and permits to learn how to effectively addressmajor challenges based upon others policy-learning experiences.Chapter 4 reasons on the main lessons learnt from the successfully implementedRTD and innovation policy benchmarks. Suggestions are given as regards theadoption of policies in the future that can favour an inspiring environment forregional key players, coming from the research and the industry sector and includingboth public and private actors.

It has to be pointed out that the intention of the project was not simply to presentregional RTD and innovation policies (all the detected regional RTD and innovationpolicies are listed in the Annex), but instead to highlight those policies whosefunctional processes resulted to be the most successful ones and who can give anexample to other regions for improving their innovation performance. In this contextthe transferability of the selected benchmarks played an important role. A successfulpolicy which is determined by very specific regional, economic or structural factorsmay be less interesting than a less spectacular policy which can be more easilytransferred 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 thefollowing1:

1 Innovating Regions in Europe (IRE) Secretariat, 2006.


13/200

XIII

Regions should have consciously implemented a relevant process of outstanding effectiveness and efficiency so that it makes sense to learnfrom them;

Regions should have succeeded under similar circumstances with regard totheir legal framework conditions in order to make the lessons learntrelevant for a subsequent implementation;

Regions should be motivated to fully share their insights and preferablyeven support the transfer of know-how in order to access even sensitive butcrucial information, to speed up the implementation and finally to serve aspartner for continued mutual learning;

Regions should be known as a system which has succeeded in order toovercome scepticism in the own region against knowledge from outside.

In this context, the conducted benchmarking exercise aims to exploit the generatedknowledge by exchanging experiences and provide the readers of this handbookwith a good insight into the different possibilities of implementing successfulregional RTD and innovation policies. Furthermore, it can help regions to realisetheir 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.


14/200

XIV

Executive Summary

NOVAREGIO (Innovative Network for coordinated actions on RTD policies at regional level ) aims at enhancing the interaction between regional policy makersregarding the implementation of regional RTD and innovation policies, aimed atfostering networking and providing guidelines to policy makers in RTD andinnovation matters.

This intent has been pursued by mobilising seven European regions2, located in thecentral eastern part of Europe and in peripheral maritime areas, giving them theopportunity to learn from each other and building up as well as strengthen alreadypreviously established cooperation activities, considering this action as anexperiment to establish and validate effective policy design as regards regional RTDand innovation matters.

A benchmarking exercise has been accomplished that contributed to identifyimplemented regional RTD and innovation policies, to analyse the key areas of interest the regions are focusing on, and to let emerge the best policy practices in thedifferent fields of interest. The intention of the exercise was to emphasise thoseregional policies whose inherent knowledge and underlying processes resulted to bethe most effective ones. In this regard, the exercise helped giving policy makersexamples on policies whose adoption to the own regional context can contribute tothe enhancement of the own regional innovation capacity and performance.

A tailor-made approach has been developed and adopted to the NOVAREGIOcontext, in order to collect and analyse the data necessary to select the best practicesand transfer their knowledge to all the involved regions as well as further regionslying outside the project context but potentially interested in learning from theachieved results.

In total, the exercise comprised the selection of 25 RTD and innovation policiesshowing interesting policy contents and considered as promising for improvingregional development. 11 of them have been considered by regional policy makersand further important regional stakeholders, involved in policy management and

financing, as valuable and critical for moving towards knowledge based economies.These 11 best practices were analysed in detail as regards their policy designtechniques and functionality and were appointed as benchmarks in this handbook.

The 11 selected benchmarks

In order to render a practice (in the project context the regional policy) transferableand adaptable to ones needs, it has to be underlined before implementing ithow and

2 The NOVAREGIO project, coordinated by AREA Science Park, involves 8 partners from 7 EuropeanRegions Canary Islands (Spain), Crete (Greece), Smland med arna and West Sweden (Sweden),Slovenia, Styria (Austria), South Tansdanubia (Hungary) and Friuli Venezia Giulia (Italy) representingoutstanding organisations dealing with the management and diffusion of innovation.


15/200


16/200

XVI

assistance for high-quality training schemes with an innovative concept goingbeyond standard courses and seminars.

e) Start-up Entrepreneurs is a programme of the region Styria that provides supportto a new establishment or the starting up of an activity that contributes to afundamental change in product management or production. The programme offers atailor-made approach to different kinds of entrepreneurs and supports in particularthose projects that improve the potential fields of strengths identified by the region.

f) TheCentre of Excellence is a programme set up in Slovenia, bringing together keyplayers from the scientific-research sector and the economy environment. Theprogramme supports technology transfer activities through facilitating theimplementation of innovative projects in the region, focalised on selectedtechnology areas. The establishment of a Centre of Excellence underlies strictrequirements as regards the partnership and the financial liquidity of the participants.

g) UNISTEP University Students Entrepreneurship Programme is an initiativeimplemented in the region Crete and aimed at counteracting the brain drain existingin the region by creating a positive environment for cultivating entrepreneurshipamong university students. The programme includes a theoretical and practical part.Trainings on entrepreneurship are offered and laboratories are made available for thecreation, development and testing of prototypes which could be later exploited onthe market through a new technology based enterprise.h) ThePancreta Development Fund is a funding source for high-risk entrepreneurialincentives, completing the financial instruments existing in the region Crete. Thefund provides in particular support to SMEs and start-up companies, focusingmainly on new technologies, innovative products and further activities particularlywith 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 integratingorganisations and resources in order to provide services to the entrepreneurs in fourselected islands. On each of these four islands, a Business Promotion Unit (BUP) isestablished, supporting innovative business ideas of local entrepreneurs. Theactivities of BIC Canarias include a pre-incubation phase in which extensive projectsearch activities are carried out and an incubation phase in which direct services areoffered to selected companies.j) SMED Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Development develops big ideasin small companies in the region Smland med arna so as to let more innovatorsreach the market and stimulate new product development for increasing theexistence of competitive companies in the region. The programme informscompanies about financing possibilities and focuses on product development,product innovation and product design.


17/200

XVII

k) The HCTA Healthcare Technology Alliance is an initiative supporting thedevelopment of new products and services in healthcare technology in the regionWest Sweden. HCTA functions as a network and encompasses a large number of companies, organisations and research and development institutions working in thehealthcare technology field. The alliance is a good opportunity to set updevelopment projects and thus to strengthen the regional innovation system forhealthcare technology.

The detailed description of the benchmarks supports the sharing and theimplementation of best practices on RTD and innovation policy design within theseven project regions, as well as further interested regions, reinforcing thereby theinnovation performance of the regions and contributing to the goal of turningEuropean regions into knowledge-based societies. According to the aim of theproject, the benchmarking exercise led to a real mutual knowledge transfer amongthe project regions, setting the basis for generating substantial improvements inefficient 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 nearfuture. 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 bringingto the partnership a special expertise of strategic importance. Furthermore, thebuilding of clusters is advisable for stimulating innovation and productivity growth,achieved through the facilitated knowledge spill-over and increased informationflow. The investment in high-skilled human resources is mandatory for generatingnew ideas and products, and thus sustaining the innovation performance of a region.Innovative financing instruments, such as venture capital funds, are a further issue tobe considered in regional policy design. Innovation activities are related to riskintensive undertakings and hence need a greater initial investment which often is notprovided 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 specificregional needs.

The transfer of the benchmarks into other regional contexts provides a good initialpoint for realising the objectives set by the EU in the single regions. However, the11 benchmarks should be considered as reference models for the future policydesign. Of course, they cannot be applied within the environment of each regionautomatically: adaptations and adjustments to the characteristics of each singleregion, such as the environmental conditions, legal framework, industrial coresectors, structure of the local companies, existing organisations and institutions forpromoting research and industrial growth, available human resources, etc. will bealways necessary.


18/200

XVIII

The transfer of the benchmarks should be intended as a broad activity, transversal tothe whole benchmarking exercise and running since the beginning of the project. Itis not only a matter of transferring results but also to allow a more comprehensiveknowledge transfer process related to the benchmarking model, the process flowdevelopment, the selection process and the validation and engineering of each singlebenchmark. Best results can be achieved when embedding the benchmarking processinto the strategic policy design and implementing it in relation to the regional policymaking process, thus serving as an on-going policy impact assessment andevaluation tool.


19/200

Chapter 1. The concept of

Benchmarking, definitionand objectives


20/200

The concept of Benchmarking, definition and objectives

2

1.1 Defining Benchmarking what is regionalBenchmarking?

Benchmarking is a self-improvement tool and describes the procedure in which acompany, organisation or any other (multi-organisational) system carries out threeprocesses:

1) compares its performance against best-in-class systems;2) determines how these systems have achieved their superior performance; and

3) uses the collected information to improve its own performance.

Basically, all processes can be the object of benchmarking.

Most organisations tailor the definition of benchmarking to their own strategies andobjectives, so that numerous definitions of benchmarking exist. Generally speaking,there do not exist neither correct nor false definitions of benchmarking, but ratheradequate or inadequate definitions related to a specific case. Two examples of defining benchmarking are given below:

Benchmarking is the process of comparing yourself with others -- measuring

your service's processes and performance and systematically comparing them tothe performance of others in order to seek best practice. It enables theidentification of areas where improvement is possible, how it might be achieved and what benefit it might deliver.

Source: Foot (1998) How to do Benchmarking: A Practitioner's Guide

Benchmarking is the process of improving performance by continuouslyidentifying, understanding (studying and analyzing) and adapting outstandingpractices and processes found inside and outside the organisation and implementing the results.

Source: American Productivity and Quality Centre (1997): What isBenchmarking

Benchmarking stems from private sector business and over the past years, thismanagement technique has been adopted and adapted from the private sector inpublic policy. In fact, benchmarking has become increasingly popular for politicalsystems given the fact that nations and regions are facing increased competitionfrom other competing systems. Today, it has become necessary for regions toimprove and invest in their competitiveness.

In this regard, regional benchmarking , derived from the term territorialbenchmarking, has been developed, a rather new form which looks at the


21/200


3

performances of regions and the causes of their performance3. Questions that oneshould 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 benchmarkingprocess in order to improve its regional development or selected foci of it. Usually,this kind of benchmarking process comprises the collection, analysis anddocumentation of good practice cases, ensuring at the same time the devotedparticipation of key stakeholders in the process in order to encourage commitment tousing the knowledge generated in the policy design.

There do not exist overall best regions against whom to benchmark. Instead it iscrucial to select adequate and appropriate regions against whom to benchmark. Whatan adequate region depends on heavily is the main purpose of the benchmarkingexercise and the nature of the region to be benchmarked. If a region for exampleuses benchmarking for primarily strengthening its own position within the country,

it makes sense to benchmark against other domestic regions. If instead a region isinterested in learning how to handle a particular challenge, regions should beidentified with a very similar challenge and which have successfully faced thisparticular challenge.

When considering regional strategies and guidelines designed to boost the economicdevelopment of regions, the termpolicy benchmarking comes into play. Policybenchmarking aims at evaluating alternative policies, implementing strategies andimproving performance by understanding and adapting successful strategiesimplemented in further regions. The main objective of the exercise is to providepolicy makers with examples of best practices by identifying adequate, well definedand successfully implemented policies. Policy benchmarking goes beyond theassessment of the indicators determining observed performance but providesfurthermore an understanding of the processes, skills and capabilities that createsuperior performance.

There are numerous approaches on how to conduct benchmarking and thedefinitions of benchmarking are manifold. Although there does not exist an overallbest approach, it is necessary to adapt the method that results the best according tothe characteristics of the endeavour, such as the object of benchmarking, the timehorizon and the available budget.

However, essentially each benchmarking definition involves learning, sharinginformation and adopting best practices in order to improve processes based upon

3 Innovating Regions in Europe (IRE) Secretariat, 2006.


22/200


4

the insight on what makes processes effective and efficient. Process implies asequence of activities made up of tasks and steps that cross the boundaries betweenfunctions. Focusing on the process, distinguishes benchmarking from stocktaking.The act of appraising a present situation, condition or degree of progress in asystematic comparison to previous situations, conditions in other systems, as e.g.regions, or strategic objectives is described. In practice, benchmarking usuallyencompasses:

regularly comparing aspects of processes performance with bestpractitioners; 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 amerely competitor analysis but instead is best undertaken in a collaborative way inorder to learn about the circumstances and processes that underpin superiorperformance. In this regard, regional benchmarking explicitly aims to exploit the

generated knowledge by defining and implementing adequate policies in a regionalcontext. Consequently, it is required that the benchmarking process is embedded intoa strategic policy process (policy benchmarking). This means that the exerciseshould be implemented in relation to the regional policy making process and canserve as an on-going policy impact assessment and evaluation tool.

The benchmarking exercise adopted in NOVAREGIO follows the principles of regional benchmarking, having as target the seven selected central European andperipheral maritime regions4. Given that the analysis focuses specifically on RTDand innovation policies implemented in the target regions, the exercise includesfurthermore the policy benchmarking approach,thus making policy benchmarking toan integrated element of the regional benchmarking exercise .

The ultimate aim of the benchmarking methodology applied to the NOVAREGIOproject context is to offer regional governments and policy makers an effective toolto foster competitiveness in selected fields, considering also the time span neededfor the successful implementation of development policies and the impact those havein the long run.

4 Generally, a region is an extensive, continuous geographically defined part of the earths surface. Theterm is used for vast parts of the earth like Asia/Pacific as well as for areas which constitute a small partof a country, as e.g. a city and its surroundings. Considering the work programme Regions of Knowledgein which NOVAREGIO has been set up, the termregion is used throughout the project and therewith alsowithin 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).


23/200


5

1.2 Benefits from Benchmarking why engage in regionalBenchmarking?

Benchmarking is usually part of a larger effort, generally a Process Re-engineeringor Quality Improvement initiative. When used appropriately, it has proved to be oneof the most effective tools for attaining high improvements in performance.

Benchmarking provides: an effective wake-up call and helps to make a strong case for change; practical ways in which step changes in performance can be achieved by

learning from others who have already undertaken comparable changes; the impulse for seeking new ways of doing things, promoting a culture

that is receptive to fresh approaches and ideas; opportunities for staff to acquire new skills and to be involved in the

process of change from the very beginning.

Benchmarking activities can be implemented in different environments. In theprivate sector the purpose of benchmarking is to gain competitive edge. Thebenchmarking approach has become embedded in successful commercialorganisations as a means of seeking innovation outside the industry paradigm and tokeep up at the forefront of competition. Regarding thepublic sector , organisationsoperating in this environment have increasingly been turning to benchmarking theirpublic services in order to improve and achieve the sort of step changes needed todeliver modern public services.5 On an European scale , benchmarking is used as aninstrument for reaching improvements in performance in both public and privatesector, aiming to increase the competitiveness of the European economy as a whole.

When specifically referring toregional benchmarking , the ultimate objective is toimprove regional development. Regional benchmarking is a powerful tool whichcontributes to regional development by effectively serving a number of keyfunctions, such as the following6:

Raising awareness: One of the most important added values of the regionalbenchmarking process is raising awareness among regional stakeholdersregarding the regions position in comparison to other regions. Presenting theown regional situation by confronting with others may motivate and commitregional policy and decision makers to review strategies and policies.

Generation of knowledge: The process permits to learn how to effectivelyaddress major challenges based upon others policy-learning experiences. Asystem cannot perform all learning internally but has to integrate competencefrom outside the own system. A main reason for implementing benchmarking is

5 Public Sector Benchmarking Service (PSBS).6 Innovating Regions in Europe (IRE) Secretariat, 2006.


24/200


6

to learn about how policy has an impact on regional systems (policybenchmarking).

Trans-regional co-operation: Trans-regional benchmarking projects can be anopportunity to collaborate with other regions and establish trans-regionalpartnerships. Regions working together on the common approach of abenchmarking methodology get to know each other better and built up mutualtrust, thus constituting the basis for further strategic forms of cooperation.

Creation of commitment: Commitment results from the perception andcommunication that there are major threats and opportunities ahead, that othersare prepared to deal with them and that there are lessons learnt to beimplemented by the region in order to become or remain competitive.

Regional marketing: Benchmarking can be applied as a regional marketingtool. In this context, the regional benchmarking exercise is utilised as apromotion tool and as an instrument to position the region as a leader in specificfields on the market.

In conclusion, regional benchmarking creates and strengthens the key stakeholdersmotivation, their competence and devotion to boost regional competitiveness byimplementing more effective and efficient policies. A successful benchmarking

exercise bridges gaps in performance by improvements, and results in significanttangible benefits, such as:

- supply policy makers with examples of best practice;

- step changes in performance and innovation;

- improving quality and productivity;

- improving performance measurement.


25/200


7

1.3 Types of Benchmarking

There are almost as many types of benchmarking as there are definitions. Thevarious definitions depend on what an organisation or any other system intends tobenchmark. In the following table, the main types of benchmarking are illustrated.Table 1.1 Types of Benchmarking

Type of Benchmarking Description

Strategic

- Applied when organisations seek to improve their overallperformance by examining long-term strategies and generalapproaches that have enabled high-performers to succeed.

- Involves assessment of strategic rather than operationalmatters.

Performance(Competitive)

- Used where organisations consider their positions in relationto performance characteristics of key products and services,quantified in terms of price, speed, reliability, etc.

- Benchmarking partners are drawn from the same sector.

Process

- Utilised when the focus lies on improving specific critical

processes and operations.- Comparing to discrete work processes and operatingsystems.

Functional (Generic)- Applied when organisations look to benchmark with two or

more organisations drawn from different business sectors orareas of activity.

Internal - Seeking partners from within the same organisation, e.g.from business units located in different areas or processes.

External - Seeking outside organisations that are known to be the bestin class.

International- Benchmarking partners are sought from other countries

because best practitioners are located elsewhere in the worldand/or there are too few benchmarking partners within thesame country to produce valid results.

When selecting the type of benchmarking to be used, different aspects have to betaken into consideration. It has to be defined in the first place which objectives theexercise wants to achieve and which aspects should be reviewed. Moreover, timeand resources available are further important features that have to be respected.

Each of the above described benchmarking types has its benefits and shortcomingsand there are circumstances in which one type is likely to be more suitable thanother types. However, it is essential to outline the difference betweenperformance and process benchmarking since all categories will fall into one of these two areas orinto both.


26/200


8

Performance benchmarking compares the performance of output of activities. Suchmeasures can indicate which activities are the organisations or systems strengthsand find ways of closing gaps of performance. Once identified, further investigationis required to establish how such performance is achieved.

On the other hand, process benchmarking looks at the processes used byorganisations or systems and compares these against what is deemed to be the bestpractice. Such processes are invariably made up of several sub-processes thatproduce an overall approach or process.Figure 1.1 Performance and Process Benchmarking

Effort required, Cost

Depthof understanding, Potentialbenefits Process

Benchmarking

PerformanceBenchmarking

Effort required, Cost

Depthof understanding, Potentialbenefits Process

Benchmarking

PerformanceBenchmarking

It has been discovered that actual improvements following benchmarking arise fromconsideration 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 investigatedneed to be established and agreed on. Obtaining data, completing questionnaires andany 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 investmentwill be minimal and subsequently, the results are not worth the effort that has beenmade before. Indeed, a thorough analysis of the processes and procedures thatsupport 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 todiscover how such good performers get there.


27/200


9

With reference to NOVAREGIO, both performance and process benchmarking areapplied to the regional context. The performance of each involved project regionregarding RTD and innovation is evaluated in relation to all involved regions byanalysing their implemented RTD and innovation policies. Furthermore, theconducted exercise intends to put emphasis on the critical processes underlying tothe selected successfully implemented regional policies, so as to provide to the otherregions examples of high-performing strategies. The exercise regards also theinternational dimension of benchmarking since the regions are located in sevendifferent countries, all of them implementing successful policies which tackledifferent topics but on the whole, all aimed at improving the RTD and innovationperformance of the regions.


28/200


10

1.4 The Benchmarking Methodology

As the previous sections show, there exists a wide variation of benchmarkingdefinitions, their types and applications. However, in all methods, benchmarking isessentially a structured approach to comparison.

INNOVA has developed its own Benchmarking Consulting Practice7 which is built

around a 4-step model as illustrated in figure 1.2. The model is based on the IVEM(Identification, Validation, Engineering and Monitoring) Benchmarking Cyclewhich is the core of the benchmarking practice and is, in turn, built around thefollowing four steps:

Identification of the areas/business processes to be benchmarked; Identification of the benchmarking sample; Streamlining of areas/business processes to be benchmarked; Application of the IVEM Benchmarking Cycle.

The first step in the Benchmarking Consulting Practice is theidentification of theareas/business processes to be benchmarked . It is important to have a clear focus

since the tighter the definition of the areas under study, the more valuable andfocused the learning opportunities.

Once the areas to be studied have been defined, thebenchmarking sample will beidentified : whom to benchmark with.

A third step in the methodology is thestreamlining of the areas/business processesto be benchmarked . An useful instrument to develop this step is the development of a flow-chart representing all the stages in the process.

Last but not least is the application of theIVEM Benchmarking Cycle , whichconsists of the Identification, Validation, Engineering and Monitoring of selectedpractices or potential benchmarks.

The selected practices or potential benchmarks will eventually become proper

benchmarks once they have been validated and the processes behind the practiceshave been engineered. The emphasis is placed on how a practice has been achievedand it is only by analysing, structuring and engineering the processes behind that anorganisation can improve and learn from benchmarking. The benchmarkingconsulting practice is best suited to cooperative benchmarking environments, wherethe opportunities to develop a learning atmosphere and the sharing of knowledge aregreater.

7 The Benchmarking Consulting Practice has been originally developed within the BenchmarkingExercise conducted by the company INNOVA Europe, subsidiary of INNOVA, for the Innovation RelayCentres Network throughout the period 2001-2005. Further successful applications and adaptations toother European networks have followed since 2004.


29/200


11

In the following pages, a detailed description of the 4 moments that form the IVEMBenchmarking Cycle8 is provided:

Identification

There are many ways in which potential benchmarks can be identified. Dependingon 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 andquantitative questions, is always a good start in the search of the potentialbenchmarks. Once the information has been gathered through any of the means citedabove, the data must be analysed. This analysis must involve a deep understandingof current process practices as well as of their performance indicators. On the basisof this analysis, there is a first selection of practices that should be further examinedand evaluated before they can be considered benchmarks. At this stage, additionalinformation on the selected practices are collected and the material to evaluate andvalidate 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 organisationthat owns the potential benchmark).

ValidationThe Validation phase together with the Engineering phase are the mostdistinguishing features of the Benchmarking Consulting Practice. Validation, as theword indicates, refers to the verification of the collected information and theacquisition of additional information. The validation activity is usually carried outthrough visits and direct interviews to the organisation that owns the potentialbenchmark.

The acquisition of information of various types (quantitative and qualitative) andformats (manuals, software, brochure and so on) is essential to complete the wholepicture of a given practice and should be done in an ordered manner, planning inadvance the type of information to be requested and structuring the questions to beasked. Furthermore, in order to optimise resources, it would be highly recommended

to prepare a draft of the process flow chart, representing the potential benchmarkand discuss it with the organisations 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, theengineering 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.


30/200


12

- pulling them back together, reconstructing the puzzle, in a logical and structuredmanner.

Engineering therefore, involves structuring the potential benchmarks into logical andsequential steps in order to understand what is behind the benchmark and how it hasbeen 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-chartclearly shows the elements in which a specific benchmark has been broken downand therefore decodes the knowledge and the know-how built in the benchmark.Representing all the stages in the process makes the benchmark understandable in allits parts and clarifies how it has been achieved. Once this is fully understood, thebenchmark can be transferred or adapted to other organisations. When the bestpractices have been identified, the processes in the partner organisation arecommunicated and studied and a scheme for implementation of these processes isestablished: what needs to be looked at is why the best are the best, what processeshave they followed to reach where they are. These are questions that will lead to aworkable road map for improvement.

Monitoring

Benchmarking is a continuous and recursive process, not a snapshot that isperformed once and disregarded afterwards. Monitoring and reviewing is necessaryto see how the benchmarks evolve over time; it should involve looking at theevolution of the performance indicators, by measuring on a regular basis theperformance achieved, as well as observing the process flow to detect any changesin the steps or in the activities undertaken.

Monitoring can be directed to the identification of new areas of work to be furtheranalysed 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 toreview the implementation of the practices and whether the adopted practices havemanaged to fill a performance gap.

The following Chapter 2 presents a practical application of the benchmarkingconsulting practice to the context of the NOVAREGIO project. The benchmarkinginitiative has led to the identification of eleven best practices concerning RTD andinnovation performances, selected within the seven involved project regions. Thesepractices in the course of the benchmarking exercise have been validated andengineered and hence turned into eleven benchmarks which will be illustrated indetail in Chapter 3.

The detected benchmarks represent successful models of regional policies developedby regional authorities and dealing with topics such as technology transfer andnetworking initiatives as well as entrepreneurship, new product development, human


31/200


13

resources development in S&T and last but not least with the raising of public andprivate funds.

Specific knowledge is being brought to the forefront, finally giving project partnerregions as well as further regions the opportunity to adapt and apply provensuccessful methodologies to their own regional policies design.


32/200


33/200

Chapter 2. The IVEM

Methodology applied to theNOVAREGIO context


34/200

The IVEM Methodology applied to the NOVAREGIO context

16

2.1 Objectives of the NOVAREGIO Coordination Action

The NOVAREGIO project (Innovative Network for coordinated actions on RTDpolicies at regional level ), funded under the 6th Framework Programme forResearch and Technological Development, is a Coordination Action that enhancesthe interaction between regional policy makers regarding the implementation of regional RTD and innovation policies, aiming to foster networking and provideguidance to policy makers in RTD matters. This endeavour is achieved throughmutual learning processes initiated in seven selected regions that are, as figure 2.1demonstrates, geographically located in the areas of competence of two majorEuropean organisations: the CEI9 - Central European Initiative and the CPMR10 -Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe :

Friuli Venezia Giulia (Italy) South Transdanubia (Hungary) Styria (Austria) Slovenia Crete (Greece) Canary Islands (Spain) Smland med arna/West Sweden (Sweden)

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 communistsystem. Founded by Austria, Italy, Hungary and Yugoslavia in 1989, as Quadrilateral co-operation, itsmembership increased to 10 by 1994, to 16 by 1996 and to 17 in 2000 with the accession of the FederalRepublic of Yugoslavia. Other CEI Member Countries are Albania, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina,Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Sloveniaand Ukraine. The CEI, as an intergovernmental body is involved in the NOVAREGIO project through itsScience and Technology Network.10 The Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe (CPMR) - www.cpmr.org was founded inSaint-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 CPMRs membership includes 154Regions from 27 States both members and non-members of the EU all located in one of Europesmain sea basins.


35/200


17

Figure 2.1 Central European Initiative (CEI) & Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regionsof Europe (CPMR)

CEI CPMRCEI 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 toregions lying outside the project context.

As already underlined before, there do not exist overall best regions against whom tobenchmark; instead it is crucial to select adequate and appropriate regions againstwhom to benchmark. NOVAREGIO comprises regions that are all concerned withimproving their regional RTD and innovation performance, and in this regard theyall set similar foci for reaching this goal, which are amongst others the enhancementof 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 andinnovation policies benchmarks and to ensure a more efficient use of structuralfunds in supporting RTD investment. In the long run, the project activities aim to

sustain a greater convergence towards a knowledge-based society in Europe, alongwith fostering networking and providing guidance to policy makers in RTD matters .

It would be an overstatement to claim that Benchmarking represents a formulawhich guarantees success, but it does represent an approach which has beenindependently tried and proven by many organisations around the world.Benchmarking is to be an action-oriented exercise and in the context of theNOVAREGIO project the lessons learnt should lead to better-targeted policies andknowledge based strategies. The final results should be taken into account in thepolicy design as well as in the policy implementation. The precondition for reachingthis goal is the active participation of relevant stakeholders in the process, ensuringtheir commitment to use and adapt the knowledge generated through thebenchmarking exercise in the future policy design.


36/200


18

More specifically, Benchmarking applied to NOVAREGIO can bring about twosubstantial improvements at two levels:

1. At Regional level:

Better understanding of the Region: exploring own innovation processesand resources thoroughly will lead to a more comprehensive understandingof the regional approach that is being taking in order to promote innovation

activities within the Region:what is the Region doing?, who are the best innovation performers in the Region?, for what are funds being spent and where are they generated?

Establishment of goals: Benchmarking will enable regions to setperformance goals which are achievable and realistic in the framework of the regional environmental conditions, by ensuring that best, feasible,proven practices are taken up in the regional context. The philosophyshould be:If other regions can, why cant we?

Objective diagnosis: Benchmarking will show, following an objective andsystematic approach, how regional innovation processes can be improved,by comparing them with those regions whose processes have been selectedas benchmarks.

2. At Project level:

Stimulation of Networking: Benchmarking will stimulate direct exchangeof information and networking among the regional authorities and policymakers participating to the project, thus enhancing their level of interaction.

Learning and Management of Knowledge: Benchmarking will be a sourceof learning and therefore of knowledge. This source of knowledge needs tobe widespread among the partner regions as well as further regionsinvolved in the two European organisations CEI and CPMR, so as tofacilitate the dissemination of best practices and finally promote learningfrom each other within regions.

In the framework of these common improvements that are to be achieved by means

of the benchmarking exercise, other important aspects distinguishing the singleregions such as cultural differences, national traditions, funding schemes anddifferent working methodologies have been considered. The unifying element of theexercise is to move the regions forward concerning their RTD and innovationperformance and to ultimately achieve greater convergence towards a knowledge-based society in Europe.

Some major conditions should be ensured to achieve the above mentionedobjectives:

The exercise goes beyond the numbers: Benchmarking is about processesand practices as well as performance. It is only by changing and modifyingprocesses and practices that a region can improve in its innovation policies;simply looking at performance will not lead to improvement.


37/200


19

The processes and practices used to reach a better RTD and innovationperformance are identified: It is worth mentioning that whether practicesare called best or good, they are seldom the ultimate that can beachieved, given that best practice is always contextual. It should betherefore noted thatbest is a moving target in todays world, and alsosituation-specific.

There is commitment from policy makers and further relevant stakeholdersand willingness to act upon the results: By learning from comparing,regional policy makers can implement improvements in a manner that isconsistent with their regional conditions and culture. The right term is toadapt , not necessarily toadopt . It is rare to find a process that a region cansimply transfer to its own context. Instead, regions must assimilate the goodpractice/methodologies, shape them to their own environments andcircumstances, test them to make sure they work in their settings, and thenmake the changes to their specific conditions.

The purpose of the benchmarking exercise is to support a new way of thinkingamong the project regions that considers benchmarking as an useful tool forincremental improvements in terms of managing innovation concerns throughimplemented policies. Whats more, the results of the exercise should be accessible

and easily understandable by all stakeholders, thus the outcomes have to beillustrated in a simplified and understandable way.


38/200


39/200


21

Raising Public & Private Funds; Entrepreneurship Start-ups; Technology Transfer; Development of Human Resources in Science & Technology; Networking Clustering; New Product Development (NPD) Innovation.

4. Application of the IVEM Benchmarking Cycle

The IVEM Benchmarking Cycle has been adopted to the NOVAREGIO context bycarrying out the four activities:

Identification of 25 successful RTD and innovation policies Validation of 25 Good Practices and selection of 11 potential benchmarks Benchmarkengineering and modelling Publication and transfer of results,monitoring

In the following sub-chapters the implementation of these four stages is described indetail.


40/200


41/200


23

2.2.1 Identification of 25 successful RTD and innovation policies

The first stage of the IVEM Benchmarking Cycle deals with the identification of afirst set of successfully implemented RTD and innovation policies in the sevenpartner regions. The search for potential benchmarks has been an ongoing task sincethe beginning of the exercise, because benchmarking is a process and it must becontinuous to be effective.

The identification process started at the Project Committee Meeting (PMC) held inCrete in June 2006, where each project partner after consultation with regional keystakeholders (regional authorities, regional administrations, etc.) presented five toseven RTD and innovation programmes and projects implemented in the region.

From July until November 2006, project partners gathered additional information ontwo to four of the previously presented regional programmes and projects, all lyingin the focus of the selected interest areas (hot topics) of NOVAREGIO. Thesepractices were considered to be the most interesting ones by the members of theStrategic Steering Committee (SSC) Meeting held in Crete in June 2006 the dayafter the PMC meeting, and were therefore chosen to be included into the shortlist of the 25 Good Practices. The selected practices resulted to be the most attractive andmotivating ones in terms of their learning effects and transferability to other partner

regions.The entire information gathering process has been performed in a structured mannerin order to ensure that all regions provided the same type of information, wheneverpossible. The information set for each of the 25 Good Practices contains thefollowing elements:


42/200


24

Table 2.1 Information gathered on each of the 25 Good Practices

Information set for the 25 Good Practices

1. Name of the programme

2. Region

3. Time scale

4. Rationale5. Area of interest

6. Objectives

7. Key activities

8. Key actors

9. Funding information

10. Outcomes

11. Contact and data references

As a result, for each of the selected 25 Good Practices a fact sheet with the maininformation details was elaborated, as presented in the Annex of this handbook.

2.2.2 Validation of 25 Good Practices and selection of 11 potentialbenchmarks

The validation phase is the second stage of the IVEM Benchmarking Cycle. In theframework of NOVAREGIO, validation means the examination and evaluation of the information collected on the 25 identified Good Practices on RTD andinnovation. This phase concludes with the confirmation of those RTD andinnovation policies finally selected and considered as benchmarks.

More precisely, the validation was carried out through the involvement of 7Regional Evaluation Panels, consisting in key actors in each of the partner regions,who are most important for RTD promotion and innovation development, itsmanagement and financing. In specific, these actors were chosen among:

Regional representatives as e.g. regional authorities and regionaladministrations;

CEI or CPMR responsible in each Region; Further key persons involved in financing and/or managing RTD

programmes (Technology Parks, Research Centres, etc.).

The participation of these players was essential for the succeeding of the projectobjectives. In fact, these actors are the ones that are responsible for the regionsdevelopment towards a knowledge based society established on innovative mindsets.Each of the 7 Regional Evaluation Panels expressed one final vote on each of the 25


43/200


25

Good Practices promoted by the other involved regions. Each Practice was votedwith 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 qualitativeperformance indicators for the final 25 Good Practices were collected by projectpartners through regional documentations and statistical publications made availableon official websites such as EUROSTAT. Although the more detailed investigationrevealed that published indicators are not complete due to not elaborated regionaldata, the eventually gathered indicators represent none the less a supporting tool andscientific component that allow, through the interpretation of statistics, quantitativecomparisons and thus the assessment of a regions performance in innovation andRTD in a qualified way.

The validation of the potential benchmarks was carried out through site visits or viae-mail/phone contact with the regional key actors involved in the RegionalEvaluation Panels, by presenting each of the 25 Good Practices to the Panelsaccording to the fact sheets elaborated during the identification phase.

Besides the particular interest on the regions side towards the transfer and adoptionof 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 certaincriteria established by the Project Management Committee. The following principleswere considered:

each interest area (hot topic) has to be covered with at least onepractice;

those practices are selected who get the highest voting from the RegionalEvaluation 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 tomaintain the geographical balance.

Each Regional Evaluation Panel, consisting of up to 7 key actors, gave in a twomonths period its final vote for each of the 25 Good Practices.

Considering the above described criteria, it emerged out of the final EvaluationMatrix that 11 RTD and innovation policies and initiatives can be considered asbenchmarks. These practices are of specific interest to the regions and their finalacceptance and approval was achieved during the SSC Meeting held in Trieste inFebruary 2007.

The following table 2.2 illustrates the final 11 benchmarks according to their interestarea and regional origin. These benchmarks that are engineered in the following


44/200


26

phase of the IVEM Benchmarking Cycle, represent the focus of the wholebenchmarking exercise and the subsequent knowledge transfer activities conductedwithin the project.

Table 2.2 The 11 selected benchmarks according to the areas of interest

Area of interest Benchmarks

Raising Public & Private Funds Pancreta Development Fund (Crete)

Entrepreneurship Start-ups

Start up entrepreneurs (Styria) Baross Programme (South Transdanubia) UNISTEP (Crete) BIC Canarias (Canary Islands)

Technology Transfer

SISTER (Friuli Venezia Giulia) Innovation NetworkTM (Friuli Venezia Giulia) A Centre of Excellence (Slovenia)

Development of HR in Science &Technology

Skills Development of Qualified Employees(Styria)

Networking Clustering Health Care Technology Alliance (Smland med

arna/West Sweden)

New Product Development (NPD) Innovation

SMED (Smland med arna/West Sweden)

2.2.3 Benchmark engineering and modelling

The benchmarks engineering and modelling as step 3 represents the central part of the four phases of the IVEM Benchmarking Cycle as applied to the NOVAREGIOcontext. The 11 benchmarks identified and demonstrated in table 2.2 were analysedin detail by structuring the identified practices into logical and sequential steps inorder to understand how each practice was built up. In particular this means that in

this phase the processes were described from the initial idea of implementing each of the specific programmes, projects or initiatives in the regions until their actualimplementation and functionality. These processes were illustrated by using flowcharts that clearly show in a step-by-step manner the elements that were needed inorder to implement and realise the practices in the regions.

This break down was necessary in order to make the benchmarks viable and transferor adapt these successful practices to other regions. Project partner regions as well asfurther potentially interested regions will then be able to work on improving theirown practices or adopt new practices in order to attain a standard equivalent to thebenchmark. Therefore, only by representing all the stages in these processes thepractices can be transferred or adapted to other contexts.


45/200


27

In Chapter 3, an in-depth description of each benchmark along with the clarificationof the process criticalities that are rendering each practice successful and theillustration of the performance indicators is provided. Furthermore, to eachbenchmark the appropriate process flow-chart representing the engineering processis shown. All flow-charts received the approval of their respective regional policymakers.

2.2.4 Publication and transfer of results, monitoring The monitoring is the last step in the methodology. Benchmarking is a continuousprocess, not a snapshot that is performed once and disregarded afterwards.Monitoring is necessary to see how the benchmarks evolve over time.

Given the speed at which the world is moving nowadays, todays benchmarks mightnot be tomorrows. Therefore, one needs to keep an eye on how these practiceschange and recalibrate them accordingly. Monitoring should involve looking at theevolution of the performance indicators, by measuring on a regular basis theperformance achieved, as well as observing the process flow to detect any changesin the steps or in the activities undertaken by regions who adopted the benchmarksto their contexts.

As regards the project, after the benchmarks have been validated and engineered, theoutcomes are communicated and demonstrated to the whole project consortium andregional policy makers as well as further important key actors in three seminars andworkshops, accomplished within the period June 2007 until December 2007. Theseminars and workshops are the first step for raising awareness on best practices inRTD and innovation policy design and set the foundation of transferring theknowledge inherent to the benchmarks into the partner regions of NOVAREGIO.Further personnel exchanges shall support the knowledge transfer and establish acollaborative working environment among the regions. Following a spill-over effectthese practices are to be spread into further regions interested in the take up and thelearning of the selected regional policies.

The transfer process in the project is understood as a transversal action which startedwith the knowledge transfer of the methodology used for carrying out the

benchmarking exercise and the building of the process flow, done in accordancewith the relevant regional key actors responsible for implementing the practices inthe regions. The initial discussion of the 25 Good Practices and the choice of the 11benchmarks presented a further step of the transfer process. However, the actualknowledge transfer began at the first seminar and workshop where the benchmarkswere presented and where the consortium as well as participating policy makers andregional innovation management actors were encouraged to reflect upon how toimprove their regional policies in order to support an productive regional innovationdevelopment.

In this context, the present manual represents the main dissemination tool and asupport to the transfer of the project results to the regions as well as further regions


46/200


28

lying outside the project scope but potentially interested in learning and taking upsuccessful RTD and innovation policies.


47/200

Chapter 3. RTD and

innovation Benchmarks


48/200

RTD and innovation Benchmarks

30

3.1 The 11 NOVAREGIO Benchmarks

Benchmarking is a process-by-process comparison and not an organisation-to-organisation comparison. Actual improvements following benchmarking activitiesarise from the consideration and observation of the processes rather than only fromthe examination of the final outputs.

In order to render a practice transferable and adaptable to ones needs, it has to beunderlined before implementing ithow and why the practice has become asuccessful one. This chapter deals with analysing and describing the chosenbenchmarks identified within the seven regions of NOVAREGIO and selectedduring the evaluation process by regional policy makers and innovation actors fromDecember 2006 until February 2007.

The Strategic Steering Committee agreed on eleven best practices which resulted tobe the most useful and critical ones to support regional innovation activities(benchmarks). Table 3.1 resumes the eleven benchmarks in the order in which theywill be presented in the following sub-chapters including their main success factors.

At first, the regions located in the CEI geographical area are illustrated,subsequently follow the regions situated in the CPMR area. The region FriuliVenezia Giulia as member of both organisations is presented first.


49/200

RTD and innovation Benchmarks

31

Table 3.1 The 11 selected benchmarks in detail

Benchmark Region Area of interest Success Factors

SISTER Friuli VeneziaGiuliaTechnology

Transfer

Proactive working approach toPROs

3 alternatives for technologyexploitation

InnovationNetworkTM

Friuli VeneziaGiulia

TechnologyTransfer

Competence Centres tailored forthe needs of different localproduction areas

Extensive support throughoutentire development- andimplementation process

Relationship consolidation

Baross GaborProgramme

SouthTransdanubia

Entrepreneurship Start-ups

Exhaustive Call for Proposalspreparation (six months)

Project proposal preparation

NOVAREGIO Handbook. Regional RTD & Innovation Policies and Practices

Documents

Transcript of NOVAREGIO Handbook. Regional RTD & Innovation Policies and Practices