Site Logo   Help
Home
Topics
Contact
Impactscan
Scope
Advanced SearchExecute search
 1. Purpose

Taking the generic framework as scope definition in the Regional Innovation System as a starting point, adjustment has been made according to remarks from other partner- regions. Therefore, the framework is modified and customized towards the project.

Moreover, this paper aims to define the concept and terminology in clear and unambiguous way so that the meaning is clear to everyone and misinterpretations are avoided. The adjusted framework and its underlying components should be easy to understand and applicable in each region. However some diversity is likely due to the government structure, policy instruments and Intermediaries system of the specific region.

By seizing all relevant components and their interlinkage, the adjusted framework should provide a complete picture. Translation into impact categories should be made much more easier in order to apply this re-aligned scope definition as the basis for the metrics model (“Indicator set” as work package 5) and the descriptive model (“Context setting” as work package 7).

 

The adjusted framework is now showing a top-down approach towards the operational level (execution of services by the Intermediaries aimed at the SMEs) as well as a bottom- up path to the structural level (policy making and regional evolution).

Interlinkage between components are described and as a second stage, impact assessment and performance measurement cycles are proposed.
 2. Description of the framework: components and their interlinkage
2. Description of the framework: components and their interlinkage

The regional situation is taken into account. Typical indicators are: GDP per capita, GERD, BERD, Birch index of economic growth, percentage of innovative SMEs, patents,…. Specific attention is paid to strong and weak areas. The regional situation encompasses the specific regional context as well as the description of the supply-side and the demand-side because of the scope of this project.

As a consequence to the regional situation, policy-makers will define policy measures, set directives and take actions for regional innovation stimulation. This can happen through a variety of measures: building out the infrastructure, providing funds or developing an Intermediaries model.

In this project the focus is put on the Intermediaries defined as public funded innovation actors deploying a service portfolio to promote and stimulate innovation in the region.

Initiatives of their service portfolio are aiming at: informing companies, providing a solution to a specific innovation problem, matching with a third party for further in-depth assistance, giving advice, carrying out an audit, supporting the development of an innovation plan, providing assistance during the execution of this plan, etc…

The output of the innovation support service “offer” acts as an input to the needs of the target group (“supply matching demand” concept).

The target group consists of all SMEs, not excluding any sectors, both in service as in industry and taking into account start-ups to companies up to 250 employees.

Services from Intermediaries have the objective of stimulating the whole innovation process or parts of it in SMEs. Indeed, the innovation support service can exercise an influence on the innovation strategy and culture, the creation and invention stage, the implementation stage and/or the exploitation stage of the innovation process within the SME.

Effect of a successful innovation process in the SME can be expected in terms of more efficient processes, more adequate organization, appropriate sources of supply, new or improved products, new markets. These innovation dimensions are determining in this project the “definition of innovation” creating value for the SME.

This creation of new value through innovation in SMEs will bring along very likely long-term results as impact: e.g. employment growth, value added and cash flow, growth in export intensity, investment/turnover, …

Aggregation of this impact along the entire target group population will demonstrate the evolution of the regional innovation profile. Typical indicators are: percentage of innovative SMEs, employment in high-tech or knowledge-intensive SMEs, ICT penetration, TQM implementation, venture capital backed SMEs, SMEs participating in Framework Programs, innovation expenditure/turnover, etc ….

The regional situation will reflect the evolution in the regional innovation profile and will provide the context for policy making at regional level.

 
 3. Application of impact assessment and performance measurement cycles

According to the analytical instruments in use and available data as a result, a distinction has to be made between performance measurement systems. At cluster level impact assessment cycles can be defined while at unit level more detailed performance measurement cycles can be developed and made available. Specific attention should be paid to the degree of difficulty in assessing the impact of innovation policies at structural level.

Performance measurement cycles at cluster level

Partner-regions who have neither the tools nor the data at their disposal at unit level in the framework, are enforced to apply the analytical instruments to clusters. Clusters seem to be obvious for most of the partner-regions:

  1.  Impact assessment of Intermediaries (encompassing the loop Intermediaries Services-SME innovation process-Impact)
  2. Correlation of Regional Evolution with Impact
  3. Relation of Regional Evolution to Policy making
  4. Regional innovation scoreboard at NUTS-level 3


Performance measurement systems at unit level

Partner-regions who have been using tools at the unit level of the framework have the required data to make a more detailed analysis on each level:

  1. Measurement of the effectiveness of Intermediaries
  2. Monitoring the services deployed by those Intermediaries
  3. Surveying the innovative behaviour of SMEs
  4. Datawarehouse on Regional Evolution
  5. Regional innovation scoreboard at NUTS-level 3


Impact assessment at structural level

 Seizing the evolution of the regional innovation profile and relating this to the policy making seems not so obvious. From another point of view, it will be quite hard to bring into the picture how policy measures and directives from regional authorities exercise influence for the benefit and the welfare of the regional evolution. Hence a qualitative approach should be considered here to handle the main question of “assessing impact of innovation policies at regional level”.