deliverable: 1.1 report of eu national and regional …...cross-cluster innovation and value...
TRANSCRIPT
This project is funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme of the European Union under grant agreement
no 723630
Deliverable: 1.1
Title: Report of EU national and regional initiatives’ mapping
Lead
beneficiary
inno TSD
Type x R: Document, report
DEM: Demonstrator, pilot, prototype
DEC: Websites, patent fillings, videos etc.
OTHER
ORDP: Open Research Data Pilot
Dissemination
level
x PU: Public
CO: Confidential, only for members of the
consortium (including the Commission Services)
EU_CON: Classified Information: CONFIDENTIEL
UE
EU_RES: Classified Information: RESTREINT UE
EU_SEC: Classified Information: SECRET UE
Due date of
deliverable
M4 (December)
Submission
date
M6 (8 February)
https://clusternanoroad.eu
1
Table of content 1. The ClusterNanoRoad project ....................................................... 4
2. Executive Summary .................................................................... 5
3. Objectives and Methodology ........................................................ 8
4. Regional strategies in Europe with relevance to KETs / NMBP sectors
14
4.1 Platforms on KETs and regional strategies .................................... 14
4.2 Literature review ....................................................................... 17
5. Clusters in Europe with relevance to KETs / NMBP sectors .............. 21
5.1 Cluster mapping tools and collaboration initiatives ......................... 21
5.2 Literature review ....................................................................... 26
6. Mapping of regional strategies with KETs / NMBP and cluster relevance
30
6.1. KETs representation in RIS3 .................................................. 30
6.2. Initiatives with KETs relevance .............................................. 33
Examples of common types of initiatives ......................................... 34
Funding ...................................................................................... 35
Management ............................................................................... 36
Targeted Users ............................................................................ 37
Openness of initiatives to actors from other territories ...................... 38
6.3. Clusters involvement in sectoral initiatives of relevance for the RIS3
39
Types of initiatives involving clusters .............................................. 39
Mapping of initiatives according to their (cross-)sectoral focus ........... 41
7. Conclusions and next steps ......................................................... 51
7.1 Conclusions .............................................................................. 51
7.2 Next steps ................................................................................ 51
8. Annexes ................................................................................... 53
8.1. Mapping of RIS priorities with regards to KETs ......................... 53
8.2. Overview of EU countries’ RIS3 with KETs relevance ................ 59
8.3 Mapping of RIS3 initiatives with KETs relevance and clusters’
implication ..................................................................................... 62
8.3. Literature list....................................................................... 66
https://clusternanoroad.eu
2
8.4. List of interviewees .............................................................. 67
8.5. Online survey questionnaire .................................................. 68
Table of figures
Figure 1: The online survey participants’ structure ................................ 12
Figure 2: Online survey – country representation (sample total: 104) ...... 12
Figure 3: RIS comprising all KETs priorities (source: EYE@RIS, S3 Platform)
....................................................................................................... 15
Figure 4: ECO mapping tool – example of the “cluster stars” indicator ...... 21
Figure 5: Clusters active in Advanced Materials (source: ECCP mapping tool)
....................................................................................................... 23
Figure 6: Clusters active in Advanced Manufacturing Systems (source: ECCP
mapping tool) ................................................................................... 23
Figure 7: Clusters active in Industrial Biotechnology (source: ECCP mapping
tool) ................................................................................................. 24
Figure 8: Clusters active in Nanotechnology (source: ECCP mapping tool) 24
Figure 9: Online survey – types of main initiatives ................................. 34
Figure 10: Management of initiatives .................................................... 37
Figure 11: Target users of the initiatives ............................................... 38
Figure 12: Suggested ways of involving clusters in (regional) initiatives ... 41
Figure 13: RIS comprising Advanced manufacturing systems and Processing
(source: EYE@RIS, S3 Platform) .......................................................... 53
Figure 14: RIS comprising Advanced Materials (source: EYE@RIS, S3
Platform) .......................................................................................... 54
Figure 15: RIS comprising Industrial Biotechnology (source: EYE@RIS, S3
Platform) .......................................................................................... 54
Figure 16: RIS comprising Nanotechnologies (source: EYE@RIS, S3 Platform)
....................................................................................................... 55
Figure 17: Distribution of regions with priorities in Advanced Manufacturing
and Processing (source: Analysis Specialisation Strategies and Regional
Operational Programmes and Linkages with Key Enabling Technologies) ... 56
Figure 18: Distribution of regions with priorities in Advanced Materials
Priorities (source: Analysis Specialisation Strategies and Regional Operational
Programmes and Linkages with Key Enabling Technologies) .................... 57
Figure 19: Distribution of regions with priorities in Nanotechnologies (source:
Analysis Specialisation Strategies and Regional Operational Programmes and
Linkages with Key Enabling Technologies) ............................................. 58
https://clusternanoroad.eu
3
Figure 20: Overview of EU countries and regions with KET sectors in approved
RIS3 (source: ClusterNanoRoad online survey) ...................................... 61
Figure 21: RIS comprising Advanced manufacturing systems and Processing
(source: EYE@RIS, S3 Platform with information from the ClusterNanoRoad
survey) ............................................................................................ 62
Figure 22: RIS comprising Advanced materials (source: EYE@RIS, S3
Platform with information from the ClusterNanoRoad survey) .................. 63
Figure 23: RIS comprising Biotechnology (source: EYE@RIS, S3 Platform with
information from the ClusterNanoRoad survey) ..................................... 64
Figure 24: RIS comprising Nanotechnologies (source: EYE@RIS, S3 Platform
with information from the ClusterNanoRoad survey)............................... 65
https://clusternanoroad.eu
4
1. The ClusterNanoRoad project
ClusterNanoRoad is a 30 months’ project funded by the European Commission
aimed at driving Europe’s NMBP economy (a specific group of Key Enabling
Technologies - KETs, comprising namely Nanotechnologies, Advanced
Materials, Advanced Manufacturing and Processing, and Biotechnology),
cross-cluster innovation and value creation, through validated NMBP
collaborative strategies and roadmap.1 It has the aim to stimulate the uptake
of Key Enabling Technologies into multiple sectors across Europe.
The project will focus on clusters as the portal for enabling technologies to
boost economic growth through smart specialisation. ClusterNanoRoad will
work with stakeholders including cluster managers, intermediaries and policy
makers.
Project mission and activities include:
Mapping initiatives that support enabling technology uptake
Build a network of cross-sectoral clusters for joint activities Identify enabling technology opportunities
Create a roadmap for clusters to implement enabling technologies Pilot actions, with policy maker groups, joint horizon scanning and SME
partnering across clusters and sectors
1 For facilitated reading, the report will in the following speak of KETs instead of
NMBP/KETs. Focus lies on the NMBP sectors that are represented in KETs also,
notably Nanotechnologies, Advanced Materials, Advanced Manufacturing and
Biotechnology.
https://clusternanoroad.eu
5
2. Executive Summary
The principal aim of this report is to present a mapping of national and
regional initiatives, associated to the territories’ Research and
Innovation Smart Specialisation Strategies (RIS3) and Operational
Programmes (OP) across Europe, involving clusters in the initiatives’
planning or set-up.
This report completes the European Commission’s Report “Analysis of Smart
Specialisation Strategies in Nanotechnologies, Advanced Manufacturing and
Process Technologies”2, adding the Biotechnology sector to the scope of the
KETs studied, and most importantly analysing the role of clusters with regards
to the development of the initiatives and instruments put in place for smart
specialisation. The overall aim is to identify trends and synergies and to
facilitate the coordination between the NMBP sectors, the RIS3 and OPs, and
the clusters for more efficient impacts across Europe.
The report methodology was based on a literature review of the topic, an
online-survey carried out to about 700 policy makers and clusters managers
across all Europe and targeted interviews with these two groups (chapter 3).
The report identifies national/regional strategies in Europe with relevance to
the KETs/NMBP sectors in focus. With the help of the EYE@RIS tool on the
Smart Specialisation Platform, the European Union’s regions that have NMBPs
featured as encoded S3 priorities were identified. The analysis indicates the
large EU-28 coverage of the KETs priorities to all European countries,
however revealing its disparate aspect when looking at sectors individually.
It places Advanced Manufacturing Systems and Processing as the dominant
sector followed by Advanced Materials notably found in Western and Central
Europe, Scandinavia and the Baltic Sea states. Priorities with regards to
Industrial Biotechnology are shown to be much more scarce overall and seem
more regionally than nationally implemented, Nanotechnologies being even
less prioritised.
The Smart Specialisation Platform for Industrial Modernisation (S3P-
Industrial Modernisation)3 has already revealed six projects where a number
of EU regions collaborate in KETs related sectors.
2 Analysis of Smart Specialisation Strategies in Nanotechnologies, Advanced
Manufacturing and Process Technologies, EC (2015) 3 This platform aims to support EU regional collaboration for developing a pipeline of
investment projects connected to their RIS3 priority areas related to industrial
modernisation.
https://clusternanoroad.eu
6
In addition to these two platforms, the KETs Observatory is an adequate tool
to find information of any EU country’s performance in a KET sector, based
on a number of criteria such as technology, production, trade, and turnover
(called composite indicators). According to the composite indicators of the
KETs Observatory, the countries performance in each KET depends of its
stage in technology maturity and closeness to market applications. These
composite indicators could be confirmed by significant examples provided by
the ClusterNanoRoad online survey illustrating for instance the positive trends
in the Nanotechnology sector for France and Spain.
In addition to the analysis on RIS3 with KETs relevance, this report provides
an analysis on clusters’ activity in the NMBP sectors – the European
Cluster Collaboration Platform cluster organisation mapping tool4 is a very
good source of information on the territories where clusters can be found in
Europe and the sectors they are active in. The mapping shows for instance
that Advanced Materials and Advanced Manufacturing Systems’ clusters are
found in a quite widespread manner, such as it was the case for the RIS3 in
these sectors, whereas Industrial Biotechnology and Nanotechnology clusters
are much more dispersed in EU territories. In addition, information is
available on the first INNOSUP-1 "Cluster facilitated projects for new
industrial value chains", funded under Horizon2020, out of which several are
related to KET sectors (e.g. KATANA).
This observation therefore lead to the hypothesis that a strong correlation
exists between KET-sector related innovation strategies (RIS3) in
Europe and cluster presence in these sectors and territories. This is
why, on the basis of these two separate elements – the RIS3 and clusters –
an analysis was undertaken to confirm the clusters’ relevance within the
development and implementation of KETs/NMBPs strategies in RIS3.
Results from the ClusterNanoRoad online survey and targeted interviews
allowed for mapping and statistical analysis of the most common types
of initiatives with NMBP sector clusters’ implication in EU regions /
countries. In addition, the analysis provides a wide range of examples of
initiatives that have been implemented and/or planned in different regions
within Europe with interesting outcomes transferable to other sectors or
territories. Reference is also given to cross-sectoral initiatives. Looking at the
interest of clusters in the upcoming European Strategic Cluster Partnerships
for smart specialisation investments (ESCP-S3) that is already visible in the
European Cluster Collaboration Partner Search tool specifically set up on the
4 The European Cluster Collaboration Platform mapping tool allows for search through
a large number of filters; it includes also indicators stemming from the European
Cluster Observatory.
https://clusternanoroad.eu
7
ESCP-S3 call, lets already expect some cluster-lead initiatives related to KET
sectors and RIS3.
On the basis of the online survey conducted in this analysis, four maps
exposing the main initiatives resulting from KETs/NMBPs strategies in RIS3
and highly implicating clusters for each sector, have been developed. They
can be found in the chapter 8.3 of the Annexes. These maps should, as
the online survey results, not be considered as a comprehensive mapping of
existing initiatives, but they can provide a good overview on trends. They
reflect cluster initiatives for each NMBP sector in Europe, these generally
being correlated to the European regions with encoded S3 priorities in the
corresponding sector, as shown in the analysis.
In conclusion, this analysis is a first step towards a better understanding of
the linkages between RIS3 strategies and Operational Programmes,
NMBP/KETs and clusters. It has been possible to identify trends and
successful practices transferable to other territories. A more detailed
and specific approach will be provided by ClusterNanoRoad in a second step
through a benchmarking guide on good practices, followed by the preparation
and validation of a roadmap, and finally pilot actions for cluster-driven
collaborative strategies. The results will therefore be a building block for the
project activity regarding ROADMAPPING: Value Chains and Clusters to Help
Regional Policies.
https://clusternanoroad.eu
8
3. Objectives and Methodology
In order to serve the overall project objective of facilitating a KETs uptake in
European industries, notably facilitated through cluster initiatives and thus
creating a European roadmap, this specific report aims at identifying and
mapping KET key initiatives and novel approaches, as well as success
factors and main challenges in existing interactions between clusters
and Research Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3).
It has specifically for purpose to review RIS3 strategies and related
initiatives with relevance to KET sectors that have been facilitated
by clusters.
This report does not aim to present a comprehensive mapping with
exhaustive listing of the overall European KETs related initiatives involving
clusters, but to present some overview and present case examples that can
serve for illustration. The aim is thus to bring together the three main
informative elements: RIS3 strategies in Europe, KET sector
relevance and implication of clusters.
The results will help to define success criteria that can be used to identify
approaches to programming synergies, to replicate such processes and
support the competitiveness of SMEs and encourage co-investment
opportunities - to be subsequently tested, validated and shared in future
project work.
In order to seek the mapping information as outlined above, the following
stakeholders have been involved in the information gathering: policymakers
on regional and sometimes national level including regional development
agencies, cluster managers, networks, as well as some R&D institutes and
companies with relevant activity with regard to either KETs, clusters or
regional strategies.
It should be noted that not all definitions on KETs are consistent both in
literature and the understanding of stakeholders. In addition, this analysis
report includes chapters that rely on data gathered through certain platforms,
such as the Smart Specialisation Platform, which is not completely kept up to
date concerning regional S3 developments.
The report relies on the following methodology steps:
1. Desk research with literature review on existing reports related to
RIS3, KETs sector information and clusters in Europe. This serves as a
solid and factual basis with relevance to the topic in question.
https://clusternanoroad.eu
9
2. An online survey as the principal means for the collection of up to
date quantitative information in addition to the literature review. A
web-questionnaire has thus been developed and addressed to policy
makers and cluster managers throughout all 28 European Union
Member States (MS) with activity in KET sectors. It was intended to let
them share information on the different ways of setting up and
implementing KETs related successful initiatives and on the role
clusters played in the process.
3. 13 phone or face-to-face interviews have been conducted to
complement data gathered through methodology steps 1 and 2. These
were aimed at providing more qualitative insights into information
announced notably via the online questionnaire and to gather
information with regards to additional initiatives in a given territory.
The methodology steps have been undertaken as follows:
Literature review:
The desk research with literature review aimed at the analysis of
publications and online sources with regards to Smart Specialisation
Strategies or Operational Programmes, taking into account both publications
on regional strategies or general analysis reports.
More specifically, the reports analysed included the following documents:
- The publication of the “Analysis of Smart Specialization Strategies in
Nanotechnologies, Advanced Manufacturing and Process Technologies”
report by the European Commission, a main basis for the literature
review as well as the online survey set up that was developed to build
upon this preliminary analysis. The actual aim of this ClusterNanoRoad
mapping is to bring an update to further develop this document by
including the dimension on clusters and focusing on NMBP sectors
included in KETs, adding some specificities to this last report.
- Documents and tools found on the S3 platform such as the SYNTHESIS
OF THE RESEARCH & INNOVATION STRATEGIES FOR SMART
SPECIALISATION OF FRENCH REGIONS, the EYE@RIS3 and the KETS
Observatory.
- Reports by the European Commission such as a Study on cross-cutting
KETs (Ro-cKETs) (2014) or Guide to Research and Innovation
Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3 Guide).
- Reports by the European Commission such as a Study on cross-cutting
KETs (Ro-cKETs) (2014) or Guide to Research and Innovation
Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3 Guide).
- Smart Guide to Cluster Policy – from the Guidebook series ‘How to
support SME policy from Structural Funds
https://clusternanoroad.eu
10
- Guide to Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisations
(RIS 3), May 2012 Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European
Union, 2012 ISBN: 978-92-79-25094-1 doi:10.2776/65746
- Exchange of good policy practices promoting the industrial uptake and
deployment of Key Enabling Technologies (2012); European
Commission, Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry,
Entrepreneurship and SMEs.
- Mapping the regional embeddedness of the FP7 NMBP programme Final
report of project ‘RTD-NMP-2014-Mapping’ ISBN 978-92-79-57726-0
(2016)
- Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes 20072013 financed
by the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund,
WP2 support to SMEs, increasing research and innovation in SMEs and
SME development, No 2014CE16BAT002) CONTRACT NUMBER:
2014CE16BAT002 (2014)
All literature sources used in this report can be found in the Annexes, chapter
8.4
Online Survey:
The main purpose of the online survey was to collect quantitative data from
various stakeholders and to allow the collection of information on the
interface of the three elements – RIS3, KETs sectors, cluster involvement –
that are not currently analysed in existing reports.
The contact database used for the dissemination of the survey was elaborated
on the basis of two distinctive existing databases:
- The first one covering more than 450 unique and actual contacts
of policy-makers was retrieved from the last “Smart
Specialisation Strategies and Regional Operational Programmes
and Linkages with Key Enabling Technologies” report’s online
survey, providing the advantage of having the list of recipients
that had already been part of the first study and constituting as
such more reliable participant targets of this survey. To this
database were added about 50 additional contacts from regions
involved in the Vanguard Initiative, retrieved from the list made
publicly available on the website of the Vanguard Initiative.
- The second database comprised cluster managers and was
established in the framework of the European Cluster
Collaboration Platform (ECCP) project that kindly supported the
outreach to 240+ clusters active in sectors with relevance to the
https://clusternanoroad.eu
11
KETs. To this database were added contacts from
industrial/business associations as well as relevant networks
with similar activities as clusters.
Both types of databases were cleaned to avoid double contacts or out-of-date
contacts by the ClusterNanoRoad team. In addition, personal networks
among policymakers and cluster managers were addressed by the project
partners directly. Overall more than 700 contacts of policy makers and
clusters covering the EU 28 were contacted.
The survey questionnaire was designed to ensure a wide coverage of
elements relevant to the analysis topic, including multiple choice questions
wherever possible to ensure user-friendliness and facilitated analysis of
answers. 28 questions distributed in 5 groups of questions were drafted to
cover all aspects of the links between Smart Specialisation Strategies and
Regional Operational Programmes, KETs/NMBP initiatives and clusters’
involvement.
After its validation by project partners and the European Commission, the
questionnaire was then programmed using the limesurvey tool.
The survey was launched on 28th October and remained open/available until
the 28th November 2016. The invitations to participate in the survey were
sent as an email message containing an open-access link; information was
equally published on the ClusterNanoRoad project website, as well as
disseminated through a news article on the ECCP. The survey, largely
disseminated to the policy maker and cluster community in the EU, obtained
answers from participants totalling 104, fulfilling our project milestone target
of exceeding the 100 participants. Of this total, 76 answers were entirely
completed. The 28 remaining answers were all exploitable not only as a basis
for the statistics but also as sources of potential interview contacts for follow-
up.
Overall, the main categories of participants were as follows: 22 policy
makers out of which 21 are regional authorities, 34 cluster managers as well
as 16 managers of “other cluster organisations” not mandated by a regional
authority (cluster associations, cluster management organisations), 10
networks mostly oriented towards technology (e.g. ERRIN) and 9 Technology
and R&D centres, agencies and/or platforms. Globally, the online survey
respondents represent approximatively 22% of policy makers opposed to
48% of cluster managers, completed by “other types of organisations”.
https://clusternanoroad.eu
12
Figure 1: The online survey participants’ structure
With regards to the origin of survey respondents, strong representation can
be found of countries such as Belgium, Spain, Italy, Romania, and Portugal.
Figure 2: Online survey – country representation (sample total: 104)
20,19%
0,96%
32,69%9,62%
4,81%
8,65%
15,38%
5,77% 1,92%
Participants status
Regional authority
Policy maker (other than regional authority)
Cluster manager mandated by regional authority
Network
National Institute (R&D)
Technology and R&D other organisations (centers, agencies, parks, platforms)
Other types of clusters ( cluster organisations, clusters not mandated by regional authority)
Industries, companies, NGOs
Universities
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Au
stri
a
Bel
giu
m
Bu
lgar
ia
Cro
atia
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Den
mar
k
Esto
nia
Fin
lan
d
Fran
ce
Ge
rman
y
Gre
ece
Hu
nga
ry
Irel
and
Ital
y
Latv
ia
Lith
uan
ia
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Mal
ta
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Po
lan
d
Po
rtu
gal
Ro
man
ia
Slo
vaki
a
Spai
n
Swed
en
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Icel
and
Slo
ven
ia
No
an
swe
r
Countries represented
https://clusternanoroad.eu
13
All answers received were treated completely confidentially according to the
EC rules of privacy.
The full survey questionnaire can be found in Annex 8.6.
Interviews
On the basis of the online survey respondents, 13 interviews have been
conducted face-to-face or via phone to complete answers and gather new
elements, notably with regards to initiatives planned or implemented in the
different territories and relevant to the KETs sector(-s), involving clusters.
The choice of interviewees was mainly done taking into account their
responses to the online survey – having given hints to additional elements
that could not be completed via the questionnaire but finally easily gathered
in the interview. In addition, it became possible to have a good country
coverage, as well as balance between cluster managers and policy makers
interviewed. Out of the overall 13 interviews, 3 have been conducted with
policy makers and 10 with cluster managers.
The list of interviewees can be found in Annex 8.5.
The report is structured into three main chapters, starting with an
overview on regional strategies in Europe with relevance to the KETs sectors
in focus (chapter 4). After the mapping of the RIS3, chapter 5 provides an
overview on the existence of clusters in these sectors throughout Europe.
Chapter 6 then synthesises the information of the two previous chapters and
provides more in-depth insight into cluster-driven activity and notably
initiatives that support RIS3 in KETs sectors. Whereas chapters 4 and 5 are
mainly based on literature review (including web sources), chapter 6 is
notably relying on information stemming from the online survey and
complementary interviews.
https://clusternanoroad.eu
14
4. Regional strategies in Europe with
relevance to KETs / NMBP sectors
Research Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation have been designed
throughout Europe in order to help structuring regional actions towards an
innovation uptake and specialisation on strategic focus areas. By definition,
they have been designed through a bottom-up approach, taking into account
the stakeholders of the different territories (namely regions), their existing
strengths and the territory’s innovation potential.
4.1 Platforms on KETs and regional strategies
KETs are part of regional sector strengths all over Europe. Indeed, the
KETs Observatory is an adequate tool to find information of any EU country’s
performance in a KET sector, based on a number of criteria such as
technology, production, trade, and turnover (called composite indicators).
According to the composite indicators of the KETs Observatory, the countries’
performance in each KET depends of its stage in technology maturity and
closeness to market applications. This source supports that in Advanced
Manufacturing Technology for instance, Germany and Italy are among the
leaders in technology, production and trade. In Advanced Materials, Belgium
and Germany perform strongly according to the composite indicators,
whereas other countries present strength only in one of the indicators. This
is the same in Industrial Biotechnology: Denmark is the leading country for
the technology, production and trade composite indicator. France shows a
strong performance for production and trade, but to a lower extent for
technology. Hungary, Portugal, and Poland are in the TOP 10 for technology,
but have not yet been able to transfer their technology developments in
industrial applications and trade. Countries like Romania, Estonia, and Czech
Republic show the weakest performance in Industrial Biotechnology with
regard to all three dimensions. In Nanotechnology, Spain is by far the leading
country for technology, production and trade composite indicators. This is
noteworthy as many countries performing well for production and trade are
generally less successful for technology (e.g. Poland, the Netherlands,
Sweden, and Austria) and the other way round (e.g. Czech Republic and
Romania).
This effort in technology can also be measured by the significant number of
KET technology centers dispersed throughout Europe, which aim to undertake
applied research and innovation in KETs. An interactive map is available and
reveals the concentrations of these centers in different parts of Europe.
https://clusternanoroad.eu
15
In order to identify the regions or countries were KET sectors are part of
smart specialisation strategies, a main tool is the EYE@RIS tool on the
Smart Specialisation Platform (S3 Platform). It allows users to identify the
European Union’s regions that have NMBPs featured as encoded S3 priorities.
The EYE@RIS tools allows for sector-specific mapping which is displayed in
the Annexes and mapping with regards to all six KET priorities at once which
is displayed in figure 3 below.
Figure 3: RIS comprising all KETs priorities (source: EYE@RIS, S3 Platform)
https://clusternanoroad.eu
16
The map in figure 3 shows that KET sectors are a priority in a large majority
of EU regions / territories. This said, it should be noted that the information
displayed in the tool is based on data integrated by the platform’s operators,
not by the regions/ territories themselves, so for some territories data seems
to be missing (e.g. for England and Scotland) or is not updated with regards
to the S3, so the information given should be handled with care, even though
it provides a good overview.
What can specifically be noted is that RIS3 priorities in KETs seem to be
defined on a regional level in most Western, Central, South and Northern
European Member States, whereas they are rather defined on a country level
in a number of Eastern European countries, the Baltic Sea states, as well as
the Republic of Ireland.
Despite the very large EU-28 coverage of the KETs priorities when looking at
the summary map (figure 3), the sector coverage is much more disparate
when looking at each sector individually (see maps in Annex 8.1): Advanced
Manufacturing Systems and Processing are dominant in Central, Northern and
Eastern European territories, Advanced Materials can be found notably in
Western and Central Europe, Scandinavia and the Baltic Sea states. Priorities
with regards to Industrial Biotechnology are more scarce overall and appear
more regionally than nationally implemented, Nanotechnologies being even
less prioritized. However, as said before, this is the information as displayed
on the platform tool.
Another interesting tool is the Industrial Modernisation Platform, which aims
at supporting the EU regions in the development of investment projects in
RIS3 priority areas related to industrial modernisation. It already counts six
partnership projects (pilot projects, large scale demonstrators): ADMA
Energy, Bio-economy, Efficient and Sustainable Manufacturing, High
Performance Production through 3D-Printing, New nano-enabled Products,
and finally Smart Regional Investments in Textile Innovation. Several of these
projects are obviously related to KET sectors which confirms the relevance of
these sectors for regional smart specialisation initiatives.
Within the framework of the Vanguard initiative (new growth through smart
specialisation)5, a large number of regions are involved in collaboration
projects related to European priority areas out of which KETs. “The Vanguard
Initiative seeks to lead for example in developing interregional cooperation
and multi-level governance for supporting clusters and regional eco-systems
5 The Vanguard Initiative (VI) is an Interregional cooperation platform initiated by a
group of 30 European regions. See here for more information:
http://www.s3vanguardinitiative.eu/
https://clusternanoroad.eu
17
to focus on smart specialisations in priority areas for transforming and
emerging industries.”6
Within technologies relevant to ClusterNanoRoad, two pilot projects of the
Vanguard Initiative can be highlighted:
High Performance Production through 3D-Printing: 22 regions are
working to create a network of industry-led demonstrators to improve
uptake of 3D printing solutions
New nano-enabled Products: 12 regions came together to identify
priorities for regional collaboration, including nanowires in ICT and
energy applications, integrated bio-nano systems and printed nano
electronics
Additionally, the “Analysis of Smart Specialization Strategies in
Nanotechnologies, Advanced Manufacturing and Process Technologies” report
by the European Commission, had provided maps for the regions with
encoded priorities for the sectors of Advanced Manufacturing and Processing,
Advanced Materials and Nanotechnologies. The maps provide a comparison
between results stemming from the EYE@RIS tool and the survey undertaken
in the project that undertook the analysis. All three maps can be found in the
Annexes, chapter 8.1.
4.2 Literature review
Assessment of KET development and implementation is an ongoing process,
as the literature demonstrates. Publications can be found that address all
aspects of KET performance within regions.
Analysis of Smart Specialisation Strategies in
Nanotechnologies, Advanced Manufacturing and Process
Technologies (2015) ISBN 978-92-79-45075-4
This extensive report resulted from the study "Analysis of Smart
Specialisation Strategies in Nanotechnologies, Advanced Manufacturing and
Process Technologies", undertaken on behalf of DG Research and Innovation,
Key Enabling Technologies Directorate. It reviews the field as a whole and
concludes with policy recommendations. Its aims were to identify
national/regional priorities, strategies and budgets linked to KETs, in order to
analyse trends, commonalities, striking features amongst the priorities,
instruments and funding volumes, and finally, to identify synergies and
bottlenecks between H2020/LEIF and Structural Funds KETs priorities. The
study also aimed to facilitate the efficient coordination of financial
6 http://www.s3vanguardinitiative.eu/ambitions
https://clusternanoroad.eu
18
instruments between the relevant responsible administrations at EU, national
and regional level.
A selection of recommendations for policy makers from the report includes:
Opportunities should be taken to further enhance the efficiency
and effectiveness of RIS3, with a systematic approach devised
to coordinate financial instruments and monitor regions’
performances in RDI policies and programmes, significantly
helping to reduce funding bottlenecks and create greater
synergies between project partners
The preparation of a set of KET Categories/typologies and
common indicators would help RIS3 actors better understand
their scope and the opportunities for synergies with their sector
specialisations. This enhanced understanding and transparency
would facilitate later synergies with H2020.
Technology actors (KET actors at the EU and MS/regional level)
need to play a proactive role in disseminating relevant
information to RIS3 and OP actors. A mix of bottom up and top
down actions should be implemented to enhance understanding.
Policy makers should organise and facilitate the provision of
additional training on state aid and financing of KETs (including
rules of financing demonstration and pilot projects and
infrastructures) through ESIF
The EC might launch a type of Regional Pilot or Demonstrator
call asking for expressions of interest from “model KET/RIS3
regions”. The results could then provide practical results for use
by other regions.
Specific funding incentives could be provided to stimulate take
up or launch pilot initiatives with SMEs and selected KETs.
Public procurement initiatives also represent an interesting
mechanism for supporting KET development or helping SMEs to
participate in procurement processes that reflect regional
priorities
Policy actors should continue to proactively target key actors and
users of KETs such as SMEs and intermediary actors such as
technology transfer agencies, business networks and clusters to
enhance take up.
Greater synergies with the research community should be
developed following these RIS3 actions
New initiatives and the funding rules of Horizon 2020 necessitate
inter regional cooperation and perhaps a greater emphasis can
be placed on this need, using tools including Interreg etc.
Greater inter regional cooperation between strong and weak RDI
regions is a potential mechanism
https://clusternanoroad.eu
19
A mechanism for the coordination of financial instruments and
raising awareness could be devised to improve the
management, performance and efficiency of the synergies
between Horizon 2020 programme and ESIF Funds
A number of these recommendations are pertinent to ClusterNanoRoad and
will be used in the creation of pilot activities and the roadmap.
An analysis of drivers, barriers and readiness factors of EU
companies for adopting advanced manufacturing products and
technologies (2016) ISBN 978-92-79-64467-2
This report is highly relevant to ClusterNanoRoad and KETs, as it assesses
the uptake of advanced manufacturing technologies into Europe’s different
sectors within manufacturing. KETs are core to this ambition. It’s policy
recommendations target both general headlines but also specific actions. The
recommendations are based on challenges identified and opportunities that
arise. Challenges include:
Fragmentation of policy actions
Limited number of initiatives for uptake of AMT in SMEs
Difficulty in accessing pilot infrastructure
Lack of mid-range universities linked to SMEs
Opportunities linked to challenges are then presented:
Training programmes for AMT
Suitable intermediaries in the regions
Vouchers and innovation assistants as effective tools at regional level
public-private partnership approaches
Extra-European practices as benchmarks for Europe
Improvement actions are then distilled from detailed analysis of challenges:
Provide suitable resources for uptake to address financial and funding
issues that are specific to AMT in the light of the SMEs' peculiarities
Achieve better qualification for uptake to address competence and
skills issues in SMEs, as well as service offering issues (considering that
also service providers should achieve a better qualification level);
Create new frameworks and infrastructure for cooperation in uptake to
address technology issues affecting the uptake process by SMEs and
supply chain cooperation issues;
Create diffused and efficient networks of service provision to address
service offering issues policy framework issues;
Improve political framework to address policy framework issues
https://clusternanoroad.eu
20
ClusterNanoRoad can draw from these recommendations to enable
clusters to create platforms for KET uptake support.
Roadmap for cross-cutting KETs activities in Horizon 2020
(2014) ISBN 978-92-79-36383-2
This document, from 2014 identifies the most promising areas of innovation
for cross-cutting KETs that address clear industrial and market needs in a
broad number of industrial sectors. This supports ClusterNanoRoad work as
it helps the project to create cross-sectoral activities between clusters where
the economic impact is likely to be highest. The report is too detailed for full
analysis in this report but provides clear indication of good cross-sectoral
matchmaking for KETs, with examples from the healthcare chapter including:
Devices and systems for targeted diagnostics and personalized
medicine - addressing the market need for improved rapid, safe
and cheap diagnostics, cross-cutting KETs might be instrumental
for the development of portable Point-of-Care (POC) devices
(H.1.4) and test kits for instant diagnoses based on
microfluidics, bio-sensors and/or arrays.
More efficient and less invasive drugs and therapies: the
combination of KETs could be beneficial in the short term is the
development of improved delivery systems, surface coatings and
coating techniques for drugs
Smart systems and robots for healthcare services: leverage the
crossfertilization between KETs in the medium term for improved
robots supporting professional care
This report provides a well-researched foundation for clusters to identify KETs
matchmaking during ClusterNanoRoad.
https://clusternanoroad.eu
21
5. Clusters in Europe with relevance to KETs /
NMBP sectors
Clusters are major facilitators for territorial development: they bring together
triple helix actors from a same geographic location and on a common topic,
mostly with common sector-focus (or cross-sectoral focus). Clusters are thus
important entry points for gathering from bottom-up information in a region,
for example, as they have insight knowledge into industrial value chains and
their members’ needs and strengths. This is why they can be important
players for the definition and implementation of smart specialisation
strategies.
5.1 Cluster mapping tools and collaboration initiatives
The European Cluster Observatory (ECO) tool can help localising the “cluster
stars”, which are geographical concentrations of actors in a certain sector.
The map below shows an example in the sector of Biopharmaceuticals – the
one being the closest to the NMBP sectors. KET sectors are not specifically
included in the mapping tool.
Figure 4: ECO mapping tool – example of the “cluster stars” indicator
https://clusternanoroad.eu
22
However, in order to get a good overview of innovation clusters existing in
Europe and their sectoral focus, one major tool emerges, the European
Cluster Collaboration Platform (ECCP) with its mapping tool. The mapping
tool relies on data stemming from cluster organisations themselves which are
invited to set up a virtual profile on the platform which is the basis for the
mapping. Currently almost 500 clusters have registered on the platform. The
mapping tool allows for filtering of information with regards to sectoral
industries, emerging industries, technology fields, S3 EU priority areas and
many more. It also includes information stemming from the indicators
identified by the European Cluster Observatory mapping, such as the “cluster
stars”.
The following figures (figure 5 and following) provide an overview on clusters’
geographic location per KET sector of relevance individually7. However,
information here must be equally taken as an indicative data: clusters being
invited to profile themselves, the ECCP database is not all comprehensive yet,
so there are certainly cluster organisations existing in the sectors which might
not be displayed on the maps. In addition, the platform focalising on “quality
cluster profiles”, a number of organisations might exist throughout Europe
that claim themselves “clusters” even though they do not correspond to the
ECCP’s definition of it and are thus not allowed to profile on the platform.
Nevertheless, the maps shown below allow for a first analysis as follows:
Advanced Materials and Advanced Manufacturing Systems’ clusters can be
found in a quite widespread manner, whereas Industrial Biotechnology and
Nanotechnology clusters are much more dispersed in EU territories.
7 For the purpose of this chapter, the filter “S3 EU priority areas” has been applied:
indeed, KETs are part of the options that cluster organisations can select here when
profiling on the platform. However, each of the KET sectors needs to be selected
individually which does not make it possible to show an overall map of KETs priorities
in clusters (as done via the S3 Platform in chapter 4).
https://clusternanoroad.eu
23
Figure 5: Clusters active in Advanced Materials (source: ECCP mapping tool)
Figure 6: Clusters active in Advanced Manufacturing Systems (source: ECCP mapping tool)
https://clusternanoroad.eu
24
Figure 7: Clusters active in Industrial Biotechnology (source: ECCP mapping tool)
Figure 8: Clusters active in Nanotechnology (source: ECCP mapping tool)
https://clusternanoroad.eu
25
It can also be noted that in addition to the clusters displayed on the mapping
tool when applying the filter “KETs” as done above, a number of other cluster
organisations are possibly in one or several of the KET sectors. Notably the
KETs “advanced manufacturing” has by definition a transversal character and
clusters with focus on any industrial sector could possibly comprise activity
that relates to this KETs. As an indication, can be taken the database from
the ECCP for the dissemination of invitations to the online survey that
included 240+ contacts. The mapping per KET sector as displayed above only
shows a part of these clusters - only as far as they have themselves filled
their profile with the sector indication “KETs”.
Looking at existing cluster collaboration in Europe with relevance to KET
sectors, the INNOSUP-1 initiatives, funded in the framework of the first
H2020 call “Cluster facilitated projects for new industrial value chains"
(2015), appear of utmost relevance: These projects aim at developing new
cross-sectoral chains across the European Union based on the innovation
potential of SMEs. Two of the currently six selected projects concern
specifically the NMBP-sectors: SuperBIO within the biotechnology sector and
KATANA for Advanced Manufacturing and Processing. A number of new
initiatives are expected to emerge from recent (2016) and upcoming similar
Horizon2020 calls.
The NMP-Reg Project (funded by the Interreg Europe program), which main
objective is to improve regional policies for delivery of innovation in NMP to
the manufacturing sector can also be mentioned in that frame. This project
has for goal to promote exchanges of experiences and good practices in a
context of interregional activities with a strong stakeholder engagement
(clusters, industrial players, regional authorities etc.). The action plans are
constituted of the improvement of policy instruments, more and better
targeted funding, with leverage effect in mobilising private funding; new or
improved models for innovation delivery thanks to cooperation across the
regional innovation chain. Along with the ClusterNanoRoad project, the
expected long-term impact is the creation of a regional system that can
support the manufacturing sector in applying NMP research to create new
products / services and promote a market for improved and cost efficient
products.
In addition, a large number of clusters has already expressed interest in the
upcoming European Strategic Cluster Partnerships for smart specialisation
investments (ESCP-S3). Here, the clear involvement of clusters in RIS3
becomes specifically visible. In order to help the form strategic alliances, the
European Cluster Collaboration Partner Search tool has specifically been set
up on the ESCP-S3 call and it lets already expect some cluster-lead initiatives
related to KET sectors and RIS3: several specific exchanges in the tool
https://clusternanoroad.eu
26
concern Advanced manufacturing systems (currently 4 partnership
demands), as well as Industrial biotechnology (1).
Furthermore, the modern industrialisation initiatives mentioned in chapter
4.1 are (with interest for future S3 cluster partnerships) revealing a potential
for future joint projects (Bio-economy, new nano-enabled products) where
clusters certainly will contribute.
5.2 Literature review
Key publications have been issued on the topic of the role of clusters in the
support of emerging technologies and smart specialisation.
Smart Guide to Cluster Policy, Guidebook series How to support
SME policy from Structural Funds (2016) ISBN 9789279529757 ISSN
19776624 doi:10.2873/48105
This comprehensive publication reviews all aspects of the positioning of
clusters as a conduit for the implementation of SME policies. It covers clearly
defined topics such as the cluster position throughout the policy process,
instruments to support cluster policies and monitoring of actions.
It correctly identifies the barriers to cluster manager operations in the past
when trying to support SMEs, including:
• Cluster programmes at different levels of government (EU,
macroregional, national, regional, and local) are often
uncoordinated and pursued in parallel
• disconnected from other, more traditional policies
• narrowly focused on networking
• spread support too thinly
• lacked the ‘entrepreneurial discovery’ aspect
• designed with little regard for the specific locational context
It undertakes a review of the historical role of clusters within regional
economic development, including the observations above, and uses them to
create a set of principles for design of successful cluster programmes,
including:
Focus for funding: identifying clusters in existing specialised areas and
also regions where there are opportunities for new economic growth.
These are different and need to be approached with cluster tools
https://clusternanoroad.eu
27
differently. ‘Strengthening the strengths’ is a key quote, for cluster
focus where policies should not assume that growth can be achieved
in all sectors, rather they should understand where additional value
can be added
Providing the funding: The publication stresses the need to avoid focus
on firms in a single cluster but instead target firms from related sectors
that can work together for smart specialisation. Where cluster
management is being funded, an exit strategy should be foreseen, very
much like an early stage company development plan.
Maximise inclusion of the value chain: Collaborations early in the
development chain are often between organisations with less capability
for final commercialisation. It is critical to include later stages in the
chain including customers.
Monitoring and evaluation: Public funds are scarce and regular
monitoring and adaptation if needed should be a feature.
Analysis of Smart Specialisation Strategies in
Nanotechnologies, Advanced Manufacturing and Process
Technologies Final report ISBN 978-92-79-45075-4 (2015)
This report focussed primarily on Europe-wide smart specialisation but
contained an analysis of the distribution of KETs (in this case nanotechnology)
across regions. Regions active in nanotechnology from a smart specialisation
perspective had a primary focus on materials and devices, with a recognition
that safety assessment is also an economic opportunity within emerging
technologies.
Mapping the regional embeddedness of the FP7 NMBP
programme Final report of project ‘RTD-NMP-2014-Mapping’ ISBN
978-92-79-57726-0 (2016)
Policy recommendations related to regional aspects of NMBP participation
were highlighted in the report, with hotspots of participation centered where
clusters would be. Comments included;
Consider the use of regional funding instruments for funding
collaboration projects between local actors (especially SMEs) and
organisations involved in on-going or recently terminated EU-funded
projects (either Research and Technological Organisations or Industrial
companies) either from the same region or country, or even from
different countries, with the purpose of transferring knowledge and
technology
https://clusternanoroad.eu
28
Regions participate to a higher degree in NMBP projects if they are
specialised on Key Enabling Technologies (KETs), if they have strong
scientific, economic and industrial hubs, if a regional support
infrastructure is in place that provides both information about funding
opportunities and procedures, help research organisations and
enterprises in setting up, and administering research projects, and if
the present actors have the capacity to coordinate large pan-European
projects.
Recommendations were targeted at regions with low participation and the
role of clusters and cluster organisations would be key. The following are
selected recommendations where clusters are highlighted:
Regional research centres (cluster organisations) could be a catalyser
for mobilising and promoting industrial participation
Ensure efficient networking among regional actors – this is the core
activity within cluster development
Innovation-driven Growth in Regions: The Role of Smart
Specialisation, OECD report, 2013
This wide-ranging report featured clusters throughout as part of the smart
specialisation aspect of regional growth. It included a detailed review of the
Flanders cluster and the role that the cluster organisation, FlandersBio played
in commercialisation of work by imec. Recommendations included:
Need for strong lead actors - imec formed an early driving force for
technology development
Level of self-organisation – the actors have to be proactive, it cannot
be driven by facilitators
Extensive basis of value added resources – there needs to be a diverse
range of players with differing capabilities
Governance challenges – where support crosses policy boundaries,
goverance needs to be well aligned
Methodological tools – the development of methodological tools across
the actors involved is important to ensure.
Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes 20072013
financed by the European Regional Development Fund and the
Cohesion Fund, WP2 support to SMEs, increasing research and innovation
in SMEs and SME development, No 2014CE16BAT002) CONTRACT NUMBER:
2014CE16BAT002 (2014)
https://clusternanoroad.eu
29
The previous European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund
programming period demonstrated that the promotion of networking through
clusters has been ‘among the most successful instruments’ for supporting
innovation in SMEs and nurturing their development, even if instruments of
this type represented only a small proportion of those introduced during the
programming period.
https://clusternanoroad.eu
30
6. Mapping of regional strategies with KETs /
NMBP and cluster relevance
When comparing the mapping of chapters 4 and 5, i.e. the distribution of
sector specialisations in the RIS3 and the clusters active in those territories
in Europe, it appears that there is a strong overlap. Even though data has
to be handled with care (see explanations in chapters 4 and 5), this shows
that innovation strategies and clusters are both based on territories’ existing
strengths – and that there is potential for interaction, i.e. for the
involvement of clusters in the set up or implementation of innovation
strategies.
The following sub-chapters present an analysis of the data stemming from
the ClusterNanoRoad online survey and additional qualitative interviews,
taking as basis the literature review, as well as the information on existing
online platforms / tools and collaboration initiatives presented in the chapters
4 and 5. Maps indicating the existence of the main initiatives highly
involving clusters for each NMBP sector in European regions that result
from the survey’s recollection of data can be found in the Annexes, chapter
8.3 (figures 21 - 24).
6.1. KETs representation in RIS3
The map of Figure 3 (chapter 4) shows that the KETs Encoded S3 Priorities
are present all over Europe and pretty much generalised to all the EU
countries. The regions with strong specialisation focus, e.g. Galicia in Spain,
were also identified as such by the respondents of the online survey. As
complementary source of information, the survey outcomes helped us
identifying tendencies per region regarding the specific NMBP sectors. For
instance, the majority of the participants coming from Galicia indicated their
region’s specialisation in the sectors of Biotechnology and Advanced
Manufacturing and Processing - a fact that is also observable in the RIS3
maps of these sectors.
An overview table of all regions and countries represented in the
ClusterNanoRoad online survey results is presented in the Annexes,
chapter 8.2: the table shows the relevance of each of the KET sectors in
the RIS3 of the region / country.
The survey underlines and confirms the ranking of the most dominant
KET in RIS3 priorities as being Advanced Manufacturing systems and
https://clusternanoroad.eu
31
Processing (24,05%) along with Advanced Materials (24,05%), confirming
these two sectors’ strong presence as also detected in the EYE@RIS tool (see
chapter 4). It is then followed closely by Biotechnology (23,28%) and
Nanotechnology comes in last (20,23%) even though staying reasonably high
compared to the literature review’s indications. When comparing these results
to the report “Analysis of Smart Specialisation Strategies in
Nanotechnologies, Advanced Manufacturing and Process Technologies” in
2014, small differences can be perceived: in this analysis, a total of 21% of
the regions indicated an Advanced Materials RIS3 priority, 19% identified
Advanced Manufacturing and Processing RIS3 priorities, followed by
Industrial Biotechnology (18%), and Nanotechnology (16%). Whilst the order
has not changed and the Nanotechnology seems to persist in lagging behind,
some differences in the proportions can be perceived, Advanced
Manufacturing and Processing having obviously kept up with Advanced
Materials since this previous study was conducted.
Figure 7: NMBP priorities comprised in the ClusterNanoRoad online survey participants’ RIS3
According to the survey results, 15 participants representing 14% of the
answers indicated not being aware of the RIS3 priorities in their territory.
They are 5 cluster managers, 1 large industry, 4 networks, 2 universities, 2
regional authorities and 1 “other”. These participants therefore were
redirected to the last section of the online survey and are not included in the
analysis of some of the following diagrams for which they did not give any
answer.
Thus, it seems that the majority of cluster managers and policy makers
are aware of the RIS3 NMBP specialisations of their territory.
20,23%
23,28%
24,05%
24,05%
2,67% 5,73%
RIS3/NMBP
Nanotechnology Biotechnology
Advanced materials Advanced Manufacturing systems and Processing
None Not completed or Not displayed
https://clusternanoroad.eu
32
As said before, the survey respondents confirmed what was already visible in
the analysis of RIS3 specialisations (chapter 4)8: specialisation strategies on
the sectors of Advanced Materials and Advanced Manufacturing and
Processing are much more widespread in Europe as those for Biotechnology
and Nanotechnology. Indeed, the sector of Advanced Materials seems to be
globally present in all the European regions except for the countries of Greece
and Romania, as well as the PACA region/France. The sector of Advanced
Manufacturing and Processing seems to be equally excluded from these same
territories.
With regards to the sector of Biotechnology, the following regions / countries
were considered having a RIS3 priority by the survey participants:
Kujawsko-Pomorskie in Poland,
Attiki in Greece,
Friuli-Venezia Giulia in Italy and nearly all the KET concerned regions
of Portugal and Spain.
As a result of the online survey, the sector of Nanotechnologies is specifically
represented in the following regions / countries’ RIS3:
The French regions of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté and Provence-Alpes-
Côte d’Azur (PACA) where clusters are highly involved in the
implementation of some of the initiatives (detailed example in following
section),
high specialisation of the Tuscany region in Italy, participants
indicating a high involvement of clusters for some of the concerned
Nanotechnology initiatives,
in the Norte region of Portugal,
in the Comunidad Valenciana of Spain,
in the Kent region of the United Kingdom
in Lithuania,
in a number of regions of the Czech Republic (Severovýchod, Střední
Čechy, Praha - with the clusters’ involvement mainly in Střední Čechy),
and in Slovenia whose participants included all NMBPs as priorities of
the regions.
As an example, for Slovenia this confirms the country’s strategic priorities in
NMBP technology areas for future investment. It is the result of a process of
identification of the long-term needs for R&D investments in industry started
in 2006 by the Slovenian Chamber of Commerce. A number of Centres of
8 It should be noted again that the number of survey respondents do not compose a
viable quantitative basis for statements, but can clearly suggest trends which is the
aim of this analysis.
https://clusternanoroad.eu
33
Excellence which focus on basic research were then introduced in 2009 and
complemented by Competence Centres, consortiums led by business,
combining both basic and applied research with clear focus on their future
market opportunities.
As said, these trends observed in the online survey with regards to
territorial sector coverage and RIS3 relevance confirm observations
from the literature review.
6.2. Initiatives with KETs relevance
As shown in the paragraphs above, it can be said that KETs sectors are part
of a high number of RIS3 in Europe, with specific emphasis on the Advanced
Manufacturing and Advanced Materials sectors. The online survey tried to
identify the existence of initiatives related to both the RIS3 and one
or several KET sectors.
Whilst 30% of the online survey participants indicated the existence of 2-3
initiatives in their territory, it should be noted that 24% of the participants
affirmed having “no initiative” in their territory, bearing in mind that the
majority had indicated in the previous section the existence of a NMBP priority
in the RIS3. This leaves two hypotheses: the lack of initiatives or the lack of
promotion on the existing initiatives generating this non-awareness.
Here again, the dominant sectors of the initiatives’ recollected information
from the remaining participants are Advanced Materials in lead with 41
initiatives including this sector, followed immediately by Advanced
Manufacturing and Processing (39) followed by the two other sectors
Industrial Biotechnology (33) and Nanotechnologies (29).
As initiatives were considered a rather wide panel of different items,
as can be seen in figure 9 below:
https://clusternanoroad.eu
34
Figure 9: Online survey – types of main initiatives
Examples of common types of initiatives
The most common types of initiatives the participants selected as the
main one in their territory were the services (33%), followed by the
equipment (18,03%), and the test platforms (13%).
Most of the indicated initiatives were cross-sectoral among the KETs sectors,
most particularly the initiatives with regards to equipment and services. On
the contrary, the test platforms seemed to be more related to a unique sector
with exception of those also including the sector of Advanced Manufacturing
and Processing which per se is often cross-sectoral.
The following examples of initiatives with KETs relevance were given in the
online survey; they are representative of most countries:
Services such as consultancy or matchmaking events have been found
to be the most common initiatives implemented or at a planning stage in the
countries of Austria, Belgium, Italy and Portugal, according to the answers of
the participants. These seem to be the types of initiatives that are the most
implemented, compared to other types of initiatives out of which many are
still said to be at a planning stage (50-50).
An interesting example of training initiatives revealed by the survey were
coaching programmes for Microelectronics startups & SMEs willing to
accelerate their growth; this activity is implemented in France.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Equipment (e.g. Infrastructure)
Test platforms (e.g.Pilot plants)
Services (e.g. consultancy, matchmaking etc.)
Training
Other (e.g. Innovation Parks)
Incubator
Projects
Science and Technology park, laboratories and…
None
Types of main initiatives
https://clusternanoroad.eu
35
Equipment including modern laboratories has been found to be the most
common initiatives planned and/or implemented in the countries of Poland
and Romania.
Test platforms seem to be most popular in France, Belgium and in the
Netherlands. According to a Dutch cluster association, about 20 pilot lines
covering a broad range of technologies are established throughout the
Netherlands. In Belgium, some examples of test platforms are implemented
large scale demonstrators such as Pilot Plant Projects to show the
opportunities for additive manufacturing. In France, many technology
platforms have been created in the last 10 years supporting the regional S3
strategy (Alphanov for optical-laser - CANOE for advanced material - CATIE
for digital...).
Other types of initiatives vary according to the countries and do not follow
a particular trend. An example of an “other” type of possible initiative not
following the different categories, revealed by the survey is the bio incubator
with facilities for start-ups (laboratory with basic equipment) and renting of
advanced equipment (with technical support) concerning only the
Biotechnology sector implemented in the region of Castilla y Leon in Spain.
Strategic partnerships in the fields of Smart buildings, Circular economy,
Health/Medicine, and Materials including KETs in their programmes in
Slovenia were also mentioned in this category for instance.
Funding
With regards to the financing of initiatives, it can be noted that most rely on
European Structural and Investment Funds, followed by Regional
government financing which are not of EU funds origin. Private funds come
in third place. The survey indicates that the equipment that is either
implemented or at a planning stage nearly all benefit from the European
Structural and Investment Funds. Generally, these are not exclusive and the
initiatives rarely benefit from only one type of funds.
https://clusternanoroad.eu
36
Figure 10: Financing of initiatives
Regarding public-private partnerships, an example of an initiative that
benefits from these type of funds is the technological platform Alphanov in
the Nouvelle-Aquitaine region that has been created from public funds in
2007 in order to support start-ups and technology transfer in the fields of
laser, optics and photonics. In addition to this, a specific R&D program has
been developed around this platform in the last 4 years involving 2 leading
companies (1 SME and 1 subsidy of a major company) aiming at sharing
some disruptive technology research costs around photonic and laser
technologies.
Management
Concerning the management of the initiatives, the diagram below (figure 10)
provides an overview of organisations involved in the management of the
initiatives. The figure shows that the management role is mostly taken
20,61%
13,74%
30,53%
14,50%
15,27%
4,58%
0,76%
Initiatives funds
Regional government financing (not EU funds origin)
National government financing
European Structural and Investment Funds
Other European financing (such as Horizon 2020)
Private
Public-Private Partnership (please provide a short summary of parties involved in operation andfunding in next question's comment box just below)
Other
https://clusternanoroad.eu
37
over by regional authorities. Local authorities are not recognized as
intervening a lot in the management of these types of initiatives. The clusters
are mainly identified and involved in the management of initiatives such as
equipment and services. No particular trend could be detected with regards
to single countries.
Figure 10: Management of initiatives
Targeted Users
The users that are mostly targeted by all types of initiatives are SMEs,
followed by universities/researchers preceding the category of large
companies and finally clusters. It should be kept in mind that clusters are
often involved in the initiatives (management, promotion, etc.), so they
naturally do not count as beneficiaries themselves in these same initiatives.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
National authority
Regional authority
Local authority
Business sector/ Companies
University
Cluster(s)
Other
Management of the initiatives
https://clusternanoroad.eu
38
Figure 11: Target users of the initiatives
More specifically, the targeted users for equipment seem to be mainly SMEs,
clusters and universities whereas test platforms seem to not at all target
clusters as users of these initiatives.
Openness of initiatives to actors from other territories
Bearing in mind that only half of the online survey respondents could provide
information on the involvement of actors from beyond their own region in
their initiative(-s), it can be affirmed that 26% of the overall respondents
indicated the initiative(-s) of their territory to be open to actors from
beyond. It seems that the types of initiatives that are more likely to be open
are equipment and services, according to the survey.
More specifically, many initiatives implemented in Italy, in Poland and in
Romania seem to be open at a national and European level. In Tuscany, Italy,
research and innovation projects are open to actors that have at least a
branch in the region or that are willing to open a branch. In Poland, can be
deduced from the answers an interregional science and business cooperation.
A Polish cluster affirmed that the clusters from the Śląskie region have an
open approach, and favour cooperation with companies in Poland and
cooperation with other clusters in EU and the world.
An example from Romania, a modern laboratory for the synthesis of
Advanced Material, makes it clear: it “aims at building an inter-disciplinary,
inter-sectoral and inter-European partnership on the grounds of well-
established academic organisations and SMEs in Romania and other European
countries with expertise in Biotechnology, Materials Science and
33,53%
17,96%20,96%
25,15%
2,40%
Targeted Users
SMEs Clusters Large Companies Universities / Researchers Other
https://clusternanoroad.eu
39
Nanomedicine. The following actions are to promote to support the smart
specialization process: initiation of projects by companies and partnership
firms/research organisations; creation or strengthening of centres of
competence; promoting transfer infrastructure; connecting doctoral research
projects in priority areas; continued funding of R&D infrastructure in a
national roadmap; promoting organisational focus and establishing a
mechanism for strategic guidance.”
In Sweden, a national collaboration process has started and is likely to extend
internationally over time. This type of national cooperation also applies to
Slovenia and its strategic partnerships, mentioned in the section above, for
which the set-up includes stakeholders from the whole country.
The main financial models, suggested by the participants’ answers, allowing
other international or national actors to access these initiatives are private
and public co-funding, membership or participation fees, as well as
EU partnership agreements. For example, a test platform in the sector of
Advanced Manufacturing and Processing established in Galicia and open to
inter-regional actors and destined to large companies, SMEs and technology
centres has set up the following financial modus operandum: it is in principle
free of access, but being partially funded, the external users must provide
funding support.
6.3. Clusters involvement in sectoral initiatives of relevance for the RIS3
Types of initiatives involving clusters
The previous sub-chapter shows that a number of initiatives exist throughout
Europe on KETs sectors with relevance for RIS3. Now, of specific interest
seemed the involvement of clusters in such initiatives. Generally, it can be
said that 23% of survey respondents specified that they are not aware
of KET initiatives with cluster involvement in their territory. This
includes 3 policy makers and 14 cluster managers. Nevertheless, a majority
still mentioned cluster involvement in a number of initiatives relevant to
territories’ RIS3 / Operational Programmes.
This specific investigation on cluster involvement in KETs-relevant innovation
strategies was further developed throughout 13 targeted interviews: 3 with
policy makers and 10 with cluster managers.
Out of the respondents (39) who could identify cluster involvement in their
territory’s initiatives, 74% mentioned clusters having been involved in
https://clusternanoroad.eu
40
the initiatives’ planning phase with a minimum average ranking of
“medium involvement”, whereas 77% indicated them as involved in the
implementation phase and being “involved above average”. The clusters’
role seemed in particular dedicated to the promotion and the marketing of
services to cluster members and the animation of the wider sectoral
ecosystem. 36% of the respondents also confirmed the implication of clusters
in the management of the initiative’s infrastructure, but this seemed to
concern mainly specific types of services or equipment such as for example
the interdisciplinary centre of innovation based on photonics and plasma for
development of eco-Nanotechnologies in Romania (details of this structure
further below) and Advanced Materials.
In general, it could be concluded from the qualitative exchange with
interviewees, that clusters do not lead as many initiatives, e.g. they
do not provide as many services, as before; it appears as if they have
nowadays less available budget which concludes in less strategic cluster
support. This hypothesis is equally confirmed by many participants of the
survey: For those who could not mention clusters being involved in their
territory, the option was left to indicate why there was such lack. Clusters
often relying (partly) on European funds, major suggestions here were the
lack of specialised funds during the financial period of 2014-2020 to develop
early stage projects or pilots, some also blamed the strictness of the EU
funding rules. The second most current answer was the lack of awareness
and information transfer between regional authorities, companies and
universities.
Respondents to the online survey could also suggest best ways of involving
clusters in territorial innovation strategies. Main suggestions were
therefore meetings and workshops out of the 5 different types proposed (see
figure below):
https://clusternanoroad.eu
41
Figure 12: Suggested ways of involving clusters in (regional) initiatives
Mapping of initiatives according to their (cross-)sectoral focus
A high number of the initiatives involving clusters were indicated as
being cross-sectoral (Nearly 60% in the online survey and 6% out of those
mentioned in the interviews). There was no observable common association
of NMBP sectors, as the combinations were rather diverse.
30% of these initiatives were cross sectoral with all 4 of the NMBP sectors
involved. The respondents provided diverse examples such as indicated in the
table below:
Initiative Cluster involvement
Several cooperation projects exist in the region of
Kujawsko-Pomorskie, Poland, such as the
“Cooperative Linkages Fund (Cluster
Cooperation)”, an innovation funding project that
allows interested entities to obtain grants for the
creation and development of cooperative linkages
between these sectors, including with clusters.
Based on two stages, this fund offers support for
the development of strategic roadmaps and the
implementation of announced measures.
In this region, many other initiatives related to
innovation funds were implemented such as Funds
for Research and Implementation, Innovation
For this initiative, the
clusters participated
jointly in the
management of the
infrastructures, the
location of the
infrastructures as well
as the animation and
promotion of the
services to cluster
members.
54,81%
18,27%
11,54%23,08%
30,77%
9,62%
27,88%
Best ways of involving clusters
Meetings / workshops Governing Board
Surveys Lobbying
Consulting Other
Not completed or Not displayed
https://clusternanoroad.eu
42
Vouchers and all contributed in the development of
the NMBP sector. Indeed, the measurable outcome
of this initiative is the development of 31 cluster
initiatives and the funding of 29 co-operative
linkages generating by consequence the creation
of 108 new jobs in the framework of these areas
and the increasing of the level of cooperation
between companies from the SME sector and
research units in the Kuyavian-Pomeranian
Voivodeship.
A cross-sectoral initiative covering all 4 NMBPs
revealed by the survey is the Centre of
innovation based on photonics and plasma
for development of Eco-Nano technologies
and Advanced Materials in Romania. Still at a
planning stage, its implementation will imply the
construction of a new building accommodating 4
research laboratories on synthesis, processing,
characterisation and testing of advanced materials,
as well as device prototyping and biocompatibility
testing. The main organisation involved in the
management of this initiative is the National
Institute for Lasers, Plasma and Radiation Physics
cluster, an important research institution
established by the Government of Romania along
with many clusters. Its implementation will benefit
from European funds along with institute funds.
The initiative will be open to any organisation,
without geographical limitation with a financial
model based on Partnership research projects and
contracts of services/technical assistance.
This initiative plans to
highly involve clusters
in its management
and implementation.
An interviewee from Sweden also testified of an
interesting cross-sectoral example in the region
of Skåne where a viable new eco system is being
arranged for the industry 4.0 generation. The
region is currently developing towards a world
class centre of excellence in Materials research and
innovation. A long commitment to Materials
research has resulted in a centre of excellence in
nanotechnology. The gaps, like pilot production
facilities, test- and demonstration facilities and
infrastructure for industrial use as well as long-
The initiative focuses
on bridging the gaps
of pilot production,
test/demonstration
and infrastructure for
industrial use
https://clusternanoroad.eu
43
term venture capital have been identified and are
on the way to be materialised. The objective of this
particular initiative is to create a viable ecosystem
with industry, startup companies, academia and
research institutes and to engage both nationally
and internationally (i.e in the Vanguard initiative),
by translating research results into innovations and
provide pilot infrastructure.
Subsequently, 27% of the initiatives identified in the online survey and
relevant to the territories’ RIS3 were counted to be cross-sectoral
with three sectors: 4 initiatives were cross-sectoral in the
Nanotechnologies, Biotechnology and Advanced Materials sectors; 2 in the
Nanotechnologies, Advanced Materials and Advanced Manufacturing and
Processing; 5 in the Biotechnologies, Advanced Materials and Advanced
Manufacturing and Processing, and only 1 in Advanced Manufacturing and
Processing, Nanotechnologies and Biotechnology. The table below provides
an example.
Initiative Cluster involvement
An example of a cross-sectoral initiative at a
planning stage in the Nanotechnology,
Biotechnology and Advanced Materials
sectors revealed by an interview is the centre for
“Life Science and Plasma Technologies”, a
technology center for applied research, company
centers and large institutes in the region of
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in Germany. This
initiative is expected to be implemented in 2017.
This initiative benefits from structural funds, and
aims at supporting technology transfer from
science to SME as well as entrepreneurship.
Whilst clusters should
be involved in its
management, it is
planned that they will
mostly ensure the
animation and
promotion of its
services.
With regards to cross-sectoral initiatives involving two sectors, a lot of
examples combining advanced materials/nanotechnologies can be referred
to, such as shown in the table below:
Initiative Cluster involvement
Two particularly relevant examples concerning the
Nanotechnology and Advanced Materials
sectors was revealed by an interview with a
1. These actions are
put into place by
the cluster,
https://clusternanoroad.eu
44
member of the “Pole SCS” cluster in the PACA
region of France.
1. The first initiative constitutes a working group
created to define the strategy in the
microelectronics sector in the PACA region,
involving Pole SCS cluster (part of the RIS3).
The plan is called Micro2020, and implies the
creation of 1000-2000 jobs by 2020 in the PACA
region. The plan includes 8 actions: start-ups
and SMEs guidance, platforms strengthening,
young engineers’ training, professional training,
mobility actions in larger companies. This
initiative is based on the Financial scheme of
Funding through La Direccte (regional
administration for enterprises, competition and
consumption). No European funds are involved,
only regional money.
2. The second initiative is the implementation of
test platforms by Microelectronics actors of
small and medium size. Industrials have set up
associations that implement test platforms for
all members. In addition, large enterprises
(such as ST Microelectronics) have agreed to
make their existing platforms / tools available
to smaller companies. The initiative is financed
through contributions from industrials, the
state’s support, the regional FEDER. The
industry financing is based on an annual
payment (members fee) and payment of
services for the platform use. The platforms are
open to any actors, also from other regions,
under the condition that the actor becomes a
member, even though so far there are only
members from the PACA region.
academics, the
industry union, etc.
The Pole SCS or
SCS cluster drives
the set up and
implementation of
the strategy and
work with the
whole ecosystem.
2. The SCS cluster
helped with the
setup 5 years ago,
and promoted it to
its member. The
cluster works
currently on a plan
for a phase 2,
notably focusing on
an update of the
existing tools. The
financial scheme
for this has not yet
been decided.
In the framework of recent evolutions in the
Flemish Smart Specialisation strategy,
involving a number of stakeholder consultations,
the N4H project is settled. N4H is an initiative
with the objective to support the development of
innovative healthcare applications at the
crossroads of Nano-electronics and
The DSP Valley
cluster was highly
involved in the launch
of the ‘Fast Track to
Innovation’.
https://clusternanoroad.eu
45
Biotechnology - and it is one of the ‘school
examples’ referred to in the Smart Specialization
Strategy in Flanders.
During this project a ‘Fast Track to Innovation’ was
launched which is divided into three phases – a
“challenge phase” (call procedure for submission of
proposals for concrete challenges to be tackled by
a ‘competence’ team), a “competence phase”
(launch of a request for competences on the basis
of the previous submissions) and a “solution
phase” (delivery of five documented value
propositions, ready for implementation).
The results of this N4H project were very promising
and consisted out of 25 Cooperation agreements,
leading also to the development of a reference for
Multi-Disciplinary, Interregional, X-Sector
Innovation Model: the MIX-Model.
Another example of a cross-sectoral initiative in
Advanced Materials and Nanotechnologies is
implemented in Tuscany, Italy: it is the “Regional
Technological District for Advanced Materials (TD
Materials)” – supported by ERDF by the Regional
Operative Programme 2014-2020 – arising from
an initiative of the Tuscany Regional Authority. It
consists in an immaterial infrastructure (cluster)
and network of stakeholders entirely dedicated to
technological solutions based on Nanotechnologies
and Advanced Materials. The initiative’s aim is to
provide business services, physical infrastructure,
know-how and B2B and R2B support to companies.
The TD Materials has just started own activity in
October 2016 and already links all the regional
public-private research centres, laboratories and
universities operating in different branches of NMP,
together with a growing number of enterprises
(actually 72) working with or willing to invest in
Nanotechnologies and Advanced Materials for
improving own processes and products.
Clusters are highly
implicated in the
management of this
initiative and the
promotion/marketing
of its services.
In Norte, in Portugal, an initiative in process
exists that considers trans-sectoral
collaboration, involving Nanotechnology and
Advanced Manufacturing. Indeed, the
The clusters are
involved in the
implementation and
management of these
https://clusternanoroad.eu
46
regional development agency organised eight
sectorial workshops, involving clusters, with
a number of sector focuses among which
KETs. The clusters based in the region (on
mobility, health, agrofood, fashion &
furniture, mobility, production technologies
and creative industries) are contributing to
Nanotechnology (being a trans sectoral
technology) and Advanced Manufacturing, in
particular regarding increased productivity,
less production and development costs,
acceleration in launching new products, and
better dissemination of technology. This
process was said to be a transferable concept
to other sectors as long as the regional
englobing ecosystem is significant and the
thematic needs and existing clusters in a
territory are considered.
workshops as well as
guaranteeing a role of
animation of the
ecosystem and
dissemination of
technology.
X4ET4HEALTH, implemented in the Flanders
region, is an initiative involving mainly Micro-
and Nanoelectronics and Industrial
Biotechnology, without excluding the other KETs.
This cross-sectoral project aims to develop
roadmaps in the field of smart implants, (bio-)
medical imaging and lab-on-chip (applications)
through a co-design approach with the
stakeholders.
This initiative results
of the cooperation of
the two high-tech
clusters of micro-
electronics and
biotechnology, DSP
Valley and Flanders
Bio, teaming up with
four innovative
companies AnSem,
Biocartis, Cochlear
and NxP to nurture
and build an
ecosystem in which
stakeholders from the
respective sectors
meet to develop
solutions in the health
domain.
In comparison, only 12 initiatives including those mentioned in the
interviews are one-sector type. Overall, 25% of the examples stemming
from the interviews were initiatives with regards to Biotechnology (training,
https://clusternanoroad.eu
47
service and bio incubators), one initiative of “other type” was related to the
sector of Advanced Materials and the rest – mainly test platforms – were
related to the sector of Advanced Manufacturing and Processing. The limited
number of initiatives dedicated only to Advanced Materials seems to indicate
the favourable conditions of this sector to cross-sectoral activities. The table
below provides some examples of initiatives related to only one sector:
Sector Initiative Cluster
involvement
Advanced
Manufacturing
and Processing
In the Norte region of Portugal,
several activities seem to target the
development of the NMBP/KET
sectors, ranging from Cluster
organisations (e.g. Production
Technologies Cluster),
Laboratories/Innovation Hubs (e.g.
FABTEC), a consistent network of
Service Providers (incl.
matchmaking services, among
others), a consistent network of
training service providers and
education, an integrated structure of
funding programmes and
instruments projects, among several
others.
Many initiatives
concerning the
Advanced
Manufacturing and
Processing sector
have been
implemented by
the Production
Technologies
Clusters
constituting
therefore the main
organisation
involved in this
process.
Advanced
Manufacturing
and Processing
In the Chemnitz region in
Germany, an interesting approach
using clusters as triggers for digital
hubs and ecosystems has been
tested with the planning of the
I4MS-ICT Innovation for
manufacturing SMEs. The innovative
aspect of this initiative is the
combination of ICT and Advanced
Manufacturing, fostering the
digitalisation of SMEs. Under the
form of a hub built on the HPC-cloud
simulation technologies, providing
services for the lightweight industry
in Chemnitz, mostly SMEs, across
different value chains (machine
construction, metal processing and
automotive manufacturing), it aims
The future
Competence
Centre (CC) of the
hub will be hosted
and created
around the
expertise of the
Chemnitz
University of
Technology (TUC)
and the Cluster of
Excellence
MERGE.
The MERGE
cluster will then
become the core
of the CC, hosting
the HPC
https://clusternanoroad.eu
48
at shaping the hub services and
potential benefits of HPC (High
Performance Computing) simulation
among potential beneficiaries
(mainly SMEs).
infrastructure and
providing the
technical
expertise and
services.
Biotechnology In Castilla y León in Spain, a
Bioincubator at the Boecillo
Technology Park has been designed
for the creation and the installation
of companies working in the field of
Biotechnology. It has a laboratory
area and an area of offices for
biotechnology companies. These
areas are complemented by
extensive facilities to support the
research work: cell cultures rooms,
laboratory for chromatography /
spectrometry, laboratory of
genomics, proteomics and
metabolomics, microbiology lab,
chemical lab, media preparation
facilities, etc.
Clusters are
involved in the
planning and the
implementing of
this infrastructure
ensuring a role of
animation and
promotion of
services.
Benefiting from
their role of
facilitators for
accessing the
actors of the
ecosystem, the
clusters of the
region are asked
within the industry
initiative 4.0
Paradigm
implemented, not
only to provide
services to their
members but to
be more involved
as cross-sectoral
facilitators in the
territory.
An incubator/scientific park was also
implemented in Tuscany, Italy to
increase and sustain the
competitiveness of the regional Life
Science sector (in particular Biotech-
Pharma), providing business
services and technological facilities
to start-ups and research centres.
The measurable outcomes of this
The TLS
foundation, first
born as this
incubator/ science
park, extended its
activities to
supporting the
regional office of
Biomedical
https://clusternanoroad.eu
49
initiative are mainly the assistance
of the SMEs, services provided, the
rise of the clusters’ turnover,
networking activities and the
provision of IPR and EU project
support.
research
valorisation in its
technology
transfer activities,
and to managing
the regional Life
Science cluster
(aggregating 200
companies, all the
research centres,
other innovation
centres).
Nanotechnology A cluster initiative named
“Nano/Microelectronics-based
Systems and Applications
Cluster (mi-Cluster)” with single
specialisation in Nanotechnologies
and Microelectronics has been found
to be implemented in Greece. This
initiative brings together highly
specialised companies and public
research institutions with the
following common vision: “to create
a world class cluster on
Nano/Microelectronics-based
systems and applications” and with
the mission of “establishing and
promoting Greece as a significant
and competitive global provider of
Nano/Microelectronics technologies
and applications” that aims to open
new markets, foster new
international collaborations for its’
members, and attract Direct Foreign
Investment from major global
industry leaders.
The mi-Cluster
has mandated the
Corallia Clusters
Initiative, or in
short Corallia, to
act as a Cluster
facilitator and as a
catalyst for
creating
favourable
conditions for its
members to
expand and make
effective use of
and promote
Hellenic
innovation at both
national and
international level.
Looking at trans-regional and cross-border initiatives, it could be noted
that the region of Castilla y Leon seems to have several KET cross-sectoral
projects with Italian regions such as Tuscany and Finnish regions (specifically
Lapland), with whom it shares some similarities as big territories with few
https://clusternanoroad.eu
50
people and great stock of natural resources. The X4ET4HEALTH, is one of
many examples of a cross-sectoral initiative between Belgium and Holland.
It was initiated in Flanders as a cooperation between DSP Valley and Flanders
Bio and develops 3 technology platforms focusing on lab on a chip, advanced
imaging and smart implants. This Flemish initiative reaches out to
stakeholders in order regions (e.g. Holland, Switserland, Germany). Other
examples of KET cross-sectoral initiatives can be seen across the
Spain/Portugal borders. As stated above, the S3 Thematic Industrial Platform
identifies partnerships between regions in thematic areas of which KETs and
the Vanguard Initiative groups collaborative projects of several regions
aiming at supporting clusters and local ecosystems to focus on smart
specialization priority areas. INNOSUP-1 projects are as Horizon2020 projects
per definition cross-border collaboration projects.
https://clusternanoroad.eu
51
7. Conclusions and next steps
7.1 Conclusions
As said before, the distribution of sector specialisations in the RIS3 and the
clusters active in those territories in Europe, present a strong overlap, as the
innovation strategies and clusters are both based on territories’ existing
strengths. This lead to the assumption that there is potential for interaction,
i.e. for the involvement of clusters in the set up or implementation of
innovation strategies.
In conclusion of the analysis undertaken we can indeed affirm that a strong
correlation exists between KET sector related innovation strategies
(RIS3) in Europe and cluster activity in these sectors. This can be seen
in the mapping exercise on EYE@RIS3 and the ECCP, as well as the literature
analysis. Existing initiatives such as the projects identified on the Smart
Specialisation Platform for Industrial Modernisation, as well as some of the
ongoing INNOSUP-1 collaboration projects provide additional proof of this
interrelation and the online survey and interviews undertaken confirm the
hypothesis.
A good number of regional initiatives exists in the KET sectors, even though
not all involving clusters. A large number of initiatives existing in the different
European regions involving clusters are cross-sectoral – 60% of those
identified in the online survey and the interviews were involving 3 or 4 NMBP
sectors - however only some are cross-border initiatives.
The online survey and interviews undertaken showed that clusters are
specifically active in cross-sectoral initiatives including the Nano/Micro-
electronics sectors. They are equally involved in the planning stage and the
implementation of initiatives. The types of initiatives clusters are mostly
involved in are services and equipment.
7.2 Next steps
As there is a good match in the mapping of sectoral representation in RIS3
and cluster presence in the same territories, it would be suggested to involve
clusters even more in the planning and implementation of RIS3 and
Operational Programmes, notably through initiatives. This report has mapped
https://clusternanoroad.eu
52
a number of existing initiatives that for a large majority are transferable to
other territories.
Concrete suggestions in this sense will be part of subsequent
ClusterNanoRoad project work. Gaps identified could possibly be a basis for
pilot actions to be conducted by ClusterNanoRoad. Next steps will include the
benchmarking guide on good practices, serving as basis to the preparation
and validation of the ROADMAPPING: Value Chains and Clusters to Help
Regional Policies to eventually conclude on pilot actions.
In addition, EU calls such as upcoming INNOSUP-1 calls are expected to
generate more cross-sectoral and cross-border initiatives of clusters relevant
to KET sectors and taking into account regional strengths (or RIS3). This is
the same for the calls aimed at selection of new collaborative partnership
projects on the Smart Specialisation Platform for Industrial Modernisation.
https://clusternanoroad.eu
53
8. Annexes
8.1. Mapping of RIS priorities with regards to KETs
Figure 13: RIS comprising Advanced manufacturing systems and Processing (source:
EYE@RIS, S3 Platform)
https://clusternanoroad.eu
54
Figure 14: RIS comprising Advanced Materials (source: EYE@RIS, S3 Platform)
Figure 15: RIS comprising Industrial Biotechnology (source: EYE@RIS, S3 Platform)
https://clusternanoroad.eu
55
Figure 16: RIS comprising Nanotechnologies (source: EYE@RIS, S3 Platform)
https://clusternanoroad.eu
56
Figure 17: Distribution of regions with priorities in Advanced Manufacturing and Processing (source: Analysis Specialisation Strategies and Regional Operational Programmes and
Linkages with Key Enabling Technologies)
https://clusternanoroad.eu
57
Figure 18: Distribution of regions with priorities in Advanced Materials Priorities (source: Analysis Specialisation Strategies and Regional Operational Programmes and Linkages with
Key Enabling Technologies)
https://clusternanoroad.eu
58
Figure 19: Distribution of regions with priorities in Nanotechnologies (source: Analysis
Specialisation Strategies and Regional Operational Programmes and Linkages with Key Enabling Technologies)
NB: No similar map for the Industrial Biotechnology sector is provided in the
Analysis Specialisation Strategies and Regional Operational Programmes and
Linkages with Key Enabling Technologies.
https://clusternanoroad.eu
59
8.2. Overview of EU countries’ RIS3 with KETs relevance
Country/Region
Survey Response
s
RIS3 Strategy approve
d Nanotechnolo
gy Biotechnolo
gy
Advanced
Materials
Advanced Manufacturi
ng and Processing
Austria 2 2 0 1 1 1
Steiermark 1 1 0 1 1 1
Wien 1 1 0 0 0 0
Belgium 11 4 2 3 2 4
Prov. Liège 1 0 0 0 0 1
Prov. Limburg 1 1 0 0 0 1
Prov. Namur 1 1 0 1 1 1 Prov. Oost-
Vlaanderen 1 1 1 1 1 1 Prov. Vlaams-
Brabant 1 1 1 1 0 0 Région de Bruxelles-
Capitale / Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest 6 0 0 0 0 0
Bulgaria 2 2 1 1 1 1 Северозападен
(Severozapaden) 1 1 1 1 1 1 Югозападен
(Yugozapaden) 1 1 0 0 0 0
Czech Republic 3 3 3 1 1 1
Praha 1 1 1 0 0 0
Severovýchod 1 1 1 0 1 1
Střední Čechy 1 1 1 1 0 0
Denmark 2 0 0 0 0 0
Hovedstaden 1 0 0 0 0 0
Midjtylland 1 0 0 0 0 0
Estonia 0
Finland 2 1 0 1 0 1
Etelä -Suomi 1 1 0 0 0 1
Helsinki-Uusimaa 1 0 0 0 0 0
France 8 8 5 2 3 4 Auvergne-Rhône-
Alpes 1 1 1 1 0 0 Bourgogne-Franche-
Comté 1 1 1 0 0 1
Grand-Est 1 1 0 1 1 1
Île de France 2 2 1 0 0 1
Nouvelle Aquitaine 1 1 0 0 1 1 Provence-Alpes-
Côte d’Azur 2 2 2 0 0 0
Germany 5 5 2 3 4 3
Hannover 1 1 1 0 1 1
Karlsruhe 1 1 0 0 0 0 Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern 1 1 0 1 1 0
https://clusternanoroad.eu
60
Country/Region
Survey Response
s
RIS3 Strategy approve
d Nanotechnolo
gy Biotechnolo
gy
Advanced
Materials
Advanced Manufacturi
ng and Processing
Sachsen-Anhalt 1 1 0 1 1 1
Stuttgart 1 1 1 1 1 1
Greece 3 3 0 3 1 1
Aττική (Attiki) 3 3 0 3 1 1
Hungary 1 1 1 1
Észak-Alföld 1 1 1 1
Ireland 1 1 1 1 1 1
Ireland 1 1 1 1 1 1
Italy 12 11 7 8 10 11
Friuli-Venezia Giulia 3 2 0 2 2 2
Lombardia 2 2 1 2 2 2
Puglia 1 1 1 1 1 1
Toscana 4 4 4 2 4 4
Veneto 2 2 1 1 1 2
Lithuania 3 3 3 3 3 3
Lietuva 3 3 3 3 3 3
Latvia 0 0
Netherlands 1 1 1 0 1 1
Noord-Holland 1 1 1 0 1 1
Poland 7 6 3 5 6 5 Kujawsko-
Pomorskie 2 2 1 2 2 2
Lubelskie 1 1 1 1 1 0
Opolskie 1 1 0 0 1 1
Śląskie 1 0
Wielkopolskie 1 1 1 1 1 1 Zachodniopomorski
e 1 1 0 1 1 1
Portugal 10 10 8 9 9 9
Alentejo 1 1 1 1 1 1
Centro 2 2 1 2 2 1
Lisboa 1 1 1 1 1 1
Norte 6 6 5 5 5 6
Romania 10 9 6 7 8 3
Bucureşti - Ilfov 6 5 3 3 5 2
Centru 2 2 2 2 2 1
Nord-Vest 1 1 1 1 1 0
Sud-Vest Oltenia 1 1 0 1 0 0
Slovenia 2 2 2 1 2 2
Spain 12 10 6 10 8 10
Andalucía 1 1 1 1 1 1
Castilla y León 2 2 1 2 2 2
Cataluña 1 1 1 1 1 1 Comunidad de
Madrid 1 0 0 0 0 0
https://clusternanoroad.eu
61
Country/Region
Survey Response
s
RIS3 Strategy approve
d Nanotechnolo
gy Biotechnolo
gy
Advanced
Materials
Advanced Manufacturi
ng and Processing
Comunidad Forral de Navarra 1 1 1 1 1 1
Comunidad Valenciana 2 2 2 2 2 2
Galicia 3 2 0 2 0 2 Principado de
Asturias 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sweden 5 1 1 1 1 1
Östra Mellansverige 1 0 0 0 0 0
Övre Norrland 1 0 0 0 0 0
Stockholm 2 1 1 1 1 1
Västsverige 1 0 0 0 0 0
United Kingdom 2 1 1 1 1 0 Hampshire and Isle
of Wight 1 1 0 0 1 0 Kent 1 1 1 1 0 0
Total 104 85 53 57 59 59
Figure 20: Overview of EU countries and regions with KET sectors in approved RIS3 (source:
ClusterNanoRoad online survey)
https://clusternanoroad.eu
62
8.3. Mapping of RIS3 initiatives with KETs relevance and clusters’ implication
Figure 21: RIS comprising Advanced manufacturing systems and Processing (source: EYE@RIS, S3 Platform with information from the ClusterNanoRoad survey)
https://clusternanoroad.eu
63
Figure 22: RIS comprising Advanced materials (source: EYE@RIS, S3 Platform with information from the ClusterNanoRoad survey)
https://clusternanoroad.eu
64
Figure 23: RIS comprising Biotechnology (source: EYE@RIS, S3 Platform with information from the ClusterNanoRoad survey)
https://clusternanoroad.eu
65
Figure 24: RIS comprising Nanotechnologies (source: EYE@RIS, S3 Platform with information from the ClusterNanoRoad survey)
https://clusternanoroad.eu
66
8.4. Literature list
- Analysis of Smart Specialization Strategies in Nanotechnologies,
Advanced Manufacturing and Process Technologies
- Exchange of good policy practices promoting the industrial uptake and
deployment of Key Enabling Technologies (2012); European
Commission, Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry,
Entrepreneurship and SMEs.
- Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes 20072013 financed
by the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund,
WP2 support to SMEs, increasing research and innovation in SMEs and
SME development, No 2014CE16BAT002) CONTRACT NUMBER:
2014CE16BAT002 (2014)
- Guide to Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisations
(RIS 3), May 2012 Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European
Union, 2012 ISBN: 978-92-79-25094-1 doi:10.2776/65746
- Mapping the regional embeddedness of the FP7 NMBP programme Final
report of project ‘RTD-NMP-2014-Mapping’ ISBN 978-92-79-57726-0
(2016)
- Smart Guide to Cluster Policy – from the Guidebook series ‘How to
support SME policy from Structural Funds’
- Study on cross-cutting KETs (Ro-cKETs) (2014)
https://clusternanoroad.eu
67
8.5. List of interviewees
Organisation Contact Person Function Country
Regional Development
Agency Wim Martens Regional authority Spain
Groen Licht Vlaanderen
Peter Bracke Cluster manager mandated by
regional authority Belgium
Department 12 Economic Affairs, Tourism, Sports
Unit for Economic Affairs and Innovation
Gerd Gratzer Regional authority Austria
Pôle SCS Olivier Chavrier Cluster manager mandated by
regional authority France
BalticNet-PlasmaTec
Alexander Schwock Cluster Manager Germany
Minalogic Laure Quintin Cluster manager mandated by
regional authority France
Smart Bike Bjorn Van de Vondel Project Cluster Manager Belgium
N4H Mark De Colvenaer Program Manager Belgium
XKET4Health Willem Dhooghe Program Manager Belgium
XKET4Health Annelies Vandamme Program Manager Belgium
Chemnitz University of
Technology/ I4MS Dr.Katharina Schöps Cluster Manager Germany
Region Skane Daniel Kronmann Cluster Manager Sweden
PO Norte 2 initiatives/ 1 cluster manager Portugal
https://clusternanoroad.eu
68
8.6. Online survey questionnaire Questionnaire on Links between Smart Specialisation
Strategies, NMBP/KET uptake and Clusters in Europe
The ClusterNanoRoad project was launched in September 2016. It aims to support
clusters in the uptake of key enabling technologies as part of their region’s smart
specialisation strategy.
This survey will help us identify the links between clusters practices, smart specialisation strategies and regional/national programmes that support NMBP and enabling technologies. Answers are fully confidential and an analysis report will be published on the
basis of this survey which all participants will receive.
Key Enabling Technologies (KETs) include Nanotechnology, Micro and Nano electronics, Biotechnology, Photonics, Advanced materials, Advanced manufacturing systems and Processing. The NMBPs designate the following group of KETs: Nanotechnology,
Biotechnology, Advanced materials, Advanced manufacturing systems and Processing.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Welcome to the questionnaire's homepage. This survey takes a maximum
of 15 minutes. For any inquiries regarding the survey, do not hesitate in
contacting [email protected] and [email protected].
We would like to thank you very much for taking the time to participate in
this important study!
The Survey team
A. Personal Information
1. Your details:
First Name:
Last Name:
Name of organisation:
Contact details(phone):
Contact details (e-mail address):
2. Your organisation:
Chose one of the following answers
o Regional authority
o Policy maker (other than regional authority)
o Cluster manager mandated by regional authority
o Network
https://clusternanoroad.eu
69
o Other
3. Select your country:
Choose one of the following answers
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Iceland
4. In which region is your organisation based?
Choose one of the following answers (Region/NUTS)
B. Innovation Smart Specialisation Strategy (RIS3) and
Operational Programme (OP) related to KET
1. Has an Innovation Smart Specialisation Strategy(RIS3) and/or an
Operational Program (OP) related to KET sectors been developed in
your region?
Choose one of the following answers
o Yes
o No
o I don’t know
2. At a national level: Has a RIS3 and/or OP been developed in your
country? (Displayed only if answer at question B.1 was: No -I don’t know)
Choose one of the following answers
o Yes
o No
o I don’t know
3. Do any of the following KET feature as PRIORITIES in the RIS3 of
your territory? (Displayed only if answer at question B.1 or B.2 was: Yes)
Check any that apply
o Nanotechnology
o Biotechnology
o Advanced materials
o Advanced Manufacturing systems and Processing
o None
https://clusternanoroad.eu
70
C. Description of the KET/NMBP initiatives in your territory
1. Are there any targeted initiatives supporting the development of
the NMBP/enabling technology sectors you identified in the
previous question? If so, how many?
Choose one of the following answers
o 0
o 1
o 2-3
o 4-6
o 7-10
o More
Questions below displayed only if answer at C.1 was not 0. Elsewise, the participant passes
directly on to section D.
2. Please chose the main initiative of your territory's most
important activity. Select the type of this initiative amongst the
following options
Please add a quick description of the corresponding initiative in the box
down below
Choose one of the following answers
o Equipment (e.g. Infrastructure)
o Test platforms (e.g.Pilot plants)
o Services (e.g. consultancy, matchmaking etc.)
o Training
o Other (e.g. Innovation Parks)
o None
Please enter your comment here
https://clusternanoroad.eu
71
3. Please chose the sector concerned by this initiative (for cross-
sectoral initiatives, select all the sectors that apply)
Check any that apply
o Nanotechnology
o Biotechnology
o Advanced materials
o Advanced Manufacturing systems and Processing
4.What is the current stage of this initiative?
Choose one of the following answers
o Planning stage
o Implemented
5.What kind of financial support does this initiative benefit from?
Check any that apply
o Regional government financing (not EU funds origin)
o National government financing
o European Structural and Investment Funds
o Other European financing (such as Horizon 2020)
o Private
o Public-Private Partnership (please provide a short summary of parties
involved in operation and funding in next question's comment box
just below)
o Other:
6. Briefly describe the main aim and structure of this initiative:
You may also provide the details of the parties involved in the financing of
the initiative here, if the latter benefits from a public-private partnership
7. What are the main organisations involved in the management of
this initiative?
Check any that apply
https://clusternanoroad.eu
72
o National authority
o Regional authority
o Local authority
o Business sector/ Companies
o University
o Cluster(s)
o Other:
8. Who are the targeted users of this initiative?
Check any that apply
o SMEs
o Clusters
o Large Companies
o Universities / Researchers
o Other:
9. What measurable outcomes from the initiative have been
identified (e.g. SMEs assisted, increased employment, investment
secured etc.)?
10. Is this intiative open to actors from beyond the region?
Please specify in the comment box down below if open at a national,
European or global level
Choose one of the following answers
o Yes
o No
o I don't know
Please enter your comment here:
https://clusternanoroad.eu
73
11.What is the financial model for allowing these other users to
access the services? (Displayed only if answer at question C.10 was: Yes)
12. Are clusters from any other region (international or national)
involved in supporting interregional collaboration?
Choose one of the following answers
o Yes
o No
o I don’t know
13. If there are several initiatives in your territory, please briefly
describe here – the type of initiative, the sector(s), stakeholders
involved, etc.
D. Clusters’ Activity, Role in the Ecosystem & Involvement with the KET initiatives
1. Are clusters involved in supporting any of the initiatives
mentioned above?
Choose one of the following answers
o Yes (The main one described above)
o Yes (Another initiative)
o No
o I don't know
Questions below displayed only if answer at D.1 was: -Yes (The main one described above)-
Yes (Another initiative). Elsewise, the participant passes directly on to section D.6.
https://clusternanoroad.eu
74
2. Please provide information on your main clusters:
Please provide information on as many clusters as you know that are
involved
Cluster1 Name and sector:
Cluster2 Name and sector:
Cluster3 Name and sector:
Cluster4 Name and sector
3. Rank the degree of contribution to the planning/design of the
initiative(s):
(0 representing no involvement at all and 5 standing for the highest form of
involvement)
Choose one of the following answers:
o 0
o 1
o 2
o 3
o 4
o 5
Questions below displayed only if answer at D.3 was not: 0. Elsewise, the participant passes
directly to section D.6.
4. Rank the degree of contribution of clusters to the
implementation/operation of the initiative(s):
(0 representing no involvement at all, and 5 the highest form of
involvement)
Choose one of the following answers
o 0
o 1
o 2
o 3
o 4
o 5
https://clusternanoroad.eu
75
5. What is/are the cluster(s)’s role in the initiative?
Check any that apply
o Management of infrastructures/equipment facilities
o Location in infrastructures
o Promotion/Marketing of services to cluster members
o Animation of the wider sectoral ecosystem
o I don't know
o Other
6. If there is limited or no role of relevant clusters in the region –
can you explain why? (E.g. lack of funds or awareness) (Not displayed if
answer at question D.3 was: 3 or higher)
7.In your experience, what is the best way to engage other clusters
in RIS3 support activities?
Check any that apply
o Meetings / workshops
o Governing Board
o Surveys
o Lobbying
o Consulting
o Other
E. Other free text questions
1. Do you have other interesting examples of cluster related support
to the delivery of NMBP/KET initiatives or programmes in your
territory that you would like to share?
