England:Policy mix and implementationof the RIS3

Riga, 25-26 February 2014Sue Baxter: Department for Business, Innovation & Skills

DRAFT: CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

S3 Status: Where are we now?

- Development of a single RIS3 for England – combining ‘bottom up’ proposals from 39 Local Enterprise Partnerships - within wider national strategic policy framework (national innovation & industrial strategies)

- Endorsement of ‘Draft for Peer Review’ by Minister of State for Universities & Science within wider Ministerial support for S3

- LEP proposals for Strategic Economic Plans & EU SIF Investment Strategies received by Government

- Assessment of innovation elements based heavily on testing S3 criteria

- Recommendations to be made to Growth Programme Board (Ministers, Government Departments, delivery partners, & local actors (LEPs, universities, municipalities, business & rural representatives etc.)

- Some ‘ready’, most ‘nearly ready’ & some ‘not ready’

2

Successes in S3 Development

- Engagement & debate about Smart Specialisation across all 39 LEPs, embedded within wider local Strategic Economic Plans

- Closer collaboration between Government Departments, delivery partners and local actors

- Renewed debates about how local areas can benefit from, & contribute to, national policies & programmes

- Stronger collaborative leadership for innovation at local level; incl. especially businesses & universities

- Stronger evidence base at national & local levels, including ‘heat maps’ & detailed quantitative data at LEP level

- Building consensus on focusing on commercialisation & on a limited number of priorities

- An informed & pragmatic approach to building synergies with H2020 etc- Some larger LEPs voluntarily opted for local S3 strategies e.g.

Manchester (peer reviewed), Liverpool, North East, Tees Valley, Cornwall & LEPs collectively in West Midlands

3

4

Proposed Strategic Governance of S3

Smart Specialisation Leadership Group

Smart SpecialisationAdvisory Hub

What Works Centre for Local Growth

Growth Dashboard

Annual Innovation Report

Higher Education Business Survey

H2020 Contact Points

Local Innovation Leadership Boards

Formal Evaluations

A Strategic Policy Mix:National S3 Priorities

5

National S3 Priorities

6

National S3 Priorities

7

National S3 Priorities

8

Assessment of LEP Proposals

9

- Evidence of a a planned and staged approach, especially as set out in the RIS3 guide

- Evidence of a local ‘search’ process, supported by ‘heat maps’ & detailed quantitative data

- Production of a local SWOT analysis or similar

- A focus on a limited number of priorities - appropriate to each locality

- Identifying contributions to, & benefits from, the Industrial Strategy

- Local ‘niche’ specialisms where these can be evidenced

Local Priorities: LEPs & S3 (extract)

10

Local Enterprise Partnership Linkages to Industrial

Sector Strategies

Lif

e S

cie

nce

s

Aer

os

pa

ce

Nu

clea

r

Oil

& G

as

Au

tom

oti

ve

Off

sho

re W

ind

Info

rma

tio

n

Eco

no

my

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Pro

f. B

us.

S

erv

ice

s

Ag

ri-t

ech

Ed

uc

atio

n

8 G

reat

T

ech

no

log

ies

/ KE

T

Lo

cal

ly s

pe

cifi

c

Black Country

Buckinghamshire Thames Valley

Cheshire & Warrington

Coast to Capital

Cornwall & Isles of Scilly

Coventry & Warwickshire

Cumbria

D2N2

Dorset

Enterprise M3

Gloucestershire

Greater Birmingham and Solihull

The Policy Mix for Innovation

12

National / Horizontal Nationally Managed / Delivered Locally

Locally Managed/Locally Delivered

Policies Innovation & Research Strategy for Growth

Industrial Strategy

Science & Innovation Strategy (pending)

Strategic Economic Plans

ESIF Strategies

LEP Innovation Strategies & Boards

Programmes • Public Sector Research Establishments

• Large Scale Research Facilities• Catapult Centres• R & D Tax Credits• R & D Tax Credits (SME)• Patent Box• UK Innovation Investment Fund

(UKIIF)

• UK Research Partnership Investment Fund

• University Enterprise Zones• Higher Education Innovation

Fund• HEFCE Catalyst Fund• Collaborative R & D• Innovation Vouchers • Knowledge Technology

Partnerships • Launchpads • SMART • Knowledge Technology

Networks • Small Business Research

Initiative (SBRI)

• Science Parks• Innovation incubators• Proof of Concept Funds

(FEI)• Proof of Technology

Funds (FEI)• Collaborative R & D• Contract research• Innovation Networks• Public Procurement• Knowledge Technology

Partnerships• Innovation Vouchers• Social Innovation• Higher Level Skills for

Innovation (ESF)

Synergies: ESIF & H2020 etc

3Source: European Commission

Synergies: ESIF & H2020 etcCurrent Approach

- UK-wide workshop to explore synergies, alignment & engage stakeholders

- Realistic & incremental - recognising the differences (in

purpose, targeting, outputs & programming).

- Focused on the downstream – with some limited upstream activity , especially in areas trailing the EU2020 target

- Start with sequential approach (not simultaneous) to funding

- Practical actions – flat rate cost options, two stage application process, notification of calls 3

Work in Progress / To be completed- Developing an on-line platform to join up University research

& expertise with business needs.

- Kick start an Advisory Hub on Smart Specialisation to support LEPs & other local partners

- Monitoring & evaluation strategies to be agreed by the Growth Programme Board when fully established

- Exploring feasibility of aligning some national ‘competitive’ funding programmes with proposals in LEP Strategic Economic Plans [See question 1]

- Identifying & driving forward opportunities to work collaboratively, building stronger value chains across England and internationally [See question 2]

- Result indicators that reflect Smart Specialisation – rather than standard innovation metrics (see question 3)

13

Questions for Peers (1) How to better to connect the local to the national?• Why: National projects serve a national purpose but are often

delivered in a local place – & local partners are often very keen to host these projects

• Why: National projects need to serve businesses across the country

• Why: Projects designed locally are often better embedded in the local economy - but some could be more effective if better linked to national projects based elsewhere

• Current state of play: Many LEPs are keen to make good use of national projects delivering in their local area but the design of some national projects makes it difficult to target services to particular places

• Challenge: How to build better joint understanding of the different motivations & limitations in the design of both local & national projects? How best to deal with issues of institutional ownership & leadership?

15

Questions for Peers (2) How best to build wider horizons?

• Why: The concept of S3 supports ‘connectedness’ in a globalising economy i.e. the building of value chains of trade, finance, knowledge, brands etc. across ever wider areas of geography

• Current state of play: Radically simplified design of new ESIF in England removes many artificial funding boundaries: Currently designing administration systems to facilitate collaboration across LEP boundaries; new Regulations also allow up to 15% ESIF to be spent outside the programme area.

• Current state of play: Many LEPs very interested in collaboration across boundaries but their initial focus and attention is often on their own local area

• Challenge: How to build impact with more working across borders; within England across LEP borders, internationally (e.g. H2020) and on a transnational basis (e.g. Interreg)?

14

Questions for Peers (3)

- How to develop Smart Specialisation result indicators (as opposed to standard metrics for innovation)?

• Why: We need to know what we are trying to achieve & to measure progress ; baselines & targets are necessary

• Why: We need indicators that reflect Smart Specialisation rather than traditional approaches to measuring innovation. The concepts within Smart Specialisation are probably best measured with qualitative indicators

• Current state of play: ESIF Regulations now allow for qualitative indicators but these are difficult to define and to measure.

• Challenge: How can qualitative indicators be better understood and be used to measure performance of Smart Specialisation?

16

Our self assessment

17