guidance notes for 10 stylised measures to support the...

mmmll

Guidance notes for 10 stylised measures to support the implementation of RIS3 Final Report Directorate-General Regional and Urban Policy

Ref. Ares(2015)2493588 - 15/06/2015

Guidance notes for 10 stylised measures to support the implementation of RIS3

February 2015 2

Table of Contents Table of Contents .............................................................................................. 2!How to use this guidance ................................................................................... 3!Fiches .............................................................................................................. 9!


February 2015 3

How to use this guidance The objective of these 10 practical guidance notes (‘fiches’) is to assist managing authorities to design and implement measures that enable the strategic priorities and thematic concentration set out in RIS3 strategies to be fulfilled. The proposed set of 10 fiches captures both the existing range of measures implemented across the Member States and takes into account the ERDF regulation intervention priorities. The types of measures presented share the following characteristics: ! They are innovative;

! Each one of them combines a number of different forms of intervention following an integrated approach which address several aspects of the identified failure;

! They involve a range of stakeholders;

! They cover a set of technologies/sectors;

! They use a mix of funding;

! And are ‘market focused’ or driven by private sector needs. Article 5 of the ERDF regulation sets out an indicative list of ‘investment priorities’ that can be funded through the operational programmes. In the field of strengthening research, technological development and innovation these include interventions: ! enhancing research and innovation (R&I) infrastructure and capacities to develop

R&I excellence and promoting centres of competence, in particular those of European interest;

! promoting business investment in innovation and research, and strengthening the synergies and collaboration between enterprises, R&D centres and higher education (e.g. support for product and service development, technology transfer, clustering, public service applications, demand stimulation, networking, open innovation, eco-innovation advanced manufacturing capabilities etc.);

This guidance explains how to implement typical RIS3 measures in reality, using some specific measures already implemented in some EU28 regions as an illustration (linking to additional specific information provided online, e.g on the platform of the Regional Innovation Monitor). The guidance notes contain the following fields:

1. Measure objectives and relevance for other regions 2. Beneficiaries 3. Thematic approach 4. Type of aid (State aid rules): 5. Mode of support and budget 6. Eligible costs 7. How to design such a measure 8. How to implement such a measure (including flow chart) and pitfalls to avoid 9. Human resources/ skills needed for implementation 10. Typical intervention logic for this measure (including logical framework) 11. How to monitor and evaluate results and measure impact (including suggested

indicators) 12. Typical time-line for implementation 13. Example of implementation/project

To the extent possible, the fiches refer to further material available online. In addition, the following table proposes other relevant sources of information on policy measures and practices that could support RIS3 implementation.


February 2015 4

Figure 1: Relevant sources of information on RIS3 implementation Type of information provided on RIS3 Web Link Smart Specialisation Platform: Guides, tools and good practices for designing and implementing RIS3 strategies

http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

Regional Innovation Monitor – RIM PLUS: Platform for sharing knowledge and know-how on major innovation policy trends and practices in European Union (EU) regions. The portal provides also an exhaustive list of research and innovation measures currently running in each region.

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regional-innovation-monitor/

Know-HUB: Guidelines for developing policy mixes and instruments for smart specialisation

http://www.know-hub.eu/knowledge-base/handbooks.html

mKETs Pilot lines: Examples and good practices on Key Enabling Technologies

http://www.mkpl.eu/home/

ERRIN: Forum of regions for mutual learning

http://www.errin.eu

The Figure 2 provides an overview of the 10 fiches covered in this guidance, along with the typical issues they address, the objectives they pursue, and the measure that is used as an example of implementation along with its mode of intervention.


February 2015 5

Figure 2: Challenges addressed by each type of RIS3 measure and overall typical objectives N° Classification / Title of the

fiche Typical issues to be addressed by such measure (What problem should be addressed)

Typical objectives of such measure (What is the change it is trying to achieve)

Measure used as an illustration

Typical mode of intervention of the illustrative measure

National/Regional Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3 strategies) are integrated, place-based economic transformation agendas that:

! Focus policy support and investments on key national/regional priorities, challenges and needs for knowledge-based development;

! Build on each country/region’s strengths, competitive advantages and potential for excellence;

! Support technological as well as practice-based innovation and aim to stimulate private sector investment;

! Get stakeholders fully involved and encourage innovation and experimentation;

! Are evidence-based and include sound monitoring and evaluation systems.

1 Fostering the emergence of new innovative companies through dedicated support to business formation

• Growing international competition

• Diversifying regional economies

• Low entrepreneurship culture

• Lack of venture capital

• Developing new economic activities through radical technological change and breakthrough innovations

Name: FiTOUR – Funding of innovative technology-based business formation Region (Country): Rheinland-Pfalz (DE)

• Grants for Spin-off promotion: compensation for the employer of entrepreneurs willing to create their start-up;

• Grant for purchase of services and goods prior to the business creation

• Grant to cover costs for market penetration

• Support through training and consultancy services provided by specific Technology Centres that are hosted in the Region

2 Supporting the diffusion of key enabling technologies through innovation platforms

• Downscaling of existing large industries because of globalisation

• Lack of new high-growth companies

• Segmentation / disconnection between knowledge triangle actors

• Lack of knowledge absorption by firms

• Low level of economic exploitation of research results

• Mismatch of regional skills against industry needs

• Strengthening the regions R&D and innovation activities

• Renewal of industrial structures and the education and research system in the region

• Strengthening the international competitiveness of the region

• Promote knowledge spillovers and technological diversification

• Improve a region’s internal & external connections

• Ensure regional growth

Name: Oulu Innovation Alliance Region (Country): Pohjois-Pohjanmaa (FI)

• Not a funding programme, but an agreement between key actors promoting innovation activities in the region.

• The Alliance has a joint governance structure and the implementation takes place through five innovation centres focusing on selected regional competences

• Majority of public funding to the Alliance is based on R&D project funding (collaborative industrial research and experimental development)

3 Supporting investments in strategic business R&D and innovation through

• Low awareness of the potential benefits of competence centres

• Need for better defining and

• Developing a critical mass of R&D&I resources in smart specialisation areas of the region

Name: Competence Centre Programme

• Grant for preliminary studies for conducting R&D


February 2015 6

N° Classification / Title of the fiche

Typical issues to be addressed by such measure (What problem should be addressed)




competence centres exploring R&D opportunities.

• Difficulty to identify proper R&D&I partners

• Lack of trust and mutual understanding of potential benefits of joint R&D

• Lack of adequate R&D governance model

• Increasing the share of research organisations and companies collaborating on R&D&I

• Increasing business R&D expenses (% of total R&D expenses and GDP)

• Growing revenue from new or significantly changed products or services

Region (Country): Estonia • Grant for applied research

• Grant for product development

• Supportive activities which increase the centre capability to conduct R&D

4 Supporting the development of regional thematic eco-systems through competitiveness clusters

• Segmentation/ disconnection between knowledge triangle actors

• Low level of differentiation of regional economy within global value chains

• Lack of knowledge absorption by firms

• Low level of economic exploitation of research results

• Mismatch of regional skills against industry needs

• Accumulate a ‘critical mass’ of resources in key areas for the region

• Create new competitive advantages and position the region in European and global value chains

• Make region more visible to international investors

• Promote knowledge spill overs and technological diversification

• Improve a region’s internal & external connections

• Ensure industrial competitiveness and regional growth

Name: Competitiveness poles Region: Wallonia (BE)

• Grants for collaborative R&D, training and infrastructure projects involving businesses, research organisations and training organisations

• Advantageous access to existing regional support schemes

• Support for internationalisation activities (in-kind contribution or grant)

• Support for investments projects (preferential tax)

5 Supporting advanced manufacturing through manufacturing catapult centres

• Insufficient capitalisation on the research and technological strengths of the region for producing economic benefits

• Low level of commercialisation of research results

• High cost and coordination barriers prevent individual companies of having access to expensive research infrastructures and high skilled personnel

• Mismatch between the knowledge production and technology exploitation actors the value chain

• High technical and commercial

• Match technologies to markets by demonstrating the commercial value of advanced manufacturing technologies

• Create a critical mass for business innovation in advance manufacturing

• Retain manufacturing in the region and attract additional investments and expertise

• Improve competitive position of local firms in the international value chains

Create sustainable jobs and wealth for the region

Name: High Value Manufacturing Catapult Region: England, Scotland, Wales (UK)

• Direct public support to companies for implementing R&D and innovation projects with the collaboration of Catapult. Type of projects supported include: R&D projects (fundamental, industrial and experimental research), feasibility studies; innovation aid for SMEs, process and organisational innovation;

• Direct public support to the Catapult when it performs economic activities such as contract research, rent of equipment, use of labs etc.as well as for the construction and upgrade


February 2015 7






uncertainty during the pre-competitive development of new ideas

6 Addressing societal challenges through smart cities

• Need to tackle societal challenges

• Bridging the innovation gap within society

• Carbonisation of cities

• Population growth

• Urbanisation

• Increasing energy demand & resources consumption

• Respond to economic and societal challenges

• Exploiting new forms of innovation

• Creating better, sustainable quality of life for everyone

• Increasing quality of life and prosperity

• Consuming less resources and protecting the climate (incl. abating greenhouse gas emissions)

• Social inclusion for all people in the city

Name: Smart City Region (Country): Vienna (AT)

• Holistic approach focused on city specific challenges and needs

• Networking, education, training activities, development of participatory approaches, research and innovation projects supported by any type of funding (grants, financial instruments, tax deductions, etc.), but primarily public-private co-funding

• Enablers: Governance, Education, Technology and Innovation, Social Inclusion, Economy, Environment and Health

7 Supporting innovation in the public sector through the development of e-infrastructure

• Insufficient quality, safety and efficiency of healthcare for the benefit of patients

• Lack of standardised information exchange and connection among healthcare units

• Lack of time series and authentic master data, delay in healthcare data provision

• Waste of resources by duplication or longer waiting time

• Better access to healthcare and information

• More evidence-based and faster decision making

• Reduction of errors

• Enhanced provision of remote healthcare services

• More patient-oriented and personalised healthcare

Name: Development of the National Health Information System Region (Country): Budapest (HU)

• Support for project preparation, feasibility studies, project management and implementation

• Development of ICT-infrastructure, training of staff, development of healthcare-related applications, capacity-roadmap, methodological developments and interface development.

• Support the launch of e-Prescription for drugs, the development of tele-diagnostics and tele-medicine systems and the creation of a digital self-authorisation process for the usage of health data.

8 Supporting the commercialisation of innovations through innovation alliances

• Scarce and/or dispersed innovation resources

• Lack of critical mass in innovation

• Low commercialisation levels of innovation and ideas

• Low level of interaction between actors in innovation

• Improve the innovation processes by making efficient use of existing resources

• Develop sustainable organisations for business and innovation support

• Ensure competitiveness and

Name: Innovation alliances Region (Country): Middle Norrland (SE)

• Public support for fostering start-ups and gazelles; aid for science-, technology parks and incubators.

• The activities focus on supporting entrepreneurs/innovators by providing:

− inspiration, verify their ideas and


February 2015 8






• Access to financing (as such and on the right time)

• Sparsely populated regions – long distance between innovation customers

regional growth

• Promote knowledge spill and increase knowledge amongst innovation advise providers

commercialisation in collaboration with other public investors, including

− establishment of new companies in the incubators.

9 Supporting the uptake of innovative products through Living Labs

• Innovators lacking resources and/or competencies to carry out innovation activities and bring their ideas to market (faster)

• Lack of market uptake of innovations

• Lack of understanding of existing and emerging user needs

• Mismatch between innovation supply and market/societal demand

• Lack of regional competitiveness

• Support the innovation process for all involved stakeholders, from manufacturers to end-users, with special attention to SMEs and a focus on potential users

• Facilitate research, development and innovation

• Speed up the innovation process from idea to market

• Generate sustainable business innovation in the region

• Develop innovations addressing user/societal needs

Name: Centre for distance-spanning technology Region (Country): Lulea (SE)

• Grants for collaborative R&D projects (co-funding public/private (in kind or direct funding))

• Provision of testing facilities through public-private partnerships

10 Address environmental challenges through cradle to cradle approaches

• Lack of information of businesses and individuals on the long-term costs of production and consumption choices

• Lack of awareness on opportunities for cost savings

• Lack of consideration from businesses of the social and environmental cost of pollution

• Difficult bottom-up coordination of collective actions of various stakeholders and beneficiaries

• Provide environmental support to companies

• Offer a consistently high quality service that meets business needs

• Rigorously monitor and measure the impact of our services

• Improve skills and knowledge on environmental management

• Decouple environmental degradation from economic growth

• Make environmental practice profitable.

Name: ENWORKS Region (Country): North-West England (UK)

• Provision of services to companies

• Free audits and on-the-ground support for companies to improve resource efficiency as well as trainings and networking events

• Online resource efficiency software kit for businesses to identify and manage environmental improvement actions and calculate potential resource and cost savings

• Information sharing and knowledge diffusion services on issues of corporate responsibility, environmental risk management, legal compliance, climate change adaptation, greening supply chains and sustainable procurement.


February 2015 9

Fiches The 10 fiches are presented in the following pages.

0.0 version : 1

Date: 18/02/15

FOSTERING THE EMERGENCE OF NEW INNOVATIVE COMPANIES THROUGH DEDICATED SUPPORT TO BUSINESS CREATION

Typical issues to be addressed by such a measure (What problem should be addressed)

Typical objectives of such a measure (What is the change it is trying to achieve)

• Growing international competition • Diversifying regional economies • Low entrepreneurship culture • Lack of venture capital

• Developing new economic activities through radical technological change and breakthrough innovations

Example of implementation in EU28

Rhineland-Palatinate (DE) – FiTOUR – Funding of innovative technology-based business creation (Förderung innovativer technologieorientierter Unternehmensgründungen)

Keywords Entrepreneurship, business angels, early-stage financing, start-ups/spin-offs

Link to more information

http://www.mwkel.rlp.de/Wirtschaft/Innovation/Foerderprogramm-FiTOUR/ (official Website in German)

Measure objectives and relevance for other regions The FiTOUR programme, founded in 2002, aimed at encouraging and supporting entrepreneurs to establish their own innovative technology-oriented company. The programme is particularly interesting in the context of a regional smart-specialisation strategy in that it builds on key regional assets and available infrastructures to bridge the gap between science and the economy, a challenge that is of prime importance for many regions across Europe. In regions such as Rhineland-Palatinate, with relative low research and innovation performance, compared to national and European standards, FiTOUR type programmes could contribute to addressing structural problems such as a lack of entrepreneurship culture and gaps in knowledge transfer and the commercialisation of research (the so-called “Valley of Death”).

Typical intervention logic for this measure

Cofunding (grants)

Funding of training and consultancy services

(prior to and right after business creation)

Support for market penetration (after business creation)

Contribution to achievement of

overall objective

Results

Spin-off promotion to universities, research

centres and companies employing aspiring

entrepreneurs (prior to business creation)

Outputs

Employment conditions of entrepreneurs are secured

and the entrepreneurial risks is undermined

Leverage on existing infrastructures and knowledge (of the

entrepreneur's employer)

Ressources

Strengthened regional

innovation capacity

Structural transformation of the regional economy and

increase in competitiveness

Development of new regional

economic activities and specialisation

Commercialisation of innovative products/

services

Acquisition of business management knowledge

by aspiring entrepreneurs

Survival (after 5 years) of the start-ups that were

supported

Job creation or maintenance

Development of the regional entrepreneurship

and knowledge transfer culture

Development of new contacts/ partnerships between research and

innovation

Reinforcement of business management skills among

the regional workforce

Creation of innovative start-ups

Implementation of this knowledge in their own

start-up

Support for the purchase of services and goods (prior to business creation)

Development of radical/ breakthrough innovation

Promotion and exploitation of key regional

assets

Better framework conditions for aspiring

entrepreneurs at the regional level

18/02/15 Page 2 of 4

In addition, innovative technology-based start-ups have high growth potential. They are drivers for radical innovation leading to new economic activities, they strengthen the regional innovation capacity, increase regional competitiveness and have significant impacts on job creation. The FiTOUR programme is an interesting example: it provides not only one-off financial support but bundles different forms of support. The different funding instruments can be combined following a flexible, needs-based approach. They include: i) training and consulting support; ii) spin-off promotion in existing universities, research centres and companies; iii) support for the purchase of services and goods prior to the business creation; and iv) support for market penetration. Following a holistic approach, support is provided at different stages of the business creation cycle: from the preparation to the setting up of the spin-off. Beneficiaries: New technology-based firms/new knowledge-intensive service firms; Others: individuals willing to create new technology-based firms, including: students, research and academic staff at universities and research institutions, employees of existing firms. Thematic approach: None Type of aid (State aid rules): State aid could be provided under de minimis regulation or Article 22 Aid for start-ups (Regulation 651/2014) Mode of support and budget: • Grants, including: Spin-off promotion – compensation for the employer of entrepreneurs

willing to create their start-up, with a grant covering staff, overheads and infrastructure costs, enabling the freeing up of 50% of the entrepreneurs’ working time for the creation of their innovative start-up (the grant amounts to up to €3700 for universities and research centres and €1000 for companies, for a maximum duration of 24 months, and 36 months in specific cases); Support for the purchase of services and goods prior to the business creation – grant allocated to entrepreneurs for the purchase of services (e.g. audit) and capital goods prior to business creation (up to €10,000; up to 50% of costs can be funded); Support for commercialisation – grants to entrepreneurs to cover staff, equipment and material costs for putting the product on the market (e.g. developing prototypes and pilots, testing and demonstrating products) of up to €100,000 with up to 35% funding (check also with State aid rules).

• Other (please specify): support through training and consultancy services provided by specific Technology Centres that are hosted in the Region. (Support covers up to 20 days work training and consulting services at €500 for a period of up to 24 months; after the start-up creation a contribution of €175 per day – €200 a year after the creation – is provided by the entrepreneur.)

Eligible costs: Personnel costs; Overheads; External consultancy and equivalent services (including feasibility studies); Other operating expenses (including materials, supplies). How to design such a measure: The process of designing measures fostering the emergence of new innovative companies is as follows:

• Set the rationale and objectives: define the system or market failures that justify public intervention in favour of the creation of innovative businesses and establish a clear set of coherent, detailed and ambitious objectives (including qualitative and quantitative targets);

• Map existing support at the national and regional level: avoid duplication and increase synergies between the different supports (e.g. synergies with venture capital delivered by regional support banks);

• Scope of support: i) Determine the type of entrepreneurs/start-ups eligible for support (support for specific value chains in line with smart specialisation areas, support for specific local areas), making sure it covers the key needs and different stages of the start-up creation; ii) Assess what are the key regional assets, infrastructures and knowledge on which the region can rely when implementing its policy, and identify any gaps (e.g. is appropriate business management training available in the region? What key innovation capacities and infrastructures are not yet available on the regional territory but would be needed by aspiring entrepreneurs?); iii) Where needed, regional authorities can carry out or commission a needs/SWOT analysis among regional entrepreneurs and enterprises, so as to guide regional support where it is most needed. If time and resources allow, experience from other regions in the same country or abroad can also be investigated;

• Establishment of governance, application & selection, monitoring & evaluation, and promotion modalities, following an inclusive approach and involving all relevant regional stakeholders that can contribute to leveraging the support and increase the support’s visibility and credibility (business sector, research, innovation and higher education sector, technology centres).

How to implement such a measure and pitfalls to avoid: Figure 1 provides an overview of the design and implementation of support measures for new innovative companies, along with the key elements to consider for each phase of policy development. FiTOUR is implemented internally by a

18/02/15 Page 3 of 4

programme management team within the State Ministry of Rhineland-Palatinate for Economic Affairs, Climate Protection, Energy and Regional Planning (Innovation Department/Unit for Innovation, Cluster policy, Innovation promotion). The process of implementation is as follows:

• Set up of horizontal governance process: to ensure autonomy and flexibility in delivery, promote synergies between policies and stakeholders and satisfy entrepreneurs’ aversion to bureaucratic processes.

• Identification of contact point: a contact point for new innovative companies should be clearly defined in the administration, and aspiring entrepreneurs should be granted easy phone and physical access to him/her. His/her role is to inform enquirers about available support for innovative business creation, guide applicants when filling in the project outline, communicating about application and selection processes and solve any administrative/financial issues that might arise with regard to application and financial processes.

• Submission of applications to the programme management team: aspiring entrepreneurs submit a three-to-four-page project outline. In the case of FiTOUR, the outlines should summarise: i) the business idea and why the idea is innovative (25% of the applicant’s score) – this should include an analysis of the project’s strengths and weaknesses; ii) the target market (50% of the final score); iii) information on the applicant(s), including CV(s) (25% of the final score). A good practice is for the applications to be submitted on a rolling basis (no specific calls need to be launched) to ensure continuity of support over the whole programming period, increase flexibility for the beneficiaries and avoid peaks in administrative burden for the public authority.

• Transparent selection of beneficiary entrepreneurs: selection can be performed by a panel of programme managers, where all relevant business and technology skills are available. Where this is not so, an external panel composed of regional private and public stakeholders can be set up.

• Communication of decision to applicants: including reasons for the decision and details of next steps for unsuccessful candidates.

• Follow-up of funding and business projects, including funding and reporting mechanisms (funding conditional on a survey of beneficiaries and/or submission of a short report a few months after the end of support) and interactions with beneficiaries to address problems and queries.

• Communication and promotion: design brochures and leaflets and make use of existing regional business events (e.g. business fairs) and networks to promote the measure (e.g. technology centres, technology-transfer offices in universities, regional agencies, regional banks and financial aid organisations). Case studies of successful innovative start-ups can also be drafted and showcased on its webpage.

Human resources/skills needed for implementation: Such measures require programme managers with a multidisciplinary background who have proved their ability to understand and interact with enterprises and academics or researchers. The OECD international benchmarking analysis of public programmes for high-growth firms (2013) advises relying on a balance of business and education backgrounds, with an entrepreneurial and technological experience mix – where possible. The report also recommends strengthening weaker competences (e.g. entrepreneurial or technological) in public schemes through the set-up of external advisory boards. How to monitor and evaluate results and measure impact: Regional authorities should set up a SMART monitoring system, tracking in particular: the number of start-ups created thanks to the support, start-ups’ survival rate after 3, 5 and 10 years, and the number of innovative products and services commercialised. Evaluation of the measures should be implemented at regular intervals (every five years), either as part of the evaluation of broader programmes (e.g. regional programmes for business creation or for SME support) or as part of a standalone exercise focusing on the specific measure. Monitoring and evaluation efforts should always be commensurate to the size of the initiative and focus on information that will provide information of prime importance. Typical timeline for implementation: The timeline for technology-based business creation follows the innovation lifecycle from idea to market, intervening between the end of Pillar 1 and Pillar 3.

Source: Doc. COM(2012) 341 final, 26.6.2012, ‘A European strategy for Key Enabling Technologies – A bridge to growth and jobs’

0.0 version : 1

Date: 18/02/15

Figure 1 The implementation of new innovative companies support, including pitfalls to avoid

Example of project:

The spin-off Nephele-Idea was founded in 2008 by three computer science students from Mainz University, with the objective of developing and bringing to market cloud software and innovative wine marketing applications. The spin-off was supported by the FiTOUR programme in 2011 to support the market penetration of the Winestro software (allowing customers to purchase wine online from winemakers - http://www.winestro.com/).

The capacity of the project to stimulate job creation, not only in the spin-off but also in wineries, was recognised by the FiTOUR jury. The project was selected and the grant supported the promotion of the software among wineries. The spin-off has now developed a second cloud software – Weinbau online – allowing winemakers to manage their business online (http://www.weinbau-online.de/index.php).

Source: http://www.uni-mainz.de/presse/49806.php; www.nephele-idea.de/

•

Date: 18/02/15

SUPPORTING THE DIFFUSION OF KEY ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES THROUGH INNOVATION PLATFORMS



• Downscaling of existing large industries because of globalisation

• Lack of new high-growth companies • Segmentation / disconnection be • tween knowledge triangle actors • Lack of knowledge absorption by firms • Low level of economic exploitation of research results • Mismatch of regional skills against industry needs

• Strengthening the regions R&D and innovation activities

• Renewal of industrial structures and the education and research system in the region

• Strengthening the international competitiveness of the region

• Promote knowledge spillovers and technological diversification region’s internal & external connections

• Ensure regional growth Illustrative measure in EU28 Pohjois-Pohjanmaa (FI) – Oulu Innovation Alliance Keywords Entrepreneurship, information and communication technologies,

innovation networks, knowledge transfer, R&D collaboration, innovation management

Link to more information http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/regional-innovation/monitor/support-measure/oulu-innovation-alliance

Measure objectives and relevance for other regions The Innovation Alliance aims to strengthen the regional innovation system by enhancing collaboration between key actors promoting innovation activities in the region. The Alliance is not a funding programme, but an agreement between these actors. The agreement focuses on the following activities: • Enhancing the collaborative structures supporting innovation activities in the region • Strengthening and internationalising local innovation centres • Strengthening the role of the city of Oulu in the regional innovation system • Strengthening the resources of key actors promoting innovation activities in the region.


overall objectives

Project funding for collaborative innovative

projects and infrastructures at innovation centres

Funding for alliance management and reform of alliance members own

activities

Creation of new high-growth companies

Results Outputs

Relevant research and innovation infrastructure

projects selected

Innovation centres selected

R&D and projects selected

Clearly defined roles and responsibilities

Research and development

Training

Inputs'

Sustained increased of foreign R&D and

innovation investments

Reinforcement of regional

competitiveness and socio-economic

development

Attracting and retaining the finest

minds, competences and

companies

Development of partnerships (ex: between

companies and R&D stakeholders) and

commercial relationships (e.g industrial international

collaboration contracts)

Coordinated strategies supporting long term

development of the regional innovation system

Increase in skills of regional workforce and upgrade of research and innovation

capacities


Strengthening of regional innovation centres

Improved knowledge transfer and

commercialisation processes

Better international visibility of the region

Adoption of key enabling technologies in companies

Economic exploitation (patents, licences, new products or processes)

Joint funding of alliance governance

Additional funding from partner companies for shared infrastructures

and activities

Member internal governance and

management projects selected

Shared understanding of common challenges

Shared activities and infrastructures

Reallocation of own funding


18/02/15 Page 2 of 4

The Alliance is based on strengthening the ‘triple helix’ between key universities (University of Oulu, Oulu University of Applied Sciences), the main research centre located in the region (VTT), local science park (Technopolis Ltd.) and the City of Oulu. The roles and responsibilities of these actors have been defined as follows: • University of Oulu is responsible for high-level internationally recognised research, development of

research infrastructures and structures for the valorisation of research results, and high-level education.

• Oulu University of Applied Sciences is responsible for applied research, knowledge transfer and development of professional expertise.

• VTT is responsible for developing new ideas, technologies and their potential for innovation. • Technopolis Ltd. is responsible for providing operational infrastructures and services for companies

and other organisations engaged in innovation activities. • City of Oulu (Business Oulu) is responsible for regional economic and innovation policy and

organising its implementation - including innovation advisory and support services, and branding the Oulu region internationally.

The Alliance has a joint governance structure, with implementation through five innovation centres focusing on selected regional competences: the Center for Internet Excellence (CIE), the Printed Electronics and Optical Measurements Innovation Centre (PrintoCent), the Martti Ahtisaari Institute of Global Business and Economics (MAI), the Centre for Environment and Energy (CEE), and the Centre for Health and Technology (CHT). Beneficiaries: All companies utilising the selected technologies and competences; Higher education institutions and research centres; City of Oulu and the wider Northern Finland region; Science park, and technology and innovation centres (non-profit); others, such as training organisations. Thematic approach: The Alliance’s activities focus on the thematic innovation centres. Type of aid (State aid rules): Article 25, Aid for research and development projects, and Article 26, Investment aid for research infrastructure of Regulation 651/2014, apply. Mode of support and budget: the City of Oulu has allocated an annual budget of €1m to operate the Alliance. The total volume of competitive funding attracted by the innovation centres during 2011-14 has been €10-12m annually, varying between €1m and €5m per year per centre. Human resources at the innovation centres range from 1 full-time equivalent (FTE) to 25 FTE depending on their character. The virtual centres have only a director, whereas a physical centre such as CIE has 25 employees. Governance resources were 1 FTE per year. Eligible costs: Dependant on the activities of the innovation centres. Based on eligible costs for R&D and innovation activities as defined in the State aid regulations. How to design such a measure The concept for the Alliance was based on a report from a national level working group set up by the City of Oulu. The working group was tasked with making a proposal for renewing the regional innovation system so that it could better face the challenges caused by globalisation, especially with regard to businesses and the production of new applicable knowledge. They were asked to provide a vision and strategy for developing higher education and research in the region, evaluate operational, financial and structural options for developing higher education and research institutions as an integral part of the regional innovation system, and identify both short-term actions and long-term development strategies for facing the challenges of globalisation. The report (published in December 2007) proposed a vision and identified key thematic areas. It also proposed a triple helix alliance to replace the existing advisory and stakeholder board of the University of Oulu. The main tasks planned for this triple helix alliance were to jointly agree on the thematic and operational foci of regional collaboration in promoting innovation, clarify the roles of higher education and research organisations in the region, and to launch joint education, research and innovation activities, including a feasibility study for establishing joint thematic campuses. As a result, the Oulu Innovation Alliance was established in 2009. The agreement was strongly based on the governance model, thematic focus and main activities (innovation centres) proposed in the working group report. The Alliance is based on a lean governance model and a joint strategy. The key governance components are the steering committee (consisting of Alliance members), the innovation centre management (and management team), and the coordinator (one person jointly funded by Alliance members). The strategy is based on the jointly identified thematic focus, the overall objectives of the Alliance (to develop the regional innovation system), clearly defined roles and responsibilities, joint branding activities, coordination of Alliance member strategies, systematic operational management, active search for better ways to support innovation, mutual commitment to jointly defined objectives and activities, and continuous learning. How to implement such a measure and pitfalls to avoid Figure 1 provides an overview of the design and implementation of the Alliance, along with the key elements to consider for each phase of development. The key issues that need to be addressed in designing and implementing such a measure include leadership and coordination, trust and commitment, and access to resources.

18/02/15 Page 3 of 4

Leadership and Coordination: Operational leadership of such a measure can be assigned to any capable member of the alliance or outsourced to an external organisation. The key is to have the necessary competences and skills to coordinate triple helix-type long-term collaboration at the strategic level, preferably also experience of such coordination. Leadership can and should be shared between alliance members over the longer term. However, in the beginning one of the alliance members should take the initiative and act as the leader, especially if the tradition and experience of collaboration between alliance members is not well developed. Whoever is assigned leadership must be recognised and respected by the other alliance members, either because of already having a significant role in the regional innovation system or due to recognition of their having the capabilities to lead such collaboration. Trust and Commitment: Benefiting from an alliance requires sufficient levels of trust between alliance members. Even more important is a shared commitment to the alliance objectives and activities. This can seldom be reached without dedicated processes aimed at identifying shared challenges and how to address them, i.e. what activities are needed from individual alliance members and what shared activities are needed in order to reach the commonly agreed objectives. It is necessary to allow alliance members to have enough time to interact, learn to know and trust each other and jointly identify and define strategies, objectives and activities. This can be best achieved by a joint strategic intelligence processes, such as foresight, innovation system evaluation, etc. This allows potential members of the alliance to have sufficiently in-depth and shared understanding of the key challenges, how to address them (activities) and what to aspire to (objectives). Access to resources: The key strength of an alliance is that its members are committed to a joint strategy and its implementation. This means that alliance members have agreed to allocate their existing resources for the benefit of the alliance. Access to additional resources can take place by applying to cluster- and networking-type national or regional schemes, collaborative R&D and innovation funding (regional, national or EU), schemes to fund research infrastructures, etc. If sufficient regional funding is available, or the regional innovation centres are competitive in attracting national or EU funding, there is no need for earmarked funding for the alliance. If this is not the case, another policy measures with dedicated funding allocations, such as clusters or competence centres, should be considered. One important aspect of such an alliance is the commitment and involvement of the regional administration. This can permit access to regional public infrastructures and services, which may act, for example, as experimental platforms for developing solutions to societal challenges. Human resources/skills needed for implementation: The most important human resources are the coordinator and the people who represent the alliance members. The cluster excellence assessment criteria for a cluster manager may be used as a basis for requirements for the coordinator: tertiary level education; work experience in the private sector, experience in cluster organisations or cluster management in particular; leadership and management skills; social skills, including intercultural skills; communication skills; project management skills; language skills in a regional language and English, and preferably one additional foreign language; relevant sector and/or technical knowledge based on more than three years of education and/or work experience; and preferably some cluster- and policy-related training. The main requirement for people representing alliance members is the ability to understand conceptual and systemic approaches, ability and willingness to understand the regional innovation system and its linkages and challenges, work experience from both private and public sectors, or from collaboration between these, and experience in designing and implementing strategies and strategy processes, in addition to sufficient thematic knowledge. How to monitor and evaluate results and measure impact: The objectives and implementation of the joint strategy needs to be monitored in order to measure the impact of the alliance. Oulu Innovation Alliance has selected a number of indicators for each overall objective. They include the following: • Strengthening the region’s R&D and innovation activities: volume of competitive additional

funding, volume of collaborative projects, volume of funding from companies, significant international contacts and networks, recruitment of key personnel, strategic research environments, and quality and use of research infrastructures.

• Renewal of industrial structures and the education and research system in the region: company satisfaction, company renewal, new companies, equity investments into companies, competitiveness of higher education institutes, labour market collaboration, and employment from higher education.

• Strengthening the international competitiveness of the region: image of the region within Finland and internationally, entrepreneurship attitudes, and attractiveness.

Example of timeline for the Centre for Internet Excellence (CIE) and its success stories: The decision to set up the Center for Internet Excellence (CIE) in Oulu was made by the founding partners in autumn 2008. CIE’s founding partners are the City of Oulu, Nokia, the University of Oulu, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, the Oulu University of Applied Sciences and Technopolis Ltd. CIE opened in August 2009. Since then it has become internationally recognised innovation centre.

Date: 18/02/15

Figure 1 – The implementation of the Oulu Innovation Alliance, including pitfalls to avoid

Example of implementation: PrintoCent is led by the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, working in line with the University of Oulu, Oulu University of Applied Sciences and Business Oulu, who have streamlined their efforts in printed intelligence for industrialisation and commerciali-sation. PrintoCent provides a design, development and manufacturing environment with special focus on Roll-to-Roll (R2R) and hybrid manufacturing, optical measurements and multiple applications, ranging from printed passive and active electronic components to microfluidic solutions, printed indicators and Point of Care diagnostics. The main objective is to develop novel components, products and solutions enabled by printed intelligence technologies. There is also a clear aim to create new companies with new business models. Today more than 35 companies are members of the PrintoCent Industrial Cluster. Since 2010 PrintoCent activities have resulted in 18 start-ups, including TactoTek, Detemex, FocalSpec, Goodwiller Oy, Nanordic.com, Iscent, Neficon and The Active Paper Company. Many of these are spin-offs from partners. Currently, there are more than 200 experts working in the PrintoCent community. PrintoCent annual budget (~€3M in 2013) consists mainly of collaborative projects funded from competitive national, regional and EU programmes, membership fees (€1000 to €6000 per year depending on company size, based on a three-year commitment) and other company contributions.

Démarrage du projet

Phase 1: Identification of challenges and

priority setting

Identification of thematic areas with

high innovative potential

PITFALLS TO AVOID

Evaluation of the alliance and its

impact

Review of policy

Identify key thematic areas (e.g. key

enabling technologies) of high potential economic importance in the

region. Commission a study or implement as a continuation of strategic intelligence

process.

!"Be"region"specific"but"consider"external"compe66ve"posi6oning"

!"Be"evidence"based"!"Consider"exis6ng"regional"

ini6a6ves"! Learn"from"similar"ini6a6ves"

elsewhere"! !"establish"clear"leadership"

Iden6fica6on"of"key"challenges"for"regional"economy,"in"par6cular:"

"! !Need!for!renewal!of!industrial!structures!(new!high4growth!companies,!renewal!of!exis9ng!companies!by!adop9ng!key!

enabling!technologies!! 4!Segmenta9on!/!disconnec9on!between!knowledge!triangle!

actors!4!Low!level!of!economic!

exploita9on!of!research!results!

Invite external experts to analyse the challenges and

suggest how to address them

Launch joint strategic intelligence processes (e.g.

foresight, innovation system evaluation)

Ensure leadership of the process (at least for build-up

phase)

Phase 2: Identification of scope of measure

Phase 3: Development/design of measure

Phase 4: Implementation and monitoring Phase 5: Evaluation and review

Establishing innovation centres focusing on selected thematic areas (key enabling

technologies)

The innovation centres should:

• Be based on a partnership between enterprises, higher education & research;

• Be co-financed by private and public funds;

•Target development priorities with medium-long term potential;

• Have the potential for growth leading to critical mass and the potential for

visibility, recognition and attractiveness at an international level;

• Include an international dimension; • Contribute to the development of

regional economic activities.

Brand"the"region"to"increase"aBrac6veness"

Brand"the"region"to"increase"aBrac6veness"Establish"a"transparent"and"systema6c"lean"governance""system"based"on"alliance"member"commitment"

Establish"interna6onal"networks,"especially"to"support"investments"and"commercialisa6on"

Launch"innova6on"centre"ac6vi6es"

!"If"need"for"more"objec6vity,"commission"an"external"study"!"Be"realis6c"in"iden6fying"interna6onal"posi6on"and"

compe66veness"!"Clearly"define"the"logic"of"interven6on"and"set"targets""

! Limit"the"number"of"thema6c"areas"selected"

! !"BoBom!up"approach"to"ensure"take!up"by"regional"stakeholders"

!"Develop"a"monitoring"system"

!"Minimise"administra6ve"delays"!"Ensure"transparency"of"processes"

and"decisions"!"Promote"cross"centre"collabora6on"!"Ensure"all"centres"cover"all"relevant"

ac6vi6es"from"research"to"commercialisa6on"with"specific"focus"on"experimenta6on"in"user"context"

!"Evaluate"at"the"right"6me"(e.g"every"3!4"years)"

!"Take"into"account"lessons"from"evalua6ons"to"review"the"ini6a6ve,"but"

also"evolu6on"of"policy"context"!"Perform"prospec6ve"analysis"to"iden6fy"future"needs"(e.g"for"

competences)"

Launch"and"monitoring"of"centres"and"projects"

Evaluation of individual centres

and other activities

Plan"and"launch"projects"from"the"Region"in"thema6c"areas"of"the"innova6on"centres"based"on:""

•"Mainly"collabora6ve"R&D"grants"(industrial"research,"experimental"development,"innova6on);"

•"Support"technology"transfer"and"commercialisa6on"by"establishing"relevant"networks"to"companies"and"investors"

(including"incuba6on"and"other"innova6on"services);"•"Develop"and"make"use"of"public"infrastructures,"research"

infrastructures"and"experimental"plaSorms"(e.g."living"labs)"to"enhance"innova6on;"Set-up management of innovation centres

and other alliance activities: • hiring management and staff

• recruit members • communicate

Set-up efficient monitoring system: • identify relevant indicators

• avoid double reporting • ensure confidentiality

Undertake"changes"in"alliance"member"internal"governance"and"structures"to"allow"for"beBer"integra6on"

Iden6fy"plaSorms"(e.g."living"labs,"public"and"research"infrastructures)"to"facilitate"experimenta6on"

Source: Technopolis Group, 2014

0.0 version : 1

Date: 18/02/15

SUPPORTING INVESTMENTS IN STRATEGIC BUSINESS R&D AND INNOVATION THROUGH COMPETENCE CENTRES

Typical issues to be addressed by such a measure (What problem should be addressed?)

Typical objectives of such a measure (What is the change it is trying to achieve?)

• Low awareness of the potential benefits of competence centres

• Undefined R&D needs and strategic aims • Difficulty in identifying proper R&D&I partners • Lack of trust and mutual understanding of potential

benefits of joint R&D • Lack of adequate R&D governance model

• Developing a critical mass of R&D&I resources in smart specialisation areas of the region

• Increasing the share of research organisations and companies collaborating on R&D&I

• Increasing business R&D expenses (% of total R&D expenses and GDP)

• Growing revenue from new or significantly changed products or services


Estonia (EE) – Competence centre programme (Tehnoloogia arenduskeskuste programm)

Keywords Science-industry collaboration, applied research, product development Link to more information

http://www.eas.ee/en/for-the-entrepreneur/innovation/competence-centre-programme http://erawatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu/erawatch/opencms/information/country_pages/ee/supportmeasure/support_mig_0007

Measure objectives and relevance for other regions: Competence centres are usually set up in regions to link existing strong research competences and industry needs. In Estonia, a feasibility study in 2002 concluded that establishing competence centres would intensify technological development and innovation of Estonian enterprises and boost commercialisation of results of academic research. Subsequently, the programme was launched by Enterprise Estonia. After a decade, eight competence centres have been chosen for programme funding. Each centre’s approach is highly dependent on its ability to reach critical mass as well as attain international visibility and recognition.

Impact

Results Outputs

Transforming the economic structure into

more knowledge-based and serving the

society’s interests

Increase of the share of universities

and companies collaborating in the area of innovation

Self-generated income from the core operations of the

centres, including the share of the income earned from

the sale of its products, services, patents and licenses

in the budget

Increase of the share of business R&D expenses of the research and

development activity (% of gross domestic product)

The volume of the R&D investments of the business

partners of the centres

The number of centres and the business partners who

have come to the market with products, services or

technologies new for the market and/or new for the

company

The added value of the centre business partners per

employee

The sales revenue ratio of the total net sales received

from the products and services new or significantly changed for centres and the business partners of centres

Inputs

Full-time R&D, management and support personnel involved in the

centres

R&D personnel offered part-time by science and

industry partners

Funding of competence centres

Public funding of the centres

Co-financing of the centres by science and

industry partners

Grants for preliminary studies, applied research,

product development

Supporting activities to increase the capability of centres to conduct R&D

The number of enterprises implementing cooperation projects with the centres

and belonging to the smart specialisation growth area

The number of enterprises belonging to smart

specialisation areas and having received support

Revenue growth from new or significantly

changed products or services The number of full-time

researchers and engineers

The number of PhD and MSc students involved in the R&D activities of the

centres


18/02/15 Page 2 of 4

For the next financing period (2014-2020) the focus is on competence centres operating in smart specialisation areas in Estonia: ICT, Health and Resources. The programme aims to improve access to R&D, technological development and innovation activities of enterprises. Despite its challenges, external assessments indicate positive impact on both industrial and academic partners of the centres (increase in R&D intensity of participating companies, R&D and PhD topics relevant for the participating industry, etc.) The programme has even facilitated structural renewal (Romanainen, J. 2013). Typical characteristics for successful competence centres and the programme include: • focusing on science-based innovation, which requires industry commitment; • acquiring critical mass, especially in science- and research-driven sectors; • acting as a learning platform for any partner but particularly for larger leader companies; • acquiring a joint strategic R&D plan agreed by all core partners (from industry, academia,

others); • combining funding for management and development, shared resources (human, infrastructure,

IPR) and joint projects into a single centre and programme; • remaining flexible (in terms of organisational format, openness for new partnerships); • monitoring and evaluation integrated into the design and implementation of the programme. Beneficiaries: Partners of the centre: all types of companies; higher-education institutions’ research units/centres, other non-profit research organisations (not HEI), business organisations/associations, healthcare providers. Thematic approach: in 2014 there are eight competence centres, of which two are in the area of ICT, two in the area of health and four in the area of resources (two functional food + biotech, two materials + application of ICT in manufacturing. After 2014 the priority fields are smart specialisation growth areas (ICT + Health + Resources). Type of aid (State aid rules): Aid for R&D projects: industrial research, experimental development; Aid for feasibility studies; Aid for innovation activities of SMEs. Framework for State aid for research and development and innovation (2014/C 198/01). De minimis rules are applied. The maximum amount of individual activities per beneficiary must meet the limits provided in Article 4 of the de minimis aid and the General Block Exemption Regulation. Mode of support and budget: Grants, only public-private co-funding; co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ca. 70% of the total programme funding). Funding for 2007-2013 was €59m (including state budget and ERDF allocations), with €40m planned for 2014-2020. Co-financing by all partners will be added to this amount. Management costs for programme administration are not currently available. The maximum amount of grant for one beneficiary is €7m. The major cost component is R&D. Eligible costs: Personnel costs related to the implementation of R&D activities, costs of business travel related to the implementation of R&D activities, costs of machinery and equipment (not purchased earlier by public funding sources or state budget), costs of contractual research, knowledge and patents purchased or licensed from an external source under market conditions, and costs of the advisory services – and other similar services – used solely for the project. Other operating expenses directly related to the project, including the costs of materials, supplies and similar products, are all eligible for funding. How to design such a measure: Competence centres are complex organisations. There are certain issues that need a specific approach by policy-makers and implementing agencies, including: • design (incl. reasons for launching the centres, actors in the design process, international

benchmarking and lessons learnt); • selection procedures (calls for proposals, proposal evaluation); • contract negotiation and funding principles (consortia, funding and costing principles, contract

negotiation and contractual issues); • evaluation and monitoring (basic definitions, evaluation approaches); • governance (on different levels); • organisational learning (different levels: centres, implementing agency). See also Roadmap: ‘Good practices for the management of Multi Actors and Multi Measures Programmes (MAPs) in RTDI policy’. Guide on design, implementation and evaluation of MAPs by the MAP Thematic Network. The feasibility study of the programme in Estonia (2002) was based on desk research, in-depth structured interviews and workshops. The preparation process brought together a wide range of experts from different sectors and levels. The aim of the process was to achieve a common understanding of the opportunities for the science-industry partnership in Estonia.

18/02/15 Page 3 of 4

How to implement such a measure and pitfalls to avoid: The competence centre type of programme requires a feasibility study. The feasibility study carried out in Estonia highlighted that a critical mass of research competences around a specified theme, a clear management and implementation structure, and the development of physical centres for joint R&D instead of networking platforms were needed. The critical success factors, on the basis of the Estonian experience, are: • to avoid focusing too much on R&D; • to establish competence centres with a focus on a region socio-economic needs (less focus on

technology or research questions); • to allow sufficient flexibility (e.g. to ensure openness to new partnerships from local and

international communities, to avoid lock-in effects). Human resources/skills needed for implementation: A strong core of key staff and strong management are vital for any centre to allow longer-term development and sustainability (Romanainen J. 2013). The management of competence centres cannot rely on one key person, as this may present a risk in the longer term. The implementing agency cannot only provide administrative support; the more strategic analysis of e.g. alignment of R&D objectives and socio-economic challenges is necessary. After about five years of programme implementation, the programme may need an update. The feasibility phase of the programme requires a constructive discussion among the policy designers and implementers to avoid misunderstanding during the launching phase of the programme. Also, involvement of potential beneficiaries in the design process is critical. Independent theme-specific expertise (with an outsiders’ view) is necessary to observe strengths and weaknesses in the innovation system. How to monitor and evaluate results and measure impact: Enterprise Estonia is responsible for dealing with disputes and providing the monitoring of implementation of the competence centres. Once a year, Enterprise Estonia compiles an annual report, which is submitted to the monitoring committee of the Operational Programme (for European funding) for approval. The ex-ante evaluation found that competence centres are an important addition in Estonia. Applications of each call are assessed by a panel of experts. The evaluation criteria are (for 2014-2020): • impact of the project (competence centre) on achieving the objectives of the measure; • rationale of the project including the clarity and impact of the intervention logic of the project; • cost-efficiency of the project; • capacity of the grant applicant and the partners to implement the project. Aid for competence centres valuation method for the preliminary applications are available here. Two mid-term evaluations were arranged during 2004-2014, the first one in 2008 and the other in 2012 (for internal use), both by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications. The 2008 mid-term evaluation assessed directions of change and suggested alterations in the programme design to improve the performance, but did not at that time identify evidence of social impacts. Among other evaluation methods it also included self-assessment of the competence centres. It examined experience at the centre level, management of the programme and the value added by the programming approach, role and compatibility of the programme, rationale, appropriateness and objectives of the programme. Typical timeline for implementation: Based on the Estonian example, the implementation of the programme timeline is as follows: 2002 Feasibility study to design and launch the programme 2002 – 2003 Design the programme 2004 – 2006 First round of the programme 2008 Mid-term evaluation 2007 - 2013 Second round of the programme 2012 Mid-term evaluation 2014 Redesign the programme 2014 - 2020 Third round of the programme (with a focus on smart specialisation growth areas)

0.0 version : 1

Date: 18/02/15

Figure 1 – Implementation of Competence Centre Programme, including pitfalls to avoid


Phase 1: Identification of challenges and priority

setting

Selection of competence centres by an implementing agency on a basis

of international experts’ panel evaluation results (based on an

experts’ evaluation manual)

PITFALLS TO AVOID

Mid-term evaluations of the programme (incl.

redesign if needed)

Review of policy

Feasibility study of the programme

(involvement of all interested parties)

!  Be$region$specific$but$consider$external$compe66ve$posi6oning$

(future$opportuni6es)$!  !$Consider$exis6ng$and$define$

missing$policy$ini6a6ves$in$the$region$

!$Learn$from$similar$ini6a6ves$elsewhere$

Identification of key challenges for region, in particular:

- Dominance of low value

added sectors & low productivity in the economy - Gaps in science-industry

cooperation & industry-oriented R&D

-  Lack of critical mass of R&D personnel in smart

specialisation areas

Policy benchmarking (internal and external)

Identification of the rationale to launch the programme in a region

(setting objectives)




To prepare for the call for proposal to establish a competence centre in smart specialisation growth area:

-  Scope of application

-  The purpose and the results of the awarding grants

-  State aid conditions for cooperation projects and the

principles of sharing intellectual property

-  Research Plan -  Activities supported and eligibility -  Grant application and evaluation

procedure -  Reporting and monitoring -  Terms of payment support

!  Commission$external$study$for$defining$the$ra6onale$

!  Involve$poten6al$beneficiaries$!$Carefully$iden6fy$the$logic$of$

interven6on$and$set$clear$targets$

!$Limit$the$number$of$thema6c$areas$to$smart$specialisa6on$areas$

!  Establish$clear$selec6on$criteria$of$the$centres$

!  Consider$development$path$for$the$centres$with$an$exit$from$the$state$

financing$

!$Minimise$administra6ve$delays$and$bureaucracy$

!$Ensure$transparency$of$processes$and$decisions$

!$Promote$inter!CC$collabora6on$and$learning$from$each$other$

!$Ensure$financial$and$strategic$development$of$the$programme$

!$Evaluate$at$the$right$6me$(e.g$every$three$$years$by$update$of$strategy)$!$Take$into$account$lessons$from$

evalua6ons$to$review$the$ini6a6ve,$but$also$evolu6on$of$policy$context$!$Perform$prospec6ve$analysis$to$iden6fy$future$needs$of$the$centres$

Internal assessment of

individual competence

centres based on regular reporting

Activities supported (based on a Research Plan): -  Conducting the preliminary studies for applied

research and product development projects -  Conducting of applied research

-  Conducting of product development -  Conducting supportive activities for achievement of

the research results: personnel development, planning R&D activities, sales and marketing

activities, preliminary protection of intellectual property rights, outsourcing of advisory services,

internationalisation activities, technology transfer activities

Set-up of the consortium agreement and contract with an implementing

agency


Identification of potential actors within

smart specialisation growth areas

Application phase: notice of

participation, pre-application, main application

Regular communication (an implementing agency vs a centre) incl. trainings (e.g. on IPR), exchange of

practices and knowledge, international practices, study tours

Regular reporting of the performance of competence centres: interim report, the interim evaluation report,

final report

Example of project: The Competence Centre for Food and Fermentation Technologies (CCFFT) was established in 2004 by Tallinn University of Technology and six partner companies (currently: eight scientific partners incl. Gratz University of Technology, Tartu University Hospital; 15 company partners incl. Lallemand, DuPont, Valio, Applicon Biotechnology). The centre took on the legal form of a (non-profit) company, later to become a legally for-profit company, as with other competence centres in Estonia. The CCFFT aims to build a strong combination of fermentation and food technologies with modelling at the molecular level. Its service packages include: Superior microbial cell factories, Bioprocess optimisation, Optimum cultivation media, Comprehensive study of cell physiology, and specific services. During 2007-2013 the CCFFT received €7.1m of programme funding. In 2012 it employed 60 people (46 FTE), with a modern infrastructure of ca. 1000 m2, 1-2 patent applications (PCT) and 15-20 CCFFT publications a year, and with a turnover of €2.4m (forecasting €8-9m in 2020). Several success stories with participating companies could be pointed out. In the result of the cooperation the Salutaguse Yeast Factory was transformed from an enterprise producing baker’s yeast to the local limited market into one of the best production units of special yeast preparations in the world, with yearly turnover of €21.2m in 2013 ( from €5.1m in 2005) and growing employment (from 5 to 96 in 2013). From the cooperation with Santa Maria and Saue Production, belonging to the Paulig Group, specific methods were developed for the study of quality, stability and identification of different flavours and herbs using sensoric’s methods in parallel with the necessary analytical methods (GC/MS, olfactometry, SFS). The 2012 mid-term evaluation of the CCFFT highlighted a remarkable response to the industry’s needs. However, the research novelty remained weak. Challenges remain, such as: strengthening middle management in the short run, extending the international scale and scope of the centre (both from the industry and research part), and creating more synergy between the needs of different industry partners.

Date: 18/02/15

SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL THEMATIC ECO-SYSTEMS THROUGH COMPETITIVENESS CLUSTERS



• Spreading scarce public resources • Segmentation/ disconnection between knowledge-

triangle actors • Low level of differentiation of regional economy within

global value chains • Lack of knowledge absorption by firms • Low level of economic exploitation of research results • Mismatch of regional skills against industry needs

• Focus scarce resources and accumulate a ‘critical mass’ of resources in key areas for the region

• Create new competitive advantages and position the region in European and global value chains

• Make region more visible to international investors • Promote knowledge spill overs and technological

diversification • Improve a region’s internal & external connections • Ensure industrial competitiveness and regional growth

Illustrative measure in EU28 Wallonia (BE) – Competitiveness Poles (Pôles de compétitivité) Keywords Thematic clusters, innovation networks, R&D collaboration,

internationalisation, training Link to more information http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/regional-

innovation/monitor/support-measure/competitiveness-poles

Measure objectives and relevance for other regions: The competitiveness poles policy aims to better orientate and focus limited amounts of public funding available in domains of specific importance for the region. It does so by:

• bringing together different types of stakeholders (companies, research organisations, training centres, policy-makers) within collaborative projects;

• in order to implement a diverse set of activities (research, training, internationalisation activities, infrastructure investment);

• within a limited set of pre-defined strategic areas; • with a focus on business-led industrial collaborative projects, which can demonstrate their

potential impact on jobs and growth.

Project funding for collaborative innovative

projects

Funding of operating cells of the pole


overall objective

Business creation

Results

Public funding

Outputs

Investments projects selected

Training projects selected

R&D projects selected

Internationalisation actions and projects


Training

Inputs

Sustained increased of

foreign investments



development

Attracting and retaining the finest

minds, competences and

companies

Development of partnerships (ex: between

companies and R&D stakeholders) and

commercial relationships (e.g industrial

international collaboration contracts)

Networking and operational management

of the pole

Increase in skills of regional workforce and

upgrade of research capacities


Development of regional eco-systems based on

regional synergies

Reinforcement of scientific knowledge within regional

research units

Better international visibility of the region

Reinforcement of industrial expertise within

companies

Economic exploitation (patents, licences, new products or processes)

Public support for internationalisation

activities (to pole and to projects)

Public support for investments of

companies of the pole and for shared infrastructure

Infrastructure projects selected

Project engineering and management

Technology watch and prospective in the fields of

activities of the pole

Own funding (incl.membership fees)


18/02/15 Page 2 of 4

The policy is based on a replicable combination of a top-down and bottom-up approach, which proves successful to ensure a broad take-up of the initiative by all types of stakeholders:

• Priority domains are defined at the policy level based on an analysis of regional potentials and development perspectives;

• The strategy, niches markets and technology fields are defined by the poles themselves. It is implemented through the setting-up of dedicated ‘operating cells’ which act as a node to develop industry-driven partnerships around thematic calls for projects. Over the period 2014-20 the competitiveness clusters may further develop to:

• offer platforms for cross-sectoral collaborations or co-investment possibilities between different clusters for shared infrastructure;

• open new avenues for a better cross-border connectivity and cooperation along specific value chains (regionally and internationally).

Beneficiaries: All companies; Higher-education institutions’ research units/centres; Other non-profit research organisations; Technology and innovation centres (non-profit); Other: Training organisations; Coordinating entity. Thematic approach: The poles evolve around a scientific field (e.g life sciences), technology type (environmental technologies) or market (aeronautics/space). Type of aid (State aid rules): Aid for R&D projects (collaborative industrial research and experimental development); Aid for the construction and upgrade of research infrastructures; Aid for innovation clusters (Investment aid; Operating aid). In order to respect State aid rules, public funding to the operating cells cannot exceed 50% for any longer than 10 years. The private funding may come from: member fees, provision of services (training, organisation of thematic events/conferences, marketing activities, market studies, technology watch, project management, etc.). Further information on alternative sources of funding for cluster managers is available here. Mode of support and budget: The collaborative R&D, training and infrastructure projects are supported through regional grants. Projects from the poles get an advantageous access to existing regional support schemes. Support is also awarded for internationalisation activities (in-kind contribution or grant) as well as for investment projects (preferential tax). A budget of €280m was allocated to the five Walloon competitiveness poles over 2006-10 and €388m to the six poles for the period 2010-14, i.e approximately €77.6m per year. The annual average budget of the operating cells is €1,2m (5.9 FTE per pole, backing rate: 4 FTE for 100 members). As of 2013, 241 projects had been approved under the framework of the competitiveness poles policy, after the first eight calls for a total amount of €612m. Collaborative R&D projects represent 83% of the funding allocated to ongoing and completed projects as of end 2013, followed by training projects (13%) and investment projects (4%). Eligible costs: Personnel costs; Overheads; External consultancy and equivalent services (including feasibility studies). How to design such a measure: Following a call for proposals, the Walloon poles were selected by an international jury of experts based on the following criteria:

• Strategy and objectives of the pole – general strategy for the development of the pole, its work priorities (markets/technological fields) and fields of excellence, its objectives and expected results/impacts and the dedicated means.

• Scope and environment of the pole – detailed ‘map’ of the pole – which partners, their roles, their contributions, their competencies and respective degrees of involvement, as well as the networking of the pole and a list of the external co-operation activities of the pole and its integration into international networks.

• Positioning of the pole – diagnosis of the pole and its prospects, covering its different components (industrial basis, R&D and innovation, training ...) at the sector, market, regional and international levels.

• Multiannual business plan – detailing the content of the concrete co-operation projects to be implemented by the pole (partners, objectives, dedicated means, expected results and their exploitation, timetable) and their financing means.

• Governance and monitoring modalities. The Government now launches, on a regular basis, calls for projects directed to the poles. Projects first undergo an internal review within the pole and are then submitted to the international jury for a final ‘go’/‘no go’ decision. How to implement such a measure and pitfalls to avoid: Figure 1 provides an overview of the design and implementation of the policy, along with the key elements to consider for each phase of policy development. The poles are organised around three main entities:

18/02/15 Page 3 of 4

• Operating cell – sole permanent entity of the pole with dedicated personnel (cluster manager, project managers and administrative personnel) in charge of operations.

• Governing Board – directed by an industrial representative and co-directed by an academic – defining the strategy of the pole, as well as the development priority areas, and performing a first selection of projects to be filled. Thematic working groups are also set up to feed into the strategic thinking of the poles.

• Scientific Committee – internal assessment of projects prior to submission to international jury. The work of the operating cell is particularly important here. It has three main missions:

• Networking and operational management of the pole – Search and involvement of stakeholders; Operational management of the pole, Maintenance of a skills database, Inter-connection of poles and clusters related to the pole’s activity; Assistance in building partnerships between cluster members or networks related to the pole’s activity; Communication; International promotion; Website and Intranet, Development of training activities; Relations with governments; Performance monitoring and reporting to the region.

• Project engineering and management – Organisation of internal calls for projects and internal selection procedures; Administrative support to projects; Monitoring and control of selected projects; Advice in project engineering; Fundraising; Support for the management of intellectual property and commercialisation of research, and internationalisation activities.

• Technology watch, prospective – Strategic support to the Governing Board; Technology watch; Sharing of best practices and standardisation; Knowledge management and dissemination; International partnerships; Operational implementation of the jury’s recommendations.

The operating cell should not only play a role of facilitator and integrator, by supporting the emergence and setting-up of collaborative projects, supporting international actions, and coordination, but should also be involved in the projects’ implementation phase, and have the (contractual but also knowledge) authority to intervene. The cell should update its strategy regularly in order to follow relevant developments (e.g. every 5 years) and act as coordination with other poles. It should also ensure that the issue of economic exploitation is considered upstream of the projects (market studies, first prospects and clients, etc.). The export, training, investments, and infrastructures dimensions of the projects should be directly integrated into the R&D project proposals and implemented only upon approval from the international jury, depending on the needs and progress of the project. Finally, the cell should ensure that strategic and prospective exercises are performed to evaluate the evolutions of jobs and competences in companies in order to define needs in the poles’ thematic areas on a five-years-time horizon. Human resources/skills needed for implementation: according to the cluster excellence assessment criteria, a cluster manager should have at least the following qualifications: Tertiary level education; Work experience in the private sector, excluding experience in cluster organisations or cluster management in particular; Leadership and management skills; Social skills including intercultural skills; Communication skills; Project management skills; Language skills in English and in at least one foreign language; Relevant sector and/or technical knowledge of more than three years, due to education and/or work experience; Cluster and policy-related training. How to monitor and evaluate results and measure impact: Please refer to section 6 of this guide for specific guidance. A proper monitoring system should be in place (dedicated system, optimal circulation of information, progressive indicator system based on the level of technological maturity of the project, follow-up at project closure, etc.) and part of the projects’ funding should be conditional on the provision of monitoring information by the poles. Example of timeline of the pole Biowin and its success stories:

Date: 18/02/15

Figure 1 – The implementation of the competitiveness cluster policy, including pitfalls to avoid

Example of project: One application-oriented R&D project (2009-12, €2.4m, 50% public funding) involved 6 companies, one university and two applied research centres. The operating cell of the pole supported the coordinating SME in setting-up the consortium and for regular reporting, helping to better structure the project and make the economic exploitation aspects more solid. The pole notably accompanied the consortium in writing up the project proposal, for the technical analysis (with the support of experts), the issues of eligibility, the qualification of the planned research activities in the project, as well as for market analysis (communication of a market study, which helped clarify the expectations of the project). Also, the international jury provided support for redefining the business plan of the project. The monitoring carried out by the pole imposed some pressure to move forward and produce results: 11 jobs were created so far within the coordinating SME (expecting 24 by 2017), which moved from R&D and prototyping activities to the commercialisation of new products. The other partners increased their competences in this enabling technology and maintained jobs in the context of the crisis. The research centre has broadened its competences, which are applied in new projects. In parallel, training was organised around the new technologies towards the technicians to ensure its take-up.


Phase&1:&Iden,fica,on&of&challenges&and&priority&se8ng

Identification of priority sectors

with high innovative

potential (short list)

Selection of competitiveness poles by international jury

PITFALLS TO AVOID

Evaluation of the

competitiveness poles policy and

its impact

Review of policy

Commissioning of study to identify key domains of

economic importance in the

region

9&Be&region&specific&but&consider&external&compe,,ve&posi,oning

9&Be&evidence&based9&Consider&exis,ng&ini,a,ves&in&

the&region9&Learn&from&similar&ini,a,ves&

elsewhere

Iden,fica,on&of&key&challenges&for&regional&economy,&in&par,cular:

!"lack"of"cri+cal"mass"for"R&D"ac+vi+es

!"limited"public"funding!"concentra+on"of"R&D"efforts"

in"limited"number"of""companies"in"small"number"of"

sectors!"low"level"of"diffusion"of"knowledge"within"regional"

economy


Identification of potential niches

for specialisation (long list), based

on set of indicators

Phase&2:&Iden,fica,on&of&scope&of&measure

Phase&3:&Development/design&of&measure

Phase&4:&Implementa,on&and&monitoring Phase&5:&Evalua,on&and&review

Calls for proposals to establish competitiveness poles

The competitiveness poles should:

• Be based on a close partnership between enterprises, training bodies

& research units;• Be financed by private and public

funds;•Target development priorities with

medium-long term potential;• Have the potential for growth leading to critical mass and the

potential for visibility and recognition at an international level;• Include an international dimension;

• Contribute to the development of regional economic activities.

Diffusion&of&informa,on&by&coordina,ng&cells&of&the&poles

Internal&Jury&for&selec,on&of&projects

Mee,ng&for&formalisa,on&of&project&between&administra,on,&coordina,on&cell&and&project&

holder&and&filling&of&project

Approval&of&project&with&or&without&condi,ons

9&Commission&external&study&for&more&objec,vity

9&Carefully&iden,fy&the&key&indicators&to&consider&as&well&as&

data&sources9&Clearly&define&the&logic&of&interven,on&and&set&targets&

9&Limit&the&number&of&thema,c&areas&selected

9&Establish&clear&criteria&for&selec,on&of&poles&(incl.clear&

strategy&with&iden,fied&objec,ves)9&BoTom9up&approach&to&ensure&take9up&by&regional&stakehodlers9&Develop&a&monitoring&system

9&Minimise&administra,ve&delays9&Ensure&transparency&of&processes&and&decisions

9&Promote&inter9pole&collabora,on9&Request&projects&proposals&to&discuss&economic&exploita,on&

strategy&as&well&as&training,&export&&&investment&strategy

9&Evaluate&at&the&right&,me&(e.g&every&5&years&by&update&of&strategy)9&Take&into&account&lessons&from&

evalua,ons&to&review&the&ini,a,ve,&but&also&evolu,on&of&policy&context9&Perform&prospec,ve&analysis&to&iden,fy&future&needs&(e.g&for&

competences)

Launch&and&monitoring&of&project

Evaluation of individual

clusters

Calls&for&projects&from&the&Region&in&thema,c&areas&of&the&poles&(or&cross9cu8ng&priori,es)&based&on:&•&Mainly&collabora,ve&R&D&grants&(industrial&basic&

research,&applied&R&D);•&Aids&for&financing&specific&training&ac,ons&in&the&

thema,c&area&of&the&pole;•&Support&for&exports&and&aTrac,on&of&foreign&

investments:&hiring&of&a&person&responsible&for&export&in&each&pole&and&se8ng&up&of&an&annual&export&plan&and&

prospec,ng&of&investors&on&a&sectoral&basis

Set-up of the coordination cells:• hiring cluster manager and

supporting staff• recruit members

• communicate


• avoid double reporting• ensure confidentiality

Dra\&projects&shared&on&website&of&the&pole&by&projects'&holders

Check&of&dra\&projects&by&coordina,ng&cell&and&adjustement&of&projects

Technical&analysis&by&Regional&authori,es

Evalua,on&of&projects&by&Interna,onal&Jury&(relevance&andd&opportunity,&regional&added9value)

Dra\&contract,&consor,um&agreement,&contract&signature

Source:"Technopolis"Group,"2014

0.0 version : 1

Date: 18/02/15

SUPPORTING ADVANCED MANUFACTURING THROUGH MANUFACTURING CATAPULT CENTRES Typical issues to be addressed by such a measure (What problem should be addressed)


• Insufficient capitalisation on the research and technological strengths of the region for producing economic benefits

• Low level of commercialisation of research results • High cost and coordination barriers prevent individual

companies of having access to expensive research infrastructures and high skilled personnel

• Mismatch between the knowledge production and technology exploitation actors across the value chain

• High technical and commercial uncertainty during the pre-competitive development of new ideas

• Match technologies to markets by demonstrating the commercial value of advanced manufacturing technologies

• Create a critical mass for business innovation in advance manufacturing

• Retain manufacturing in the region and attract additional investments and expertise

• Improve competitive position of local firms in the international value chains

• Create sustainable jobs and wealth for the region


England, Scotland, Wales (UK) – High-Value Manufacturing Catapult

Keywords Technology innovation centres, catapults, R&D collaboration, innovation networks, commercialisation of research results


Erawatch, https://www.catapult.org.uk, www.hvm.catapult.org.uk

Measure objectives and relevance for other regions Often regions fail to capitalise on existing research and innovation capabilities to generate growth due to: • the fragmentation of expertise and skills and the lack of alignment between the skills and the

needs; • barriers experienced by companies in accessing specialised research facilities and highly skilled

personnel under market conditions; • the high cost for companies to develop internally the necessary technical and research capacity.

Responding to the above system, and to market failures, the technology and innovation centres, ‘Catapults’, enable companies to share the cost of R&D and to access skills and research facilities. They do this by providing open access to a network of research infrastructures, and technical and


18/02/15 Page 2 of 4

commercialisation expertise. They focus on technology areas where a region has specialisation that local companies have the capabilities to exploit and invest in sufficiently to capture market share in global markets. Catapults are non-profit mission-driven organisations working closely with leading universities, research organisations and technology centres, which offer: technical expertise and access to cutting-edge specialist equipment; contract research services; production of laboratory and industrial prototypes and demonstration of applications in their operational environment; expertise in accreditation and approval of regulatory and technical requirements; advice on commercialisation of innovative ideas; access to people and specialised organisations; and help with accessing funding. Catapults contribute to the creation of a critical mass for business innovation in regions’ specialisation areas, reduce the risk of innovation, accelerate the pace of business development and help regions to stay at the leading edge of the technology. Beneficiaries: Direct beneficiaries are the Catapult organisation and the participating technology and research centres and higher-education institute (HEI) research units. Companies are indirect beneficiaries. They are not directly supported but they benefit through the operation of the Catapult. Thematic approach: Catapults focus on a specific area of technology where the region has the potential to generate growth. The technology area could be as broad as ‘advanced manufacturing’, including all forms of manufacturing using metals and composites, and process manufacturing including bioprocessing, or more narrowly defined, such as ‘satellite applications’ or ‘cell therapy’. Type of aid (State aid rules): Four cases of state aid are important: • Direct state aid to companies for implementing R&D and innovation projects with the

collaboration of Catapult. Type of projects supported include: R&D projects (fundamental, industrial and experimental research), feasibility studies; innovation aid for SMEs, and process and organisational innovation (Article 25 of Commission Regulation 651/2014).

• Direct State aid to the Catapult when it performs economic activities such as contract research, rent of equipment, use of labs, etc. (section 2.1 of the Framework for state aid for R&D and Innovation and Articles 25 and 26 of Commission Regulation 651/2014).

• Direct State aid to the Catapult for the construction and upgrade (section 2.1 of the Framework for state aid for R&D and Innovation and Article 26 of the Commission Regulation 651/2014)., and

• Indirect State aid to the companies supported by the Catapult (section 2.2 of the Framework for state aid for R&D and Innovation).

Mode of support and budget: Eligible costs for the construction and upgrade of Catapults could be funded 100% by ERDF and national funds through the investment priority 1a of the relevant Operational Programme. In the case of a contribution by the private sector, the State aid rules (see above) should be respected. During the operation, the one-third, one-third, one-third model could be followed. According to this model, Catapults when fully established should generate their funding broadly equally from three sources: (1) business-funded R&D contracts, licensing, membership subscriptions; (2) competitive collaborative applied R&D projects, funded jointly by the public (grants) and private sectors; (3) core public funding for long-term investment in infrastructure, expertise and skills development. Public support of type 2 could be grants co-funded by the ERDF and national funds, investment priority 1b, while funding of type 3 could be co-funded by national funds and the ERDF, investment priority 1b, and/or from ESF Article 3a(v). The High-Value Manufacturing (HVM) Catapult will receive for the period 2011-2016 public funding of approximately €178m (£140m) from the UK government. Support from industry amounted so far to 40% of HVM Catapult income. Other Catapults with narrower scope, e.g. the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult, will receive from the UK Government €12.7m (£10m) a year over five years. Eligible costs: During setting up: investment costs in tangible and intangible assets. During operation: Overheads, personnel costs, cost of instruments and equipments, cost of buildings and land for the period used for the projects, patents, licensing, consultancy and equivalent services, operating expenses. How to design such a measure: Technology Innovation Centres (TIC) have been set up in several countries. Each country has adapted the concept of TICs to their local context and needs, not necessarily with the same success. In the UK the discussion about establishing a new generation of TIC, later named Catapults, started in 2010 with a review of UK experience with TICs, the identification of best practices from around the world, and assessment of their potential to act as a bridge between the research base and industry in the UK. On the basis of this review, UK Government committed an initial amount of £200m to explore the potential of TICs under the supervision of the Technology Strategy Board (TSB). In 2011, the development of TIC

18/02/15 Page 3 of 4

was integrated within the broader TSB business innovation strategy under the brand name “Catapults”. In January 2011, a prospectus containing the design concept and proposed selection criteria was published for consultation. The selection of Catapults started in February 2011 with a very broad consultation on candidate areas with business and research communities. The consultation initially focused on the identification of core selection criteria. A series of large workshops were held in each area, and extensive discussions and one-to-one consultations with leading business people and academics. In total around 50 separate events were held, a significant number of individual briefings and more than 3000 organisations contributed to the process. Based on the results of the consultation process, the fast-track Catapult in High-Value Manufacturing was announced in April of the same year followed by two additional Catapults on ‘cell therapy’ and ‘offshore renewable energy’. The strategy and implementation plan for the Catapults was published later in 2011 and a list of additional 10 Catapults was announced. Overall, the main element of the design includes: the involvement of the stakeholders and the development of a common vision early in the process; setting of selection criteria; definition of the operational model and types of services, commitment for public funding, and development of a co-ordination mechanism. How to implement such a measure and pitfalls to avoid: The critical aspects for the implementation of Catapult-TICs could be grouped as follows: (i) Set up of a monitoring and evaluation system at the level of the regional or national government; (ii) Definition of the scope of TICs by specifying the technology areas and the target industries, and design of the operational model which includes the organisation structure, the funding model and the services provided; (iii) Select the organisations which will host the TIC, and the research partners which will provide the technological expertise and facilities, and set up the non-profit company for the TIC; (iv) During the operation of the TICs, provide core funding, which should be secured for at least 10 years, and launch competitive R&D and innovation programmes to co-finance collaborative R&D and the services which are provided by the Catapult to companies. Funding is recommended to follow the one-third rule. Figure 1 presents an overview of the design and implementation of the policy, along with the key elements to consider for each phase of policy development. The Technology Strategy Board provides an overview of the implementation plan for the Catapults in the UK in this document. Human resources/skills needed for implementation: Catapults need a mix of different knowledge backgrounds and skills, covering the whole innovation process from research to the exploitation and application of results in an industrial environment. Thus, the workforce should combine personnel from the research sector and industry with strong technological and commercialisation skills. Catapults’ management and senior staff should also combine the entrepreneurial spirit with industrial experience and knowledge of the academic base. How to monitor and evaluate results and measure impact: A monitoring and assessment system should be in place in order to monitor and asses individual Catapult-TICs and the overall TIC policy, including: definition of roles in the monitoring system; definition of proper output, result and impact indicators and milestones; development of procedures for collecting information, estimation of indicators and reporting, e.g. production of bi-annually and annual monitoring reports focusing mainly on inputs, outputs and milestones; ongoing evaluations (after 3 years of operation) focusing on outputs and immediate results, and assessments of management and services offered; evaluations (after 5 and 10 years) focusing on results and impact, assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency and relevance of policy, and assessment of the management and services offered. Typical timeline for implementation:

EOI: Expressions of interest; HVM: High-Value Manufacturing Source: Technology Strategy Board.

0.0 version : 1

Date: 18/02/15

Figure 1 – The implementation of a Catapult measure, including pitfalls to avoid Example of project: HVM Catapult The High Value Manufacturing Catapult is the first of a series of new Technology Innovation Centres established in UK under the brand name Catapults. It started its operation in 2011 aiming at stimulating growth in the manufacturing sector and more than doubling the sector’s contribution to UK GDP. The stated objective will be achieved by helping businesses and research institutions accelerate commercialisation of new concepts. The centre will enable the UK to address market needs in key areas, making the country more competitive on the global stage. The HVM Catapult has been established and overseen by the Technology Strategy Board which is going to invest more than £140 million over six-year period. The Catapult forms part of a consortium of seven centres based across the UK of a total asset base of £380m, 1200 engineers, scientists, technicians and support staff with expertise in design and manufacturing technologies for metals, composites and hybrids; for plastic electronics; for the process industries; and automation, control and simulation/modelling technologies. The centre supports key manufacturing sectors including aerospace, automotive, industrial biotechnology, chemicals, food and drink and microelectronics offering research services, collaborative research, development of laboratory and industrial prototypes, patenting and commercialisation of new innovative ideas, problem solving, technical expertise and training. Within a year of its operation, the HVM Catapult worked with over 1000 industrial clients, completed over 850 innovation projects and engaged in 1600 projects with SMEs. The earnings from industry amounted to 40% of its income. During the same period the centre attracted over £219m of additional investment with every £1 of Government funding generating £3.90.

0.0 version : 1

Date: 20/02/15

ADDRESSING SOCIETAL CHALLENGES THROUGH SMART CITIES



• Societal challenges • Bridging the innovation gap within society • Enhancing “smart industries” e.g. in the area of

mobility, energy, healthcare or eco-industries • Carbonisation of cities • Population growth and urbanisation • Increasing energy demand & resources consumption

• Respond to economic and societal challenges • Exploiting new forms of innovation • Creating better, sustainable quality of life for everyone • Increasing quality of life and prosperity • Consuming less resources and protecting the climate (incl.

abating greenhouse gas emissions) • Social inclusion for all people in the city


Vienna (AT) – Smart City

Keywords Smart city, innovation, societal challenges, quality of life, inclusion Link to more information

https://smartcity.wien.at/site/en

Measure objectives and relevance for other regions The economic crisis and the need to mitigate and adapt to climate change are not only an expense and a problem, but also an opportunity to review and restructure the way regions and cities are governed and developed. A strategic and integrated planning can help modernise the way energy and other resources are used, and to apply innovative technological and organisational solutions. The objective of Smart Cities is to accelerate investment and the rate of innovation in cities in Europe with the aim of achieving social, economic and environmental objectives: • Increase the quality of life of city-dwellers. • Enhance the efficiency and competitiveness of the local and EU economy for instance by supporting

emerging industries in the area of mobility, healthcare, environmental industries, digital-based industries etc.

• Move towards the sustainability of cities by improving resource efficiency and meeting emission reduction targets.

Project funding (grants and innovative finance)


overall objective

Business creation

ResultsOutputs

New investments in smart technologies generated

Infrastructure (ICT, transport, mobility, buildings) upgraded

Demonstration and innovation projects

supported

New forms of innovation supported

Coordination unit resources

Public-private partnerships

Ressources

Improved environmental performance &

resource protection

Structural transformation of the regional economy and

increase in competitiveness

New forms of consultation and organisation developed


Decrease of greenhouse gas emissions

Better international visibility of the city

Consumption of less resources

Development and productive use of innovations/new

technologies

Cooperation improved between city stakeholders

New economic activity attracted

New markets developedInfrastructure support

Innovative and pre-commercial (green)

procurement

Innovation projects

Development of new regional

economic activities and specialisation

Better, sustainable quality of life for all

Inclusive society

Support to education

Support to social inclusion

Smart city planning and innovative governance

Smart (skilled) people

Smart (high and socially balanced quality of) living

Smart (innovative and creative) economy

Smart (improved) mobility

Smart (protected) environment

Raised awareness on societal challenges

Pilot projects

Adaptation of regulatory and institutional

framework

New approaches for life-cycle costing developed

Training programmes developped

New businesses supported

Interoperability, open data and standards

Better consideration of societal challenges in all city

endeavours

Increased productivity


20/02/15 Page 2 of 5

A city becomes ‘smart’ by introducing new technologies and applications, for example in energy, buildings, transport and ICT that improve the well-being of citizens and contribute to a cleaner environment. Therefore, a Smart City consists of projects and concrete actions that transform the city in this regard. However, a Smart City is more than the sum of its projects. Rather, it needs a fertile environment guided by a clear vision, the participation of relevant actors (people), and the efficient and effective organisation of its processes. The density and diversity of inhabitants (population and businesses alike) facilitates mutual recognition of problems, mobilisation of critical mass, and efficient reallocation and monitoring of roles and responsibilities. Developing Smart Cities is not only a process whereby technology providers offer technical solutions and city authorities procure them. Building up Smart Cities requires the development of the right environment for smart solutions to be effectively adopted and used. Smart Cities need to naturally ‘grow’ into the urban fabric. Many of the solutions do in fact need the active participation of city dwellers as users, consumers and de facto voters. An elementary characteristic of a Smart City is the integration and cross-linking of these areas, in order to implement the targeted ecological and social aspects of urban society, and a participatory approach. The Vienna project is long term and covers all areas of life, work and leisure activities. The benefits of the measure in terms of economic dynamisms are to foster emerging industries in several areas. For instance the Smart Cities initiative has created a demand for developing renewable energies, such as solar energy, within a specific initiative called Citizens’ Solar Power Plants. Within another sub-project called Innospirit, the goal has been to support know-how development on urban technologies and their use in new business ventures. Beneficiaries: These could be any public or private legal entity, SMEs, citizens’ NGOs, research organisations, etc. – and governmental agencies/utility providers in cases of public infrastructure. Thematic approach: Energy (systems), Mobility, Buildings, Infrastructure, ICT, Environment. Enablers: Governance, Education, Technology and Innovation, Social Inclusion, Economy, Environment and health. Type of aid (State aid rules): Aid for R&D projects; Aid for feasibility studies; Aid for the construction and upgrade of research infrastructures; Aid for innovation activities of SMEs; Aid for process and organisational innovation. Mode of support and budget: Any type of funding (grants, financial instruments, tax deductions, etc.), but primarily public-private co-funding. The funds for urban development are not the only ones that can contribute to a smart city. Funds for support to the unemployed and to SMEs can be accessed, for example, to enhance the appropriate skill base. Structural Funds for infrastructures may also be used for projects benefitting urban areas. The highest proportion of public funding is found in intelligent traffic system and smart neighbourhood projects. Participant platforms typically have only modest funding needs; the primary ‘costs’ associated with such projects are the time and other resources invested by platform users. Information on financing models for Smart Cities, including best practice examples: here. Using EU funding mechanisms for Smart Cities: here. Public procurement for Smart Cities: here. Innovation public procurement can be a very effective financing model. For instance the EcoBuy Vienna initiative (also part of Smart City Vienna) aims at making procurement activities in Vienna and its affiliated enterprises more ecologically sustainable. As some studies conclude the initiative resulted in 30,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions being saved each year and savings of €17m each year from a microeconomic perspective. Eligible costs: Personnel costs; Overheads; Buildings and land; Contractual research, knowledge and patents bought or licensed from outside sources; Costs for obtaining, validating and defending patents and other intangible assets; External consultancy and equivalent services (including feasibility studies); Other operating expenses (including materials, supplies). How to design such a measure: The need and desire to transform the city into a place with a better quality of life is common to all Smart City initiatives. However, it is up to each city to define what that means in particular. The Smart City project of the Austrian capital, Vienna, was launched by the mayor of the city and runs under the direction of the Vienna city administration. The key element of the initiative was a stakeholder process launched in 2011 (and continuously updated ever since) in the course of which all stakeholders inside and outside the city administration (academic community, business community and civil society) were asked to participate in either general consultation teams or teams focusing on specific issues. The six themes addressed by the platform were population development, environment, administration, economy, energy and mobility. Three forums provided the backbone: in a first step the broadly defined stakeholder process mapped out the ‘Smart Energy Vision 2050’ as a long-term vision for the city’s energy future and identified the fundamental objectives necessary towards the vision. It provides specific goals, pathways toward those goals, and model steps to achieve them within the 2050 horizon. Subsequently a ‘Roadmap for 2020 and Beyond’ was designed that will allow the city to realise this vision while attaining its medium-term (2020) energy goals with the development of ‘low carbon’ scenarios and a package of

20/02/15 Page 3 of 5

measures. Finally, an ‘Action Plan for 2012-2015’ was drawn up, which is focused on short-term planning and the implementation of first measures/demo-sites to meet the goals. The detailed roadmap for 2020 and beyond includes sections on city development, mobility, new construction and refurbishment, energy infrastructure and energy consumption targets (for 2020), current activities and options for activities, which are in turn described in detail in the action plan. In 2013, a memorandum of understanding was signed between Vienna and the Federal Republic of Austria to cooperatively launch new projects and to attract funding from the European Union. For Smart City Vienna the involvement of the city administration is important, as is overarching cooperation with the associated business in the city, which is a prerequisite for the initiative. For this reason a clear identity and positioning within and outside the city is essential not only for the population but also for the city authorities. The initiative seeks the involvement of citizens as partners through several campaigns. How to implement such a measure and pitfalls to avoid: Smart City requires a holistic approach. Developing smart ways to transform urban life requires including all social stakeholders in the process, from academia, to business and administration, as well as promoting the synergistic cooperation between such areas as urban planning, climate change policy, environmental policy, educational policy, social policy and technology policy. Figure 1 provides an overview of the design and implementation of the policy, along with the key elements to consider for each phase of policy development. The Smart Cities Stakeholder Platform (2013) has identified 15 priority areas for action, 5 of these for developing the right market. These are presented in this document. Human resources/skills needed for implementation: The creation of a dedicated, high-powered central Smart City office that acts as the go-between for Smart City ideas and initiatives drawing in diverse stakeholders is of vital importance. This central office should communicate a clear vision but also broker fertile multi-stakeholder partnerships across sectors. Close cooperation with end-users and local stakeholders is necessary to identify integrative solutions that tackle real problems effectively. New technologies need to reflect the real needs of the ultimate beneficiaries and users, i.e. the citizens. This requires an early involvement of citizens, in particular if they are also expected to share the cost of the deployment. The management would also be responsible for communication with the funding organisation and budgetary control. The project management of Smart City Vienna is in the hands of the Municipal Department for Urban Development and Planning, which takes into account energy efficiency and technical matters as well as planning principles like sustainability, participation, diversity, resource efficiency, integrated regional development and economic growth. The Guidance Document Integrated Action Plan – Report Process & Guidelines For Smart Cities (2013) offers practical solutions and takes the reader through the different steps required from the development of a solid and realistic strategy down to implementation. How to monitor and evaluate results and measure impact: Designers of Smart City strategies and initiatives should ensure that they are based on explicit, specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-dependent (SMART) objectives, clearly aligned to city development and innovation plans and (as need dictates) to Europe 2020 targets. The initiatives should include a sound business plan, explicit governance arrangements and a clear performance measurement and assessment strategy. Evaluation of programmes is another important aspect of a successful Smart City. Normally sponsors are very interested in such an assessment. Assessing the past phases of a development is crucial to avoid or correct erroneous trends in a project or city. There is a range of potential evaluation methods and the approach chosen should always fit within the context. In general terms, the evaluation should assess whether projects’ objectives have been accomplished and, if not, what difficulties were encountered and why. Evaluations may be continuous, or take place at discrete points in time. A precondition for any evaluation is that there are clear, measurable objectives and the evaluation is independent. Stakeholders in Smart Cities also demonstrate the ability to learn not just from their own experience but from the experience of other cities and other initiatives. It is in this way that stakeholders of a Smart City can be truly innovative and forward-thinking, basing its development and initiatives on concrete evidence and always building on the successes and accomplishments achieved elsewhere within and beyond the city. Typical timeline for implementation: Overview of the Smart City Vienna

0.0 version : 1

Date: 20/02/15

Figure 1 The implementation of a Smart City initiative, including pitfalls to avoid

Example of implementation: Some generic Smart City solutions can be applied in most city contexts, and their cost-effectiveness allows for rapid scaling up to achieve the volume of impacts required to address targets at European level. Transport and mobility solutions: include three distinct solutions: Smart cycling plans, integrated multi-modal travel and intelligent traffic routing. They can be implemented city-wide, reduce CO2 emission through reduced vehicle movements and better monitoring, and they build on existing infrastructure. Key technologies include geo-sensors, data-mining, smart cards or Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), and tracking. Building technology solutions: concern in particular power and lighting management of existing and new buildings and developments including outdoor lighting. They can be applied to most building developments and city contexts. Short-term electricity savings are the main impact. Key technologies include smart plugs, light sensors and power management automation software. One hurdle in many rental office markets is the inclusion of the cost of energy in square metre rental prices. Smart Governance solutions: include open service platforms where the government creates an interface to open government data and services for third parties including entrepreneurs and citizens to draw and build on. In addition to their positive economic impacts on jobs and growth as a result of business innovation based on public sector information, reuse, new and enhanced services in environment and mobility, they can help contribute directly to CO2 reduction. This also includes local sustainability initiatives such as the Klimaatstraat in Amsterdam. These are self-organising, bottom-up initiatives targeting a subset of sustainability targets through pragmatic, collaborative approaches that are specific to neighbourhoods or even streets. These initiatives are ‘smart’ in the way they use sensors and energy feedback monitors to track and share information on energy consumption with the aim to collectively improve the local situation. The focus on hyper-local issues and the participative nature facilitates ownership and buy-in from the start. Source: European Parliament (IP/A/ITRE/ST/2013-02), Mapping Smart Cities in the EU, January 2014

Phase&1:&Iden,fica,on&of&challenges&and&priority&

se8ng

Develop coherent knowledge management system: ensure data

access, privacy, protection, quality and interoperability (e.g through open

standards)

PITFALLS TO AVOID

Regular evaluation of full initiative (e.g every five

years)

Review/adaptation of

policy

Cooperation, co-creation of implementing tools with all

residents, old and new

!"Be"city"specific"but"consider"external"compe66ve"posi6oning"and"consider"exis6ng"local"ini6a6ves

!"Be"par6cipatory:"involve"experts"of"addressed"fields"(e.g"energy,"mobility,"ICT,"finance"etc)."and"

ci6zens"""!"Be"ambi6ous"in"the"seDng"of"

priori6es"but"realis6c!"Learn"from"similar"ini6a6ves"elsewhere"(but"adjust"locally)

Develop a framework Strategy: set the

priorities and key long-term objectives

Assess what are the key resources, assets,

infrastructures and knowledge on which the city can rely when

implementing its policy and identify any gaps

Phase&2:&Iden,fica,on&of&scope&of&measure

Phase&3:&Development/design&of&measure

Phase&4:&Implementa,on&and&monitoring Phase&5:&Evalua,on&and&

review

!"Ensure"credibility"of"the"ini6a6ve"through"high!level"commitment"(e.g"

mayor)!"Clearly"define"the"logic"of"interven6on"

and"set"targets:"understand"the"required"inputs"to"achieve"goals

!"Carefully"iden6fy"the"key"indicators"to"consider"as"well"as"data"sources"!"Mix"a"top!down"(e.g"clear"policy"

orienta6on)"with"a"boLom!up"approach"(e.g"ci6zen"ideas)"to"ensure"take!up

!"Need"of"a"strong"local"strategic"and"funding"government"partner"

!"Consider"different"sort"of"funding"to"adress"the"needs"and"issues"faced!"Accompany"detailed"measures"by"

finance"models,"6melines"and"responsibili6es

!"Do"not"focus"only"on"technologically"advanced"projects;"target"low!hanging"fruits"first"to"achieve"quick"results!"Promote"user!driven"approaches

!"Focus"the"efforts"on"key"promising"areas"!"Establish"clear"criteria"for"projects'"

selec6on!"Implement"professional,"customised"and"tailored"management"process

!"Promote"close"collabora6on"with"public"and"private"sector"service"providers

!"Be"reac6ve"to"issues"but"be"prepared"to"accept"failures

!"Minimise"administra6ve"delays!"Promote"stakeholders"coopera6on

!"Take"into"account"lessons"from"evalua6ons"to"

review"the"ini6a6ve"but"also"evolu6on"of"policy"context

!"Perform"prospec6ve"analysis"to"iden6fy"future"needs"and"adapt"

support

Continuous monitoring of projects and

initiatives

Set-up efficient monitoring systemSource: Technopolis Group, 2014

Map existing and potential (policy and financial) support at the EU, national, regional and

city level

Promote and expand innovative and pre-commercial procurement and develop clear methodologies for lifecycle costing in public

procurement processes

Understand the situation of the city in face of the challenges:

strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats

Co-create a tailored vision for the future of

the city within its surrounding:

use participatory approaches to stimulate

contributions from citizen, businesses, research and public sector (general and

thematic consultations) on the future city they

want (what does a Smart City means?)

Develop Key Performance Indicators (incl. baseline) for more effective programming

and tracking of progress

Define pathways towards the goals, develop a Medium-term

Roadmap with a set of measures

Develop an Action Plan focused on short-term planning and the

implementation of first measures, demo sites

Identification of key (societal) challenges for

the city


Set-up a dedicated high-powered Central Smart City Office:

provision of information to/cooperation with stakeholders but also public relations, guidance, assistance,

budgetary control, recording, evaluation and initiation of projects

Expand the use of innovative financial instruments, adapted to the different

markets to be developed, in particular those that will mitigate risks to investors

Review the regulatory framework to identify bottlenecks and remove them

Expand training programmes for municipalities on planning,

management, stakeholder engagement, financing models and monitoring for

Smart Cities

Develop feasible technology scenarios (incl. quantitative and qualitative

assessment)

Expand training and education for all types of stakeholders, incl. for the unemployed to reintegrate them in the economy, with skills

relevant for the Smart City

Explore new forms of consultation and organisation promoting the early

involvement of business and industry, service providers, banks and financiers

in the projects

Regular Smart City steering rounds chaired by high-level City official with assistance of a

scientific advisory board

Launch of calls for small and larger innovation projects to cope with major

identified challenges:- incl. support for pilot projects through

grants and innovative finance to support the demand side and reassure potential investors

and bring forward demonstrations- selection of projects by a dedicated jury

based on their contribution to the achievement of Smart City targets

Strengthening city’s co-operation on smart city issues with research institutions: setting up long-term collaborations, support in the recruitment of additional key personnel at local universities and research institutions,

“urban issues” as study content, testing grounds for social innovations

Mid-term and ex-post

evaluations of Smart City projects,

iniatives, and programmes

Develop detail planning of individual actions

0.0 version : 1

Date: 18/02/15

SUPPORTING INNOVATION IN PUBLIC HEALTHCARE THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT OF E-INFRASTRUCTURE



• Insufficient quality, safety and efficiency of healthcare for the benefit of patients

• Lack of standardised information exchange and connection among healthcare units

• Lack of time series and authentic master data, delay in healthcare data provision

• Waste of resources by duplication or longer waiting time

• Better access to healthcare and information • More evidence-based and faster decision making • Enhanced provision of remote healthcare services • More patient-oriented and personalised healthcare • Promote innovation and stimulate the healthcare

industry • Savings for public budgets


Central Hungary (HU) – Development of the National Health Information System (Nemzeti Egészségügyi Informatikai Rendszer Fejlesztése)

Keywords Public sector innovation, healthcare, e-infrastructure, public procurement of innovation


http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/regional-innovation/monitor/support-measure/development-national-health-information-system

Measure objectives and relevance for other regions: The development of the National Health Information System in Hungary forms part of a comprehensive e-Health programme aimed at reforming the healthcare system. It is funded under the Social Renewal and the Central Hungary Regional Operational Programme. It addresses the need to equip the Hungarian healthcare with an ICT-based monitoring and controlling system accompanied by infrastructural investments and training of healthcare providers. The objectives of the measure are to:

• Create a unified ICT-based healthcare environment and interoperability among service providers;

• Develop an authentic public healthcare register and online patient tracking; • Provide general services such as identification and management of access rights.

The measure includes the development of ICT-infrastructure, training of staff, development of healthcare-related applications, capacity-roadmap, methodological developments and interface development.


overall objectives

Creating a unified health information system/ e-

Health Environment

Improved heatlhcare

experience for patients

Results

Public funding

Outputs

Tele-medicine platforms

International good practices

Training

Inputs'

Healthier citizens and

reinforcement of socio-economic

development

Faster medical referrals and easier drug subscriptions

Connected healthcare providers and healthcare

units

Reduction of errors in data

Modernised heatlhcare services

of high quality

Better access to healthcare and information

Provision of remote healthcare services

Evidence-based and faster decision-making

Reduced waiting-time for patients

Patient-oriented and personalised healthcare

Integrated information and data management system

Issuing of e-Receipts

Existing health information

infrastructure

Project leadership team composed of

experienced e-health experts and change

managers

Electronic medical referrals

Trained staff


18/02/15 Page 2 of 4

More specifically the measure supports the launch of e-Prescription for drugs, the development of tele-diagnostics and tele-medicine systems and the creation of a digital self-authorisation process for the usage of health data. An important feature of the measure is that it retains the existing IT systems of the individual healthcare institution, but creates connectivity and a central interface. This measure addresses the priority called ‘Healing Hungary’ of the New Szechenyi Plan (national development plan), which targets the healthcare sector and healthcare industries. It is also connected to the National Smart Specialisation Strategy and especially to the sectoral priority called ‘healthy society and wellbeing’. This priority aims at maintaining and improving the general health condition of the society, developing the healthcare industry and offering personalised medicine and improved healthcare services. Although this specific measure does not address directly the development of healthcare industries it is expected to have an impact on the wider healthcare economy. Together with other related measures launched under the e-Health Programme it has already indirectly fostered business innovation in areas such as telemedicine, mobile e-health, 3D modelling and data registration applications. The measure can provide inspiration for other public sector organisations that wish to modernise their healthcare sector and introduce new innovative solutions and services for better patient-care, especially through the use of public procurement for innovation. Beneficiaries: The main beneficiary of this measure is the National Institute for Quality and Organisational Development in Healthcare and Medicines (GYEMSZI). GYEMSZI is a public budgetary organisation and its activities are related to the coordination of healthcare. Other organisations which take part in the project implementation include: the National Health Insurance Fund, National Public Health Service, Health Licensing and Administrative Office, National Information and Communication Services Plc., and the Information Technology Development Agency of the Government. Thematic approach: The measure is focused on the healthcare sector, the development of public e-infrastructure and modernisation of the public sector. Type of aid (State aid rules): There are no specific State aid rules applicable to this measure. The measure complies with the Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008, declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block exemption Regulation). Mode of support and budget: The mode of funding for this measure is a grant with a rate of 100% co-financing. The total budget for the overall healthcare programme is €40m. This amount can be broken down for the following items:

• €13,33m allocated for the development of the ICT-infrastructure • €1.7m allocated for the related training of human resources • The rest allocated for objectives including monitoring, inter-operability, development of

healthcare-related applications, including a capacity roadmap, methodological developments and interface development with social security customers.

GYEMSZI was awarded €3.3m in 2014 for the methodological preparatory work of the development of Hungary's e-health system, and for the implementation of the related training and human resources development programmes. Eligible costs: The activities that are supported can be related to project preparation, feasibility studies, project management and implementation. The eligible costs are the following: Personnel costs; Overheads; External consultancy and costs of contractual services (including feasibility studies); Procurement of hardware and software; Costs of real estate development; Operating expenses (such as office equipment, supplies, transportation expenses); Travelling costs; Promotional and marketing costs (including costs of event organisation); Depreciation costs (of equipment used for the project but not procured within this project); Costs of auditors; Costs of public procurement. The costs of project management cannot exceed 6% of the total project budget (total supported costs). How to design such a measure: First of all, the launch of this measure has been preceded by the elaboration of a conceptual plan to improve the healthcare system in Hungary, called the ‘Semmelweiss Plan’. This plan has been important in setting the framework for the renewal of the national healthcare system including the development of information and communication technologies. Careful planning and preparation is one of the success factors for any e-Health measure. At the design phase of the National Health Information System project, it was important to conduct a thorough feasibility study. In addition several other supporting studies were prepared (e.g. GYEMSZI (2011). ‘Requirements from healthcare information systems’). The creation of the legal background, such as legislative proposals and their enforcement, which handles the legal aspects of the measure, such as public health data authenticity and administrative roles, are an important prerequisite that should be taken into account early on – otherwise this can cause delays in the implementation.

18/02/15 Page 3 of 4

The design phase of the measure included the assessment of several technological requirements, for instance the authenticity of data circuits and the selection of the specific data owners who are responsible for the data administration. The involvement of end-users and stakeholders in this preparatory phase can improve results and speed up implementation. How to implement such a measure and pitfalls to avoid: The implementation of e-Health infrastructure is usually comprised of elements such as: the set-up of governance rules and processes; competence centres and supporting organisational structures; unique identification of patients; security and data privacy; regulation of technical and semantic standards. The Hungarian National Health Information System measure has not yet been completed and there have been delays in the launch and progress of implementation by the time of writing this fiche, hence this example can provide only initial insight for learning. Nevertheless some other related measures with regard to the e-Health programme of Hungary have been terminated and evaluation reports are available. In the following bullet points lessons from this wider circle of measures are summarised: • A thorough preparatory phase and the creation of the necessary legal background are important

prerequisites to start the implementation of the measure. In case there are delays, this can also jeopardise progress in project implementation.

• Pay attention to management challenges; the implementation of e-Health projects is usually more complex and time-consuming than initially anticipated, and should not be underestimated.

• Pay attention to timing and efficient (fast) procedures: Both the allocation of available funds and payments to approved projects can be delayed, which can cause uncertainty and inefficiencies in implementation.

• Pay attention to the complementary human resource development and training programmes: Although a relatively significant amount of the resources were allocated to support employment and training, they still seemed inadequate in comparison to the importance of HR development.

• Be flexible and ready to modify the funding of the individual programme elements if necessary. This must be based on the feedback from continuous monitoring.

• The devil is in the details: In the case of the Hungarian e-Health programme, the philosophy of the IT development was to modernise the format of reporting. However, little attention was paid to, for instance, how the required information is collected by various actors and systems at the level of providers. Paying attention to such and similar details would have been important.

• Launch related and parallel measures that foster innovative healthcare start-ups building upon the established e-infrastructure. For instance, launch public procurement of innovation or spin-off schemes in universities. Avoid that only established multi-national companies reap the benefits without the involvement of local SMEs.

• Think in terms of opportunities in the wider economy and foster the involvement of related sectors (beyond ICT and telecommunications) such as design firms, consulting and professional service providers, insurance companies, and e-commerce businesses.

Human resources/skills needed for implementation: Qualified human resources are critical for successful implementation. The call for proposals outlines the professional qualifications and skills required to implement the measure: • Project director – high-level degree; professional experience in ICT, economics or law. • Scientific director – at least five years of experience related to healthcare and informatics. • Financial director – high-level degree in the area of financial management. • Project assistants with at least bachelor degree and experience in economics. How to monitor and evaluate results and measure impact: The call for proposals outlines the monitoring indicators that will be applied in order to assess the results and progress of the project. Some of these indicators are the following: • Share of qualified health care information systems connected to the central system • Number and quality of healthcare data introduced in the central system • Number of appointments scheduled following an electronic referral • Share of e-Prescriptions in all issued drug prescriptions • Number of tele-medicine platforms provided by the central healthcare system • Number and type of messages that can be sent to the central system. The evaluation study of the healthcare development fund (conducted in 2013 by a consortium led by Hetfa Research Institute) was based on data from the EMIR system, document analysis, and expert interviews. Typical timeline for implementation: The time provided to implement the project was 18 months originally, but usually a longer time is needed. The prerequisite to complete the project is the conclusion of a public service contract between the developer and the central IT service provider organisation to operate and maintain the developed health information system. The beneficiary stays responsible for the maintenance of the system for at least five years after project completion.

0.0 version : 1

Date: 18/02/15

Figure 1 The implementation of the National Health Information System measure, including pitfalls to avoid


Phase 1: Identification of key issues to be

addressed

Identification of intervention areas

PITFALLS TO AVOID

Evaluation of the accompanied

training and other related measures

Review of policy

Commissioning: - Assessment studies

about the needs, areas of

improvement - Assessment of

current infrastructure

- Assessment of human development

needs

!  Assess%and%understand%the%current%infrastructure%and%

func0ons%!  Agree%on%real%needs%and%priori0es%with%the%respec0ve%

healthcare%providers%%!  Think%ahead%about%necessary%

adjustments%in%legisla0ons%

Iden0fica0on%of%key%challenges%for%the%healthcare%

system:%%

!  Lack%of%standardised%informa0on%exchange%and%

connec0on%among%healthcare%units%

!  Lack%of%coopera0on%among%healthcare%providers%

!  Lack%of%0me%series%and%authen0c%master%data,%delay%in%healthcare%data%provision%!  Waste%of%resources%by%duplica0on%or%longer%wai0ng%

0me%!  Inadequate%level%of%pa0ent?

orienta0on%




-  Preparation of feasibility study and other supporting studies;

-  Preparation of procurement procedures

!  Commission%external%assessment%studies%and%feasibility%studies%

!  Draw%on%interna0onal%good%prac0ces%

!  Involve%the%relevant%staff%and%users%early%on%in%the%design%and%

development%!  Assess%the%necessary%0me%needed%

for%implementa0on,%count%with%delays%

!  Pay%aFen0on%to%data%security%requirements%

!  Introduce%plaHorm%services%step!by%step%in%a%structured%way%

!  Pay%aFen0on%to%create%trust%among%healthcare%providers%and%

pa0ents%

!  Put%in%place%a%con0nuous%monitoring%procedure%with%possibili0es%for%feedback%and%

correc0ons%if%needed%!  Assess%the%results%aIer%project%comple0on%and%evaluate%the%impact%

aIer%5%years%%

Evaluation of the e-Health system

•  Upda0ng%the%project%implementa0on%plan%according%to%the%results%of%the%feasibility%study%

%•  Execu0ng%the%necessary%procurement%procedures%

%•  Set!up%of%thema0c%working%groups%(WG)%such%as%for%instance:%Integra0on%WG,%Register%WG,%Transmission%

WG,%IT%WG,%Legal%WG,%and%Financial%WG%

•  Implementa0on%of%training%for%qualified%staff%

•  Thinking%of%further%standardisa0on,%cer0fica0on%and%enac0ng%further%legisla0on%%%

•  Launching%parallel%measures%that%foster%start!up%ac0vity%in%healthcare%industries%(through%public%procurement%of%innova0on,%spin!off%schemes%etc.)%

Specific%technical%implementa0on%is%comprised%of%steps%such%as:%

•  Sor0ng%Data%Administrator%Roles%•  Crea0on%of%Central%publishing%system%

•  Crea0on%of%sectoral%repor0ng%system%to%unify%and%standardize%

•  Development%of%central%message%and%report%delivery%system%

•  PuWng%in%place%a%single%user%and%privilege%management%sector%

•  Ensuring%Sustainability%%%

-  Setting up the project management team and leadership

-  Involvement of external experts -  Involvement of key users

Set-up efficient monitoring system: - identify relevant indicators


Putting in force the necessary legislation

adjustments

Example of implementation: The deployment of e-Health applications can comprise patient record systems, hospital information systems, e-Prescriptions, telemedicine, and interoperable e-Health systems that are more well-known. There are, however, new initiatives and e-Health innovations being implemented that have been rewarded by the Best e-Health Solutions Competition (http://www.ehealthcompetition.eu/2014-winners/). Some examples are listed below: Think!EHR Platform (Slovenia) is a clinical data repository based on open standards. It provides a solid foundation to jump-start development of state-of-the-art healthcare applications. It offers new solutions and services such as life-long electronic patient health records used for care coordination and chronic disease management; clinical registries enabling population health management solutions; complements existing document-based HIE infrastructures with support for structured data. http://www.marand-think.com/why Medixine (Finland): Medixine provides eHealth solutions like Remote Home Monitoring & Advanced Patient portals in Europe, Asia and US. It connects patients and care providers and is based on a powerful and versatile core that can be extended with a set of product modules. It offers Patient Portal; Remote Education and Coaching; Population Screening; Reminders and notifications; Telehealth Monitoring. http://www.medixine.com/ Co-Rehab (Italy): Riablo by CoRehab is a new product to perform functional exercises in rehabilitation using sensors and games, and a way to multiply time with patients. It is an innovative product that aims at making functional exercise more motivated and controlled, stimulating the proprioceptive system and enabling neuromuscular training with audio and visual feedback as well as real-time measurements from inertial sensors. http://www.corehab.it/en/riablo/

0.0 version : 1

Date: 18/02/15

SUPPORTING THE COMMERCIALISATION OF INNOVATIONS THROUGH INNOVATION ALLIANCES



• Scarce and/or dispersed innovation resources • Lack of critical mass in innovation • Low commercialisation levels of innovation and ideas • Low level of interaction between actors in innovation • Access to financing (and at the right time) • Sparsely populated regions – long distance between

innovation customers

• Improve the innovation processes by making efficient use of existing resources

• Develop sustainable organisations for business and innovation support

• Ensure competitiveness and regional growth • Promote knowledge spill and increase knowledge

amongst innovation advise providers


Mellersta Norrland (UK) – InnovationAlliance (Name in original language between brackets)

Keywords cooperation, commercialisation, business and innovation support, partnership, start-ups


http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/regional-innovation/monitor/support-measure/mellersta-norrland/innovation-alliance

Measure objectives and relevance for other regions: The Innovation Alliance is a project with the purpose of stimulating regional growth through commercialisation of new ideas. The projects worked towards:

• establishing a network of cooperation between stakeholders, providing innovation support between two county councils.

The objective for the two councils was to: • deepen their strategic cooperation, • strengthen innovation support, and • increase competitiveness of regional trade and industry.

Funding of Innovation alliances

Project funding for collaborative

innovative projects

Inputs'Inputs'Inputs'Inputs Outputs Results Impact

Private funding

Fostering start-ups and gazelles



development


New and sustained businesses

Innovation clients selected

Sustainable reinforcement of the regional innovation

support system

New working models and platforms of regional

collaboration in innovation

Development of “local innovation clusters”

Improved coaching models in innovation

Strengthened and deepened collaboration within existing collaborative

structures

Expansion of existing networks with new partners

More efficient use of cross-regional innovation

resources and advise structures

Public funding

Professional business coaching

Seminars and lectures

Network of expertise and and access to financing

Exchange of information and knowledge

Coordination and pooling of innovation resources

Science-, technology parks and incubators

Attract more national and international resources to the

region


18/02/15 Page 2 of 4

Through increased interaction between stakeholders, in combination with establishing common guidelines and tools, the two councils have become more harmonised with regard to their innovation processes. The activities of the project focused on supporting entrepreneurs/innovators by providing:

• inspiration, verification of their ideas and commercialisation in collaboration with other public investors, including

• establishment of new companies in the incubators. The policy is replicable as it uses existing tools, methods and processes for innovation that two or more partners have an interest in strengthening but where they have no or few resources to achieve this. Beneficiaries: Individuals and companies with (innovative) ideas, .i.e. innovation clients. Thematic approach: Any idea that is considered viable and can be commercialised. Type of aid (State aid rules): State aid could be provided under a combination of: de minimis regulation, Article 22, ‘Aid for start-ups’, Article 18, ‘Aid for consultancy in favour of SMEs’, and Article 28, ‘Innovation aid for SMEs’, of Regulation 651/2014. Mode of support and budget: Grants from regional public funds and EU Structural Funds. The project had a total budget of €3.6m, 50% from the European Regional Development Fund. An application for extended support during 2011-2012 was submitted and approved for additional EU funding of €1.1m. Regional co-funding is provided by ALMI Business Partner (€0.5m), Mid-Sweden University (€0.08m), the County Administrative Boards of Jämtland and Västernorrland (€3.3m) and 12 municipalities. Eligible costs: Operating costs. How to design such a measure: InnovationsAlliansen was created as a common initiative between the main project owner Almi and a regional incubator in Sundsvall. The successful design of InnovationsAlliansen can be attributed to:

• Initiating stakeholders (‘champions’) shared the same strong interest and the competency and will to create a common effort.

• One strong and suitable project owner that can take on project leading role and overall economic responsibility. It should have resources and competency to own and lead large projects.

• Include partners with strong competencies that can complement each other. • Clear objectives anchored among the stakeholders and partners that are internally and

externally communicated. • Plan for regular project meetings to facilitate exchange of information and experience. In

the case of InnovationsAlliansen, project meetings were held about once a month. The regular and quite frequent personal meetings are seen as one key to the success of InnovationsAlliansen, despite access to ICT. These meetings helped to create:

o a common platform; o common objectives and agenda.

• A clear evaluation methodology and a set of key performance indicators (KPIs) should be established.

How to implement such a measure and pitfalls to avoid: Figure 1 provides an overview of the design and implementation of the policy, along with the key elements to consider for each phase of policy development. A successful innovation alliance should entail the following organisational elements:

• A strong project owner and leader – finding a suitable project owner with resources, both in terms of competency and financially, that can lead the project. In the case of Almi it has a long tradition in innovation advice and is also financially strong. The latter helps in keeping the project running in case funding applied for, or payments for approved funding, are delayed.

• Steering committee – need to have the right and relevant participants on the steering committee. The committee should meet a couple of times a year to comment on the results and make suggestions on measures. The pitfall is to have members that do not have enough insight and understanding of the project.

• Project groups – should meet on a regular, frequent basis, maybe once a month. Despite modern ICT tools, experience shows that personal meetings help to keep a project on track by clarifying and strengthening the common platform of the project, common objectives and the agenda. Give project groups decision power to finance companies/ideas in the early stages.

• Incubators/experts – organisations or individuals involved in the project should have comprehensive experience in professional business and innovation coaching, especially with start-ups.

Furthermore, for successfully executing the project, the following elements should be included: • Clear common objectives and working methodology – so that all participants have a clear

view and understanding and view of the project and what the expectations are. It is important to establishment of a common collaborative structure.

18/02/15 Page 3 of 4

• Structured criteria – when evaluating the project and working methods, so that these are carried out on an as objective basis as possible.

• Clear project steering documents – Do not use the project proposal as a guidance document. Define specific activity documents with clear and customised objectives for each activity, e.g. what is the role of the project group and what are their objectives.

• Resource distribution – ensure that, for instance, the project manager can dedicate enough time to managing the project, and project workers, and does not get held up in administrative tasks, etc.

• Suitable indicators – must be used for evaluation and guidance of the project so as to fit the different activities carried out.

• Financing – ensure that enough financing within the project is dedicated to collaboration. Post-project planning should include:

• Plan for an ongoing evaluation by an external organisation to ensure sustainable impact of the project.

It is important that the project also stretches outside the comfort zone; i.e. participants should include work outside their own core activity. For instance, individuals and organisations have personal networks of collaboration with ‘traditional’ partners with whom they know they can achieve the expected results. Hence, the activity to extend and improve collaborative networks with new partners is easily neglected. A major challenge is to implement sustainable changes; i.e. even after the individuals who have participated in the project are gone, the project should leave a long-term imprint amongst organisations that provide support to innovation in their structures and working methods. It is therefore important to develop common CRM-systems, common forms, etc. Human resources/skills needed for implementation: The main skill is Project management skills, especially at the project owner and leader level. Other important skills are: Leadership and Management skills; Financial skills, Social skills; Communication skills. Also professional skills, and knowledge in incubation business and innovation advice, is necessary to be able to offer professional business coaching. How to monitor and evaluate results and measure impact: Please refer to section 4 of this guide for specific guidance. A proper monitoring system should be in place (dedicated system, optimal circulation of information, progressive indicator system, etc.) and part of the projects’ funding should be conditional on the provision of monitoring information by innovation alliances. Typical timeline for implementation: InnovationsAlliansen ran as a project between 2007 and 2010, and as an EU-project 2008-2010. An ongoing evaluation project took place September 2011 – December 2012.

0.0 version : 1

Date: 18/02/15

Figure 1 – The implementation of innovation alliances, including pitfalls to avoid

Example of project: InnovationsAlliansen was created through a joint initiative between Almi and the incubator in Sundsvall 2007. The incubator in Sundsvall had the mission to create greater innovation projects while Almi had the same ambition. The success of the project can be related to two main factors: 1. Two champions met, one in Almi and

one in the incubator, who both had competencies to create a common and cohesive effort. It became obvious for the management in the incubator to work together with Almi.

2. The management of the two organisations shared the same goal and desire to interact and that the ownership of the project should not develop into a problem: All possibilities were taken into account considering the Structural Funds programme regulation for a public collaborative project.

The result was that two initiatives in the region became one, and two incubators became available. The operational success of the project was due to the establishment of a common collaborative structure. An interim evaluation was carried out between September 2011 and December 2012. Both projects were evaluated by external organisations.



priority setting

Identification where overlapping

and missing measures and structures exist

PITFALLS TO AVOID

Evaluation of methodology

Review of project

!"Find"a"strong"project"owner"and"leader,"both"in"terms"of"

competence"and"financially"!"Consider"exis<ng"ini<a<ves"in"

the"region"!"Learn"from"similar"ini<a<ves"

elsewhere"

Iden<fica<on"of"(common)"key"challenges"for"local"and"regional"economy,"in"

par<cular: !  limited resources to

support innovation !  improvement of

innovation process and methodology

!  improve rate of commercialisation of ideas

!  consolidation of local or regional administrations

Mobilise stakeholders Find local and regional

administration and incubators that are willing to participate

Map existing measures and

structures in place within local or

regional administrative

areas

Phase 2: Identification of

scope of measure



Develop a common collaborative structure:

• Should based on close collaboration of relevant partners

• Can be financed by private and public funds

•Target development priorities • Contribute to the development of

regional economic activities

!"Get"a"clear"picture"of"exis<ng"support"systems"for"innovaton:""Iden<fy"overlaping"and"structures""

!"Carefully"iden<fy"the"key"indicators"to"consider"as"well"as"

data"sources""!"Clearly"define"the"logic"of"interven<on"and"set"targets""

!"Ensure"enough"financing"for"collabora<ve"ac<vi<es"

!"Focus"on"a"clear"strategy"with"iden<fied"objec<ves"

!"Horizontal"approach"to"put"all"actors"on"equal"foo<ng"

!"Develop"a"monitoring"system"

!"Promote"close"collabora<on"between"project"partcipants"

!"Minimise"administra<ve"delays"!"Ensure"transparency"of"processes"

and"decisions"""

!"Evaluate"as"soon"as"the"project"has"ended""

!"Use"an"external"evaluator"!"Take"into"account"lessons"from"

evalua<ons"to"review"the"ini<a<ve,"but"also"evolu<on"of"policy"context"

!"Plan"for"ongoing"evalua<on"before"the"project"ends"

Evaluation of individual projects

Set-up project teams: • Each actor in the project team

assigns its own resources to the team




Diffusion"of"informa<on"to"the"target"group"(innova<on"customers)"

Calls"for"procurement"of"expert"services"that"are"to"be"included"in"the"alliance""

"

Publish"the"project"(alliance)"on"each"partners"website"

Check"and"clarify"needs"of"par<cipants"and"that"the"objec<ve"of"allaince"is"shared"amongst"the"all"

par<cipants"

Mee<ng"to"formalise"the"project"between"partners"

DraP"project"proposal"and"check"with"partners"

Approval""of"the"project"amongst"parnters"–"including"requirements,"methodology"to"use,"

planned"mee<ngs,"resource"alloca<on"

Launch"and"monitoring"of"project"

DraP"contract,"partnership"agreement,"contracts"with"experts,"contract"signature"

Identification of potential

innovation customers (does a

certain group need special targeting; e.g.

women, immigrants)

0.0 version : 1

Date: 18/02/15

SUPPORTING THE UPTAKE OF INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS THROUGH LIVING LABS



• Innovators lacking resources and/or competencies to carry out innovation activities and bring their ideas to market (faster)

• Lack of market uptake of innovations • Lack of understanding of existing and emerging user

needs • Mismatch between innovation supply and

market/societal demand • Lack of regional competitiveness

• Support the innovation process for all involved stakeholders, from manufacturers to end-users, with special attention to SMEs and a focus on potential users

• Facilitate research, development and innovation • Speed up the innovation process from idea to market • Generate sustainable business innovation in the

region • Develop innovations addressing user/societal needs


Övre Norrland, Luleå (SE) – Botnia Living Lab – (Botnia Living Lab)

Keywords User-driven, collaboration, public-private-people partnership (4Ps), open-innovation, multi-stakeholder


http://www.ltu.se/centres/cdt/Vart-erbjudande/Experimentmiljoer/Botnia-Living-Lab-1.111199?l=en

Measure objectives and relevance for other regions European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) (www.openlivinglabs.eu) describes Living Labs as a real-life test and experimentation environment where users and producers co-create innovations. It can be described as a Public-Private-People Partnerships (4Ps), also called the quattro helix, for user-driven open innovation. A Living Lab employs four main activities (link):

• co-creation – co-design by users and producers • exploration – discovering emerging usages, behaviours and market opportunities • experimentation – implementing live scenarios within communities of users • evaluation – assessment of concepts, products and services according to socio-ergonomic,

socio-cognitive and socio-economic criteria.

Funding of Living Labs

Project funding for collaborative

innovative projects

Inputs'Inputs'Inputs'Inputs Outputs Results Contribution to the overall objective

Own funding (membership fees)




development

Stimulate quality of life and sustainability

Strengthen the attractiveness and

competiveness

Strengthen the research in living

labs and user-driven innovation

Development of end-user eco-systems based on

synergies

R&D projects selected

Strengthening of Innovation capacity

(both in public and private organisations)

Increase product success rate and

decrease time to market

Better utilisation of collective creativity

Development of open partnerships

Maximize the market value of end-results (innovations)

Services and technology that users want and/or need

Public funding

Idea-generation with end users for new innovative

solutions

Usefulness and usability evaluation

Expertise for planning and performing user-

involvement activities

Real-life end-user trials

Reality check and business-model validation with the entire value-chain

of the service

Innovation process management / Service and

technology consultation

A partner network that can be accessed according

to project needs

Strengthen the innovation system


18/02/15 Page 2 of 4

The aim of a Living Lab is to accomplish quattro helix by harmonising the innovation process among the four main stakeholders. Living Labs are independent from (geographically) fixed assets, and (essentially), service experimentation relies on readily available hardware and communication infrastructure. Hence, Living Labs are easily replicable and designed around the needs of each specific region, which also means that the organisation of a Living Lab can be adjusted as the needs change over time. Beneficiaries: Living Labs support the innovation process for all involved stakeholders, from manufacturers to end-users, with special attention to SMEs, with potential users in the centre in their real-world context. Each participating stakeholder benefits from a Living Lab. For instance:

• companies can get new and innovative ideas; • users can get the innovation they want; • researchers can get study cases; and • public organisations can get increased return on investment in innovation research.

Thematic approach: Living Labs are especially well suited for ICT products and services, and themes (or projects) evolve through discussion among the partners, taking into account current and future societal needs. Type of aid (State aid rules): A combination of State aid rules could apply: de minimis regulation, Article 25, ‘Aid for research and innovation projects’, of Regulation 651/2014. Mode of support and budget: Support is given to collaborative R&D projects through public grants, contributions from the private sector, both direct and in-kind, as well as the Luleå University of Technology’s (LUT) own resources. Botnia Living Labs has no budget of its own, as it is an activity under the Centre for Distance-spanning Technology (CDT). Sponsors of CDT are: multinational and national corporations, EU funding (EU FP7, ERDF, Interreg 4A Nord, Interreg IVB Baltic Sea), universities, county councils, municipalities, regions, national agencies and administrations. Botnia Living Lab also works on commissioned projects. The budget for 2015 is expected to be around SEK 40m (ca. EUR 4m). Eligible costs: CDT covers the following costs: personal, external services, premises, equipment, travel, indirect and other. How to design such a measure: There are many different types of Living Lab environments and there is a constant development. The type described in the methodology handbook by CDT, states that the components of a Living Lab are ICT and Infrastructure, Management, Partners and Users, Research and Approach. At the centre is innovation:

• ICT & Infrastructure outlines the role that ICT technology will play to facilitate new ways of cooperating and co-creating new innovations among stakeholders.

• Management represents the ownership, organisation, and policy aspects; a Living Lab can be managed by e.g. consultants, companies, higher educational institutions or researchers.

• Users (central focus) voluntary user participation throughout the development process. It important to include relevant users.

• Partners bring their own specific wealth of knowledge and expertise to the collective, helping to achieve boundary-spanning knowledge transfer. These can include SMEs, public bodies, large industry and other research organisations. International partners should also be taken into account.

• Research symbolises the collective learning and reflection that takes place in the Living Lab. Technological research partners can also provide direct access to research that can benefit the outcome of a technological innovation. Research expertise can be used in user evaluation and testing.

• Approach. Represents the methods and techniques for Living Lab practices for planning and performing user-involvement activities which are necessary for professional and successful Living Lab operations.

A successfully designed Living Lab depends on: • A common focal area – a clear strategic idea under which partner organisations can come

together and which frames the content and prioritised topic(s) of the Living Lab. A clear strategy does not mean that thematic areas need to written in stone: on the contrary.

A Living Lab should bring together all the relevant parties: developers, public sector agencies, exploiters and end-users of new technologies and related products and services. They need to be able to assure that participation, influence, and responsibility among different partners are balanced and harmonised with each other. At LUT they have specific resources for commercialisation, IPR, internationalisation, etc. That means that successful projects at Botnia Living Lab are guided to LUT’s own business team that can help to bring services and products to the market

18/02/15 Page 3 of 4

How to implement such a measure and pitfalls to avoid: In the case of Botnia Living Lab, the development was sporadic and came from looking for new ways of promoting innovation. LUT has a long-standing history of close cooperation with industry. The idea of a Living Lab emerged out if this close cooperation and Botnia started in 2000, first in the shape of a test-bed. Hence, the network and experience of working close together, as well as experience in public-private partnerships, was already present. The most important factor in successfully developing a partnership like Botnia Living Lab is to allow stakeholders to have an interest in:

• the activity/measure (the Living Lab); • each other (stakeholders/project participants).

The Botnia Living Lab services are developed in close collaboration with researchers at LUT and in partnership with different stakeholders. The Botnia Living Lab is constantly being developed further in close cooperation with end-users and stakeholders as well as researchers at Luleå University. Collaborating and networking is more important than any pre-conceived objectives in open-innovation networks (Esteve Almirall and colleagues). Human resources/skills needed for implementation: As mentioned above, there are many different types of Living Lab environments, but comprehensive project management skills are essential. In Botnia Living Lab they talk about covering RDI skills (research, design and innovation) among partners. Management represents the ownership, organisation and policy aspects of Living Labs. A Living Lab can be managed by e.g. consultants, companies, higher-education institutions (HEIs) or researchers. Botnia Living Lab is governed by the Centre for Distance-spanning Technology at Luleå University of Technology. At the highest level, Botnia is governed by the CDT board of directors comprising senior managers from the University, ICT Corporations and regional public authorities. Partners bring their own specific knowledge and expertise to Living Labs as well as their own network. How to monitor and evaluate results and measure impact: Please refer to section 2 of this guide for specific guidance. A proper monitoring system should be in place (dedicated system, optimal circulation of information, progressive indicator system, etc.) and part of the projects’ funding should be conditional on the provision of monitoring information by Living Labs. Typical timeline for implementation: There is no typical timeline for these measures as they have different starting points. An organisation like CDT had already a network of partners to access when they established Botnia Living Lab in 2000, which in turn was first a test-bed before turning into a Living Lab.

0.0 version : 1

Date: 18/02/15

Figure 1 – The implementation of Living Labs, including pitfalls to avoid

Example of project: Sense Smart City: The aim of the project is to make the Swedish city of Skellefteå a connected city, with sensors to measure, monitor and communicate, and more efficiently allocate resources such as electricity, water, traffic and waste. The intension is to provide better services for citizens and to find ways to use the cities resources more efficiently. By working in close collaboration with the municipality and the municipality’s energy company, using Botnia Living Lab throughout the process, the project ensures a relevant selection of project pilots and a high degree of implementation of permanent results as an end result. The main commissioner/financier of the Sense Smart City project is the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth (SE. “Tillväxtverket”), as managing organisation for EU Structural Funds investments in Sweden. Significant funding is also received from Skellefteå Municipality and Regional Council of Västerbotten. Project owner is the Centre for Distance-Spanning Technology (CDT) at Luleå University of Technology. The project has a total budget of approx €2,7m (SEK 26m) and ran for 36 months, starting in September 2010.



priority setting

Identification of priority sectors

with a high demand by end-

user

PITFALLS TO AVOID

Evaluation of methodology

Review of societal/end-user needs

!"Take"on"board"partners"early"external"compe44ve"posi4oning"!"Consider"exis4ng"ini4a4ves"in"

the"region"!"Learn"from"similar"ini4a4ves"

elsewhere"

Identification of key local needs and societal

challenges, for instance: !  users changed roles

from passive consumers to active prosumers of

content, !  shortened time to

market for innovators, !  a globalized market

through internet and IT’s entrance into peoples

everyday activities.

Mobilise stakeholders Find potential partners and

sponsors

Collection of specific soceital/

user needs lending themselves to a

technical response

Phase 2: Identification of

scope of measure



Calls for proposals to provide specific response identfied by end user.

Living Labs: • Should based on a open

collaboration of relevant partners; • Can financed by private and public

funds, in-kind contributions; •Target development priorities;

• Include an international dimension; • Contribute to the development of

regional economic activities.

!"The"priority"list"must"be"constantly"evaluated"to"respond"

to"societal/end!user"needs"!"Clearly"define"the"logic"of"interven4on"and"set"targets""

!"Focus"on"thematcs"that"have"a"an"end!user"need"

!"Establish"clear"criteria"for"selec4ng"projects"(incl.clear"

strategy"with"iden4fied"objec4ves)"!"BoGom!up"approach"to"ensure"

take!up"by"stakeholders"!"Develop"a"monitoring"system"

!"Constantly"re!examine"users"needs"and"ensure"thar"they"

correlate"to"given"requirements"!"Minimise"administra4ve"delays"

!"Ensure"transparency"of"processes"and"decisions"

"

!"Evaluate"at"the"right"4me"(depending"on"end!user"demands"

and"project"lenght)""!"Take"into"account"lessons"from"

evalua4ons"to"review"the"ini4a4ve,"but"also"evolu4on"of"policy"context"

"

Evaluation of individual projects

Set-up operational teams: • hiring or use internal resources of

project managers and supporting staff • communicate




Identify potential end-users

Iden4fy"target"user!groups,"customers,"intended"users,"as"well"as"non!users"of"the"innova4on"that"

is"developed"in"the"R&D"project"as"whole"

Calls"for"projects"from"the"Region"in"priroty"sectors"areas"based"on:""

!  Mainly"R&D"grants""(scope"for"available"private"and"public"funding"for"each"specifc"project)"

!  Relevant"partnerships"around"each"project"!"mix"different"competencies"to"s4mulate"

sharing""

Create"good"rela4ons"with"users"

Iden4fy"how"the"needs"of"the"user"can"be"met"by"the"project/"innova4on"A priority sector

can be commissioned by

an end-user Mee4ng"to"formalise"the"project"between"

partners"

DraQ"project"proposal"and"check"with"partners"

Approval""of"the"project"amongst"parnters"–"including"requirements,"methodology"to"use,"

design"of"pilots"

Launch"and"monitoring"of"project"

DraQ"contract,"partnership"agreement,"contract"signature"

Date: 18/02/15

ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES THROUGH CRADLE-TO-CRADLE APPROACHES Typical issues to be addressed by such a measure

Typical objectives of such a measure

• Lack of information of businesses and individuals on the long-term costs of production and consumption choices

• Lack of awareness on opportunities for cost savings • Lack of consideration from businesses of the social

and environmental cost of pollution • Difficult bottom-up coordination of collective actions

of various stakeholders and beneficiaries.

• Provide environmental support to companies • Offer a consistently high-quality service that meets

business needs • Rigorously monitor and measure the impact of

services • Improve skills and knowledge on environmental

management • Decouple environmental degradation from economic

growth • Make environmental practice profitable.


North-West (UK) – ENWORKS- EMBEDDING RESOURCE EFFICIENCY IN KEY SECTORS PROGRAMME

Keywords Resource efficiency audits; advisory services; cost savings; sustainable business


http://www.enworks.com/

Measure objectives and relevance for other regions: ENWORKS is a not-for-profit organisation established at the regional level as a result of the need to stimulate companies to invest in resource efficiency and environmental protection. This type of measure is particularly interesting for smart specialisation strategies that target eco-innovation and resource-efficiency promotion. As a provider of a bundle of services to companies, ENWORKS aims to help companies cut costs, increase productivity and profitability, keep and create jobs; and to encourage businesses to act more sustainably and use resources more efficiently at all stages of the value chain. The example illustrated here is the project ‘Embedding Resource Efficiency in Key Sectors’, one action that ENWORKS undertook in 2009-2013.


overall objectives

Project funding

Funding of operational activities of ENWORKS

Increased corporate social responsibility

Results

National funding

Outputs

Number of applications of low carbon technology

Nr of environmental businesses assisted

Nr of businesses assisted per each Tier

Electronic information provision

Delivery partners support

Inputs

Reduced environmental

impacts



development

Increased sustainable

development activity

On-site resource efficiency audits

Value of sales increases and / or safeguarded

Increased regional productivity and

GVA

Nr of jobs created

Value of planned and actual cost savings in companies

per year

Nr of jobs safeguarded

Nr of businesses reducing industrial waste

Amount of material savings (tonnes)

ENWORKS Board, Central Management Team and Delivery Partnerships

Private sector contributions to support

delivery costs

Nr of people assisted in skills development

Ongoing support to implement improvements

Skills transfer via on-site staff training and open

training events

ERDF funding

Additional business investment to implement

advice

Consultants pool support

Support to environmental risk management

Amount of CO2 savings (tonnes)

Amount of Water savings (tonnes)

Amount of Waste Diverted from Landfill (tonnes)

Growth in demand for Resource

Efficiency specialist support

Source: Technopolis Group, 2014 based on Evaluation of the ENWORKS project: “Embedding Resource Efficiency in Key Sectors” 2009-13


18/02/15 Page 2 of 4

Some of the tools that the measure uses are: • free audits and on-the-ground support for companies to improve resource efficiency, as

well as trainings and networking events; • an online resource-efficiency software kit for businesses to identify and manage

environmental improvement actions and calculate potential resource and cost savings; • information sharing and knowledge diffusion services on issues of corporate responsibility,

environmental risk management, legal compliance, climate change adaptation, greening supply chains and sustainable procurement.

Beneficiaries: The direct beneficiaries are the network of delivery partners and private consultants that receive funding to provide services to the final beneficiaries: regional and national enterprises, business people and individuals. Thematic approach: The measure targets actions in the field of green growth, climate change and circular economy and is suited to support businesses in any sector of activity. Type of aid (State aid rules): includes aid for innovation activities of SMEs and aid for process and organisational innovation. This project is funded under the deminimis aid scheme. Therefore the value of support that companies receive from this project counts towards the deminimis ceiling (up to €200k per individual company, business or group in any three consecutive tax years, including the current one). Mode of support and budget: The activities of advisory services, development of consultancy tools for resource efficiency in companies and the programme management have been supported through various grant funding schemes since ENWORKS was established in 2001. For the period of 2009-2013, ENWORKS secured grants from the ERDF and co-financing from the UK Government’s Single Programme totalling £8.9m (€11.3m, December 2014 exchange rate), out of which £5.7m were UK funding, and £3.2m ERDF. Additional private sector funding was leveraged at £15.6m (approx €19.6m). The intervention rate for eligible SMEs was 50% ERDF and 50% UK national co-funding, while the UK Single Programme funding only was used to support larger companies taking part in the programme that were not eligible to receive ERDF grants. Eligible costs: Personnel costs, overheads, external consultancy and equivalent services (including feasibility studies). How to design such a measure: It is important to start with an assessment of the market failures in relation to regional firms’ investment in resource efficiency and environmental protection in the region. These elements are key to defining the priorities of the measure, as well as the objectives and impacts to be achieved. Map the existing organisations that offer businesses support for analysing and identifying opportunities for resource-efficiency improvements, as well as those that can support with implementation of the recommended improvements. These are crucial to then form the network of partners that will be able to provide tailored support to regional companies. Following the ENWORKS model, it proved useful to define criteria to triage the targeted beneficiary companies based on the priority sectors defined in regional strategic documents, as well as the potential impact of resource-efficiency improvements and potential for growth:

• Tier 1 – high-impact resource-efficiency improvements in priority sectors (e.g. Food & Drink, Automotive, Chemicals and Textiles). Companies received a comprehensive support package targeting the reduction of environmental impact at all stages of product lifecycle (e.g. support for product design, manufacturing processes, residual waste, measuring lifecycle carbon footprint).

• Tier 2 – other organisations outside priority sectors with potential for high growth, or to achieve significant environmental improvements, received support for energy-efficiency improvements, water and materials usage optimisation, management and avoidance of environmental risk.

• Tier 3 – organisations that are not in priority sectors, or don’t have high savings potential, were offered light support, such as electronic information updates (e.g ENWORKS Green Intelligence) and signposting services to access other regional and national business support.

Companies within Tier 1 and 2 were offered medium to high levels of support, while companies within Tier 3 were offered low to medium levels of support. How to implement such a measure and pitfalls to avoid: Figure 1 provides an overview of the delivery of the measure, together with key aspects to consider during the implementation. ENWORKS was implemented as a partnership composed of national, regional and local organisations which ensured the governance, management and coordination and implementation of the programme accordingly:

• An independent Partnership Board ensured governance and leadership, set goals for the partnership and influenced the implementation of the environmental agenda in the region.

18/02/15 Page 3 of 4

• The Central Management Team provided the management and coordination of the business support according to the set goals. Its activities included: establishing and managing a partnership of local organisations to deliver business support; securing funding and managing it for the implementation of the measure; providing quality assurance for the business support, making sure it meets business objectives as well as policy goals.

• The Delivery Partnership is composed of a network of delivery partners who are local organisations whose mission is to make sure that business support was available and delivered wherever companies were based in the region, as well as in any sector they were operating.

The delivery of the three tiers of business support should be tailored to the different levels of complexity of the service needs:

• Tier 1 – ENWORKS closed Service Level Agreements with cluster organisations that became delivery partners (see template here). They employed sector specialists to work as relationship managers with businesses and identify the appropriate support package for them. ENWORKS procured a Consortium of Consultants to work through the cluster organisations to provide environmental services to the selected programme beneficiaries. The cluster organisations managed and commissioned consultants together with the Lead Consortium organisation.

• Tier 2 – ENWORKS closed a Service Level Agreement with a network of sub-regional delivery partners made up of local third-sector organisations that could provide environmental advice to businesses and employ teams of qualified environmental auditors. They provided full regional coverage for the programme for Tier 2 businesses. ENWORKS also procured a Tier 2 Bank of Consultants through Service Level Agreements to provide additional capacity when specialist skills are needed at sub-regional level.

• Tier 3 – ENWORKS Central Team developed resources for the electronic information updates and signposted them through the network of Tier 1 and Tier 2 delivery partners.

Human resources/skills needed for implementation: The Central Management Team should be composed of specialists in management and coordination activities, ideally experienced in ERDF funds and/or nationally funded project management or implementation. Familiarity with rules and regulations that need to be followed in EU-funded projects is a required core skill. Central Management Team members will need to engage in stakeholder mobilisation and outreach work, which is why further necessary skills are communication and inter-personal abilities, as well as technical knowledge or proven experience in the field of transition to a low-carbon economy and resource efficiency. How to monitor and evaluate results and measure impact: Monitoring and measuring benefits of the support is a core part of ENWORKS functions. Through the software developed for the ENWORKS Online Resource-Efficiency Toolkit, the companies can record and prioritise improvement actions, track progress, and measure and report on the environmental benefits and cost savings implemented. The core environmental indicators monitored through the toolkit include: cost savings (€), CO2 savings (tonnes), water (m3), materials (tonnes), and waste diverted from landfill through reuse, recycling, composting or energy recovery (tonnes). Overall programme monitoring and reporting is the responsibility of the ENWORKS Central Team, as well as of the delivery partners, who were assigned specific objectives, guiding principles and expectations within a partner performance framework (see a template here). Evaluations were commissioned to independent consultants who assessed the economic impact generated by the support, based on the ENWORKS Resource Efficiency Toolkit records. Typical timeline for implementation:

Source: Evaluation of the ENWORKS project ‘Embedding Resource Efficiency in Key Sectors’, 2009-2013, http://www.enworksinabox.com/sites/default/files/EREiKS%20Evaluation%20FR.pdf

Date: 18/02/15

Figure 1 The implementation of ENWORKS, including DO’s and DON’TS



priority setting

Define scope of support tailored to

the needs of different categories / Tiers of

beneficiaries

Comprehensive support tier: Select sectoral delivery partners / clusters able to provide specialist support packages to businesses in

regional priority sectors

DO’s and DON’TS

Commission independent

evaluation of the measure and its

impact

Review of policy

Benchmark / map existing regional organisations offering business support for resource

efficiency

!"Commission"an"external"study"for"

more"evidence"

! Consider"exis5ng"ini5a5ves"in"the"region"

!"Learn"from"similar"ini5a5ves"

elsewhere"

Iden5fica5on"of"key"challenges"

for"regional"economy,"in"

par5cular:"

!"Market"failure:"companies’"lack"of"investments"in"resource"

efficiency"! Fragmenta:on"of"regional"

business"support"for"transi:oning"to"low"carbon"economy""

! "Economic"gains"and"impacts"on"regional"economy"from"RES"

improvements"can"be"substan:al"but"differs"by"sector"

Define the expected results and impacts

of the measure




Set-up an independent Partnership Board to provide leadership and set goals for the

partnership

Develop"and"manage"the"Resource"Efficiency"Toolkit"

soEware"

!Provide"predictable"long!term"

support""

!Carefully"iden5fy"the"key"indicators"

for"tracking"success"

!"Clearly"define"the"logic"of"

interven5on"and"set"targets""

! Rela5onship"building"and"communica5on"capacity"is"key"to"

provide"strategic"direc5on"for"RES"at"

regional"level"

!Programme"delivery"through"a"

network"of"providers"is"a"key"strength"

for"effec5veness"

! Contract"independent"delivery"partners"at"local"level""

! Assign"and"monitor"objec5ves"and"

impact"targets"

! Targeted"sector"approach"helps"achieve"beLer"results"

! Online"RES"toolkit"should"allow"real!5me"tracking"of"progress"""

! Evaluate"at"the"right"5me"(e.g"every"5"

years"by"update"of"strategy)""

!"Take"into"account"lessons"from"

evalua5ons"to"review"the"ini5a5ve,"but"

also"evolu5on"of"policy"context"

Repor5ng"and"backtracking"performance"against"

targets"

Evaluation of streams of support

Procure"a"Bank"of"Consultants"on"environmental"

protec5on"and"resource"efficiency"to"work"with"

delivery"partners"to"assist"high!poten5al"businesses"

Procure"a"Consor5um"of"Consultants"to"work"with"

delivery"partners"to"provide"specialised"one!to!one"

advice""for"companies"in"sectoral"priority"fields"

Intermediate support tier: Call for organisations to join network of sub-regional delivery partners

able to provide environmental advice to businesses



Implement"the"environmental"news"bulle5n"for"

awareness"raising"among"stakeholders""

Ongoing"marke5ng"and"communica5on"ac5vi5es,"

trainings,"events,"good"prac5ce"sharing""Source: Technopolis Group, 2014

Commission study to assess regional

companies’ barriers to invest in RES and

opportunities for cost savings

Call for establishing a Central Management Team of the programme with: - Capacity to manage complex support delivery networks - Ability to acquire and manage various funding resources -Bridge between national, regional and local level stakeholders in the field of resource efficiency and low carbon economy

Set-up a triage and standardisation system to target support to the businesses

with highest potential of savings

Universal support tier: Develop resources for individual companies

Example of project: Wykamol, a Burnley manufacturer specialising in products for the building and preservation industries, has reduced its operational costs by over £49,500 a year, by becoming more resource efficient. It has received free support from Groundwork Pennine Lancashire, with funding from the ENWORKS programme, to tackle its high energy bills and waste collection and disposal costs, and to reduce its environmental footprint. The Groundwork adviser has visited the facility on several occasions and carried out a full review of its operations. Eighteen of her recommendations have already been implemented, starting with the ones that had the greatest potential savings. Achieved results include optimising composite panel cutting processes on site leading to reducing waste fees by an annual £40,000; improvements to the compressed air system and to the recycling rates, as well as fitting low-energy lightbulbs, lighting sensors and reducing the amount of paper used. Source: ENWORKS, http://www.enworks.com/case-study/Wykamol

guidance notes for 10 stylised measures to support the...

Documents