CORINNA

1
CORINNA

• Benchmarking of cross-border innovation policy in
  the core Alpe Adria Region - INTERREG project
  CORINNA

DAMJAN KAVAŠ,
2
Overview

• Basic Information on CORINNA project.
• Benchmarking of regional innovation policies
• Methodological issues.
• Lessons learned.

3
Overview

• Basic Information on CORINNA project

4
CORINNA Partners
Stuttgart Region Economic Development
Corp.Stuttgart, D
Hungarian Science and Technology Foundation
Budapest, H
Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG) Vienna, A
Carinthian Economic Promotion Fund
(KWF) Klagenfurt, A
West Hungarian Research Institute Györ, H
Economy Service Burgenland (WIBAG) Eisenstadt, A
Joanneum Research Graz, A
Friuli Innovazione Udine, I
Institute for Economic Research (IER)Ljubljana,
SI
5
Starting Point - A Diagnosis

• Intensity of interregional/cross-border
  cooperation of partner regions in technology
  innovation lacks behind comparable European
  regions
• on administrative level,
• on company level.

6
Cooperation barriers

• Huge differences in governmental structures
  (e.g. federal vs. centralistic),
• different regulations, policies, support
  programmes,
• different levels of economic development,
• low knowledge about competencies of neighbour
  regions.

7
Outputs Results Population
8
Outputs Results GRP/hab. PPS
9
Output Results Regional RD Capacities
10
(No Transcript)
11
CORINNA Innovation Policy Benchmarking

• All countries and regions involved are looking
  to innovation and innovation policy as pivotal
  for tackling the structural challenges facing
  their economies, because innovation is key to
  competitiveness.

12
Overview

• Benchmarking of regional innovation policies
• Methodological issues.
• Lessons learned.

13
CORINNA Innovation Policy Benchmarking

• Benchmarking is a powerful technique that
  provides practical learning through comparing
  measurements, policies or outcomes, across
  industries, sectors, policies, products or
  services.
• The meaning of benchmarking is constant
  learning, improving and pursuing performance.
  Through breaking the traditional way of thinking
  the method encourages the openness and improves
  originality and adopting 3-A policies Adopt,
  Adapt, Advance.

14
CORINNA Innovation Policy Benchmarking

• Motivations for policy benchmarking are
• To understand where improvements have to be made.
• Understand factors involving performance of
  policies.
• Learning from good practices or not so good
  practices.
• Setting standard and targets for performance.
• Taking part in the process is already helping to
  learn naming and shaming.

15
CORINNA Innovation Policy Benchmarking
General socio-economic performance
Innovation performance
Innovation policy instruments
Other factors
Synergy between innovation policy instruments
Good and not so good practice
16
CORINNA Innovation Policy Benchmarking - Approach

• Short comparison of socio-economic performance of
  the regions involved.
• Detailed description of innovation performance
  list of indicators.
• Short description of RD policy and detailed
  description of innovation policy instruments
  regional level, national level, interregional
  level according to the template (standardization)
  
• Assessment of synergy between innovation policy
  instruments (synergy matrix).
• Comparing performance of the regions
  (socio-economic, innovation) and its innovation
  policy mix based on evaluation studies and expert
  opinion.
• Identification of examples and description of
  good and not so good practice (instruments,
  policy mix) in innovation policy in each region,
  because policy success and failures often contain
  many valuable lessons for others regions.

17
Detailed description of innovation performance
list of indicators

• Indicators concerning the System of Production
• Human Resources Indicators
• Indicators concerning Knowledge Creation and
  Awareness
• Indicators concerning Development of Innovation
• Indicators chosen should be available,
  acceptable and comparable.

18
CORINNA Innovation Policy Benchmarking

• The effectiveness of innovation policy depends
  not only on the design and implementation of
  individual policy instruments for innovation
  (e.g. tax incentives, public/private partnership
  programmes), but also on the way instruments are
  combined into policy mixes that offer
  complementary and mutually reinforcing support
  for regional/national innovation systems.

19
CORINNA Innovation Policy Benchmarking
20
CORINNA Innovation Policy Benchmarking
21
CORINNA Innovation Policy Benchmarking
OBJECTIVE I.1. Development of a strategic medium-to-long term vision of innovation challenges and innovation potential I.2. Increase understanding of the nature of drivers and barriers of innovation activity in enterprises with a view to informing the policy-making process I.3. Improve the effectiveness of the policy-cycle in order to increase the impact of public intervention activity and outputs in enterprises I.4. Encourage mutual policy learning and networking between policy-making at regional, national and EU levels
Carinthia   Innovation Assistant Knowledge Management for SMEs    
Burgenland     Grants for sustainable, innovative or technology-oriented business areas Clusters and Networks in the region of Burgenland
Styria   Promotion of Start-ups Qualification and Training in Networks    
FVG Regional Law no. 5/2006 Regional Developing Plan 2006-2008 Regional Law no. 4/2005 Regional Law no. 26/2005 Regional Law no. 11/2003 Regional Law no. 3/2002 Regional strategic plan 2005-2008 Law 46/82 Rotative Special Fund for Technologic Innovation   Regional Law no. 11/2003 Regional Law no. 3/2002 Regional strategic plan 2005-2008  
Slovenia Incentives to joint development investment projects 2006-2007 Technology equipment subsidies for SMEs Voucher system for consultancy and training services   Support to research development projects in enterprises 2006/07 Development of innovation infrastructure Technology equipment subsidies for SMEs Voucher system for consultancy and training services
West Transdanubia  
22
CORINNA Innovation Policy Benchmarking
23
Some lessons learned
24
Detailed description of innovation performance
list of indicators - lessons learned

• Due to unavailability of data on regional level
  indicators concerning development of innovation
  (e.g. share of innovative enterprises, innovation
  expenditures, sales of product innovations from
  manufacturing enterprises, new enterprises per
  sector) had to be excluded from the benchmarking
  exercise.

25
Innovation Policy Benchmarking - lessons learned

• Comparability of data is limited due to many
  differences
• Objectives of instruments differ even within
  similar instruments subjective
  classification.
• Time frames of instrument.
• Financial investments.
• Implementation models.
• Governance levels national innovation policy
  instruments are still dominant at the regional
  level.
• Zero base levels are not similar.
• Influence of socio-economic context (economic
  structure, history, ).
• IT IS DIFFICULT TO DEFINE REGIONAL INNOVATION
  POLICY MIX!

26
Innovation Policy Benchmarking - lessons learned

• Innovation policy instruments operate in a
  specific national/federal or regional
  institutional setting and governance structure.
• The effectiveness of policies depends on their
  role in a regional/national innovation system.
  Therefore innovation policy instruments part of a
  policy mix their effectiveness and relevance
  depend on other policy measures.
• There are different approaches at the regional
  level as on national or international level. It
  becomes apparent that regional, national and
  European policy actors and organisations can
  shape the development and dynamics of regional
  innovation systems (multi level governance).
• Transferability/diffusion of policies is limited
  Policy conclusions which are drawn from the
  analysis of success stories are only of limited
  use for less favoured regions, as their
  innovation capabilities deviate in many respects
  from these role models.
• There is no evaluation culture at the regional
  level.

27
Innovation Policy Benchmarking - lessons learned

• Interregional regional innovation policy
  benchmarking is beneficial in order to learn from
  success factors and pitfalls in other countries
  and adapt to own situation.
• There is a need for extensive discussion on
  results of the benchmarking process expert
  groups.
• Policy makers should play an active role during
  the process in order to support the process and
  to be aware of methodological pitfalls.

28
Innovation Policy Benchmarking - lessons learned

• Thank you for your kind attention!
• Damjan Kavaš
• Contact kavasd_at_ier.si