Monitoring and Evaluation of Smart Specialisation Strategy Krzysztof Mieszkowski JRC.IPTS, S 3 Platform 28 th May 2014, Sandomierz.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Theory-Based Evaluation:
Advertisements

Linking regions and central governments: Indicators for performance-based regional development policy 6 th EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EVALUATION OF COHESION.
1 Workshop I - Introduction: Monitoring and evaluation (M+E) financial engineering instruments for SMEs 5 th Plenary Meeting JEREMIE Networking Platform.
A NEW METRIC FOR A NEW COHESION POLICY by Fabrizio Barca * * Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance. Special Advisor to the European Commission. Perugia,
1 EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region Evaluation: Setting Outcome Indicators and Targets Seminar: 15 March 2011, La Hulpe Veronica Gaffey Acting Director.
Operational Programme I – Cohesion Policy Event part-financed by the European Union European Regional Development Fund Evaluation Plan for Maltas.
1 European Union Regional Policy – Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Draft guidance on monitoring and evaluation : Concepts and recommendations.
Performance Framework
t J OAQUIM B ERNARDO Coordenador Adjunto do Observatório do QREN Deputy Coordinator of the NSRF Observatory.
Samuele Dossi DG for Regional Policy - Evaluation
A Fresh Look at the Intervention Logic of Structural Funds
Regional Policy Revised version Marielle Riché Evaluation Unit DG Regional Policy International Monitoring Conference Budapest 11 th November 2011 Brussels.
The future cohesion policy: clusters as critical instruments to implement smart specialisation Claus Schultze, Policy Analyst, European Commission, DG.
Regional Policy The future of EU funding - proposals from the Commission Guy Flament European Commission, DG REGIO Cardiff, 19 April 2013.
OECD/INFE High-level Principles for the evaluation of financial education programmes Adele Atkinson, PhD OECD With the support of the Russian/World Bank/OECD.
Building open regional innovation strategies: New opportunities provided by Smart Specialisation Strategies Claire Nauwelaers Independent STI policy expert.
Cyprus Project Management Society
Improving the added value of EU Cohesion policy Professor John Bachtler European Policies Research Centre University of Strathclyde, Glasgow
Evaluating public RTD interventions: A performance audit perspective from the EU European Court of Auditors American Evaluation Society, Portland, 3 November.
Lesson 2: Project: Evaluation, Monitoring, Auditing Macerata, 22 nd October Alessandro Valenza, Director, t33 srl.
Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI)
Evidence Based Cohesion Policy Focus on performance incentives Thomas Tandskov Dissing Senior Adviser Ministry of Economics and Business Affairs Danish.
New frontiers Evaluation methods Theory of change Project cycle and risk management Jesper Johnsøn, CMI, U4 Bergen, February 4, 2014.
Regional Policy Managing Authorities of the ETC programmes Annual Meeting W Piskorz, Head of Unit Competence Centre Inclusive Growth, Urban and.
Riga – Latvia, 4 & 5 December 2006
Evaluation plans for programming period in Poland Experience and new arrangements Ministry of Infrastructure and Development, Poland Athens,
Evaluation methods and tools (Focus on delivery mechanism) Jela Tvrdonova, 2014.
Partnership as a tool to green regional development programmes Gottfried Lamers Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management.
1 RBM Background Development aid is often provided on a point to point basis with no consistency with countries priorities. Development efforts are often.
Lesson 2: Project: Evaluation, Monitoring, Auditing Macerata, 22 nd October Alessandro Valenza, Director, t33 srl.
EN Regional Policy EUROPEAN COMMISSION Innovation and the Structural Funds, Antwerp, 16 January 2007 Veronica Gaffey Innovative Actions Unit.
Reformed Partnership and Multi-Level Governance Ana Maria Dobre Political Administrator General Council Secretariat
1 European Union Regional Policy – Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion The new architecture for cohesion policy post-2013 High-Level Meeting on the.
EU-Regional Policy Structural actions 1 Structural Funds Evaluation A VIEW FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION Anna Burylo, DG Regional Policy, Evaluation.
1 International Conference Evaluation: Evidence-based Tools for Decision-making Future Cohesion Policy: Implications for Monitoring and Evaluation Budapest.
PPA 502 – Program Evaluation Lecture 2c – Process Evaluation.
Regional Policy EU Cohesion Policy 2014 – 2020 Proposals from the European Commission.
The European agenda on improving the efficiency of employment and social policies: Bratislava, December 2011 The example of social experimentation.
4/5 June 2009Challenges of the CMEF & Ongoing Evaluation 1 Common monitoring and evaluation framework Jela Tvrdonova, 2010.
Regional Policy Veronica Gaffey Evaluation Unit DG Regional Policy International Monitoring Conference Budapest 11 th November 2011 Budapest 26 th September2013.
1 Monitoring & evaluation 2013+: concepts and ideas (ERDF & CF) CMEF meeting, 17 th June 2011, Kai Stryczynski, DG REGIO Evaluation Unit.
Regional Policy Result Orientation of future ETC Programes Veronica Gaffey Head of Evaluation & European Semester 23 April 2013.
Regional Policy How are evaluations used in the EU? How to make them more usable? Stockholm, 8 October 2015 Kai Stryczynski, DG Regional and Urban Policy.
Regional and Urban Policy Expected Results for Low Carbon Economy and Transport Ivanka Lakova and Jan Marek Ziółkowski Evaluation and European Semester.
EN Regional Policy EUROPEAN COMMISSION National evaluation conference Marielle Riché Evaluation unit, DG REGIO Bucharest, 18.
ANDALUSIAN APPROACH TO RRI: A NEW GOVERNANCE IN THE INNOVATION Carmen Sillero Head of Division for Strategy and Programmes Agency of Innovation and Development.
"The challenge for Territorial Cohesion 2014 – 2020: delivering results for EU citizens" Veronica Gaffey Acting Director EUROPEAN COMMISSION, DG for Regional.
Driving towards Impact through Development Goals Washington, DC 04/13/2011.
Serving society Stimulating innovation Supporting legislation S3 DESIGN LEARNING WORKSHOP Chisinau, Moldova, 18 February, 2016 THE.
SUMMARY Macerata, 8 th April Andrea Gramillano, t33 srl.
Indicators – intervention logic, differences ( vs programming period, ESF vs. ERDF) Piotr Wolski Marshall’s Office Zachodniopomorskie.
Croatia: Result orientation within the process of preparation of programming documents V4+ Croatia and Slovenia Expert Level Conference Budapest,
Interreg Programmes Preliminary Conclusions May 2016.
Joint Action Plans (Art CPR). 2 Purpose of the presentation Present the “Joint Action Plan”, a potential approach on a management more focused on.
Annual Review Meeting OP for Cohesion Policy Funds Specific Thematic Focus 2 - Review the status and state of play of Smart specialization.
Evaluation : goals and principles
Veronica Gaffey & Antonella Schulte-Braucks
Ex post evaluation of ERDF and Cohesion Fund
Claire NAUWELAERS, independent policy expert
Evaluation network DG REGIO 14th April 2011
Ex-ante evaluation: major points and state of play
Evaluation plans for programming period in Poland
Adam Abdulwahab Evaluation network meeting Brussels, 25 February 2010
WHAT is evaluation and WHY is it important?
Smart Specialisation: monitoring and evaluation Marek Przeor DG Regional and Urban Policy 24 January 2019 #CohesionPolicy #EUinmyRegion.
Result Orientation of Interreg Programmes
The Estonian experience with ex-ante evaluation – set-up and progress
REIMBURSABLE FUNDS IN JEREMIE How to manage Regional Funds
ESF monitoring and evaluation in Draft guidance
Project intervention logic
Presentation transcript:

Monitoring and Evaluation of Smart Specialisation Strategy Krzysztof Mieszkowski JRC.IPTS, S 3 Platform 28 th May 2014, Sandomierz

Outputs, results and impact in relation to programming, monitoring and evaluation

Indicators Outputs are the direct products of programmes; they are intended to contribute to results Result indicators are variables that provide information on some specific aspects of results that lend themselves to be measured. Monitoring Monitoring of outputs means to observe whether intended products are delivered and whether implementation is on track Monitoring also observes changes in the result indicators (policy monitoring) The values of result indicators, both for baselines and at later points in time, in some cases can be obtained from national or regional statistics. In other cases it might be necessary to carry out surveys or to use administrative data, such as registry of enterprises or unemployment benefit recipient data.

Evaluation Change in result indicator ═ contribution of intervention + contribution of other factors Impact is the change that can be credibly attributed to an intervention. "Effect of an intervention" or "contribution of an intervention" are alternative expressions for this idea. Impact evaluation – capturing effects Did the public intervention have an effect at all and if yes, how big – positive or negative – was this effect. The question is: Does it work? Is there a causal link? This is the question counterfactual impact evaluations aim to answer. Why an intervention produces intended (and unintended) effects. The goal is to answer the “why and how it works?” question. To answer this question is the aim of theory-based impact evaluations.

Clear objectives and selection of result indicators Result indicators shall meet certain quality criteria. They should be (CPR, annex XI): a)responsive to policy: closely linked to the policy interventions supported. They should capture the essence of a result according to a reasonable argument about which features they can and cannot represent; b)normative: having a clear and accepted normative interpretation (i.e. there must be agreement that a movement in a particular direction is a favourable or an unfavourable result); c)robust: reliable, statistically validated; d)timely collection of data: available when needed, with room built in for debate and for revision when needed and justified. Each result indicator requires a baseline value

Output indicators shall cover all investment priorities of a programme (art. 27.4(b), 96.2(b) CPR). As explained in section 1.1, they should be derived from the intervention logic of the programme, expressing its actions. Output indicators from the list of common indicators may be insufficient to reflect the actions of a certain programme; in this case it is necessary to identify programme specific output indicators. Common indicators are designed to aggregate information in a Member State and across Member States. They reflect frequently used investments of the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund. Common indicators reflect the actions, not the objectives of a programme or of regional policy. Actions reflected in common indicators are not more important than others. Member States shall use indicators from the list of common indicators whenever appropriate (art. 6, ERDF regulation; art. 5, CF regulation; art. 16, ETC regulation; see annex 1). "When appropriate" means, for example, if a programme does not support the construction of roads, the corresponding common indicators "kilometres of new roads" is not applicable.

COMMON OUTPUT INDICATORS FOR ERDF SUPPORT UNDER THE INVESTMENT FOR GROWTH AND JOBS GOAL (ARTICLE 6)

Monitoring and evaluation systems of regional OPs ≠ monitoring and evaluation systems of S3s. Why? S3 is a top (regional) level (refers to regional economy, regional innovation system) dealing with broader scope of issues. Several OPs and sources of funds (regional, national, inter-regional, and EU – public and private) might be used to implement the strategy; also non-financial tools and actions can be considered. But OPs should reflect policy-mixes developed in S3 processes and should consider actions to reach the S3 strategic objectives seriously. Because of that The OP monitoring system should be also considered as a source of monitoring and evaluation information for S3.

PoziomCelMiernik Krajowy1.Utrzymanie realnego wzrostu PKB na poziomie 3.5% 2.Zwiększenie liczby miejsc pracy 3.Zwiększenie innowacyjności gospodarki 1.Stopa wzrostu PKB 2.Stopa bezrobocia 3.IUS Regionalny1.Zwiększenie innowacyjności regionalnej gospodarki 1.RIS Program (IP 1.2) 1.Zwiększenie zaangażowania biznesu w finansowanie i prowadzenie prac B+R 1.Wzrost BERD 2.Wzrost udziału biznesu w finansowaniu B+R. 3.Wzrost udziału środków publicznych w finansowaniu BERD. 1.Zwiększenie współpracy w zakresie B+R między biznesem a jednostkami naukowymi 2.Zwiększenie zatrudnienia personelu B+R w przedsiębiorstwach 1.Liczba projektów B+R prowadzonych przed przedsiębiorstwa 2.Liczba projektów B+R prowadzonych we współpracy z jednostkami naukowymi 3.Liczba projektów B+R prowadzonych przez nowo-zatrudniony personel B+R w przedsiębiorstwach Projekt1.Opracowanie innowacyjnej technologii w oparciu o prace B+R 1.Liczna pracowników B+R zatrudniona przy projekcie 2.Wartość nakładów poniesionych na prace B+R w podziale na źródła finansowania 3.Oczekiwane korzyści ekonomiczne projektu. W obszarach regionalnej inteligentnej specjalizacji

11 RIS3 guide – Key steps for developing a RIS3 Step 1 – Analysis of regional context/potential Step 2 – Governance Step 3 – Vision for the future Step 4 – Selection of priorities Step 5 – Policy mix Step 6 – Monitoring and evaluation RIS3 AnalysisProcessVisionPrioritiesPolicy mixMonitoring

Step 6 – Integration of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms  Monitoring  to verify the correct and efficient implementation of activities  Evaluation  to verify whether and how strategic goals are met Importance of ex-ante setting of measurable targets and output/ outcome indicators Mechanisms integrated in the strategy:

So what do we need? 1.The policy-mix (objectives and adequate instruments) 2.The roadmap and milestones (a need for time and mid-term objectives) 3.The chosen indicators (measuring the progress in reaching the strategic objectives) 4.Monitoring mechanism (monitoring processes and products of them) 5.Governance structure (who is doing what, responsibility)

S3 roadmap and milestones

Regionalne Obserwatoria Terytorialne

Monitoring of improvement in innovativeness of a region – Regional Innovation Scoreboard

Monitoring of S3-based policy

Ramy definiujące inteligentne specjalizacje regionu w wymiarze naukowym, edukacyjnym i gospodarczym

Badania postaw przedsiębiorczości => bazy danych Możliwość przeprowadzenia badania pogłębionego Cykliczność badania pozwala znaleźć różnice – dynamiki dla określonych czynników Instrument szybkiego reagowania 29 Raporty monitorujące

Database of Andalusian companies La Central de Balances de Andalucía (CBA) es un sistema de información concebido como instrumento para conocer la realidad y la evolución de la empresa andaluza a través de sus cuentas públicas. Creada en el año 1992 por la Agencia de Innovación y Desarrollo de Andalucía (entonces denominada Instituto de Fomento), en su proceso de desarrollo ha contado con la decisiva colaboración de Unicaja mediante sus sociedades Analistas Económicos de Andalucía e Instituto de Análisis Económico y Empresarial. En el año 2006 se integran la CBA y la Central de Balances de Actividad Empresarial en Andalucía, elaborada por el Instituto de Estadística de Andalucía, en virtud de un convenio firmado por sus instituciones promotoras. De esta forma, los resultados agregados de la CBA pasan a formar parte de la estadística oficial de la Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía. CBSO Andalusia (CBA) is an information system designed as a tool for understanding reality and the evolution of the Andalusian company through its public accounts. Created in 1992 by the Agency for Innovation and Development of Andalusia (then Institute of Development), in their development process has had the decisive collaboration of Unicaja by their societies Economic Analysts of Andalusia and Institute of Economic and Business Analysis. In 2006, the CBA and the CBSO Entrepreneurial Activity in Andalusia, developed by the Institute of Statistics of Andalusia, under an agreement signed by their sponsoring institutions are integrated. Thus, the aggregate results of the CBA become part of the official statistics of the Autonomous Community of Andalusia.

Monitoring and Evaluation - Lithuania To follow up activites in projects and programmes Learning for future But also to adapt and change areas of focus Stakeholders engaged in governance structure MOSTA in Lithuania

Integration of monitoring and evaluation mechanism – Lower Austria 32 Target group Level CompanyIntermediaryPolicy Maker Project Program Region Cockpit: Monitor of results and regional effects Cockpit: Monitor of results and regional effects In–process monitoring and ex-post evaluation BSC Balanced Scorecard Methodology External evaluations External evaluations standardised pilot Enterprise Dialogue incl. online questionnaire RIS NÖ Large scale questionnaire Enterprise Dialogue incl. online questionnaire RIS NÖ Large scale questionnaire NÖ Innovations index and other studies CIS extension for regional data bi annual National complete R&D inventory count bi annual

Stakeholder Engagement & Intervention 33 Requirement within BSC to have an ongoing strategy reviewing process External - Enterprise Dialogue with minister and top management representatives – once a year - thematic small dialogues with ministers on demand - RIS Steering Committee – once a year - Online Large Scale Questionnaire – every 5 years - Bi-annual meetings with key stakeholders (chamber of commerce, federation of industries) - Steering committee of Clusters Internal - Top-level: Bi-annual strategy meetings (top management + minister) - Programme Level: Bi-annual BSC reviews Inputs lead to changes/adaption of strategy

Navarra

Berlin Brandenburg – cluster focus 36

Scotland 37