Cooperation of Regions for Innovation CORINNA Benchmarking of cross-border innovation policy in the core Alpe Adria Region - INTERREG project CORINNA DAMJAN KAVAŠ,

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

Overview Basic Information on CORINNA project

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

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.

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.

Outputs & Results – Population

Outputs & Results – GRP/hab. PPS

Output & Results – Regional R&D Capacities

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.

Overview Benchmarking of regional innovation policies: Methodological issues. Lessons learned.

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.

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.

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

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 R&D 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.

Detailed description of innovation performance: list of indicators A.Indicators concerning the System of Production B.Human Resources Indicators C.Indicators concerning Knowledge Creation and Awareness D.Indicators concerning Development of Innovation Indicators chosen should be: available, acceptable and comparable.

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.

CORINNA Innovation Policy Benchmarking

CORINNA Innovation Policy Benchmarking

CORINNA Innovation Policy Benchmarking OBJECTIVEI.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 FVGRegional Law no. 5/2006; Regional Developing Plan ; Regional Law no. 4/2005; Regional Law no. 26/2005; Regional Law no. 11/2003; Regional Law no. 3/2002; Regional strategic plan ; Law 46/82 »Rotative Special Fund for Technologic Innovation« Regional Law no. 11/2003; Regional Law no. 3/2002; Regional strategic plan SloveniaIncentives to joint development & investment projects ; 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

CORINNA Innovation Policy Benchmarking

Some lessons learned

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.

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!

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.

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.

Innovation Policy Benchmarking - lessons learned Thank you for your kind attention! Damjan Kavaš Contact: