2011 Evaluation of the Innovation Voucher Programme in Poland: Results, Methods and Research Opportunities Polish Agency for Enterprise Development Brussels,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Jack Jedwab Association for Canadian Studies September 27 th, 2008 Canadian Post Olympic Survey.
Advertisements

Symantec 2010 Windows 7 Migration EMEA Results. Methodology Applied Research performed survey 1,360 enterprises worldwide SMBs and enterprises Cross-industry.
Gruntvig EUROPE NET II A research project by Tamara Kropiowska Jerzy Paczkowski ODN Słupsk Formative assessment in adult education SUMMARY Barnsley, May.
EU Presidency Conference Effective policies for the development of competencies of youth in Europe Warsaw, November 2011 Improving basic skills in.
Symantec 2010 Windows 7 Migration Global Results.
Measuring social added value A model for public authorities
Hot issues - climate change Initiatives in Poland Maciej Maciejewski Tomasz Walczykiewicz Bonn, 19th-20th of November 2007.
Strengthening innovation in chemical clusters
1 of 20 Information Dissemination Audiences and Markets IMARK Investing in Information for Development Information Dissemination Audiences and Markets.
2 Session Objectives Increase participant understanding of effective financial monitoring based upon risk assessments of sub-grantees Increase participant.
THE 2004 LIVING CONDITIONS MONITORING SURVEY : ZAMBIA EXTENT TO WHICH GENDER WAS INCORPORATED presented at the Global Forum on Gender Statistics, Accra.
Improving the Effectiveness of Interviewer Administered Surveys though Refusal Avoidance Training Grace E. ONeill Presented by Anne Russell U.S. Census.
National Report on European Language Label in Bulgaria Raya Stanachkova Project coordinator KU TU Ltd. Sofia, Bulgaria NELLIP project Second partner meeting.
A Presentation of the Colorado Health Institute 1576 Sherman Street, Suite 300 Denver, Colorado Monitoring the.
The Swedish Energy Agency The energy system and the sustainable municipality programme 1 Johan Burström Programme manager.
Development Priorities in Regional Operational Programmes prepared by the Polish Regions for the Programming Periode – 11 October 2007,
Policy Research and Innovation Research and Innovation EUROSTARS JOINT PROGRAMME Research and Development programme undertaken by several Member States.
February 16, 2014Ministry of Regional Development - 2 Mid-term assessment of information and publicity measures Commission Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006.
TEN-T Info Day for AP and MAP Calls 2012 EVALUATION PROCESS AND AWARD CRITERIA Anna Livieratou-Toll TEN-T Executive Agency Senior Policy & Programme Coordinator.
The Managing Authority –Keystone of the Control System
1 07/05/2009 The ERCs Peer Review evaluation process Helsinki University of Technology Espoo, Finland Mikko Paalanen.
María Muñoz General Directorate for Community Funds Ministry of Economy and Finance SPAIN María Muñoz General Directorate for Community Funds Ministry.
Feedback on the Evaluation Experiences during Implementation Ignác Siba National Development Agency, Hungary.
Marek Szczepański Wielkopolska UDF Director of European Programmes Department at BGK Working Group JESSICA – lessons learned – proposal of action plan.
Pilot exercise on result indicators Operational Programme "Entrepreneurship and Innovation" DG REGIO Evaluation Network Meeting Brussels, 22 June 2012.
1 Managing Authority Conducting a self assessment 10 June 2008 A. Badrichani – DG Regional Policy – Audit Unit J3.
European Commission DG Research SMcL Brussels SME-NCP 23 October 2002 THE 6th FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME Economic & Technological Intelligence S. McLaughlin.
1 Lessons learned – success factors for biodiversity projects Peter Tramberend Environment Agency Austria.
DEVELOPMENT OF AN INNOVATION CENTER WIPO/INN/MCT/04/3 WIPO NATIONAL WORKSHOP ON INNOVATION SUPPORT SERVICES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT Muscat, April 20, 2004.
Western Balkans Regional Competitiveness Initiative (RCI)
Target setting for the SEE 2020 strategy Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina September 11 th
NexSAT NexSAT Steering Group Meeting - 8 June 2004 © 2004 European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 1 Welcome to the 4th meeting.
Undergraduates in Minnesota: Who are they and how do they finance their education? Tricia Grimes Shefali Mehta Minnesota Office of Higher Education November.
CALENDAR.
Fiscal Condition of the States Presentation to the Rhode Island House of Representatives Economic Forum December 1, 2009 Arturo Pérez Fiscal Affairs Program.
Chris Millward 26 May A new settlement for higher education ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Współpraca akademicka stypendia, badania, rozwój Warszawa, 9 listopada 2010.
Outcomes of a recent study: National Qualifications Framework – a possibility for having level 5 in Higher Education (Polish Rectors Foundation and Pearson.
A Fractional Order (Proportional and Derivative) Motion Controller Design for A Class of Second-order Systems Center for Self-Organizing Intelligent.
Where to find information…. What topics this presentation covers: Strategic Planning Developing a Business Plan Developing a Marketing Plan Risk Management.
1 Thessaloniki, 14th May Thessaloniki, 14th May, 2010 Ministry of Economy Support Instruments Department Polish Instruments of Export Promotion.
Slide 1 Design in Innovation Coming out from the Shadow of R&D Bruce Tether Centre for Research on Innovation & Competition and Manchester Business School,
Chapter 5 – Enterprise Analysis
A Roadmap to Successful Implementation Management Plans.
1 Quality Indicators for Device Demonstrations April 21, 2009 Lisa Kosh Diana Carl.
Instruments supporting effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy Karina Bedrunka Director of the Department for Coordination of Operational Programmes Gdańsk,
1 FY10 ACS Methods Panel Update Jennifer Guarino Tancreto Chief, ACS Data Collection Methods Staff Decennial Statistical Studies Division Presentation.
TCCI Barometer March “Establishing a reliable tool for monitoring the financial, business and social activity in the Prefecture of Thessaloniki”
TCCI Barometer March “Establishing a reliable tool for monitoring the financial, business and social activity in the Prefecture of Thessaloniki”
Findings from a survey of HGIEs in eight countries and policy implications Mutual Learning Seminar Session II: Policies to support high-growth innovative.
A survey of children, teachers and parents on children’s drawing experience at home and at school Richard Jolley (Staffordshire University, UK) Esther.
Christina Skantze. Baltic Sea Strategy initiative – why? New political context for cooperation – EU-enlargement, integration Underline priorities and.
©Ian Sommerville 2004Software Engineering, 7th edition. Chapter 5 Slide 1 Project management.
TCCI Barometer September “Establishing a reliable tool for monitoring the financial, business and social activity in the Prefecture of Thessaloniki”
BS-ERA.NET project- state of the art Dr. Şerban PANAITESCU Project Coordinator International Learning Network (ILN) meeting on the implementation of International.
Employment Ontario Program Updates EO Leadership Summit – May 13, 2013 Barb Simmons, MTCU.
Before Between After.
In consortium with Logotech, Zentrum für Soziale Innovation, European Profiles Capacity building and institutional strengthening of Science and Research.
High Performance Public Buildings Proposed Final Report Joint Legislative Audit & Review Committee June 23, 2011 Mark Fleming, JLARC Staff.
Static Equilibrium; Elasticity and Fracture
Mid-term Evaluation Implementation of the EU Structural Funds in R&DI and Higher Education, Stage 1: Strategic view
Local Report 2010 Switzerland 14th June Design of the study.
NORMAPME ISO User Guide for European SMEs The essence of.
úkol = A 77 B 72 C 67 D = A 77 B 72 C 67 D 79.
Evaluation Units Open Days Some experience of Implementing Agency in evaluating Pre-Accession Entrepreneurship Development Programmes Polish Agency for.
PPA 502 – Program Evaluation Lecture 2c – Process Evaluation.
Launching conference of the ClusterCoop Project The future role of clusters in Central Europe Budapest, 13th of July 2011 Polish clusters and cluster policy.
27/3/2008 1/16 A FRAMEWORK FOR REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING PROCESS DEVELOPMENT (FRERE) Dr. Li Jiang School of Computer Science The.
Measuring social added value Italian experiences
Presentation transcript:

2011 Evaluation of the Innovation Voucher Programme in Poland: Results, Methods and Research Opportunities Polish Agency for Enterprise Development Brussels, April 14 th 2011 Jacek Pokorski Aleksandra Jaskólska

Presentation 1. Innovation Voucher Programme 2. About the evaluation 3. Beneficiaries characteristics 4. Methodology 5. Key findings 6. The most important recommendations 7. Lesson learned - research opportunities

About the Programme Pilot project , will be continued in 2011 Financed from domestic funds The main objective: initiation of contacts between micro and small entrepreneurs and science institutions For micro and small enterprises For research & development services provided by scientific institutions Vouchers worth about 3750 euro (15 000zł) Innovation Voucher Programme

SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTION (service provider) Programmes scheme PAED BENEFICIARY FUNDS APPLICATION REPORT ON THE SERVICE AGREEMENT CHOICE Innovation Voucher Programme SERVICE REPORT ON THE SERVICE

The evaluation focused on the first two editions of the Programme (2008, 2009) Research duration: september – november 2010 The primary evaluation goal was to assess the effectiveness, utility and sustainability of the programme results We wanted to know more about: Characteristics of applicants, beneficiaries and projects carried out under the 1 st and 2 nd edition, Programmes influence on starting business cooperation between enterprises and scientific institutions, Identification of the effects, Looking for proposals for the Programmes modifications About the evaluation

Methodology DESK RESEARCH PAED REPRESENTATIVES INDIVIDUAL IN - DEPTH INTERVIEWS BENEFICIARIES INDIVIDUAL IN- DEPTH INTERVIEWS APPLICANTS WHO WERE GRANTED THE SUPPORT BUT EVENTUALLY REFUSED IT INDIVIDUAL IN-DEPTH TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS UNSUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS INDIVIDUAL IN- DEPTH TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTIONS INDIVIDUAL IN-DEPTH TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS BENEFICIARIES COMPUTER ASSISTED TELEPHONE INTERVIEW EXPERT REVIEW INDIVIDUAL IN -DEPTH INTERVIEWS Inception report Final report N=256 N=10 N=13 N=3 N=2

The avarage enterprise age was 9.6 years 66% enterprises were functioning longer than 5 years 55.1% enterprises income was less than euro, 16.8 % - from to 1 mln euro Only 6% Beneficiaries decided to invest their own funds in their projects (projects above euro [ zł]) N=256 Beneficiaries characteristics INDUSTRY 29,2% PROFESSIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ACTIVITY 22,9% TRADE AND REPAIRS 15,9% INFORMATION, COMMUNICATION 12,5% OTHER 19,8% BENEFICIARIESS SECTORS

Projects objective Beneficiaries were implementing projects which objectives were… N=256 Key findings %

9 The use of projects results 79.9% Beneficiaries declared that they use projects results (N = 167) 75,9% enterprises currently produce products introduced or developed within the Programme 78,5% use technology introduced or developed within the Programme 94,7% sell product certified within the Programme 90% exploit analysis developed within the Programme 83,3% apply solutions supporting enterprises management implemented within the Programme Key findings

10 Effects of the Programme Almost 58% of Beneficiaries declared positive influence arising out of their participation in the Programme and c.a. 35% underlined that positive results should occur in the future. According to the Beneficiaries opinions, the value of the Programme is related with: improved quality of the offered products (almost 68% of opinions about the very high or high impact of such factor), positive impact of participation in the Programme on the Beneficiarys image (approx. 61%), competitiveness and market position (57.2%), better management (55.5%). The Programme had lower influence on enterprises income, nevertheless such influence was regarded as considerable (32.5% of respondents declared high or very high importance of the supported projects role in this aspect). Key findings

11 N= % Beneficiaries were satisfied or very satisfied with cooperation with scientific institutions (services providers), 91.4% declared that no problems appeared during cooperation. A major group of the Beneficiaries (approx. 41%) continued cooperation with scientific institutions upon completion of the service financed under the Innovation Voucher Programme. 46% declared various plans concerning cooperation established with scientific institutions in the future in relation to new research & development projects. Among them almost half (c.a. 54%) intends to launch such cooperation within the next 6 months. Key findings Cooperation with the scientific institutions We are going to start cooperation… Up to 3 months Within 3- 6 months Within months DK 28.0%26.3%37.3%8.5% N=118

Recommendation 1 The period for implementing the project should be at least 4-6 months, which shall facilitate smooth performance and limit the number of beneficiaries withdrawing from the Programme. Recommendation 2 Works should be commenced to launch a sub-programme offering grants of a higher value – approx – euro (PLN – ). If such sub-programme is launched, it shall be absolutely crucial to allow for a longer period of project implementation, approx. 6 months. In case of such sub-programme: A requirement should be introduced for the entrepreneurs own contribution in the project This shall help minimize the risk of projects of questionable usefulness. The beneficiarys own contribution cannot be excessive and should range from 10 to 20%. Recommendation 3 As the higher amount of grant shall stir greater interest in the sub-programme, consideration should be given to qualitative evaluation criteria included in the evaluation of applications so as to avoid the necessity of closing the enrollment process too quickly. Unfortunately, the introduction of such criteria may extend the evaluation process; hence, such criteria must be as simple as possible. Important Medium Key findings and the most important recommendations The evaluations general conclusion is that Innovation Voucher has positive influence on direct contacts and cooperation between micro and small enterprises and scientific institutions.

WHY? Programme has many underlying assummptions, which are not explicitly shown in the Programmes documentation. There is a risk, that the methods we used didn't revealed all the Programme's causal chain failures. WHAT? Programme's assumptions (not explicitly made) HOW? Mapping out the programmes theory (reconstruction), In-depth desk research In-depth qualitative methods An expert panel (involving experts which were implementing similar projects in other MSs) Better reconstruction of the Programme's theory Focusing on projects quality and their sustainability Estimating impact in a more rigorous way What could be done to improve measurement and conclusions ? Better reconstruction of the programme's theory Lesson learned

Research opportunities Focusing on projects quality and their sustainability WHY? We know that projects are useful for beneficiaries but we know little about their quality. The Programmes requirements for service providers (scientific institutions) were not very strict, that is why projects quality verification process was limited. We also have problems with assessing how works the long-term sustainability of the Programme. WHAT? Projectss quality and their long–term influence on enterprises HOW? Case studies (selected projects) Focus Group Interviews Benchmarking (involving similar programmes implemented in other MSs)

Research opportunities WHY? We do not know to what extent the Programme itself stimulates cooperation between micro and small enterprises and scientific units. We rely on information about the Programmes effects declared by the beneficiaries, that is why we need more rigorous measurement relating reliable counterfactual situation. WHAT? programmes effects HOW? Control group (problems: limited capability – for example those applicants, who were granted the support but eventually refused it or other scientific institutions clients) Estimating impact in a more rigorous way

Other current PAEDs evaluations of pro-innovative programmes The Innovation Barometer – on going evaluation of 13 Measures of The Innovative Economy OP, , addressed to polish companies and the Business Support Org. a systematic approach to tracking the situation of beneficiaries after receiving the support (from programmes theory, outcomes indicators, tools for research to multi-evaluation scheme implementation - with net effect measurement in certain Measures IE OP) Long-term impact evaluation of pro-innovative investment grant scheme, implemented during the previous financial perspective the first results are available on (a year after The SOP Improvement of the competitiveness of enterprises completion) Evaluation of the quality of pro-innovative services for enterprises, delivered by the Business Support Org. under The Innovation Economy OP, the wide range of the mystery shopping techniques have been applied (evidence-based feedback from potential beneficiaries)

Thank you for your attention Polish Agency for Enterprise Development 81/83 Pańska Street Warsaw, Poland For more information on the evaluation in the PAED, please contact us: