CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY AND ORGANISATION OF THE STUDY

Transcription

1 CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY AND ORGANISATION OF THE STUDY 2.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT The study was co-ordinated by The CIRCA Group Europe Ltd., Dublin, under the direction of Dr Tom Higgins. The core project team comprised the CIRCA Group, Dublin, Professor Lena Tsipouri, University of Athens and PricewaterhouseCoopers (Mr Robert van der Lande),The Hague N.L. Fig 2.1 The main subcontractors were Fraunhofer ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany, PREST, University of Manchester UK, Challenge Lisbon and Dr Tony Dignan, Belfast N.. A high level advisory committee (), comprising three international specialists in the field of regional innovation, was established to advise on best practice and to provide quality assurance. The members were: Professor Charles Edquist, Linkoping University, Sweden Professor Franco Malerba, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy Professor Michael Storper, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) USA held two meetings - Dublin and Athens - attended by the experts, the Commission Services and the consultants. Figure 2.1 Project Management PROJECT MANAGEMENT CIRCA GROUP COOPERS & LYBRAND TSIPOURI FRAUNHOFER PREST Germany Italy Spain Austria Belgium NL Sweden Finland N. Portugal Greece France UK DG XVI Thematic Evaluation of RTDI 8

2 2.2 MAIN FEATURES OF THE DESIGN As required by the terms of reference, a thematic framework was adopted for the analysis. The development of this framework was based on interviews with Commission personnel at the outset - mainly desk officers for participating regions and countries in DG XVI and with personnel in DG XII and DG V. Six main themes were identified and agreed with the Commission, as follows: 1. Capacity enhancement 2. Innovation and technology transfer 3. Management processes 4. Policy development and delivery systems 5. Learning and interaction 6. Economic impacts Regional innovation profiles were developed for all participating Objective 1 and 6 regions, using standard templates. The results are presented in Volume 2 of the Main Report. Based on criteria of dynamism, potential for improvement and very difficult regional conditions, a selection was made of three regions from each of the four cohesion countries (those with a regional structure), for more focused regional case studies. The results of the RTP evaluation in Objective 1 regions, notably Central Macedonia, and Castilia Y Leon were also drawn on. One of the new Objective 6 regions in Finland and were also included as case regions. Table 2.1 Table 2.1 Case Regions Type Country Spain Portugal Greece Italy Dynamic Valencia North Central Abruzzo Macedonia W Greece Improving Castillia Y Leon Central Thrace Apulia Difficult Andalucia Algarve Epiros Campania New Regions Objective 6 Regions/Finland A case study approach was used to provide an in-depth analysis of a sample of RTDI actions in beneficiary countries and regions. The basic approach was to cluster cases for comparison and to use the information gleaned to illuminate the thematic framework. Cases were selected in conjunction with the thematic framework and with each other, some based on positive reports and a few with negative reputations, with the aim of having a mix of contrasting cases and a good geographical spread. See Table 2.2 and 2.3 below. 9

3 Table 2.2 Case studies Theme Topic Location Capacity enhancement Innovation support Management processes Science Parks Science Parks Advanced Tech Centres Pats R&D co-operation/govt industry linkages Networking & Industry Associations SME Impacts Andalucia, Spain Italy N. Saxony, Germany Greece All Forbairt, CDTI, Spain Regional Govt., Sicily Financing mechanisms Global grant Measure 1 V.Capital Spain Merseyside, UK Policy RTD-innovation links Portugal Table 2.3 Case Studies by Country Spain Andalucian science parks CDTI Global grant Greece Industry associations Germany R&D co-operation/industry gov t links Portugal RTD-Innovation linkages Italy Science parks Management processes PATs Forbairt Measure 1 UK Merseyside venture capital Advanced technology centres NL, Belgium, Austria, Sweden, France 15 SMEs In addition, a study of SME impacts based on interviews with a cross section of selected SMEs in each Member State, was used to gain insights into the demand side impacts and to supplement the thematic cases and provide a specific focus on SME issues. Five highperformance SMEs - exemplars by reputation - were selected for face to face interviewing by the local consultants. Ten others, five frequent EU RTD participants and five other benefiting firms were interviewed by phone. 2.3 STRUCTURE OF PROJECT 10

4 The work programme was structured in stages, as follows and as illustrated in Figure 2.2 STAGE 1 Methodology and design, including identification of key issues and development of the thematic framework. STAGE 2 Data assembly and compilation of statistical information. STAGE 3 Desk based literature reviews, Commission reports and documentation and available evaluation reports on Structural Funds and on RTPs, RIS and RITTS. STAGE 4 Production of Interim Report - the 'June Report' dealing with the major issues and lessons based on interviews with senior personnel in participating Member States STAGE 5 The main fieldwork stage involving interviews with key informants. The output from this stage comprised the country reports and regional innovation profiles, case regions studies, the SME survey and the case studies. Preliminary regional innovation profiles were provided for the 'June Report'. STAGE 6 Comparative analysis of all regional and country reports by the project team, including review of overall results and impacts, best practice, Community added value, key issues and the scoping out of future directions for the CSFs in support of RTDI. STAGE 7 Preparation of synthesis, thematic and final reports. Fig 2.2 Structure of Study 11

5 Structure of the Study 1: Methodology Design Inception Report 2: Data Assembly 3: Desk Study -Literature Work Docs 4: Main Issues & Regional Profiles 5: Country & Regional Studies Main Issues June Report Regional Reports Country Reports Case Studies SME Reports 6: Comparative Analysis Comparative Analysis Report 7: Synthesis Final Report DG XVI Thematic Evaluation of RTDI 12