Regional specific challenges to be addressed through ACTTiVAte · 2019-06-05 · innovation frontier moves inexorably forward, Europe is in danger of falling further behind, putting

1

Regional specific challenges tobe addressed throughACTTiVAte

Lourdes Núñez-MüllerJuan Fernández MontesinosMaría Ogáyar LuqueAlicia Utrilla Remesal

FUNDACIÓN PARQUE TECNOLÓGICO DE SALUD DE GRANADA

2

Grant Agreement Number: 691473

Project acronym: ACTTiVAte

Project full title: PAn-European Clusters for Technology Transfer and new VAlue chains

Deliverable number: 6.1

Deliverable responsible: Dr. Lourdes Núñez Müller

Workpackage: 6

Editor: Dr. Lourdes Núñez Müller

Dissemination Level*:

*Public (PU), Confidential (CO), Classified (CI)

Author(s) – in alphabetical order

Name Organization E-mail

Mr. Juan Fernández Montesinos PTS Granada [email protected]

Dr. Lourdes Núñez-Müller PTS Granada [email protected]

Mrs. María Ogáyar Luque PTS Granada [email protected]

Ms. Alicia Utrilla Remesal PTS Granada [email protected]

Document Revision History

Version Date Modifications Introduced

Modification Reason Modified by

V.1 08/09/2016 New edition Dr. Lourdes Núñez-Müller

V.2

V.3

Abstract

The D.6.1. describes the preliminary regional specific challenges to be addressed, the definitions

of indicators for the regional specific challenges and the RIS3 priorities that will be tackled

through the activities proposed in ACTTiVAte to achieve the overall goal of the project which is

to enable the emergence of new cross-border and cross-sectoral value chains.

Statement of Originality: This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated otherwise. Acknowledgement ofpreviously published material and of the work of others has been made through appropriate citation, quotation or both.

2






Workpackage: 6














V.2

V.3

Abstract






2






Workpackage: 6














V.2

V.3

Abstract






3

Table of Contents :

1. Introduction1.1. Overall Concept1.2. Small and Medium Enterprises versus Innovation Driven Enterprises1.3. Innovation Capacity and Entrepreneurial Capacity1.4. Description of ACTTiVAte's regions

2. Scope for Regional Specific Challenges to be addressed through ACTTiVAte2.1. General axes of the regional specific challenges2.2. Region-specific cluster definitions2.3. Business models2.4. Global market2.5. Private funding2.6. Audiences of the challenges

3. Methodology overview4. Definitions of Indicators for the Regional Specific Challenges5. Conclusions6. References7. Annex

List of abbreviations:

The following abbreviations are used in the document:

EC European CommissioneCap Entrepreneurial CapacityEDA Economic Development Agency (US)ES SpainGIN Global Innovation NetworkGDP Gross Domestic ProductiCap Innovation CapacityICT Information and Communication TechnologyIDE Innovation-Driven EnterprisesIL IrelandKPI Key Performance IndicatorMITREAP

The MIT Regional Entrepreneurship Acceleration Program (MIT REAP) is acapstone global initiative at MIT designed to help regions accelerate economicgrowth and job creation through innovation-driven entrepreneurship (IDE).Partner regions form multi-disciplinary teams and commit to a two-yearlearning engagement with MIT. During this engagement, teams work withworld-renowned MIT faculty and the broader REAP community through aseries of action-learning activities to build and implement a custom regionalstrategy for enhancing their IDE ecosystems.

3

Table of Contents :








3

Table of Contents :








4

NACIE National Advisory Council on Innovation & EntrepreneurshipNL The NetherlandsOIE Office of Innovation and EntrepreneurshipPL PolandPPP Purchasing power parity. The alternative to using market exchange rates is to

use purchasing power parities (PPPs). The purchasing power of a currencyrefers to the quantity of the currency needed to purchase a given unit of a good,or common basket of goods and services

PT PortugalPTSGranada

Granada Health Technology Park from its initials in Spanish, ParqueTecnológico de la Salud

RTD Research & Technology DevelopmentRIS Regional Innovation Strategies ProgramRIS3 Smart Specialization Strategies (RIS3 or S3) set priorities at national and

regional level to build competitive advantage by developing and matchingresearch and innovation own strengths with business needs, to address emergingopportunities and market developments in a coherent manner, while avoidingduplication and fragmentation of efforts. They are also a backbone of nationalor regional research and innovation strategic policy frameworks in Europe.

R&D Research and developmentSME Small and Medium EnterprisesUIIN University Industry Innovation NetworkWP Work Package

List of definitions:

The following concepts are used in the document:

AEROSPACE: Technology and industry concerned with both aviation and space flight

AGROFOOD: collectively develop and deliver material inputs to the farming sector, produceprimary commodities, and subsequently handle, process, transport, market and distribute food andother agro-based products to consumers.

Cluster: following the i6 Challenge1, ACTTiVAte defines clusters as geographic concentrations offirms, workers, and industries that do business with each other and have common needs for talent,technology, and infrastructure. Clusters are essentially networks of similar, synergistic, orcomplementary entities that are engaged in or with a particular industry sector; have active channelsfor business transactions and communication; share specialized infrastructure, labor markets, and

1 https://www.eda.gov/oie/files/ris/2016-RIS-FAQ.pdf

4














4














5

services; and leverage the region’s unique competitive strengths to stimulate innovation and createjobs. Clusters may cross municipal, county, and other jurisdictional boundaries.

Health: broadly defined to include Biotech, Pharmaceuticals, Medical devices, diagnostics, anddigital health.

i6 Challenge: In its sixth iteration, is a leading US domestic initiative designed to support thecreation of programs that provide assistance to innovators and entrepreneurs and that increase thecommercialization of innovations, ideas, intellectual property, and research into viable companies2.

Stakeholders: the individuals, groups and communities that have a vested interest in the outcome ofa project.

Trend analysis: Trend analysis is taking past results to predict future performance

Variance: the difference between what was planned and what was experienced

1. INTRODUCTION:

1.1. Overall Concept

Present document corresponds to Deliverable 6.1. Regional specific challenges to be addressedthrough ACTTiVAte3 included in WP6 Large-scale demonstrator, validation and impact assessment.

The overall concept of the project ACTTiVAte consist in supporting innovation in SMEs andfostering the smart reindustrialization of Europe by enabling the emergence of new cross-border andcross-sectoral value chains resulting from the translation of advanced technologies among selectedsectors with strong synergies. These new value chains will be created out of the interaction (viatechnology transfer and demonstration) of the following sectors: aerospace, agro-food sector, healthand ICT.

Many European regions have implemented excellent RIS3 strategies and ACTTiVAte, by definition,must fit into the general RIS3 framework. The idea here is not only to ensure this coherence, but alsofacilitate that funded projects, in as much as they should be swiftly implemented, may help better

2https://www.eda.gov/oie/files/ris/2016-RIS-FAQ.pdf

3 The project will take of 36 Months. The development of the new value chains will be facilitated setting up geographical poles ofactivity in different regions across ES, PT, NL, IE and PL, comprising: Cluster/ SME intermediaries, which help create an appropriateinnovation ecosystems; RTD centers which are able to assess the potential and viability of the proposed new value chains for SMEsinnovative services or products. Besides, a third kind of entity, the innovation facilitators will operate at a cross-cluster level,organizing funding rounds to complement with private funds EU public support and establishing networks for collaboration.

ACTTiVAte will undertake 2 kinds of activities to optimize the benefits to SMEs: a) Direct funding of SMEs innovative projects.Competitive calls will be launched in the proposed technology areas. The wining projects (30) will receive an amount of up to 50.000€each from a total of a 1,5M€ from the project budget. The selection criteria will consider both the technical feasibility and viability andthe socioeconomic impact. Investment rounds will be organized to raise private funding to multiply the effect of public investment. b)Activities aimed at creating a favorable environment for the innovation in SMEs, such as brokerage events, mentoring, coaching,mobility and exchange programs among other initiatives. The demonstration of the project at large scale will also be carried out duringthe project.

5







1. INTRODUCTION:








5







1. INTRODUCTION:








6

define and/or attain concrete RIS3 outcomes. Unfortunately, although Europe includes five of the top10 most innovative countries in the world, as a region its innovation capabilities and overallcompetitiveness lag behind those of key competitor countries4. Multiple data sources indicate thatEuropean conditions are far from ideal for entrepreneurs and fast-growing companies, andfragmentation hinders access to markets, sources of capital and supportive initiatives. As the globalinnovation frontier moves inexorably forward, Europe is in danger of falling further behind, puttingat risk its outlook for productivity, growth, human capital development and job creation.

Establishing the Regional specific challenges to be addressed through ACTTiVAte is a key step toenable a quantitative and proper monitoring and assessment of the Large -scale demonstrator designand implementation. The overall purpose of this document (deliverable “D6.1-Regional specificchallenges to be addressed through ACTTiVAte”) is to define a set of challenges that allowsfostering cross-sectoral innovation among SMEs from four different sectors, aerospace, agro-food,health and ICT. The project will mainly focus its effort in setting up strategies that allow clusters tolead the engagement of SMEs in activities intended to create new services and products and thereforethe generation of new value chains and emerging industries across Europe. Furthermore,ACTTiVAte intends to set up strategies to achieve stable growth of cross-sectoral and cross-borderinnovation beyond the project.

For this purpose, this document includes several sections. An initial section, "List of Abbreviationsand Definitions", outlines the first step of the process defining several concepts as a starting point.Section 2 "Scope for regional specific challenges to be addressed through ACTTiVAte" describes thestudied scopes that have been taken into account simultaneously for subsequent definition andevaluation of regional specific challenges. Section 3 "Methodology Overview" outlines the globalprocess that has been used to generate the regional specific challenges to be addressed throughACTTiVAte. Once having set the scopes of the indicators, the indicators themselves are defined andin Section 4 “Definition of indicators for the Regional Specific Challenges”. Furthermore, Section 7“Annex I: Primary Regional Metrics” contains data with the specification of relevant indicatorsdefined in Section 4.

SMEs supported by ACTTiVAte will develop innovations that come from one of the clusters(identified by the corresponding partner cluster) to be applied within any one of the other clusters.This trans-cluster fertilization of innovative ideas is being observed everywhere and ACTTiVAteproject wants to help it at the SMEs scale.

Start-of-the-art selection process should be designed to maximize the establishment ofmethodologies for durable cross-sectoral collaboration across different regions in Europe, led by

4In the US, a key competitor country, there is the Regional Innovation Strategies (RIS) Program. The objective of the RIS Program is

to make funding available for capacity-building activities that include proof of concept and commercialization programs and centers,including the scaling up of existing commercialization programs and centers, and supporting opportunities to close the funding gap forearly stage companies. The i6 Challenge, in its fifth iteration, is a leading national initiative designed to support the creation of centersfor innovation and entrepreneurship that increase the commercialization of innovations, ideas, intellectual property, and research intoviable companies.

6








6








7

cluster organizations and other intermediary organizations creating the grounds for a competitivereindustrialization that foster the development of emerging industries in Europe5.

1.2. Small and Medium Enterprises versus Innovation Driven Entrepreneurship

Before moving forward, it is good to make a distinction between two very different kinds ofentrepreneurship: the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and the innovation-driven enterprises(IDEs) (Aulet and Murray 2013). The radical difference between these two approaches toentrepreneurship is the level of innovation they bring into the table. SMEs are created to serve localmarkets (not supply chains) with traditional, well-understood business models and limitedcompetitive advantage. On the other hand, IDE’s are based on a radical innovation in the way theyare applying technology, proposing a business model or running the operations of the company. ForIDE's, the local market is, to start with, a test market. Their ultimate goal is to reach the globalmarket with a sustained competitive advantage. Table 1 summarizes the main differences betweenSMEs and IDEs.

TABLE 1. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SME AND IBE

Aspect SMEs IDEsMarket Local Global

Risk Moderate High

Human capital Basic Skilled

Wages Below average Above average

Impact (job creation) Reduced Substantial

Visible results Short term Long term

Although both kinds of entrepreneurships are vital to the economies, to be competitive in the futurewith major capital cities and their surroundings, regions must invest in knowledge-based economicactivity. Prosperous regions will be those that become innovation hubs through the promotion ofInnovation-Driven Entrepreneurship (IDE) (Aulet and Murray 2013). IDE can facilitate and supportbetter the development of emerging industries and hence create future competitive advantages with

5Locational attributes are at the core of formulating and implementing firm and regional strategies. In the Competitive Advantage of

Nations, Porter (1990) developed the microeconomic business environment framework to help firms, regions, and countries assessthe sources of locational advantages and disadvantages, and decide how to compete. This influential framework has four inter relatedcomponents, graphically depicted in a diamond: Factor Conditions (the costs, quantity, and quality of a variety of inputs), the Contextfor Firm Strategy and Rivalry (incentives to invest and compete); Demand Conditions (the sophistication of local customers) andRelated and Supporting Industries (the presence of suppliers and complementary industries).

In this diamond framework, clusters play an important role on firm and regional competitiveness.Clusters are geographical concentrations of related industries and firms that are connected through various types of linkages (skill,technology, knowledge, supply, demand, and others) and supporting institutions (training, trade promotion, educational, or financial).These clusters emerge in the conditions that a specific microeconomic business environment provides in a region. Within clusters,firms compete but also cooperate (Porter, 1998).

7






Risk Moderate High









7






Risk Moderate High









8

high economic value for Europe. ACTTiVAte aims to foster cross-sectoral innovation amongIDEs from four different sectors: aerospace, agro-food, health and ICT allocating 85% of theproject budget to IDEs.

1.3. Innovation Capacity and Entrepreneurial Capacity

To generate a successful innovation-driven entrepreneurial ecosystem, both Innovation Capacity(iCap) and Entrepreneurial Capacity (eCap) should co-exist and feed each other. Innovation Capacityis the ability to develop new-to-the-world innovations from inception through to the market.Entrepreneurial Capacity is the ability to start and build new-to-the-world businesses from inceptionto maturity.6 Innovation capacity without entrepreneurial capacity generates a surplus of researchthat hardly reaches society, leaving the research effort unexploited. Similarly, entrepreneurialcapacity without a real innovation will never create Innovation-Driven Enterprises that areresponsible for the growth of the economy.

FIGURE 1. ECAP AND ICAP AS DRIVERS OF ECONOMIC IMPACT

Source: Fiona Murray, MIT Regional Entrepreneurship Acceleration Lab, 2013

The design of the large-scale demonstrators in ACTTiVAte is based on the MIT EntrepreneurshipAcceleration Framework, where five main stakeholders contribute to a successful entrepreneurialecosystem formation and sustainability7. Entrepreneurs, Risk Capital, Universities, Government andCorporations are essential pieces of the entrepreneurial system, and their contribution is fundamentalto create and sustain productive entrepreneurial communities and to create economic impact.

6Source: Fiona Murray, MIT Regional Entrepreneurship Acceleration Lab, 2013

7 http://techcitynews.com/2016/04/26/how-mit-is-supporting-innovation-in-britain/

8









8









9

FIGURE 2. MIT ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM STAKEHOLDERS FRAMEWORK8

RTD centers or Universities provide skillful talent to society. They also produce scientificknowledge and technology that can be used to generate economic value through patented innovationsand companies that exploit these patents. Universities are becoming more and more relevant to theentrepreneurial ecosystem since they are building their own incubators and accelerators to help theirscientific and student community a vehicle to have economic impact beyond education.

Venture Capitalists generate value in several ways. They select the best startups to push themforward in their growth cycle, they give advice and provide connections, and they provide vitalcapital to these that conventional capitalists won't. Venture capital business is risky and skewed, 63%of the ventures lose money and only 4.3% of the ventures generate 61.7% of the value (Roberts andSahlman 2012). Finding the future “unicorns” is the job of VCs. Start-ups without the ambition tobecome “unicorns” are better off looking other sources of capital, like family and friends, publicfunding or debt.

Corporations contribute to the entrepreneurial ecosystem by becoming strategic investors. They areinterested in start-ups working in solutions within their industrial sector. Those start-ups can later beacquired by corporation or become their strategic providers of new technology.

Governments have a tremendous impact in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. A poorly designedregulation can have negative effects on the entrepreneurial ecosystem. For example, bankruptcyregulation should encourage entrepreneurs to take risks by helping them with costs, timing and debtrelief (Lee, et al. 2011), as the Silicon Valley motto “fail fast, fail cheap, and move on” dictates.Often regulation reflects deep beliefs of the local culture, such as negative attitude toward failure.However, bankruptcy regulation is very important, because the majority of start-ups fail. Beyond

8 SOURCE: FIONA MURRAY, MIT REGIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP ACCELERATION LAB, 2013

9







9







10

smart regulation, governments are also financing agents, providing grants or cheap debt in manycountries.

Finally, entrepreneurs are the executors, the engine at the heart of any entrepreneurial ecosystem.They become passionate with their venture, and work long hours to make a vision tangible.

All relevant players (public and private) such as government, knowledge providers, researchinstitutions, regulators, Venture Capitalists and 8advanced) users/citizens, will be brought together towork in joint in order to validate cross-sectoral and cross-border innovation processes set up duringthe funded projects development. WP6 will set up large-scale demonstrators in the poles proposed byACTTiVAte to work together in order to address specific problems, needs, societal challenges or acommon ambition in a joint, strategic manner that combines different tools and instruments insupport of entrepreneurship and cross-sectoral collaboration. The approach is an outcome- and user-driven process that starts with the societal or consumer demand – the specific problem or challenge –and then works "backwards" to potential technical or service innovation solutions and thecorresponding support required 9 . Moreover WP6 will analyze their results and establishingimprovement actions where necessary in order to work backwards and feed continuously theinnovation environment in IDEs.

1.4. Description of ACTTiVAte's regions:

Geographical poles of ACTTiVAte will be established as model demonstrator regions, where themethodologies proposed in the project will be tested (the term “region” shall, in principle, refer toNUTS level 2 territorial units according to the current NUTS classification system).

Following tables describe regional poles involved in the project:

Region Name NUT ID Country

AndalusiaES61 Spain

Comunidad de MadridES30

North Portugal PT11 PortugalIreland IE Ireland

MazowieckiePL12

Poland

Slaskie PL22

PodkarpackiePL32

Eastern Netherlands (Gelderland andOverijssel)

NL2 The Netherlands

Southern Netherlands (Noord-Brabant) NL4

9http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/doc/call/h2020/h2020-innosup-2015-1/1630107-20141010-090602_innosup-1-2015_background_note_final_en.pdf

10








AndalusiaES61 Spain



MazowieckiePL12

Poland

Slaskie PL22

PodkarpackiePL32


NL2 The Netherlands



10








AndalusiaES61 Spain



MazowieckiePL12

Poland

Slaskie PL22

PodkarpackiePL32


NL2 The Netherlands



11

The European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) provides a comparative analysis of innovationperformance in EU Member States, other European countries, and regional neighbors. It assessesrelative strengths and weaknesses of national innovation systems and helps countries identify areasthey need to address. The Regional Innovation Scoreboard (RIS) is a regional extension of theEuropean Innovation Scoreboard, assessing the innovation performance of European regions on alimited number of indicators. Compared to the EIS, the RIS has a stronger focus on the performanceof small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

Following tables describe regional poles involved in the project according to RIS3:

Region Name Andalusia

NUT ID ES61 Country SpainPopulation 8,39M R&D Investment10 1,05%RIS3 EU Prioritiesrelated toACCTiVAte´stechnologies

Aeronautics and Space Public health & well-being

Food Security and Safety Digital Agenda

RIS3 priorities tobe tackled throughACTTiVAte

Advanced Transport Systems in the aeronautics, aerospace and naval industries - new materials andproduction processes in the transport industry, advanced manufacturing technologies and systems,automation, robotization and digitalization in the transport industry.

Fostering the public health and welfare system - new integrated models of health and welfaremanagement based on e-health. Big Data exploitation and business development of applications andtechnologies for new health and welfare services. Fostering biotechnology companies in cooperationwith the public health service as the driving force for innovation development of business models inresponse to population ageing. Advanced therapies. Clinical and Translational Research.

Improvements in food quality, traceability and food safety. Smart traceability systems (food qualityinspection, sensing systems, shelf life increase, added value food, waste reduction, consumersinformation,…). Functional and customized food. Health and agro-food close cooperation in functionalfood design for customized and segmented healthy diets and food habits. Exploitation of opportunitiesresulting from green and blue economy. Waste management, optimization of biomass and foodproduction in Mediterranean area through innovation and technology. Innovation in food industry processand products. Innovations in ancillary industries of intensive agriculture, increase added value of agrifoodproduction and ecologic production systems

ICT for Smart Specialisation

Description of theclusterenvironment

One of the main attractions of the Andalusian business community is its organisation into strategies sectors.While local specialisation has occurred naturally as companies have gained competitive advantages, thepublic authorities have supported the development of successful research knowledge foundations byassigning a technology centre to each one. Among the region’s there are 22 Technological Centres and 11Science and Technology Parks, key actors of innovation system, whom works on development andimprovement of IDEs competitiveness through innovation and knowledge transference.Most significant strategies sectors in Andalucía are: Aerospace (Cádiz and Seville) Renewable energies (Cádiz and Almería) Information & Communication Technology (Granada11, Málaga and Seville) Agriculture & Food, including intensive horticulture (Almería and Huelva) viticulture (Jerez - Cádiz) and

olive oil (Córdoba, Granada, Jaén and Seville) Health & Biotechnology (Granada, Seville and Málaga) Other manufacturing sectors such as the maritime industry (Cádiz, Huelva and Seville), petrochemicals,

10Data from EC "Regional Innovation Monitor": https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regional-innovation-monitor/11University of Granada: top 42 Shanghai ranking http://www.shanghairanking.com/SubjectCS2015.html

11
















11
















12

energy and metals (Campo de Gibraltar) and chemicals (Huelva)Spanish Cluster policy is regulated by the “Industry, Energy and Tourism Ministry”, which created a specificinstrument for creating, funding and enhancement of Spanish Clusters through the “Register of innovativebusiness groups”

Innovationperformance &Weaknesses12

Moderate Innovator. Relative weaknesses are in EPO (European Patent Office) patent applications,Innovative IDEs collaborating with others, and Non-R&D innovation expenditures

Specific challengesto be addressedthrough ACCTiVAte

To increase IDEs investment in modernization and improvement of production systems (machinery,patents , licenses, …)

To increase R&D and technologist human resources in IDEs To enhance and promote the involvement of IDEs in cluster and sectorial initiatives Reinforce the internationalization and foreign trade of IDEs through the design and execution of

instrument packages available for them To enhance private investment culture in R&D within the IDEs (crowd-funding, business angels,…).

Training programs for entrepreneurs to attract private funds. To improve and facilitate the access and security regarding the protection of intellectual property

Why ACCTiVAte isimportant for theregion

Andalucia is a region where the cross sectoral collaboration can naturally emerge. ACCTiVATe will support inthe acceleration of this process.

Region Name Comunidad de Madrid


Public health & well-being Smart green & integrated transport systems

Industrial biotechnology Food security & safety Digital Agenda


Biomedical engineering, instrumentation and information technology in biomedicine, pharmacology,medicinal chemistry and advanced therapies. Pathophysiology and interactome includes molecularand cellular communication. Clinical and Translational Research. Transfer and genetic modification.Development of new detection methods, genomics, proteomics, metabolomics and bioinformatics

Design, development and manufacture of propulsion systems and auxiliary systems of transportvehicles, Navigation systems, traffic control and transport security

Biotechnology, including plants, microorganisms, bioprocess and food industry. Agriculturalproduction systems (including precision agriculture)

Advanced technologies for the production and characterization of functional foods, improving foodquality and safety

Development of applications and content. Infrastructure, networks and advanced communicationssystems.


Madrid counts on one of the biggest scientific and technological clusters of Spain which gathers around the23% of the private and public researchers of the country and 9.9% of the workers are in high technologysectors. It has successfully invested efforts and resources to specialise its R&D sector in high technologyactivities, such as electronic circuits, nuclear, weaponry, biochemistry, aerospace, railways and scientificequipment, in order to transform the region into a centre for excellence in innovation by becoming a leader ofthe European R&D investment.


Moderate innovator. Innovation performance has declined strongly (- 11%) compared to two years ago.Relative weaknesses are in Non-R&D innovation expenditures, IDEs with marketing or organizationalinnovations, and Innovative IDEs collaborating with others.


To help IDEs invest in modernization and improvement of production systems (machinery, patents,licenses…)

To enhance and promote the involvement of IDEs in cluster and sectorial initiatives.

12 Data from the “Regional Innovation Scoreboard”: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/regional_en13Data from EC "Regional Innovation Monitor": https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regional-innovation-monitor/14 Data from the “Regional Innovation Scoreboard”: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/regional_en

12





























12





























13

Reinforce the internationalization and foreign trade of IDEs through the design and execution ofinstrument packages available for them.

To enhance private investment culture in R&D within the IDEs. Training programs for entrepreneursto attract private funds.

To reduce the shortage and not satisfactory functioning of the interface for the transfer of R&Dresults between universities, research centers and industry, especially for small companies.

Promote and support to spin-offs and to new companies of technological base. Promulgate SMES to orientate towards investigative activities and internationalization. Increase the number of powerful medium companies and companies manufacturing high

technology. Reduce the presence of bureaucratic, organizational and cultural problems that impede an effective

cooperation between companies and the public system of R&Ds. Increase the development of innovative products in high-tech industries. Improve participation of companies in European programs. Augment the number of patents and its exploitation.

Why ACTTiVAte isimportant for theregion

The mission of these highly specialised infrastructures is to create synergies and foster the cooperation andknowledge exchange between agents, enhance the competitiveness of the madrilian firms and increase theirvisibility worldwide and rise funds addressed to R&D. It is expected that ACCTiVATe will support the crosssectoral collaboration between the R&D Agents in Comunidad de Madrid.

Region Name NorteNUT ID PT11 Country PortugalPopulation 3,8M R&D Investment15 1,40%RIS3 EU Prioritiesrelated toACTTiVAte'stechnologies

Food and Environmental Systems Public Health & Well-being Advanced Manufacturing Technologies


Food and environmental systems: Linking the regional agricultural potential in high value-addedproducts (wine, olive oil, chestnuts, etc) to scientific knowledge (enology, engineering, biology,biotechnology, etc.) to develop precision agriculture and supportive technologies, as well as toexpand agri-food industries (dairy products, winemaking, etc), also exploring the possibility of co-location of other symbiotic economic activities such as tourism.

Health and life sciences: consolidate and promote interactions between the accumulated researchcapabilities (namely, on tissue engineering, cancer, neurosciences and surgical techniques) and arelated variety of firms (pharma, medical devices, health tourism, Health Care, Digital ICT), drivingthe co-construction of competitive advantages.

Advanced manufacturing technologies: development of clusters associated with KETs and inparticular with Advanced Manufacturing Systems, Nanotechnologies and ICT, combining theexistence of distinctive scientific and productive capabilities and the presence of advanced users,strengthening the existing business structure (in the case of production technologies and ICT) orpromoting the creation of new companies (particularly in the area of nanotechnology and newmaterials).


In recent past national public funding programs enforced the creation of Industrial Clusters where before onlyinformal technologic platforms (Competitiveness Poles) existed. As so, several relevant thematic andindustrial cluster are active and/or starting-up. Among these, we highlight the ones directly relatable withACTTiVAte's sectors:• TICE.PT – Competitiveness Pole for the Information, Communication and Electronics Technologies (basedin Norte Region);• PRODUTECH – Competiveness Pole for Manufacturing Technologies;• OCEANOXXI – Cluster for the Ocean Knowledge and Economy (based in Norte Region);• HEALTH CLUSTER PORTUGAL – Health Competiveness Pole (based in Norte Region);• PORTUGAL FOODS – Competitiveness Pole for Agro-Industrial Technology (based in Norte Region);• AED PORTUGAL – Aeronautic, Space and Defence Cluster (NOT based in Norte Region).

Innovation Moderate Innovator. Relative weaknesses are in EPO patent applications, Innovative IDEs collaborating with

15Data from EC "Regional Innovation Monitor": https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regional-innovation-monitor/

13



















13



















14

performance &Weaknesses16

others, and Sales due to new product innovations.


Increase IDEs investment in developing flexible and adaptive production systems for rapid(re)configurations of local production capacities and capabilities, reducing the need of transports, thushaving an impact on the environmental footprint, while, at the same time, allowing to responddynamically, in the competitive global economy

Enhance, develop and promote the necessary key enabling technologies in a collaborative environmentwith the involvement of IDEs in cluster and sectorial initiatives stimulating collaborative cross-sectoraland cross-border transactions

Increase the efficiency of technical and financial support to pro-innovative initiatives in the region Increase private investment culture in R&D within the IDEs Training programs for entrepreneurs to attract private funds Improve and facilitate the access and security regarding the protection of intellectual property

Promote the awareness of the European markets for "new players" and thus the exploitation of thisnew European based on cross-sectoral and cross-border transactions. Technology transferbetween sectors opens the possibility for players in different sectors to interact and create newbusiness opportunities reinforcing the internationalization and foreign trade markets


The industrial landscape of Norte region is changing fast. From the traditional sectors, based on labour-intensive products and processes, a new generation of entrepreneurs and capabilities have been consistentlysetting new tech-based industries. Norte has seen both conversion of old manufacturing plants, keeping thesame activity, and emergence of new companies, responding to new challenges.In particular, aeronautic market has settled several high-quality developers and suppliers in the region, suchas space one.ACTTiVAte will bring the regional aerospace industry a new perspective and way of thinking for the future.This will occur by exposing them to the opportunity of identifying new markets (in other sectors of activities) towhich they could expand their activity. This will promote their consolidation in the origin sector (aerospace)whilst allowing for the integration of new value chains throughout Europe.Moreover, ACTTiVAte’s success will imply visibility to other Portuguese regions, thus calling for attention ofthe funding partners (public and private) at national level.ACTTiVAte will actually seed a new way of looking into this region’s capabilities.

Region Name Ireland (S&E Region)

NUT ID IE Country Ireland

Population 4,5 M R&D Investment17 1,58%

RIS3 EU Prioritiesrelated toACTTiVAte´stechnologies

Sustainable Innovation & SustainableAgriculture

Digital Agenda & e-Health

Advanced Materials


Sustainable Food Production & Processing Connected Health & Independent Living Processing Technologies & Novel Materials


Ireland has a strong national research ecosystem with 14 priority areas for research which have beenclustered into 6 themes.


Strong innovator. Relative weaknesses are in Public R&D expenditures, Non-R&D innovation expenditures,and EPO patent applications.

Specific challengesto be addressed

Sustainable Food Production & Processing: research is needed to support food sectors highlyrelevant to Ireland. There has been substantial public investment in food research over many

16 Data from the “Regional Innovation Scoreboard”: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/regional_en17Data from EC "Regional Innovation Monitor": https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regional-innovation-monitor/18Data from the “Regional Innovation Scoreboard”: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/regional_en

14
















Advanced Materials










14
















Advanced Materials










15

through ACTTiVAte years. The availability of graduates, postgraduates and researchers with enhanced skillsets is alsochallenging to deliver on the vision of Irish government in agro-food area.

Medical Devices: the current challenge is increasing R&D on device technology, including theintegration of electronics and ICT into medical devices to strengthen and increase Ireland’s activityin this sector.

Processing Technologies & Novel Materials: in order to grow and sustain the Irish basedmanufacturing industry, Ireland must have the technological capacity and capabilities required fornext generation manufacturing. As an example, advancements in Additive Manufacturing willrequire continual and radical innovation focused on processing technologies and the utilisation ofnew materials.

Innovation in Services & Business Processes: there is a strong requirement for R&D of innovativeEnterprise resource planning tools and platforms to enable both the manufacturing and servicesectors to innovate their service offering, service delivery and business processes.


Most of the business R&D is undertaken by multinational firms and most R&D is undertaken around theDublin area in the HEIs and foreign-owned firms. ACTTiVAte will foster the innovation on local IDEs.

Region Name Mazowieckie

NUT ID PL12 Country PolandPopulation 3,8 M R&D Investment19 1%RIS3 EU Prioritiesrelated toACTTiVAte'stechnologies

Food security & safety. Public Health & Well-being

Sustainable Innovation

Service Innovation


Safe food Quality of life Intelligent management systems Professional services for business Smart engineering and tooling


With regard to the structure of innovation investments, 20% of all investments in the manufacturing sector isallocated for R&D activities.The Voivodeship of Mazowieckie is an area dedicated to "Secure for Food" Activities and has comparativeadvantages in the production of nutraceuiticals, modern breeding and precision agricultural production on thebasis of ICT, neuroelectronics, photonics, chemistry and biotechnology.


Moderate innovator. Relative weaknesses are in IDEs with marketing or organizational innovations, Sales ofnew product innovations, and Innovative IDEs collaborating with others.


Increased and strengthened cooperation in innovation and innovativeness development, Increased internationalization aiming at innovativeness of the region, Increased efficiency of support and financial support to pro-innovative initiatives in the region, Shaping and promoting proinnovative and proentrepreneurial attitudes fostering cooperation and

creativity, Strengthening of the information society as the key driver of innovation


One of the the underlying characteristics of the Mazowieckie is that medium-size companies (50 – 249employees) recorded the highest innovation sales (6.06%), followed by large companies (≥250 employees)and small enterprises (10 – 49 employees), respectively 5.67% and 0.81%. There is real opportunity for theMazowieckie region to do cross sectoral innovation thanks to ACCTiVATe project.

Region Name Slaskie

19Data from EC "Regional Innovation Monitor": https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regional-innovation-monitor/20 Data from the “Regional Innovation Scoreboard”: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/regional_en

15











Service Innovation












Region Name Slaskie


15











Service Innovation












Region Name Slaskie


16

NUT ID PL22 Country PolandPopulation 4,6 M R&D Investment21 0,32%RIS3 EU Prioritiesrelated toACTTiVAte'stechnologies

Public Health& Well-being KETs: Industrial biotechnology KETs


Public health & well-being Industrial biotechnology Advanced materials Micro/ Nano-electronics (Computer programming, consultancy & related activities)


It is the second region in Polandin terms of the number of big investors. There are numerous well-knownautomotive companies, such as Fiat, Opel, Delphi Automotive Systems. There is also a large number ofcompanies operating in the business process outsourcing and logistics sectors including an engineeringcentre, known as Avio specialised in the design of aviation engines components, and TRW scheduledopening of car airbags and safety belts research centre.


Moderate innovator. Relative weaknesses are in IDEs with marketing or organizational innovations, Sales ofnew product innovations, and Public R&D expenditures.


IDEs from the Silesian Province encounter three basic development barriers:

• market and environmental barriers related to problems caused by the overall economic conditions (economicfluctuations, changes in intensity of competition),

• management problems due to the insufficient knowledge and skills of entrepreneurs and management staff,

• financial barriers.

The ACTTiVAte project will certainly not fully resolve the above problems but may meet the challenges relatedto improving managers’ skills (through planned conferences, networking, staff exchanges). Financial supportand potential contacts with investors from the EU may also provide the region with an additional developmentstimulus.


The regional research and innovation smart specialisation strategy of the Voivodeship of Silesia does notexplicitly refer to advanced manufacturing as a priority area, however, it identifies different priorities which arerelated to advanced manufacturing activities.During the 2014-2020 programming period, it is expected that a greater focus will be placed on concentratingthe investments in areas with the highest innovation and development potential. ACCTiVATe expects tosupport the smart specialization for this region as well as to support the local IDEs to innovate in new sectors

Region Name Podkarpackie

NUT ID PL32 Country PolandPopulation 2,1 M R&D Investment23 0,56%RIS3 EU Prioritiesrelated toACCTiVAte´stechnologies

Aeronautics & Space Food security & Safety. Public Health & Well-

being Digital Agenda

KETs: nanotechnology KETs: Industrial biotechnology KETs: Advanced materials


Aviation: development of the region as a leading center in Poland for innovative aerospace andcommunication technology

Health, food, nutrition: Organic, regional and traditional food. Healthy, optimized, non-GMO diet.Preventive medicine. Care for the elderly.

ICT

21Data from EC "Regional Innovation Monitor": https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regional-innovation-monitor/22 Data from the “Regional Innovation Scoreboard”: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/regional_en23Data from EC "Regional Innovation Monitor": https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regional-innovation-monitor/

16

























ICT


16

























ICT


17

Nanotechnology Biotechnology Advanced materials


Region famous because its aviation environment" (90% of Polish aerospace industry, 100 companies and22.000 employees ).It is due to the fact that aviation and aeronautics have been identified as potential smart specialisations of thisregion, thus it is likely that they will receive funding under the Regional Operational Programme for the period2014-2020. Moreover, support to develop this sector is not only regional in nature, which is indicated by thefinancial allocation under the InnoLOT central programme, reaching the value of approx. €125m. Thisprogramme is compared to the CleanSKY programme, which has been launched by the EuropeanCommission to improve competitiveness of the European aviation sector on the global market.The InnoLOT itself is to finance scientific research and the work to develop innovative solution for the aviationindustry, and is an outcome of an agreement endorsed between the National Centre of Research andDevelopment, and a group of associations of companies which represent the Polish Aviation TechnologicalPlatform


Moderate innovator. Relative weaknesses are in IDEs with marketing or organisational innovations, PublicR&D expenditures, and EPO patent applications.


The challenges the aviation sector in the region is facing are: Technology gap – in spite of the recent R&D work and significant investment, the Polish

aviation industry continues to be based on mature products that are not at the highest level oftechnical development.

Low level of cooperation between the industry and the science sector Insufficient adaptation of the R&D conducted by R&D Institutes to the real needs of the

industry Insufficient number of highly specialised mid-level technical management staff and R&D

workers due to mismatch between secondary technical school and HEI curricula and the needsof industry

Small number of final products offered by Polish enterprises, which serve mostly ascooperating partners

Insufficient interest in acquisition of new technology to manufacture final products; newtechnology is selected on an ad-hoc basis

Limited capacity to attain ability to deliver competitive components (modules) to Polish orforeign “integration companies”

With the exception of a few better prepared companies, an initial (learning) phase of seekingR&D, technology implementation and job creation funding from the EU’s Structural Funds isneeded.

Lack of a clear government strategy of aviation equipment procurement for the military andsuch government agencies as the border guards, fire-fighters, healthcare, pollution monitoring,the police, etc.


ACCTIVATE will support the Podkarpackie region by doing a strong effort to improve their R&D skills withspecific technological events to be carried out by the RTD partners.

Region Name Eastern Netherlands (provinces Gelderland and Overijssel)NUT ID NL2 Country The NetherlandsPopulation 3,2 M R&D Investment25 2,81%RIS3 EU Prioritiesrelated toACTTiVAte'stechnologies

Food and Environmental Systems Food security & safety Public Health & Well-being KET advanced manufacturing technologies

24 Data from the “Regional Innovation Scoreboard”: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/regional_en25Data from EC "Regional Innovation Monitor": https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regional-innovation-monitor/

17






















17






















18


Working towards the most sustainable agriculture (dairy, poultry, pigs, hard- and softfruit production) Promoting human and animal health Towards a circular, biobased economy with a focus on internationalisation Improving food quality and safety


The focus area of ACTTiVAte in Eastern Netherlands, the provinces of Gelderland and Overijssel, are mainlytargeting on innovations in agro-food and health. The two recently described “flagship focus areas” of ourregion related to the RIS3 strategy are:

1) SMART AND SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRIES2) CONCEPTS FOR A HEALTHY LIFE

The Agrofood sector is related to both flagships. In the first flagship the innovation themes “Smart FoodProduction” and “Biobased Production” are included. In Flagship 2 “personalized health and nutrition” is oneof the focus areas.Wageningen University Research - number 1 agricultural university according to NTU ranking - is based inthe region. Radboud University and The Health Valley cluster are situated in Nijmegen. The TechnicalUniversity Twente is located in Enschede. Their high-tech campuses stimulate cross-overs, new cooperationand innovations. They foster an entrepreneurial eco-system between IDE’s, start-ups, multinationals andresearch centers.In recent years, a rapidly growing number of important food companies (including agro & food machineryproducers) and their R&D centers have been established in the focus area, making the region one of Europe'smajor hubs for research-driven food innovation.In The Netherlands, the Agrofood sector is one of the appointed Dutch ‘top sectors’. The agrofood sector inThe Netherlands is the 2nd exporter of agrofood products in the world, after the USA. Eastern Netherlands ishome to world class high tech farmers and is well known for its seed breeding capacities. Food packaging isanother topic of high importance to the region: this theme is organized around the company clusterorganisation European Packaging Gallery.ICT and aerospace innovations are regionally steered via the Smart Industry Action Agenda called “BOOST”.The Smart Industry Action agenda Eastern Netherlands is a region specific further development of the DutchAction agenda. Gelderland and Overijssel are the first to work for a joint regional Action programme. Thesetwo provinces have always had a strong High Tech Systems and Materials knowledge infrastructure, a hightech manufacturing industry and an extensive industrial manufacturing industry.


Strong innovator. Relative weaknesses are in Non-R&D innovation expenditures, Sales of new productinnovations, and IDEs with marketing or organisational innovations.

Specific challengesto be addressedthrough ACTTiVAte

Stimulate internationalization and foreign trade of IDEs through the design and execution of theinstruments available for them, such as the involvement in cross-sectorial initiatives

Open new markets and chains for IDE Adoption of innovations related to our regional flagship focus areas in a broader, European perspective To enhance private investment culture within the IDEs (crowdfunding, business angels, …) to stimulate

R&D and business development Development of smart production systems (precision farming) using Internet-of-Things solutions,

robotics, advanced management systems, advanced materials and other technologies. Implementation of sensing technologies, e.g. early detection of diseases to reduce use of antibiotics Development of advanced technologies for food production; characterization of functional foods;

biorefinery solutions for food and waste streams Consolidate and promote interactions between AgFood, Health and Life Science research capabilities

and a related variety of firms (equipment manufacturers, private research institutes, medical devices,eHealth, etc.)


The Netherlands has a world-wide recognized industrial base. Numerous large and small companies areamong the leaders in their markets. But the world is changing, globalisation continues growing and economicreality is forcing companies to remain competitive. With ACCTiVAte, the Netherland regions expect toreinforce their leadership in innovation driven companies, fostering the creation of new tailor-made solutionsfor consumers and customer through the creation of new value chains

Region Name Southern Netherlands (Noord-Brabant)

26 Data from the “Regional Innovation Scoreboard”: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/regional_en

18




















18




















19

NUT ID NL4 Country The NetherlandsPopulation 2,5 M R&D Investment27 2,81%RIS3 EU Prioritiesrelated toACTTiVAte'stechnologies

Food and Evironmental Systems Public Health & Well-being Food Security & Safety


Working towards the most smart & sustainable agrifood production and supply chain (includingwholesale, retail and catering)

Promoting human, animal and environmental health (one health concept) Towards a circular, biobased economy with a focus on internationalisation Improving food quality and safety Promoting linkages between research and development centres and diverse sectoral clusters, promoting

implementation of newly developed innovations Research centre for food and health


The Southern Netherlands is a highly innovative manufacturing region. Where its focus used to be ontraditional sectors of industry (e.g. textiles, ceramics), it has today turned into a knowledge intensive high techregion.

The focus area of ACTTiVAte in Southern Netherlands, the province of Noord-Brabant, is solving the mainsocietal and economic challenges:1) food availability (e.g. world population versus available production land, urbanisation and changing food

patterns) via smart agrifood systems,2) healthy food (e.g. food safety, lifestyle (diseases) and one health concept) by food to fit3) food footprint (e.g. waste reduction, green energy and biobased solutions) via circular agrifood.

The Southern Netherlands accommodate some of Europe’s most successful clusters. They cooperate withmany European partners in several important interregional partnerships, some of the most interesting are:

Several partners from the Southeast Netherlands cooperate in the project “MPower EU”, whichfocusses on future internet innovation and an entrepreneurial ecosystem to empower manufacturingIDEs.

Flanders, Southern Netherlands (the provinces of Limburg, Noord-Brabant and Zeeland) and NorthRhine-Westphalia are currently working on a cross border cluster on bio based materials.

Partners from the Southern Netherlands cooperate with other European partners in “SiliconEurope”, a cluster alliance for energy-efficient ICT.


Innovator leader. Relative weaknesses are in Non-R&D innovation expenditures, Public R&D expenditures,and Sales of new product innovations.



Open new markets and chains for IDE Adoption of innovations related to our regional strategy in a broader, European perspective To enhance private investment culture within the IDEs (crowdfunding, business angels, …) to stimulate



biorefinery solutions for food and waste streamsWhy ACTTiVAte isimportant for theregion

The region aims to strengthen its potential for Research and Innovation. Southern Netherlands is a goodexample of how to manage “cross sectoral innovation” in a region. They will bring their experience to theproject to improve the practices in other project´s regions. ACTTIVATE will support them to innovate in otherEuropean regions.


19

























19

























20

Each region has defined the specific challenges to be addressed and the RIS3 priorities that will betackled through the activities proposed in ACTTiVAte and through the range of innovative products,services and business models generated.

Demonstration needs will be the starting point of the planning and settlement of the large-scaledemonstrators in every ACTTiVAte geographical pole. They will be tailored to the specific needs ofeach pole and the innovation actors involved. Therefore, with a near-market approach, theinnovations generated within the project will be tested under real life conditions.

2. SCOPE FOR REGIONAL SPECIFIC CHALLENGES TO BE ADDRESSEDTHROUGH ACTTiVAte:

This section "Scope for Regional Specific Challenges to be addressed through ACTTiVAte" aims todescribe the studied scopes that have been taken into account simultaneously for subsequentdefinition and assessment of regional specific challenges to be addressed through ACTTiVAte. Suchscopes are:

2.1. General axes of the regional specific challenges: regional specific challenges are definedtaking into account different areas of interest or perspectives addressed through ACTTiVAte (i.e.aerospace, agro-food sector, health and ICT), prioritizing Innovators & Entrepreneurs in theProcess of Economic Development. The following axes (different areas of interest orperspectives) have been identified:

a) Axis 1: iCap - Innovation Capacity Indicatorsb) Axis 2: eCap -Entrepreneurial Capacity Indicatorsc) Axis 3: Links- Link Indicators

2.2. Region-specific Cluster Focus: Comparable cluster definitions can capture most economicactivities and are necessary for studies that aim to examine clusters across regions. However, onelimitation of any multi-region cluster approach is that it overlooks specific inter-industry linkagesthat may exist in particular regional clusters. These idiosyncratic regional linkages are the focusof the region-specific cluster definitions. This approach focuses on a single region to measureindustry and/or firm interdependencies and define the region’s clusters. Such studies vary in theirindustry coverage, types of economic units (industry, technology classes or firms), types ofregional units (administrative or non-administrative) and methods29. ACTTiVAte defines clustersas geographic concentrations of firms, workers, and industries that do business with each otherand have common needs for talent, technology, and infrastructure. Clusters are essentiallynetworks of similar, synergistic, or complementary entities that are engaged in or with a particularindustry sector; have active channels for business transactions and communication; sharespecialized infrastructure, labor markets, and services; and leverage the region’s uniquecompetitive strengths to stimulate innovation and create jobs. Clusters may cross municipal,county, and other jurisdictional boundaries.

2.3. Business models: challenges are as general as possible in order to use them in all businessmodels (no specific challenges for only one business model or typology are defined). However,

29 Defining clusters of related industries. Delgado M, Porter M.E., Stern S. Journal of Economic Geography (2015) pp. 1–38

20










20










21

several business models (such us product based business model or platform-based businessmodel) have been identified in order to generate a starting point for the subsequent resultsanalysis and comparisons in work package “WP6.-Large scale demonstrators, validation andimpact assessment”. Furthermore, business model development process will be supported andcontinually monitored by ACTTiVAte’s consortium.

2.4. Global Market: In a globalised world, innovation-driven enterprises (IDEs) need to be ableto withstand increasing competition from developed and emerging economies and to plug into themarket opportunities these countries provide. There is a direct link between internationalizationand increased IDE performance The interaction among the different geographical poles gives theproject an international dimension, while the translation from technologies among aerospace,agro-food, health and ICT sectors, addressed in WP2 and WP3 allows the emergence of cross-sector value chains. ACTTiVAte beneficiaries are the IDEs coming from the clusters’environment, which will be supported with funding programmes and a network of innovationservices. International activities put in place by ACTTiVAte. reinforce growth and employment,enhance competitiveness and support the long-term sustainability of companies. Yet EuropeanIDEs still depend largely on their domestic markets at regional level despite the opportunitiesoffered by the wider EU single market and by globalization at large.

2.5. Private Funding at regional level: Private sector should support IDEs efforts at regionallevel. Business angels and Venture Capitalists play a very important role. In many regionsbusiness angels constitute the largest source of external funding for newly established ventures.Business angels are increasingly important in providing equity financing as well as contributing toeconomic growth and technological advance. ACTTiVAte will be contributing to reinforce theaccess of ACTTiVAte grant recipients to additional external finance, in particular early stageventure capital funds, business angels and corporate investors, through the organization ofInvestment Forums (IF) or Demo Days, and one-to-one meetings when appropriate.

2.6. Audiences of the challenges: Challenges are assigned to different audiences based on theirspecific interests in the project in order to generate a starting point for D.6.2. Summary andbenchmark of regional innovation performance and SWOT. This section aims to describe and tojustify which audiences are likely to be interested in the indicators defined for the project. Theseaudiences are categorized and listed according to their specific interests or concerns regarding theIDE performance (fostering cross-sectoral innovation among IDEs from four different sectors,aerospace, agro-food, health and ICT). After the analysis of the general axes for indicators and theentities that are potentially interested in their results, five audiences have been identified:

Audience 1: Government institutions and Policy Makers- to implement best practice in eachpolicy area.

Audience 2: Venture Capitalists.

Audience 3: Corporations.

Audience 4: Entrepreneurs

Audience 5: Education and Research Institutions.

Each indicator will have one or several target audiences

21











21











22

3. METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

This section "Methodology Overview" outlines the global process that has been used to generate theregional specific challenges to be addressed through ACTTiVAte. The definition of the regionalspecific challenges to be addressed and the RIS3 priorities that will be tackled through the activitiesproposed in ACTTiVAte is the first deliverable in the WP6 "Large-scale demonstrators, validationand impact assessment".

ACTTiVAte aims to demonstrate the feasibility of strategies to foster cross-sectoral innovation inIDEs through large-scale demonstrations aimed at helping industrial regions and its industriestransform themselves and enter new value chains and support the smart specialization strategies ofthe involved regions, enabling synergies with structural funds, the creation of jobs, start-ups and theconsolidation of a strategy for a sustainable industrial development.

Step 1 Definition of Axioms for Indicators and Evaluation

The first step in the process was to define several axioms as starting point. These axioms are:

a) Indicators are obtained as result of this process are not only related to aerospace, agro-food sector, health and ICT. Indicators are as general as possible in order to use them indifferent sectors simultaneously in WP6. Each cluster is an accelerator for regional smartgrowth, bringing together groups of IDEs for exploring, defining and developinginnovative applications and services for new cross-sector value chains. Therefore, nospecific indicators for each sector or cluster are defined as a result of this process.

b) ACTTiVAte's regions are classified into appropriate axes in order to facilitate thepotential subsequent Science Mapping Analysis related to the analysis of all individualindicators.

c) The ACTTiVAte project has a regional, IDEs and industry specific vocation. However, itfits into a global framework of impulses that affect it in many ways. These impulses stemout of a complex web of political, economic, social and technological factors that interactat all levels determining specific results at each of these levels. The 1,5M€ direct fundingto the IDEs is a very small amount so we believe that it will have a limited impact on theEuropean Smart Specialization strategies. But still we think that we can contribute inestablishing methodologies for durable cross-sectoral collaboration across differentregions in Europe, led by cluster organizations.

Step 2 Identification of Scopes for Indicators and Evaluation

The second step in this process was to establish and analyses the scopes that are been taken intoaccount simultaneously for subsequent definition and assessment of the indicators for the regionalspecific challenges to be addressed through ACTTiVAte. These scopes are:

a) Axes of the indicators: several areas or general axes for which it is necessary to defineindicators. (iCap/ eCap/ Links)

22












22












23

b) Audiences of the indicators: several stakeholders interested in the results of the projectwere identified.

As it was already mentioned, establishing the scopes pursues the double objective of: a) addressingthe definition of the indicators and; b) facilitating the activities of evaluation and comparison ofresults in WP6. Each indicator is perfectly assigned to one or several axes (according to differentcriteria), to one or several audiences and belong to an axis. Thus, during the period of results’analysis, this classification shall be used as a starting point for the detailed analysis of theseindicators and to establish connections between them.

Step 3: Definition of Indicators

The third step started with the analysis of all the information to consider prior to the definition ofindicators with the objective that indicators cover all relevant areas of interest and are as realistic aspossible, facilitating to be applied to the largest possible number of sectors and clusters.

Taking into account previous analysis, indicators are defined for each of the general axes. Thisdefinition of indicators is performed describing for each of them all the needed information for theirfully characterization.

Step 4: Definition of Calculation and Review Process

The last step was to define a global calculation and review process for the set of all indicators. Thepurpose is that this procedure is performed to calculate and evaluate periodically all the values of allkind of indicators, so that an Action Plan can be implemented if needed.

During the past two years, we have studied the entrepreneurial quality and performance at otheracademic institutions searching for an importable solution. To date, we have been unable to find asuccessful model and therefore, we have concluded that we must build our own. It is our hope thatwe will eventually serve as the model for others.

Building on MIT REAP and RIS 3, bibliometric and potentially Science Mapping Analysis30 we aretrying to develop a novel approach to the measurement of the regional specific challenges to beaddressed through ACTTiVAte, combining three interrelated insights:

Insight 1: Individual Metrics The first step in the process was to define several individual metricsfor each ACTTiVAte's regions. The individual metrics are described in section 4"Definition ofindicators for the Regional Specific Challenges". Establishing the right indicators31 is a key step toenable a quantitative and proper monitoring and assessment of the demonstrators.

Insight 2: Collective Metrics The second step in the process was to define several collectivemetrics.

30Science mapping, or bibliometric mapping, is an important research topic in the field of bibliometrics. It attempts to findrepresentations of intellectual connections within the dynamically changing system of scientific knowledge. In other words, sciencemapping aims at displaying the structural and dynamic aspects of scientific research. Manuel J Cobo, Antonio Gabriel López‐Herrera,Enrique Herrera‐Viedma, Francisco Herrera. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology.31

University of Granada has http://livemetrics.ugr.es/

23














23














24

For IDEs, the large-scale demonstrators will provide an open space allowing them to contribute tothe regional development vision while, at the same time, developing competitive products andservices through cross-sector and cross-border collaboration that generate new industrial valuechains.

The Collective Metrics Insight includes robust mapping capabilities designed to visualize theinteractions with clients, partners and other community organizations. The Cluster CollaborationPlatform also could allow IDEs to search the entire network by Name of Organization, Location orIndustry Type32

Power of ACTTIVAte framework relies on linkages among the elements to create an ecosystem.Two aspects of linkage matters:

Linkage within each of the three elements:o Among cluster actorso Among innovatorso among entrepreneurs

Linkage across the three elements:

Among the activities to be performed in WP3, ACTTiVAte will put in place the analysis ofdynamics for technology transfer in the involved clusters/sectors, the creation of a clustercollaboration platform to facilitate collaboration among clusters, and the definition of the tailoredstrategies to foster innovation in SMEs.

Insight 3: Trends.

a) Analyzing the publications contents and patents contents using a linguistic approach. Linguisticdecision analysis is based on the use of the linguistic approach and it is applied for solving decisionmaking problems under linguistic information33 Facilitate the emergence of cross-sector new valuechains resulting from the analysis and assessment of linguistic term among four sectors: Aerospace,Agro-food, Health and ICT. The choice of the linguistic term to facilitate the emergence of cross-sector new value chains. set with its semantic in order to express the linguistic performance valuesaccording to all the criteria.

b) Analyzing innovators, cluster actors and entrepreneurs with low or medium affinity to look foropportunities to achieve stable growth of cross-sectoral and cross-border innovation beyond theproject.

4. DEFINITIONS OF INDICATORS AND REGIONAL SPECIFIC CHALLENGES

This section aims to describe in a reader-friendly way each of the common indicators that have beendefined in order to try to monitor and evaluate, from several points of view, the regional specificchallenges to be addressed through the ACTTiVAte project. Moreover, Section 7 " Annex I:

32http://www.clustercollaboration.eu/

33 The choice of the linguistic term set with its semantic in order to express the linguistic performance values according to all thecriteria. Linguistic decision analysis: steps for solving decision problems under linguistic information F. Herrera ∗, E. Herrera-Viedma

24







Insight 3: Trends.







24







Insight 3: Trends.







25

Primary Regional Metrics " contains sheets with the specification of some indicator in the presentsection.

4.1. Overview of the indicators

In order to be as realistic and useful as possible for all kind of entities that participate inACTTiVAte, the defined indicators consider all the scopes detailed in Section 2 “Scopes forRegional Specific Challenges to be addressed through ACTTiVAte” and Section 3 “MethodologyOverview and Scopes for Regional Specific Challenges to be addressed through ACTTIVAte”, i.e.,axes and audiences. Furthermore, information available in JRC EYE@RIS3tool and the RIS 3documents of the different regions has been also taken into account.

Indicators are as general as possible in order to use them in all sectors that participate in the projectand to facilitate the potential subsequent results analysis and comparisons in work package “WP6Large-scale demonstrators, validation and impact assessment”. Therefore, the indicators’ set doesn’tinclude specific indicators for each sector or cluster.

These indicators are:

For Insight 1: Individual Metrics

1. Region Name:a. Name of region:

2. Region Description:a. Description of Current Regional Entrepreneurial Ecosystem (1 paragraph to describe

region and current state of ecosystem)

3. Population:a. Population in countryb. Population in regionc. Human Development Indexd. Gini Coefficiente. Land Area

4. Innovation Capacity (iCap) Performance:

a. Number of Patents Filed/ year

b. Number of Published Papers/ year34

34 To be discussed to include more specific information i.e:

Category Normalized Citation Impact (Crown) Number of papers in the top 1% Highly Cited Papers International Collaboration

e.g. for the University of Granada: http://opendata.ugr.es/dataset/memoria-de-investigacion-2016/resource/98123c6c-f997-482f-84e1-5a3fd63dfefe

25

















25

















26

5. iCap People:

a. Number of STEM graduates/ year

6. iCap Funding:a. Gross R&D Expenditure/ GDP

7. iCap Infrastructure:

a. Top 3 research institutions (as defined by ACTTiVAte team)

8. iCap Policy:a. Intellectual Property Protection Ranking (1-7)

9. iCap Incentives:

a. Celebrated Regional Innovation (as defined by ACTTiVAte team-1 from the past, 1recent)

10. iCap Demand:a. GDP/capita (GDP per capita, €current PPP, current prices)

11. Entrepreneurial Capacity (eCap) Performance:

a. Number of S & C corps incorporated/year

12. eCap People:

a. Total Early Stage Entrepreneurship

13. eCap Funding

a. Venture Capital Investments (Millions EUR)

b. Venture Capital Investments (%)

c. Venture Capital Investments (% GDP)35

14. eCap Infrastructure:

a. Top 3 business parks, innovation hubs or accelerators (as defined by ACTTiVAte team)

15. eCap Policy:

a. Number of days to start a business

35To be discussed to include more specific information i.e Business Angels

26

5. iCap People:






9. iCap Incentives:





12. eCap People:


13. eCap Funding






15. eCap Policy:



26

5. iCap People:






9. iCap Incentives:





12. eCap People:


13. eCap Funding






15. eCap Policy:



27

16. eCap Incentives:

a. Celebrated Regional Entrepreneurship (as defined by ACTTiVAte team-1 from the past,1 recent)

17. eCap Demand:a. GDP/capita (GDP per capita, €current PPP, current prices)

18. Clusters:

a. Top 3 industry clusters (as defined by ACTTiVAte team)

19. Custom Metrics:

a. Number of New University Spin Offs/ year

b. Euros Invested in University Startups (Euros)/year

c. Number of New PhD Graduates/year*

d. Number of Doctorate Graduates Enrolment at Tertiary Level (ISCED 5-6)

e. Number of graduates/year*

f. Number of high-tech jobs created/ year *

g. Total Employment/ year (millions)

h. Employment by foreign-owned firms/year

20. Catalysts/Initiatives:a. name of initiative, description/success story + website linkb. name of initiative, description/success story + website linkc. name of initiative, description/success story + website linkd. name of initiative, description/success story + website link

For Insight 2: Collective Metrics

1. Social metrics:a. Collaboration among Universitiesb. Collaboration among Enterprisesc. Collaboration among Universities, Enterprises, etc36.

2. Conceptual metrics: Keywords37

36 University-Industry Collaboration in china and the USA: a Bibliometric Comparison. Zhou P et al. November 10,2016.

27




18. Clusters:


19. Custom Metrics:














27




18. Clusters:


19. Custom Metrics:














28

3. Intellectual metrics: ReferencesFor Insight 3: Trends.

The definition of the location of birth of a startup is also an open research question. Some studiesidentify the location where the startup has the first paid employee (e.g., Delgado et al., 2010). Otherstudies focus on earlier stages and consider the place of registration of the startup (e.g., Guzman andStern, 2015). Recent work shows that the birth place of entrepreneurs and inventors also caninfluence their subsequent choices in the technology and geographical space (Dahl and Sorenson,2012; and Bell et al., 2015). Understanding the life cycle of startups and inventors could informpolicies for fostering innovation and entrepreneurship.

We would like to take into account:

1. Intra cluster collaboration2. Inter cluster collaboration

Considering the role of38: Internal agglomerations (intra-firm linkages that are facilitated by geographical proximity)

and External agglomerations (inter-firm linkages in clusters) on the location choices and

performance of firms.

to search for opportunities of collaboration to facilitate the emergence of cross-sector new valuechains resulting from the analysis and assessment of advanced technologies among four sectors withstrong synergies: Aerospace, Agro-food, Health and ICT.

5. CONCLUSIONS.

This document provides ACTTiVAte consortium with a preliminary complete set of indicators andtheir calculation and review process taking as starting point the methodology defined in the RIS3,MIT REAP and Science Mapping Analysis. The main feature of this preliminary set of indicators isthey are common for all sectors that participate in the project in order to facilitate the subsequentresults analysis and comparisons in work package “WP6-Large-scale demonstrators, validation andimpact assessment". Therefore, in this document, no specific indicators for a specific sector isdefined.

37 The Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI) of a document is calculated by dividing the actual count of citing

items by the expected citation rate for documents with the same document type, year of publication and subject area.When a document is assigned to more than one subject area an average of the ratios of the actual to expected citations isused. The CNCI of a set of documents, for example the collected works of an individual, institution or country, is theaverage of the CNCI values for all the documents in the set.

38Firm in Context: internal and External Drivers of Success. Mercedes Delgado, MIT Sloan and MIT Innovation Initiative

28









5. CONCLUSIONS.





28









5. CONCLUSIONS.





29

A regional Economic Strategy is Not Just "Good Policy". Each ACTTiVAte's region need aprioritized agenda to create a unique competitive region for a region based on its particularcircumstances and Collaborative effort of the public and private sector.

The ACTTiVAte project has a regional, IDEs and industry specific vocation. However, it fits into aglobal framework of impulses that affect it in many ways. These impulses stem out of a complexweb of political, economic, social and technological factors that interact at all levels determiningspecific results at each of these levels. The 1,5M€ direct funding to the IDEs is a very small amountso we believe that it will have a limited impact on the European Smart Specialization strategies. Butstill we think that we can contribute in establishing methodologies for durable cross-sectoralcollaboration across different regions in Europe, led by cluster organizations.

Start-of-the-art selection process is paramount. Support the development of innovation projectsdriven by SMEs from different sectors and improve their business environment by setting up call forproposal processes across different poles of the ACTTiVATe consortium and establishing a systemicapproach to foster innovation during and beyond the competitive calls is also vital. The calls shouldbe designed to maximize the establishment of methodologies for durable cross-sectoral collaborationacross different regions in Europe, led by cluster organizations and other intermediary organizationscreating the grounds for a competitive reindustrialization that foster the development of emergingindustries in Europe.

Regional development scholars and practitioners have focused on the question of "How important islocation for successful regional and firm performance?" for decades, because understanding the roleof location can help us to design policies to improve firms’ and regions’ ability to compete, even indifficult economic times39.

The ACTTiVAte project will try to review studies using sophisticated methods for defining andmapping clusters-geographical concentrations of related industries, firms, and supportinginstitutions to achieve stable growth of cross-sectoral and cross-border innovation beyond theproject.

Some lessons learned:

1. The importance of innovation-driven enterprises in an entrepreneurial ecosystem;

2. The importance of linking innovation capacity with entrepreneurial capacity;3. Clusters & Linkages allow regions to focus/prioritize in upgrading the IDE ecosytem

4. The importance of visibility, investment and mentoring by successful entrepreneurs at everylevel;

5. Public support and especially political support were critical to the success of multipleinitiatives

39 Firm in Context: internal and External Drivers of Success. Mercedes Delgado, MIT Sloan and MIT InnovationInitiative

29












29












30

6. Tough economic climate means that the regional approach needs to address economicrealities – not that the initiative can’t take place.

7. More work to be done after ACTTiVAte's WP6.1.is completed – WP6.1.is just the first stepThroughout, it was recognized that a joined up approach to action across the wholeecosystem by the full range of stakeholders is vital as is the requirement for patience to allowactions to take effect.

In WP2, technologies which may fit the purpose of being successfully transferred from the sector oforigin to another sector are assessed in detail. As a result, the degree of feasibility of the selectedtechnologies will generate a ranking list of candidate technologies in the perspective of the realproject capabilities, in terms of timing, funding and demonstration needs (including potentialapplication, degree of novelty, critical aspects, expected TRL, potential market value/size, societalrelevance and main stakeholders involved). So the regional scenario for each one of the sectors willbe well established.

This demonstration needs will be the starting point of the planning and settlement of the large-scaledemonstrators in every ACCTiVAte geographical pole. They will be tailored to the specific needs ofeach pole and the innovation actors involved. Therefore, with a near-market approach, theinnovations generated within the project will be tested under real life conditions.

In conclusion, this is a reference document and a starting point for work packages “WP6-Large-scaledemonstrators, validation and impact assessment", "WP2 Assessment of the technologies andpotential new value chains and selection of topics for competitive calls", "WP3 Methodologies forcross- sectoral technology transfer" and "WP4 Direct funding of innovative SME projects throughcall for proposal processes" since its outputs shall be used in several activities of such workpackages.

7. REFERENCES

The following external references have been used in the deliverable:

Adams, J.and A. Jaffe (1996). ‘Bounding the Effects of R&D: An Investigation Using MatchedEstablishment-Firm Data.’ RAND Journal of Economics 27(4):700–721.

Alcacer, L. (2006). 'Location Choices across the Value Chain: How Activity and CapabilityInfluence Collocation .' Management Science 52(10): 1457-1471.

Alcacer, J. and W. Chung (2007). 'Location Strategies for Knowledge Spillovers.' ManagementScience 53(5): 760-776.

Alcacer, J. and W. Chung (2014). 'Location Strategies for Agglomeration Economies .' StrategicManagement Journal 35(12): 1749-1761.

30






7. REFERENCES






30






7. REFERENCES






31

Alcacer, J. and M. Delgado (2016) . 'Spatial Organization of Firms and Location Choices throughtheValue Chain. ' Management Science, forthcoming.

Alcacer, J. and M. Zhao (2016). 'Zooming In: A Practical Manual for Identifying GeographicClusters .' Strategic Management Journal 37(1): 10--21.

Agrawal A., I. Cockbum, A. Galasso, and A. Oettl (2014). 'Why are some Regions moreInnovative than Others? The Role of Small Firms in the Presence ofLarge Labs.' Journalof Urban Economics 81: 149-165.

Allen, J. and T. Potiowsky (2008). 'Portland' s Green Building Cluster: Economic Trends andImpacts.' Economic Development Quarterly 22(4): 303-315.

Arora A., W. Cohen, and J. Walsh (2014). 'The Acquisition and Commercialization of Invention inAmerican Manufacturing: Incidence and Impact,' NBER Working Paper 20264.

Audretsch, D.B. (1998). 'Agglomeration and the Location of Innovative Activity.' Oxford Review ofEconomic Policy 14 (2): 18-29.

Audretsch, D.B. and M.P. Feldman (1996). 'R&D Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation andProduction.' American Economic Review 86(4): 253-273.

Azoulay, P. (2004). 'Capturing Knowledge within and across Firm Boundaries: Evidence fromClinical Development.' American Economic Review 94(5): 1591-1612.

Baldwin, C. and E. von Hippel (2011). 'Modeling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation toUser and Open Collaborative Innovation.' Organization Science 22(6): 1399-1417.

Bahl Poulsen L. (2014). A brief Guide to Large-Scale Demostrators. Enterprise Industry

Bathelt , H., A Malmberg, and P. Maskell (2004). 'Clusters and Knowledge: Local Buzz, GlobalPipelines, and the Process ofKnowledge Creation.' Progress in Human Geography 28(1):31-56.

Becattini, G., M. Bellandi, G.D. Ottati, and F. Sforzi (2003). From Industrial Districts to LocalDevelopment (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).Bell, AM., R. Chetty, X.L. Jaravel, N. Petkova, and J. Van Reenen (2016). 'The Lifecycle ofInventors.' Centre for Economic Performance, LSE Working Paper.

Berger, S. (ed.) (2013). Making in America: From Innovation to Market (Cambridge, MA: MITPress).

Beugelsdijk, S., P. McCann, R. Mudambi (2010). 'Place, Space, and Organization: EconomicGeography and the Multinational Enterprise.' Journal of Economic Geography 10(4): 485493.

Bloom, N., M. Schankerman, and J. Van Reenen (2012). 'Identifying Technology Spillovers andProduct Market Rivalry.' Econometrica 81(4): 1347-1393.

Boschma, R. (2015). 'Towards an Evolutionary Perspective on Regional Resilience.' RegionalStudies 49(5): 733-751.

31

















31

















32

Boudreau, K., N. Lacetera, and K. Lakhani (2011). 'Incentives and Problem Uncertainty inInnovation Contests: An Empirical Analysis.' Management Science 57: 843-886.

Bresnahan, T. and A Gambardella (eds.) (2004). Building High-Tech Clusters. Silicon Valley andBeyond (New York: Cambridge University Press).

Carlino G. and W. Kerr (2015). 'Agglomeration and Innovation.' In Duranton, G., J.V. Hendersonand W.e. Strange (Eds.) Handbook ofRegional and Urban Economics Vol. 5: 349-404.

Chacar, AS., M. Lieberman (2003). 'Organizing for Technological Innovation in the U.S.Pharmaceutical Industry.' In Sorenson, O. and J. Baum (Eds.) Geography and Strategy Advances inStrategic Management 20: 299-322.

Chandler, A (1977). The Visible Hand (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press).

Chinitz, B. (1961). 'Contrasts in Agglomeration: New York and Pittsburgh.' American EconomicReview 51(2): 279-289.

Cobo MJ, López‐Herrera AG, Herrera‐Viedma E, Herrera F. Journal of the American Society forInformation Science and Technology... 62 (7 ..., 2011. 179, 2011

Cohen, W. and D. Levinthal (1990). 'Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning andInnovation.' Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1): 128-152.

Cortright, J. (2006). 'Making Sense of Clusters: Regional Competitiveness and EconomicDevelopment.' The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program,http ://www.brookings.edu/reports/2006/03cities_cortright.aspx.

Dahl, M. S. and O. Sorenson (2012). 'Home Sweet Home: Entrepreneurs' Location Choices andthePerformance of their Ventures.' Management Science 58(6): 1059-1071.

Delgado, M. (2016). 'The Colocation of Innovation and Production in Clusters.' DRUID 2016Working Paper.

Delgado, M. and K. Mills (2016). 'A New Categorization of the U.S. Economy: The Role of SupplyChain Industries.' MIT Working Paper.

Delgado, M., M.E. Porter, and S. Stern (2010). 'Clusters and Entrepreneurship.' Journal ofEconomic Geography 10(4): 495-518.

Delgado, M., M.E. Porter, and S. Stern (2012). 'Clusters, Convergence, and EconomicPerformance.' NBER Working Paper 18250.

Delgado, M., M.E. Porter, and S. Stern (2014). 'Clusters, Convergence, and EconomicPerformance.' Research Policy 43(10): 1785-1799.

Delgado, M., M.E. Porter, and S. Stern (2015). 'Clusters and the Great Recession.' DRUID 2015Working Paper.

32

















32

















33

Delgado, M., M.E. Porter, and S. Stern (2016). 'Defining Clusters of Related Industries.' Journal ofEconomic Geography 16(1): 1-38.

Delgado, M. and K. Zeuli (2016). 'Clusters and Regional Performance: Implications for Inner Cities.'Economic Development Quarterly 30(2): 117-136.

Dertouzos, M.L., R.K. Lester, R.M. Solow, and the MIT Productivity Commission (1989). Made inAmerica: Regaining the Productive Edge (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Dunne, T., M. Roberts, and L. Samuelson (1988). 'Patterns of Firm Entry and Exit in U.S.Manufacturing Industries.' RAND Journal of Economics 19: 495-515.

Dunning, J. H. (1998). 'Location and the Multinational Enterprise: A Neglected Factor?' Journal ofInternational Business Studies 29(1): 45-66.

Dumais, G., G. Ellison, and E.L. Glaeser (2002). 'Geographic Concentration as a DynamicProcess.' Review of Economics and Statistics 84(2): 193-204.

Duranton, G. and D. Puga (2001). 'Nursery Cities: Urban Diversity, Process Innovation, and the LifeCycle of Products.' American Economic Review 91(5): 1454-1477.

Duranton, G. and H.G. Overman (2005). 'Testing for Localization Using Micro-Geographic Data.'Review of Economic Studies 72(4): 1077-1106.

Ellison, G. and E. Glaeser (1997). 'Geographic Concentration in U.S . Manufacturing Industries: ADartboard Approach.' Journal of Political Economy 105: 889-927.

Ellison, G., E. Glaeser, and W. Kerr (2010). 'What Causes Industry Agglomeration? Evidence fromCoagglomeration Patterns.' The American Economic Review 100(3): 1195-1213.

Enright, M. (2000). 'Regional Clusters and Multinational Enterprises: Independence, Dependence orInterdependence?' International Studies ofManagement and Organization 30(2): 114138.

Entrepreneurial Quality and Performance

Everitt, B.S., S. Landau, M. Leese, and D. Stahl (2011). Cluster Analysis, 5th Edition (Chichester,UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd).

Feldman, M.P. (1994). The Geography of Innovation (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers).

Feldman, M.P. (1999). 'The New Economics of Innovation, Spillovers and Agglomeration: AReview of Empirical Studies.' Economics ofInnovation and New Technology 8(1-2): 525.

Feldman, M.P. and D. Audretsch (1999). 'Innovation in Cities: Science-based Diversity,Specialization, and Localized Competition.' European Economic Review 43: 409-429.

Feldman, M.P., J. Francis, and 1 Bercovitz (2005). 'Creating a Cluster While Building a Firm:Entrepreneurs and the Formation ofIndustrial Clusters.' Regional Studies 39(1): 129-41.Feldman, M.P., A.G. Reed, L. Lanahan, G. McLaurin, K. Nelson, and A. Reamer (2012).'Innovative Data Sources for Economic Analysis.' E-book.

33


















33


















34

Feser, E.J. 2005. 'Benchmark Value Chain Industry Clusters for Applied Regional Research.'Regional Economics Applications Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Feser, E.J., H. Renski, and H. Goldstein (2008). 'Clusters and Economic Development Outcomes`.Economic Development Quarterly 22(4) : 324-344.

Frenken, K., F.G. van Oort, and T. Verburg (2007). 'Related Variety, Unrelated Variety, andRegional Economic Growth.' Regional Studies 41(5): 685-697.

Fort, T. (2011). 'Breaking Up is Hard to Do: Why Firms Fragment Production across Locations.' USCensus Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No. CES-WP-13-35.

Fuchs, E. and R. Kirchain (2010). 'Design for Location? The Impact of Manufacturing Offshore onTechnology Competitiveness in the Optoelectronics Industry.' Management Science 56(12): 2323-2349.

Gans, J., S. Stern, and J. Wu (2016). 'The Foundations of Entrepreneurial Strategy.' MIT WorkingPaper.

Giroud, X. (2013). 'Proximity and Investment: Evidence from Plant-Level Data.' QuarterlyJournal of Economics 128(2): 861-915.

Glaeser, E.L. and W.R. Kerr (2009). 'Local Industrial Conditions and Entrepreneurship: How Muchof the Spatial Distribution Can We Explain? ' Journal of Economics andManagement Strategy 18(3): 623-663.

Guzman, J. and S. Stem (2015). 'Where is Silicon Valley.' Science 347 (no. 6222): 606-609.

Guzman J. and Stern S. (2015) “Nowcasting and Placecasting Entrepreneurial Quality andPerformance”. NBER Working Paper #20954

Guzman J. and Stern S. (2016) "The State of American Entrepreneurship: New Estimates of theQuantity and Quality of Entrepreneurship for 15 US States, 1988-2014"

Helper, S., J.P. MacDuffie, and C.F. Sabel (2000). 'Pragmatic Collaborations: AdvancingKnowledge While Controlling Opportunism.' Industrial and Corporate Change 9(3):44383.

Henderson, J.V. (2003), 'Marshall's Scale Economies,' Journal of Urban Economics 53: 1-28.

Henderson, J.V. and Y. Ono (2008). 'Where Do Manufacturing Firms Locate their Headquarters?'Journal of Urban Economics 63(2): 431-450.

Herrera F., Herrera-Viedma E. (2000) Linguistic decision analysis: steps for solving decisionproblems under lingustic information. Fuzzy Sets Systems 114: 67-68

Innovation Technik (2012). The quality label for cluster organizations-criteria processes, frameworkof implementation. European Cluster Excellence Initiative (ECEI)

34

















34

















35

Jaffe, A. , M. Trajtenberg , and R. Henderson (1993). 'Geographic Localization of KnowledgeSpillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations.' Quarterly Journal of Economics 108: 577598.

Kalnins, A. and F. Lafontaine (2013). 'Too far away? The Effect of Distance to Headquarters onBusiness Establishment Performance. ' American Economic J. : Microeconomics 5(3): 157179.

Ketels, C. and O. Memedovic (2008). 'From Clusters to Cluster-Based EconomicDevelopment.'International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development 1(3):375391.

Ketels C. and S. Protsiv (2013). 'Clusters and the New Growth Path for Europe.' WWWforEuropeWorking Paper No. 14.

Ketokivi, M. and J. AIi-Yrkkö (2009). 'Unbundling R&D and Manufacturing: Postindustrial Myth orEconomic Reality?' Review of Policy Research 26(1-2): 35-54.

Kerr, W. and S. Kominers (2010). 'Agglomerative Forces and Cluster Shapes.' NBER Working Paper16639.Koo, J. (2005). 'Knowledge-based Industry Clusters : Evidenced by Geographical Patterns ofPatents in Manufacturing.' Urban Studies 42: 1487-505.Krugman, P. (1991). 'Increasing Returns and Economic Geography.' Journal of Political Economy99(3): 483-499.

Lammer-Camp T. Meier G., Nerger M. (2014) Cluster Collaboration and business Support Tools tofacilitate Entrepreneurship, Cross-sectorial Collaboration and growth. European Cluster Observatory

Lessard, D., D. Teece, and S. Leih (2016). 'The Dynamic Capabilities of Meta-multinationals.'Global Strategy Journal, forthcoming.Lessons from the Model Demonstrator Regions: Service Innovation Policy in Practice RegionalInnovation Scoreboard

Mariani, M. (2002). 'Next to Production or to Technological Clusters? The Economics andManagement ofR&D Location.' Journal ofManagement and Governance 6: 131-152.

Markusen, A. (1996). 'Sticky Places in Slippery Space: A Typology of Industrial Districts .'Economic Geography 72(3): 293-313.

Marshall, A. (1920). Principles ofEconomics; An Introductory Volume (London: Macmillan andCo.).

Maskell, P. and A. Mahnberg (2007). 'Myopia, Knowledge Development, and Cluster Evolution.'Journal of Economic Geography 7: 603--618.

Moretti, E. (2004). 'Workers' Education, Spillovers, and Productivity: Evidence from Plant-LevelProduction Functions.' American Economic Review 94(3): 656--690.

Murray, F., S. Stern, G. Campbell, and A MacCormack (2012). 'Grand Innovation Prizes: ATheoretical, Normative, and Empirical Evaluation.' Research Policy 41(10): 1779-1792

35















35















36

Neffke, F., M. Henning, and R. Boschma (2011). 'How Do Regions Diversify over Time? IndustryRelatedness and the Development ofNew Growth Paths in Regions. ' Economic Geography 87(3):237-265.

Neffke, F. and M. Henoing (2013). 'Skill-relatedness and Firm Diversification.' StrategicManagement Journal 34(3): 297-316.

Nowcasting and Placecasting

Pisano, G.P. (1997). The Development Factory: Unlocking the Potential of Process Innovation(Boston: Harvard Business School Press).

Pisano, G.P. and W.C. Shih (2012). Producing Prosperity: Why America Needs a ManufacturingRenaissance (Harvard Business Review Press).

Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance (NewYork: Free Press).

Porter, M.E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage ofNations (New York: Free Press).

Porter, M.E. (1996). 'What is Strategy?' Harvard Business Review November: 61-78.

Porter, M.E. (1998). 'Clusters and Competition: New Agendas for Companies, Governments, and Institutions.'In M.E. Porter (ed.), On Competition, 197-299 (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).

Porter, M.E. (2000). 'Location, Clusters, and Company Strategy. ' In GL. Clark, M. Feldman, and M. Gertler(eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Porter, M.E. (2003). 'The Economic Performance of Regions.' Regional Studies 37: 549-578.

Porter, M.E. and J.W. Rivkin (2012). 'Choosing the United States.' Harvard Business Review90(3): 80-91.

Regional Innovation Monitor/ Investment Plan

Regional Innovation Strategies Program (RIS)

Rosenthal, S.S. and W.e. Strange (2004). 'Evidence on the Nature and Sources ofAgglomeration Economies.'In J.V. Henderson and J.F. Thisse (eds.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics Vol. 4. (ElsevierNorth-Holland Amsterdam).

Rosenthal, S.S. and W.C. Strange (2010). 'Small Establishments/Big Effects: Agglomeration, IndustrialOrganization, and Entrepreneurship.' In E. G1aeser (ed.), Agglomeration Economics (National Bureau ofEconomic Research, Inc.), 277-302.

Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University).

Shaver, J.M. and F. Flyer (2000). 'Agglomeration Economies, Firm Heterogeneity, and Foreign DirectInvestment in the United States.' Strategic Management Journal 21(12): 1175-1193.

36



















36



















37

Solvell, Ö., G. Lindqvist, and C. Ketels (2003). The Cluster Initiative Greenbook (Stockholm, Sweden: IvoryTower AB).

Sorenson, O. and P.G. Audia (2000). 'The Social Structure of Entrepreneurial Activity: GeographicConcentration of Footwear Production in the United States, 1940-1989.' American J. Sociology 106 (2): 424-462.

Storper, M. (1995). 'The Resurgence of Regional Economies, Ten Years Later: The Region as a Nexus ofUntraded Interdependencies.' European Urban and Regional Studies 2: 191-221. Swann, P. (1992). TheDynamics ofIndustrial Clusters (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Tripathy A. and S.D. Eppinger (2013). 'Structuring Work Distribution for Global Product DevelopmentOrganizations.' Production and Operations Management 22(6): 1557-1575. Van den Bulte, C. and R.K.Moenaert (1998). 'The Effects of R&D Team Co-location on Communication Patterns among R&D,Marketing, and Manufacturing. ' Management Science 44(11): 1-18.

Vernon, R. (1966). 'International Investment and International Trade in the Product Cycle.' Quarterly JournalofEconomics 80 (2): 190-207.

Zhou P et al. November 10, 2016. 'University-Industry Collaboration in china and the USA: a BibliometricComparison'.

37







37







38

7. ANNEX I: PRIMARY REGIONAL METRICS

This annex aims to provide a description of some of the indicators defined in Section 4 “Definition ofIndicators”, sorting them in the same way, i.e.,by axe.

In order to facilitate the reading of the annex, each table contains information regarding one region.

The data provided are designed to help initiate and frame ACTTiVAte's regions thinking about data-driven decision making for each regional innovative and entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Much of the information provided is at a national level, but represents commonly used measures toevaluate regional innovation and entrepreneurship and to provide comparisons. The measures are notmeant to be exhaustive, but rather informative examples of publicly available information to outsideobservers. Where possible, the data is for each ACTTiVAte's specific region.

Not all measures will be relevant to every area, so we may emphasize different metrics based on theunique qualities of each ACTTiVAte's individual region.

38







38







39

Region Name: Andalusia

INNOVATION CAPACITY ANALYSIS

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

No.

of f

ilings

010.00020.00030.00040.00050.00060.00070.000

Publ

ishe

d pa

pers

39



Year

Patents Filed / yearSource: OEPM

Year

Published Papers / yearSource: World Bank

39



40

010.00020.00030.00040.00050.00060.00070.00080.000

No.

of S

TEM

gra

duat

es

0,000,200,400,600,801,001,201,40

R&D

as

% o

f GD

P

Gross R&D ExpenditureSource: OECD

02.0004.0006.0008.000

10.00012.00014.00016.00018.00020.000

GD

P pe

r cap

tia

40

Year

STEM graduates / yearSource: OECD

Year


Year

GDP per capitaSource: OECD

40

41

ENTERPRENEURSHIP CAPACITY ANALYSIS

05

101520253035

VC In

vest

men

t (eu

ros)

Venture Capital Investments in Region / yearSource: ASCRI

020406080

100120140160

Day

s

No. of days to start a businessSource: World Bank

02.0004.0006.0008.000

10.00012.00014.00016.00018.00020.000

GD

P pe

r cap

ita

41


Year

Venture Capital Investments in Region / yearSource: ASCRI

Year


Year


41


42

15,516

16,517

17,518

18,519

19,520

20,521

Tota

l Em

ploy

men

t (in

milli

ons)

42

Year

Total Employment / yearSource: IMF

42

43

Region Name: Comunidad de Madrid


05.000

10.00015.00020.00025.00030.000

No.

of f

ilings

010.00020.00030.00040.00050.00060.000

Publ

ishe

d pa

pers

0

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

250.000

300.000

No.

of S

TEM

gra

duat

es

43



Year

Patents Filed / yearSource: OEPM

Year

Published Papers / yearSource: World Bank

Year

STEM graduates/ yearSource: OECD

43



44

0,000,200,400,600,801,001,201,401,60

R&D

as

% o

f GD

PGross R&D Expenditure

Source: INE

0,005000,00

10000,0015000,0020000,0025000,0030000,0035000,0040000,00

GD

P pe

r cap

tia

44

Year

Gross R&D ExpenditureSource: INE

Year

GDP per capitaSource: World Bank

44

45


020406080

100120140160

Day

sNo. of days to start a business

Source: World Bank

0,005000,00

10000,0015000,0020000,0025000,0030000,0035000,0040000,00

GD

P pe

r cap

tia

1200000125000013000001350000140000014500001500000

Tota

l Em

ploy

men

t

45


Year


Year

GDP per capitaSource: World Bank

Year

Total Employment / yearSource: www.madrid.es

45


46

Region Name: NorteINNOVATION CAPACITY ANALYSIS

0200400600800

1.0001.2001.400

No.

of f

ilings

05.000

10.00015.00020.00025.000

Publ

ishe

d pa

pers

05.000

10.00015.00020.00025.000

No.

of S

TEM

gra

duat

es

46


Year

Patents Filed / yearSource: Pordata-WDI

Year

Published Papers / yearSource: Pordata-WDI

Year

STEM graduates/ yearSource: Pordata

46


47

0,000,501,001,502,00

R&D

as

% o

f GD

PGross R&D Expenditure

Source: Pordata

15000,00

15500,00

16000,00

16500,00

17000,00

17500,00

GD

P pe

r cap

tia

47

Year

Gross R&D ExpenditureSource: Pordata

Year

GDP per capitaSource: Pordata

47

48


0123456

Day


Source: World Bank

02000400060008000

10000120001400016000

GD

P pe

r cap

tia

4000420044004600480050005200

Tota

l Em

ploy

men

t (th

ousa

nd)

48


Year


Year


Year

Total Employment / year

Source: Pordata

48


49

Region Name: Ireland (S&E Region)INNOVATION CAPACITY ANALYSIS

0100200300400500600700800900

No.

of f

ilings

02000400060008000

100001200014000

Publ

ishe

d pa

pers

010.00020.00030.00040.00050.000

No.

of S

TEM

gra

duat

es

49


Year

Patents Filed / yearSource: OECD

Year

Published Papers / yearSource: www.scimagojr.com

Year


49


50

0500

1.0001.5002.0002.5003.0003.500

R&D

as

% o

f GD

P

Gross R&D ExpenditureSource: WDI

010.00020.00030.00040.00050.00060.000

GD

P pe

r cap

tia

50

Year

Gross R&D ExpenditureSource: WDI

Year

GDP per capitaSource: WDI

50

51


0

100.000.000

200.000.000

300.000.000

400.000.000

500.000.000

600.000.000

VC In

vest

men

t

Venture Capital Investments in Region/ yearSource: www.ivca.ie

0

5

10

15

20

Day

s


010.00020.00030.00040.00050.00060.000

GD

P pe

r cap

tia

51


Year

Venture Capital Investments in Region/ yearSource: www.ivca.ie

Year


Year


51


52

464850525456586062

Tota

l Em

ploy

men

t

52

Year

Total Employment / yearSource: World Bank

52

53

Region Name: Mazowieckie


0100200300400500600

No.

of f

ilings

010.00020.00030.00040.00050.00060.00070.00080.000

GD

P pe

r cap

tia

53



Year


Year


53



54

Region Name: Slaskie


050

100150200250300350400

No.

of f

ilings

010.00020.00030.00040.00050.000

GD

P pe

r cap

tia

54



Year


Year


54



55

Region Name: Podkarpackie


0102030405060708090

No.

of f

ilings

05.000

10.00015.00020.00025.00030.00035.000

GD

P pe

r cap

tia

55



Year


Year


55



56

Region Name: EasternNetherlandsINNOVATION CAPACITY ANALYSIS

050

100150200250300350400

No.

of f

ilings

05000

100001500020000250003000035000

Publ

ishe

d pa

pers

5300054000550005600057000580005900060000

No.

of S

TEM

gra

duat

es

56


Year


Year

Published Papers / yearSource: World Bank - WDI

Year


56


57

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

R&D

as

% o

f GD

P


05.000

10.00015.00020.00025.00030.00035.00040.00045.000

GD

P pe

r cap

tia

57

Year


Year


57

58


02468

10

Day


Source: World Bank

010.00020.00030.00040.00050.00060.000

GD

P pe

r cap

tia

820083008400850086008700880089009000

Tota

l Em

ploy

men

t

58


Year


Year


Year

Total Employment / yearSource: OECD

58


59

Region Name: Southern NetherlandsINNOVATION CAPACITY ANALYSIS

0500

1.0001.5002.0002.500

No.

of f

ilings

05000

100001500020000250003000035000

Publ

ishe

d pa

pers

5300054000550005600057000580005900060000

No.

of S

TEM

gra

duat

es

59


Year


Year

Published Papers / yearSource: World Bank - WDI

Year


59


60

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

R&D

as

% o

f GD

P


05.000

10.00015.00020.00025.00030.00035.00040.00045.000

GD

P pe

r cap

tia

60

Year


Year


60

61


02468

10

Day


Source: World Bank

010.00020.00030.00040.00050.00060.000

GD

P pe

r cap

tia

820083008400850086008700880089009000

Tota

l Em

ploy

men

t

61


Year


Year


Year

Total Employment / yearSource: OECD

61


Documents

Regional specific challenges to be addressed through ACTTiVAte · 2019-06-05 · innovation frontier moves inexorably forward, Europe is in danger of falling further behind, putting