SmartSpecThis project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under

grant agreement number 320131.

Experiences from 16 European regions working on Smart Specialisation

Michaela Trippl

CIRCLE, Lund University

CRU Seminar: Implementing Smart Specialisation

2 September 2015, Aalborg University, Denmark

SmartSpec

Project: “Smart Specialisation for Regional Innovation” (Seventh Framework

Programme) 2014-2016

Eleven Partners (Cardiff (coordinator), CIRCLE Lund, Newcastle, Groningen, Utrecht,

Prague, Padua, Deusto, amongst others)

Research in five WPs:

WP 1: Entrepreneurial Search Dynamics WP 2: Social Innovation WP 3: Regions with Less Developed Research and Innovation Systems WP 4: Underpinning Effective Strategy Design WP 5: Regional Living Laboratories

Introduction

SmartSpec

Aims:

Analysis of smart specialization approaches and practices in different regional contexts in Europe

Comparative assessment of 16 European regions: how do different types of regions engage in smart specialization approaches? how do these approaches (and barriers to them) differ?

Towards a better understanding of place-based characteristics of smart specialisation approaches

Mixed-methods approach:

Secondary data analysis Desk-based analysis of policy documents & evaluative material In-depth interviews with key stakeholders (160 in Phase I) Focus group meetings & additional interviews (Phase II)

WP5: Aims & Methods

SmartSpec

SmartSpec

Regional Profiles

Analysis of Smart Specialisation Practices

In-depth review of key themes

Socio-economic characteristics

Innovation performance

Governance structures, policy capabilities & quality of governance

RIS organisations

Economic structure & Specialisation

Beyond policy-dominated prioritisation processes in less developed RIS

RIS transformation and the role of universities in S3

Role of institutions, institutional bottlenecks and needs for reform

Strategy, implementation and assessment of S3

Role of social innovation in S3

Multi-level & multi-actor governance

Intraregional & interregional connectedness

WP 5 Approach

Social innovation

Role of a strong research sector in less-developed RIS

Complex evolving multi-governance settings

Internationalisation of S3 & policy coordination across borders

Policy monitoring

RIS transformation & new path development

Widening university participation & involvement of MNCs

Role of clusters & cross-fertilization between clusters

Phase I Phase II

SmartSpec

Regions exhibit distinctive regional innovation system (RIS)

configurations & face unique transformation challenges regarding

their organisational & institutional structures

Three main types of RIS (Isaksen & Trippl 2014; Trippl, Asheim &

Miörner 2015)

Organisationally thin RIS

Organisationally thick and specialised RIS

Organisationally thick and diversified RIS

Configurations of RIS and transformation challenges

SmartSpec

Industrial structures

Dominance of traditional economic activities: agriculture, furniture, food, textile, tourism (Basilicata,

Murcia, Lodz, North East Romania)

Co-existence of large, externally controlled firms (performing low value-added activities) & SMEs

with limited innovation capabilities (Murcia and Basilicata)

Innovative MNC & SMEs with limited innovation capacity and ambitions (Eszak-Alfold)

Few branches with functioning cluster structures (Eszak-Alfold: pharmaceutical & food)

Knowledge & supporting organisations

Presence of universities and research organisations but weak connections to local firms

(inappropriate incentives, reward systems, unfavourable academic mindset, weak technology

transfer structures, mutual mistrust, low demand for university knowledge)

In some regions universities play an important role at a more strategic level (e.g.: involvement in

smart spec strategies: North East Romania, Eszak Alfold)

Support organisations lack size, overlap or are missing (TTOs (Basilicata, North East Romania),

organisations promoting DUI innovation mode of (Murcia)

RIS with weak innovation capabilities: organisationally thin RIS

SmartSpec

Institutional configurations: variety of systemic and institutional bottlenecks

Limited tradition of cooperation & low levels of trust among key stakeholders (both within and between triple/quadruple helix actors) (Murcia, Lodz, Eszak-Alfold)

Silo approach in government and political instability (Slovenia)

Weak coordination between support organisations; fragmented institutional support structures (Basilicata, Lodz)

Lack of governance mechanisms that allow for the involvement of stakeholders (Slovenia)

RIS with weak innovation capabilities: organisationally thin RIS

SmartSpec

Industrial structures

Regions with highly diversified economic structures: PACA, Scania

Regions with rather specialised industrial structures (e.g. More and Romsdal (traditional manufacturing industries); Tampere (mechanical engineering and automation, ICT); Navarre (automotive industry, agribusiness, machinery)

Knowledge & supporting organisations

Well endowed with knowledge and support organisations organisationally thick structures

Stronger connections between universities and firms & active involvement in development of smart spec strategies (exception: PACA: “beyond traditional technology push models”)

Missing elements in some regions: basic research (More and Romsdal), competence centres (Northern Ireland), technology transfer agencies (Bremen)

RIS with strong innovation capabilities: organisationally thick RIS (diversified /

specialised)

SmartSpec

Institutional configurations: favourable institutional set-up but various

coordination failures

Coordination challenges within complex multilevel governance systems

(Tampere)

Insufficient collaboration and coordination between knowledge organisations

(More and Romsdal); intermediary/support organisations (Northern Ireland,

Scania, Tampere, Navarre, PACA)

Weakly developed coordination structures between government departments

(Northern Ireland)

RIS with strong innovation capabilities: organisationally thick RIS (diversified /

specialised)

SmartSpec

Overview:

Policy contexts and inclusive governance (forms of involvement on non-policy actors)

Design, implementation and assessment of smart spec strategies Prioritisation challenges Implementation challenges Monitoring and evaluation challenges

  Smart spec: continuity of or break with past practices

Smart specialisation

SmartSpec

Smart spec practices take place in fairly different policy contexts (complex multilevel governance constellations):

Regions located strongly centralized policy contexts: Slovenia, Eszak-Alfold

Regions with some degree of autonomy: e.g. North East Romania, Scania, Basilicata, Lodz, South

Moravia, PACA (strong variation within this group)

Regions with strong autonomy: Navarre, Murcia, Northern Ireland

Smart spec practices strongly shaped by levels of autonomy & financial resources at the regional level as well

as experiences of policy actors

Key issues:

Sound engagement of various levels of government in regions’ smart spec strategy

Coordination mechanisms to ensure that innovation policies from different administrative levels are aligned

with the regions’ emerging smart spec strategies

Smart spec: Policy contexts

SmartSpec

Large variety of forms of involvement of non-policy actors

No active involvement of non-policy stakeholders: e.g. Slovenia

Involvement of stakeholders but led by regional authorities (workshops, working groups)

Narrower set of actors (mainly industries, industry panels or cluster organizations): Northern

Ireland and Bremen)

Wide variety of stakeholders: South Moravia, PACA, North East Romania, Murcia, Eszak Alfold

Institutionalized forms of involvement:

Basilicata: partnership among regional stakeholders representing the most important RIS actors

(“partenariato”)

Scania: involvement of key individuals (not only based on their organizational association but on

their personal engagement in innovation issues): Research and Innovation Council FIRS

Smart spec: Inclusive governance

SmartSpec

Prioritisation challenges

Use of data to support selection of priorities: analyses of quantitative data (data routinely collected by statistical agencies, tailored

analyses of socioeconomic factors) qualitative data (workshops, thematic studies, extensive interviews, expert rounds)

Selected priorities: Very broad (encompassing all sectors) no “real” prioritization – lacking concentration of

activities constituting regional strengths (e.g. Slovenia, Murcia) Identification of the strongest sectors (Eszak Alfold, Lodz) reflects rent-seeking behaviour,

wish to enhance political legitimacy Wide priorities, reflecting mainly existing economic structure path extension (South Moravia,

Bremen, Basilicata) Prioritization reflects new path development: focus on “arenas” and “growth ecosystems”

(Scania, Tampere) shift away from sectoral logic to inter-industry cross-overs

Smart spec: Design, implementation and assessment of smart specialisation strategies

SmartSpec

Example: Arena Approach in Scania (Sweden)

Source: Söderström et al. (2012: 4)

SmartSpec

Example: More and Romsdal (Norway)

SmartSpec

Implementation challenges:

In most regions: implementation is still in its infancy

Regions without an action plan Regions with an action plan involving a mix of existing instruments Regions with action plan involving a mix of new and existing instruments

Most regions belong to the group where an action plan has been formulated in a broad sense and making use of existing policy instruments, but where implementation in practice still is an open question

Smart spec: Design, implementation and assessment of smart specialisation strategies

SmartSpec

Monitoring and evaluation systems

Monitoring and evaluation practices are lacking in many regions (Scania, Lodz, Basilicata) but increasing awareness of need for these practices to be put in place

Acknowledgement of the need for developing new metrics & output indicators (E.g.: Tampere: shift to arena-based innovation support creates data issues in terms of clear metrics for monitoring)

Some of the plans that are better developed include those for South Moravia, PACA, Murcia and North East Romania in which clear monitoring plans, list of indicators and evaluation practices are covered

Smart spec: Design, implementation and assessment of smart specialisation strategies

SmartSpec

Smart specialisation has induced changes in innovation policy making in many regions: break

with past practices, but several challenges remain (selection):

Broad based innovation policies: too strong focus on STI policies, underrepresentation

of DUI policies in some regions; consideration of non-technological innovation, service

innovation, public sector innovation, social innovation as key future challenge

Involvement of non-policy stakeholders in smart spec policy processes: clear

evidence for inclusive approaches; need to solve challenges related to vested interests,

institutionalisation of collaboration

Selected priorities for policy intervention: reflect modernisation of existing economic

strengths (path extension) & support for emerging activities (path renewal & creation); but

in some regions: too wide priorities (no ‘real’ prioritisation) & neglect of cross-sectoral

activities based on related variety and combinations of knowledge bases

External connectedness: creation of links with capacity and capability outside the

region is not a widespread phenomenon

Smart spec: continuity of or break with past practices?

SmartSpec

Many thanks for your attention

michaela.trippl@circle.lu.se