Fill and Sign the E Kimley Horn Proposalpdf Sumter County Form

Evaluation of INTERREG IIIC RFO TOWER Final Report To the Länsstyrelsen Östergötland / Östergötland County Administrative Board Department for Regional Development SE-581 86 Linköping Schweden Trier, December 12th 2007 TAURUS-Institute Environmental, Regional and Economic Research and Consultancy Universitätsring 15 D-54286 Trier (Germany) www.taurus-institut.de contact: sauerborn@uni-trier.de Authors: Klaus Sauerborn, Berta Rato Final Report December 2007 1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................6 2 Conceptual Remarks.................................................................................................8 3 Management and co-ordination...............................................................................9 3.1 Bottle-Neck-Analysis Methodology .......................................................................... 9 3.2 Results from questionnaires and interviews ......................................................... 11 3.3 Conclusions from Bottle-Neck-Analysis ................................................................ 15 3.4 Project Selection Procedure.................................................................................... 16 3.4.1 Selection Procedure and Criteria ..................................................................... 17 3.4.2 Assignment of Projects to Components ........................................................... 18 3.4.3 Target Groups.................................................................................................. 19 4 Project Level ............................................................................................................21 4.1 Accelerative Bio Business Activity I+II(ABBA)...................................................... 22 4.2 Analysis, Forecasting, Planning (AFP)................................................................... 24 4.3 Developing International Businesses in Clusters (DiBiC ) ................................... 27 4.4 Experimentation of sustainability actions for enterprises (EASE)....................... 30 4.5 Fuelling Entrepreneurial Mindsets in the TOWER Region (FEMTO) .................... 33 4.6 Innovationcenter (InnoCenter) ................................................................................ 35 4.7 Inspiring Women Entrepreneurs (IWE)................................................................... 38 4.8 Rural development ................................................................................................... 41 4.9 Successful Implementation of Eco-design in Small and Medium-sized Companies (SIMPLE) ............................................................................................... 44 4.10 Spin Off Generator (SOG)........................................................................................ 47 4.11 Tower Business Angels Network (TOWBUSANG)................................................. 49 4.12 Young Alumni (YAB) ................................................................................................ 51 5 Does Tower improve methods and tools for stimulating economic growth? ..54 5.1 Component 2: Strategies for sustainable economic growth ................................ 54 5.2 Component 3: Strengthened technology infrastructure/transfer to SME'S ........ 57 5.3 Component 4: Competitive and knowledge-based entrepreneurship ................. 58 5.4 Component 5: Sustainable SME's........................................................................... 60 6 Does TOWER improve economic development strategies and programmes? 62 6.1 Relationship between project level and regional / strategic level........................ 62 Final Report December 2007 6.2 Impacts of projects on regional / strategic level ................................................... 65 6.3 Conclusions.............................................................................................................. 65 7 Does TOWER improve co-operation between the regional partners and between the regions? .............................................................................................66 7.1 Composition of the Partnership.............................................................................. 67 7.2 Cooperation at the project level between the different project partners............. 70 7.3 Conclusions.............................................................................................................. 71 8 The value added of transnational cooperation ....................................................72 8.1 Improvement of regional methods and implementation of strategies................. 72 8.2 Contribution to regional development ................................................................... 74 9 Horizontal objectives: equality of opportunity and environmental sustainability ...................................................................................................................................75 9.1 Conclusions.............................................................................................................. 78 10 Summarized conclusions and approaches for improvements ..........................80 10.1 Impacts in the cooperating regions ...............................................................80 10.2 Recommendations for improvement .............................................................81 Annex 1: Synopsis of the projects approved under the TOWER programme ........1 Annex 2: Questionnaires for interviews (regional coordinators, project participants)...............................................................................................................3 Annex 3 Names of Interviewees.................................................................................11 Final Report December 2007 List of Tables Table 1: Extend of the survey........................................................................................10 Table 2: BNA results by region......................................................................................12 Table 3: Assignment of projects to components of programme....................................19 Table 4: Overview over the target groups of the TOWER components........................20 Table 5: Involvement of partners in projects .................................................................68 Table 6: Number of co-operating partners per project ..................................................69 Table 7: Institutional sector of partner organisations in projects ...................................69 List of Figures Figure 1: Results of the BNA for all regions ..................................................................11 Figure 2: Results of the BNA by region .........................................................................12 Final Report December 2007 Executive Summary TOWER (”Towards Sustainable Excellence by Innovating Regions”) is a Regional Framework Operation (RFO) funded by the European INTERREG IIIC programme. TOWER’s main objective is to create and improve strategies, methodologies and tools for sustainable economic growth, through interregional cooperation. A process oriented evaluation was conducted by TAURUS-Institute in order to analyse the success of the TOWER approach, to enhance its quality during the implementation phase and to identify approaches for future improvements in interregional co-operation. TOWER concentrates on four fields of regional development (components), supported by the component ‘Management and coordination’. A) THE TOWER COMPONENTS - OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS Component 1: Management and coordination Objectives: Management and coordination of the TOWER Programme Results: The TOWER Programme was effective and efficient in delivering its objectives. All objectives on the strategic level, project level and inter-regional level have been attained. Component 2: Strategies for sustainable economic growth Objectives: “Improving the economic growth strategies and their implementation through an exchange of experiences and best practice of tools and instruments in a mutual learning process” Results: The projects approved cover a big range of possible approaches for improving or contributing to regional growth strategies. All of them proved effective and yielded interesting outcomes, either on the level of general and comprehensive approaches or on the level of specific approaches, which focus more on target groups like women or young alumni or on specific tools. Component 3: Strengthened technology infrastructure/transfer to SME'S Objectives: "Creating strengthened technology infrastructure in regions and transfer to SME’s. Strengthening the competitiveness of SMEs by increasing their level of innovation and offering them improved support services, development of knowledge-based business clusters/networks". Results: The projects supported were very heterogeneous; one was a pilot operation providing innovation services, the other supported spin-offs from companies and the third the creation of a tool to 1 Final Report December 2007 evaluate business weaknesses and then to provide the right support. All of them have been successfully implemented, contributing directly to the component’s objectives. Component 4: Competitive and knowledge-based entrepreneurship Objectives: “Projects will exchange experience of how to stimulate entrepreneurship and increase the competitiveness among SMEs, fuelling entrepreneurial mindsets, new ways of supporting start-ups and existing SME’s, and implementing new instruments for increasing spin-offs.” Results: The projects run are very much in line with the objectives of the component to contribute to a competitive and knowledge-based entrepreneurship. The approach to fuel entrepreneurial mindsets respectively to improve the capital base of young enterprises was dealing with bottlenecks of the region in an innovative way and has potential to be further elaborated, not only in the participating regions. Component 5: Sustainable SME's Objectives: "strengthen the competitiveness and viability of SME's by adapting sustainable development concepts, create a joint knowledge basis for SME's environmental performance by collected regional best practice, identify and test tools for support of environmental improvement and marketing of sustainability among SME's." Results: The three projects under Component 5 address the promotion of sustainable development in a different way. One focuses on social responsibility, the second focuses on the support of the development of eco-products and the third on the creation of specific environmental technologies aiming at the resolution of environmental negative impacts within agro-food clusters. The success of the projects under Component 5 is indicated by the big number of businesses who participated and the considerable number of eco-products and eco-innovations which have been developed. Horizontal objectives Objectives: The TOWER programme had as horizontal objectives the equality of opportunity and the promotion of environmental sustainability. Results: The equality objectives have been reached to a considerable extent, but almost exclusively for women. In future interregional initiative projects incentives for the better integration of ethnic minorities, disadvantaged elderly or young or disabled people should be set. The TOWER programme yielded some very interesting and successful projects regarding the environmental sustainability objective. However, the mainstreaming dimension, i.e. the consideration of environmental aspects in all projects, should be emphasized more in the future. This could help not only to stimulate more economic growth, but also to encourage ‘green growth’ 2 Final Report December 2007 B) IMPACTS OF THE TOWER PROGRAMME IN THE PARTICIPATING REGIONS The TOWER programme has promoted a variety of approaches and functioned as a laboratory for innovative ideas and tools. Thus, it has had many positive impacts in the cooperating regions. These will help to enhance the competitiveness of the whole participating regions and to improve their positions in the global knowledge economy. The main impacts can be structured according to three groups: 1) Contribution to the competitiveness of the businesses in the participating regions Ç identification of new business opportunities, from the extension or possible extension of the market to other regions, in many cases from the promotion of international complementarities within the product chain; Ç development and testing of new products and methods, e.g., for business development, thus the possibility to increase the revenues of the company or to create new companies; Ç installation of new equipments providing support to companies or the preparation of conditions for their future installation (e.g. InnoCenter as "single-contact point" for several services regarding innovation); Ç improvement of qualifications or know-how relevant to improve the company’s competitiveness; (e.g., training courses on international relations or knowledge about the benefits of having sustainable development in a company); Ç increase of entrepreneurship/leadership capacities aiming at different target groups: young students; women; alumni; Ç understanding and consolidating local/regional clusters. 2) Stimulation of sustainable growth of the regional economy through development and application of approaches for regional analysis, strategy and development and planning Ç development of new tools and methods for different approaches or aspects of regional development (e.g. methods for a better SWOT analysis, concepts for cluster development, rural development); Ç impacts on the strategic level such as the acceleration of processes already started; the introduction of new approaches; the mainstreaming of project results (tools) by integrating them into the existing support infrastructure for regional development; 3 Final Report December 2007 Ç new ideas (new from the point of view of the participating regions) were put on the agenda of the regional strategy shapers and tested in pilot projects. Some of them seem to have a big potential for future development and strategies; Ç the outcomes of the projects were taken into account for drafting new operational programmes for EU funding. 3) Improvement of technical as well as cultural competences of various stakeholders (in development agencies, in research institutions, in politics, in businesses, in education, in consulting services sector) Ç exchange of technical know-how - learning and/or the common development of methods or strategies to address a specific problem; learning from each other; Ç promotion of a “cooperation culture” - to recognise that there may be others facing the same problem and looking for solutions to address it. Ç encouragement of intercultural learning, as important prerequisite for a successful future international cooperation, (e.g. knowledge of different working methods, knowledge about the regional policies of the other countries, the functioning of public administration or decision processes); ÇContribution to the capacity building of the participating institutions and the participating individuals in the fields of project management/ EU administrative procedures and technical competencies. C) RECOMMENDATIONS Application Phase 1) Better identify and clarify the interests, competences, objectives, methods, target groups and financing of the different partners in the preparatory phase. a. Reinforce a multi-step project initiation and monitoring; b. Guarantee the in-depth discussion and quality control of the project at the very beginning as well as through the implementation phase; c. ‘Do not re-invent the wheel’ - evaluate and monitor the innovative character of the projects (e.g., involve external experts, apply a multi-step project initiation); 4 Final Report December 2007 d. Guarantee more balanced budgets between all project partners, to avoid frustration and lack of motivation; e. Avoid "key-in-the-hand" methodologies or tools, i.e. developed or applied only by one partner; f. Promote projects with clear objectives and with well defined focus of intervention (avoid projects with interventions in many different fields); g. Clearly define the complementarities between the supported projects and other regional complementary interventions; h. Think about incentives and instruments which could enhance the quality of the projects with regard to the horizontal objectives (e.g. bonus on funding/ funding rate for extra efforts); i. Emphasize more the environmental sustainability dimension - promote the "green growth" Implementation Phase and Follow-up 2) Check possibilities of cooperation and/or complementarity between the different projects, set incentives to make use of them and monitor them; 3) Build regional ‘antennae’ to receive information about new developments: Ü create/improve the capacities of regions in order to have up-to date information about ongoing trends of regional development on the national and international level; Ü improve the skills of the staff in regional development agencies etc. to be able to better use the possibilities of regional development; Ü improve the cooperation with the applied researchers and consultants for specific issues of regional development; 4) Envisage to produce and/or to disseminate the innovative results of the Programme in a larger scale/EU level. Ü Check the options to participate in or to initiate a capitalization project under the INTERREG IV C framework. 5 Final Report December 2007 1 Introduction TOWER (”Towards Sustainable Excellence by Innovating Regions”) is a so- called Regional Framework Operation (RFO), funded by the European INTERRE IIIC programme. RFOs are set up as “MiniProgrammes”, in order to develop and improve strategies for regional development policies. TOWER is based on the co-operation of five European Regions: Östra Mellansvrige, Schweden, North West England, UK, Gelderland, Nethderlands, Del-Alfold, Hungary and Rhône-Alpes, France. TOWERs main objective is “to create and improve strategies, methodologies and tools for sustainable economic growth, through interregional cooperation” 1 . It concentrates on four fields of regional development (components), complemented by the component ‘Management and coordination’. 1. Management and Coordination; 2. Strategies for sustainable economic growth in regions; 3. Strengthened technology infrastructure in regions and transfer to SMEs; 4. Competitive and knowledge-based entrepreneurship; 5. Sustainable SMEs/ Greening of entrepreneurship. The core of the activities of TOWER programme lies in its sub-projects which strive for a unique and innovative combination of tools, all trying to stimulate entrepreneurship and growth within regions. The target groups of the tools are SMEs, universities, research centers/institutes, company associations and other public actors. The projects are supposed to serve as a kind of laboratory where innovative actions and tools which have already been tested on a regional level will be further elaborated and tested in a European context. The experiences and findings from the sub- projects shall be used to “improve regional strategies” 2 on the level of the participating regions as well as for inter-regional innovations and (action) learning processes. Hence, TOWER focuses on three different levels with different tasks: The project level for the development and testing of improved tools for regional development; The strategic level for the development of new tools for strategy shaping based on the findings of project level; 1 2 cf. Evaluation of INTERREG IIIC RFO TOWER, tender from 10.10.2005, p. 1 cf. Evaluation of INTERREG IIIC RFO TOWER, tender from 10.10.2005, p. 1f 6 Final Report December 2007 The interregional level for increased co-operation between the participating regions and enhancement of international exchange of the best practices. In order to assure the successful implementation of the TOWER programme, a process-oriented evaluation was commissioned to TAURUS-Institute. The overall objective of the evaluation is: To assess the levels and quality of co-operation and joint working between partners in the TOWER region, and to gauge the impact of the activities financed by Tower. Within that objective, the evaluation must address certain key questions: 1. Does TOWER improve co-operation between the regional partners and between the regions? 2. Does TOWER improve economic development strategies and programmes? 3. Does TOWER improve methods and tools for stimulating economic growth? 4. Is the TOWER programme effective and efficient in delivering its objectives? The final report of the evaluation provides the findings and conclusions for all key questions and is structured in the following way. After a presentation of the concept and the methodology in chapter 2, the management of the TOWER programme – an important prerequisite for the delivery of its objectives – is being analysed in chapter 3. The basis for the evaluation of the outputs, results and impacts of the TOWER programme are the activities of the projects. On the level of the projects, we find the most concrete kind of activities which directly yield outputs and results with regard to the objectives of the programme. Therefore, chapter 4 provides brief characterisations and assessments of all projects as a base for the analyses of results and impacts on the strategic and interregional level. Chapter 5 addresses the question whether TOWER yielded innovative tools and instruments for regional development. Then, the evaluation focuses on the effects on regional strategies and programmes (chapter 6), followed by the examination of the ways and benefits in the inter-regional cooperation dimension (chapter 7). Chapter 8 discusses an important issue of all trans-national funding schemes: the added value of inter-regional cooperation. The report concludes with a summary of conclusions and recommendations for the improvement of future inter-regional cooperation. The final evaluation report includes also the results from the progress report in March 2006 and the feedback report in August 2007. 7 Final Report December 2007 2 Conceptual Remarks The final purpose of the evaluation is to answer questions about whether the co-operative approach pursued and tested in the TOWER RFO contributes to amelioration with regard to competitiveness of the businesses in the participating regions, the stimulation of sustainable growth of the regional economy and the competences of the regions to further improve their strategies and positions in the global knowledge economy. Answers to these questions have to be found on all levels: project, strategy and inter-regional co-operation. The conceptual approach for evaluating the TOWER programme is a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. Quantitative methods such as indicators for the measurement of outputs and results build the base for further in-depth analyses of the more qualitative effects. As the evaluation was process-oriented, it was designed as an action learning process. Feed-back loops for the presentation and discussion of intermediate results and workshops with the relevant groups of actors ensure the process of learning. After the kick-off meeting with the TOWER Management Team, the evaluation started with the analysis of documents on the programme and the project level. Thus, the necessary information was gathered to analyse specific aspects such as project selection and assignment of projects to components in more detail. The method of the Bottle-Neck-Analysis was applied with the help of a written questionnaire to examine the network processes in the TOWER partnerships. The Mid Term Conference provided the chance to meet representatives from all projects and to have workshops with them about their expectations and achievements, in particular with regard to inter-regional cooperation. During the final phase of the implementation of the projects, personal or phone interviews were conducted with at least two members of each project, the regional-coordinators and the central management unit of the TOWER programme. In addition, the outputs and results– as far as available as documents, internetpresentations, reports, brochures etc. – built the base to finally assess the results and effects of the TOWER programme. The results were discussed at a meeting of the Management and Steering Committee during the final conference in September 2007. In the cases where there were there still doubts with the assessment of the project, we contacted the responsible persons once more in order to reach clarification. The results of the MSC meeting and the update of project outcomes and results are included in the final report. 8 Final Report December 2007 3 3.1 Management and co-ordination Bottle-Neck-Analysis Methodology For the management and co-ordination issues, the following aspects are relevant for the evaluation: 1. Is the TOWER programme effective and efficient in delivering its objectives? Are the management and governance processes appropriate and effective? 2. Are the ‘horizontal criteria’ effectively delivered through the overall programme management? 3. How is learning transferred from projects to the programme as a whole? 4. How is the overall learning from projects disseminated? Which forms and techniques are being applied, e.g. conferences, seminars, reports, brochures, information on websites etc.? TAURUS developed the Bottle Neck Analysis (BNA) as an instrument for the evaluation of the network processes in international co-operation projects. The BNA aims to analyse the potential of goal achievements on management issues. Thus, it is an appropriate instrument for a formative evaluation in order to optimize interregional co-operation networks. The focus of the TAURUS Bottle Neck Analysis is on the review of applied instruments, organisational structures and competences of the involved organisations. The BNA includes six Key Areas defined for the analysis of co-operation on the RFO level, which are listed subsequently. A. Composition of the partnership Including: mainly the selection of partner regions and organisations. B. Communication and information Including: mainly the information flow and ways of communicating, as well as the dissemination of the results. C. Working atmosphere Including: mainly the interpersonal way of communicating and the working atmosphere. D. Strategic orientation and agreement on common objectives Including: jointly worked out objectives and strategies to reach these goals. E. Structure and procedures Including: mainly the working structures as decision- making and implementing measures. 9 Final Report December 2007 F. Resources and Management Abilities Including: mainly the resources used as well as the needed skills. Those Key Areas are supposed to have strong effects on the success of an interregional co-operation network. The BNA helps to identify strengths and weaknesses of the programme management. In order to collect information about TOWER management and co-ordination issues, a written survey was conducted in an early phase of the evaluation (in 2006). In addition, specific issues were analysed in phone or face-to-face interviews with all regional coordinators and also with the project partners in a later phase (in 2007). Results of both are presented in the following chapter 3.2. In the written survey all Regional Coordinators, all Members of the Monitoring and Steering Committee, the Programme Financial Manager and the Programme Coordinator from the 5 TOWER partner regions have been involved. We received feedback from 11 people, the two non-participants had communicated their view with the participating representatives of their region. Details regarding the extent of the survey are shown in table 1. Table 1: Extend of the survey Region No of addressed people No of returned questionnaires Östra Mellansvrige (SWE) Gelderland (NEL) Del-Alforld (HUN) Rhône-Alpes (FRA) North West England (GBR) Total 5 2 2 2 2 5 2 1 1 1 13 11 The questionnaire consisted of two types of questions. One type gave the possibility to assess special issues within a scale of 6 nuances from 1= “not satisfied” to 6 = “very satisfied” or from 1 = “ I don´t agree” to 6 = “ I fully agree) Those questions build the base for the BNA. The other type of questions gave the opportunity to make qualitative statements concerning a topic. These answers are used for an in-depth analysis of the Key Areas. The parameter values for the Key Areas are calculated as mean values of all answers. This was done step by step starting from the calculation of sub-question values, up to question values and ending with 10 Final Report December 2007 the Key Area values. For a more detailed analysis, the frequency distribution of the single ratings has been consulted. The results for the single key areas are described in the following chapters. 3.2 Results from questionnaires and interviews The overall results in each of the 6 Key Areas do clearly range above the medium value of 3.5. This can be appraised as a very good result. The values for all Kea Areas of all Regions are shown in Figure 1: Results of the BNA for all regions, the values by region in figure 2 and table 2. The total mean values for the Key Areas differ from 4.3 as the lowest value for Key Area D “Strategic orientation and agreement on common objectives” up to 5.3 for Kea areas C. Working atmosphere, E. Structure and procedures and F. Resources and Management Abilities. This total range of only 1 point shows all Key Areas lying very closely together in terms of their quality specification. None of the Key areas shows extreme values which would indicate a significant Bottle Neck. Nevertheless, the results indicate possibilities for an enhancement of the TOWER management and co-ordination, which will be clarified in the following. From two regions, there was only one answer sent. Therefore, the results by region have only a vague signification. Because of this, we will refrain from an analysis per region. Figure 1: Results of the BNA for all regions A 6 A. Composition of the partnership 5 4 F B 3 B. Communication and information 1 C. Working atmosphere D. Strategic orientation and agreement on common objectives 0 E. Structure and procedures 2 F. Resources and Management Abilities E C D 11 Final Report December 2007 Table 2: BNA results by region Key Area A Key Area B Key Area C Key Area D Key Area E Key Area F Östra Mellansvrige Gelderland Del-Alforld RhôneAlpes North West England Total 5,6 4,9 5,5 4,4 5,6 5,6 4,8 4,6 5,3 4,6 5,4 5,1 5,3 4,6 5,7 4,4 5,4 5,4 4,5 4,5 4,8 4,1 4,2 4,7 4,0 4,9 4,0 2,9 4,6 4,5 5,2 4,8 5,3 4,3 5,3 5,3 A. Composition of the partnership Figure 2: Results of the BNA by region B. Communication and information C. Working atmosphere D. Strategic orientation and agreement on common objectives A 6 5 E. Structure and procedures 4 F B 3 2 F. Resources and Management Abilities Östra Mellansvrige 1 Gelderland 0 Del-Alforld Rhône-Alpes E C North West England D A Composition of the partnership The mean value for Key area “A - Composition of the Partnership” is 5.2 which is a very positive result. The satisfaction regarding the composition of the partnership was also corroborated by the project partners during the interviews (see for more detail chapter 7.2). Concerning the composition of the partnership, the number of 5 partner regions is assessed to be adequate to attain the programme objectives. The “existence of adequate and interested partners” is seen as the most relevant characteristic of the partnership. This aspect was pointed by each of the 12 Final Report December 2007 interviewed persons. In contrast, no one mentioned “similar administrative structures” as an important aspect for the choice of partner. On project level, most difficulties were caused by finding project definitions satisfying to all partners, which was mentioned by 8 persons. The gathering of co-financing was only seen as a problem by two persons. The role of the interviewed persons in the development of projects is to support networks between potential project partners. A “direct contact to the partners” is the most frequently mentioned role, followed by “contacting regional coordinators in order to identify and discuss potential project partners”. The high rating of the Key area “A - Composition of the partnership” showed that, in general, the partnerships have worked well. Nevertheless, there are some aspects which could be improved. These will be presented in the chapter 7 and the corresponding recommendations will be proposed in the chapter Conclusions and recommendations. B Communication and information The total mean value Key Area “B - Communication and information” is 4.8. Compared to the other key areas, this is the one with the second lowest parameter value, but it is still highly above the average. Looking at the different questions of this key area, the lowest satisfaction can be seen in the information flow between the partners. Especially the extent and the speed of the information flow have been rated only 3. Other aspects which give hints for possible improvements are some notes concerning the accomplishment of the meetings. The arrangement of an appropriate time schedule was sometimes impossible and the meeting minutes were too brief. The English language capabilities are assessed to be sufficient for the co-operation in TOWER. Concerning a regular review of the TOWER progression almost everybody stated that the review is taking place regularly, only one person was unsatisfied with the way of reviewing. The analysis of the minutes of the meetings shows that the progress of the implementation of the projects is reviewed regularly and intensively which seems to be adequate. The main intermediate information documents on the projects were the semester project reports and in annex the project outputs. From our point of view these have been rather too synthetic to really be able to understand the projects results and specially to be used for transfer of information (specially directed to the regional and strategic level) during the programme implementation and also at the end. 13 Final Report December 2007 Other aspects which were rated comparably low (around 4), but still higher than the mean value of the scale were dissemination and publicity activities of TOWER, aiming at making the TOWER programme known to potential project partners and at disseminating the Programme to a broader audience interested in TOWER activities and results. It is recommended in case there may be a successor of TOWER to enforce the publicity and dissemination activities. A more regular publishing of actual news from the projects e.g. in the TOWER newsletter would be helpful in order to provide actual information to a broader audience. Another way of disseminating results from the TOWER programme could be the participation in international conferences concerning INTERREG and SME activities. C Working atmosphere The mean parameter value for Key Area “C – Working atmosphere” is 5.3, which is a very good result. The only parameter value under 5 is given for the dependability of information flow among one another with 4.3. This is the only hint for a possible enhancement in this key area. D Strategic orientation and common agreement on objectives Key area “D - strategic orientation and common agreement on objectives” is the one with the lowest performance - 4.3, but still in the positive area of the scale. Eight out of eleven persons had the feeling at the beginning of the project that the objectives and the structure were not clear to everybody. But this problem seems to have been solved during the implementation. In a later phase of the implementation, almost everybody had the feeling that the objectives and structure had become clearer. Four out of eleven persons saw conflicts or different expectations caused by the different individual objectives of the partners or partner regions. Because the defined objectives were not always considered clearly in the starting phase, the prioritisation of projects with regard to the objectives can differ from one partner to the other. Also the development of projects according to the overall objectives might lead to inefficient discussions if the overall objectives are not commonly agreed on. Looking at the achievements of the TOWER objectives when the BNA was conducted, a mean value of 4.1 shows a good performance. Concerning this question it has to be emphasized, that the long term objectives like the “improvement of economic growth strategies/programmes” or “ the improvement of methodologies and tools for sustainable economic growth” could in that phase of the programme rather be assessed in terms of expectations than in terms of already achieved objectives. The interviews with the project partners and the regional coordinators some months after the BNA have pointed out that 14 Final Report December 2007 despite the idea that the objectives might have been unclear, the final results showed that the strategic objectives have been achieved in general. E Structure and procedures Key area “E - Structure and procedures” shows a very high performance of 5.3. This proves that all partners appreciate the clear allocation of responsibilities and modes of decision-making. For example, the procedure for project selection and assessment is very clear and transparent (see also chapter 3.2). As mentioned before, a crucial point for the success of the TOWER programme was the safeguarding of the results and the conclusions concerning regional development strategies. The interviews done with the different partners and regional coordinators have shown the impacts of the projects on the regional strategies and the inter-regional co-operation (see chapter 7). F. Resources and Management Abilities Key area “F - Resources and Management Abilities” with a mean value of 5.3 shows one of the highest parameter values. The aspects which were rated less positively, but still above the mean value, were the workload (considered very high), the resources and management abilities and the composition of the partnership (respectively 3.9, 4.8 and 4.9). All other aspects of “resources and management abilities” are rated very positively. 3.3 1. Conclusions from Bottle-Neck-Analysis Is the TOWER programme effective and efficient in delivering its objectives? Are the management and governance processes appropriate and effective? The results from the BNA, complemented by the interviews and workshops during the Mid Term Conference show that the TOWER Programme was effective and efficient in delivering its objectives. The expected number of 12 projects was implemented. The achievement of objectives on the strategic level and the inter-regional level can also be stated. (Cf. chapter 6 and 7). The analysis so far proves that appropriate and effective governance processes were established and implemented. Concerning the key areas of governance of interregional co-operations, the importance of the “common agreement on objectives” became obvious. Even when the performance of this key area was very high, a potential for enhancement can be seen according to the common agreement on objectives and the transparent and open discussion of individual objectives of the partner organisations. The progress is hard to make up once the process is running. 2. Are the ‘horizontal criteria’ effectively delivered through the overall programme management? See chapter 9. 15 Final Report December 2007 3. How is learning transferred from projects to the programme as a whole? This question can be answered by analysing which are the results of the actual TOWER projects that can be of benefit for the drafting of a next TOWER programme. In this regard, as we will see in the coming chapters, we can conclude that there is much learning from the TOWER experience which can now be appropriated in future planning. These benefits or learning are many fold, they start with the projects new methodologies and tools, which in some cases have progressed in a way that they will go on after the ending of the Programme, or potentially will evolve into projects of capitalisation of this experience, e.g., under the new INTERREG; but also, in the identification of what could have been done in a better way and now can be a good basis for the set-up of a new Programme in a more efficient way (e.g., better definition of project objectives, more balanced budgets between the regions). 4. How is the learning from projects disseminated? Which forms and techniques are being applied, e.g. conferences, seminars, reports, brochures, information on websites etc.? As shown by the BNA Key area B “Communication and Information”, the dissemination of TOWER results was assessed to have room for improvement. It has to be mentioned positively that all projects are described on the website and a contact person is nominated. A more regular publishing of the TOWER Newsletter with actual project results and its mailing to the target group of regional stakeholders could have been a good way of dissemination. The development of brochures, the realisation of seminars and conferences was implemented especially in the last months of the projects, and seem to have been very well received by regional stakeholders and target groups. (Cf. chapter 6.1). 3.4 Project Selection Procedure The Work package on the selection criteria addresses the following questions, proposed in our bid: 1. How are sub-projects chosen in relation to strategies? Is there a clear and transparent selective instrument and procedure which secures that all requirements of the strategy will be taken into account on the project level? What are the outcomes of the project selection process, e.g. how many tenderers applied, how many were accepted and rejected? 2. What are the topics and the individual objectives of the projects? How do the projects cover the components addressed in the strategy? If it is an aim to cover all components, how many projects and which share of the budget can be assigned to the different components? 3. Which target groups have been addressed, which target groups have succeeded with their project proposal? The method used was mainly based on desk research of the programme related documents, such as the Document "Evaluation of TOWER Sub-project proposals", the manual to support the filling in of the 16 Final Report December 2007 applications, the minutes of the meetings and the project application forms. We were also participating in one assessment meeting. 3.4.1 Selection Procedure and Criteria The selection procedure of the TOWER programme is based on the Document "Evaluation of TOWER Sub-project proposals". This document allows the evaluation of the proposals in two steps: The section A) aims at the "General evaluation on eligibility and relevance of the proposal". Four main themes are analysed: Relevance to component and TOWER Programme; Consistency of the Proposal; Quality of approach, management and partnership; Quality and visibility of results. The Section B) aims, on one hand, to check the "Compliance with selection criteria" namely on a more general level, by verifying the compliance with overall objectives of the Programme and also at EU level, such as the European value, the contribution to economic growth strategies in partner regions, the links to innovative actions programmes, the mainstreaming of gender equity, integration and youth issues and the durability of results. On the other hand, Section B) verifies if the proposal complies with the specific selection criteria of the components, being verified by two criteria per component. A final block of criteria is linked to the level of contribution of the subprojects to overall objectives of the TOWER programme, contribution to the EU transversal objectives on equality of chances and sustainable development, the added value from interregional dimension and finally how the results are supposed to be disseminated. A scoring method is used to bring some objectiveness to the selection criteria. The general selection criteria and the component specific selection criteria are explained in the manual to guarantee that the criteria would be understood in the same way by all partners, thus enhancing the objectiveness of the scoring system. The selection criteria can be considered in general comprehensive and detailed, important aspects such as the contribution to the programme overall objectives and the contribution to EU horizontal objectives are taken into account. The projects were also evaluated regarding their contribution to the specific objectives of the component. Here the relation between the Component Specific Selection Criteria and the Component Objectives is in some cases not clear. The Component Specific Selection Criteria, due to the need to have an operational instrument to evaluate the applications, are a synthesis of the component objectives, but this leads to the fact that not all of the component objectives are considered in the selection. 17 Final Report December 2007 In Component 3 – the strategic focus is on: 1) creating a strengthened technology infrastructure in regions and improving the technology transfer to SMEs; 2) strengthening the competitiveness of SMEs, but the selection criteria are: 1) The degree of company involvement; 2) the innovative character of the cooperation between SME’s, Universities and RD Centres. In Component 4 - the strategic focus is on stimulation of entrepreneurship and implementing new instruments for increasing spin-offs, but the component specific selection criteria considers the methodology to reach new target groups or the degree of networking between the different actors. The proposals for sub-projects were assessed in meetings where all regions were represented. The strategy until the final approval of an application is characterised by the multi-step character of the rating (preliminary assessment by help of checklist in TMT, open questions returned to applicants, chance to revise proposal, decision on funding in MSC). The support given to the applicants enhanced the chances for a quicker approval of the projects. But on the other side, the interviews with the project partners have shown that for some projects this preliminary preparation was not enough. The differences between the partners’ objectives, methods, budget or target groups have caused some losses of efficiency and effectiveness of the projects. Taking into account that the number of proposals has almost allowed the approval of all of them, the selection criteria have been more used to validate the quality of the proposals than to really support a selection between alternative candidates. There has only been one project rejected - the project TWINSTAR (Technology transfer between research and SMEs), in relation to 13 approvals. The main reason for this rejection was the unclearness of the results thus making it difficult to evaluate the impact and relevance on the overall TOWER objective and component targets. Summing up: The criteria as well as the procedure for the selection can be assessed as highly appropriate. The organisation of the process with feedbacks and chances to improve the application encourages the participation in European funding programmes such as TOWER and facilitates multistep learning. Nevertheless, the quality could be improved through a better check of the matching of interests, objectives, target groups and methods. 3.4.2 Assignment of Projects to Components The following table presents a synthesis of the allocation of projects to the different components. There is a balanced distribution of the number of projects per component - almost all components include 3 or 4 projects. Some projects have been transferred from the original component in the application form to another. For instance, the projects IWE – Inspiring women entrepreneurs and SOG – Spin-Off Generator were 18 Final Report December 2007 initially in component 4 and have been transferred, respectively, to components 2 and 3. In the first case, this transfer implies the loss of some internal coherence, since the IWE project aims to support women entrepreneurship, thus it contributes more to the objectives of component 4 than those of component 2. The general explanation for the transfers were many fold, the first reason was that the project would better fit in a different component than the one identified by the project partners. In the case of the IWE project the main motive was the lack of funding in the most adequate component. But considering that this project contributes strongly to the overall objectives of the programme and addresses the issue of equal opportunities, it seems reasonable to allow some flexibility within the programme in order to integrate such an interesting project which might otherwise be sacrificed because of a lack of funding within a component. Table 3: Assignment of projects to components of programme Component Projects Component 2 Strategies sustainable economic growth Component 3 Strengthened technology infrastructure /transfer to SME’s Component 4 AFP, DiBiC, YAB, IWE ABBA I, InnoCenter, SOG TOWBUSANG, ABBA II Competitive and knowledgebased entrepreneurship FEMTO, Component 5 Sustainable SME’s SIMPLE, EASE, Rural Development 3.4.3 Target Groups The following table compares the target groups of each component according to the groups, foreseen in the programme manual versus the groups which have been supported. In Component 2 only regional partnerships and local/regional public authorities were foreseen to be addressed. The analysis of the projects shows that not only these groups have been supported, but also several other groups have benefited from this component, namely: students, coaches, SME´s, female entrepreneurs, business supporters/developers. In Component 3 the target groups according to the manual were more comprehensive: SMEs, universities, research centres/institutes, company associations, other public actors such as local and regional authorities. The target groups addressed correspond almost entirely to the foreseen ones, only the development agencies have also been contemplated. 19 Final Report December 2007 In Component 4 the target groups presented in the manual were SMEs, trade organisations, universities, public actors, local and regional authorities. The effective beneficiaries included organisations providing support to SMEs; as well as students and teachers. In Component 5 the target groups were SMEs, environmental consulting firms, industrial research institutes, trade organisations, universities, consumer-organisations, other public actors, local/ regional/national authorities. Apart from these groups, also large companies have been contemplated. Table 4: Overview over the target groups of the TOWER components Component Component 2 Strategies sustainable economic growth Component 3 Strengthened technology infrastructure /transfer to SME’s Component 4 Competitive and knowledge-based entrepreneurship Component 5 Sustainable SME’s Target groups (manual) Regional partnerships, local/regional public authorities SMEs, universities, research centres/institutes, company associations, other public actors local and regional authorities. SMEs, trade organisations, universities, other public actors, local and regional authorities. SMEs, environmental consulting firms, industrial research institutes, trade organisations, universities, consumerorganisations, other public actors, local/ regional/national authorities. Sub-project target groups Most projects refer to all the different target groups. Others: students, coaches, SME´s, female entrepreneurs, business supporters/ /developers. Most projects refer to all the different target groups. Others: development agencies. Most projects refer to all the different target groups. Others: organisations providing support to SMEs; students, teachers. Most projects refer to all the different target groups, Others: large companies. To sum up, the target groups of the projects approved have been in line with those anticipated in the Programme. The involvement of other groups may be considered as positive, since it shows that the Programme has been able to reach not only the foreseen groups but also others. 20 Final Report December 2007 4 Project Level In order to provide an overview about the variety of different projects and their specific outcomes, each project will be characterised briefly on base of a standard format. The purpose of this project-by-project analysis is to compare the set objectives and planned activities with the level of achievement. After a presentation of the participants of the project and the main motivation to run the project, a preliminary general assessment of the achievement of the set objectives is given. This general assessment concentrates the totality of the impressions and assessments for the various aspects of the project in a grade. Grades range from 0 to 4 *. Grade 0 indicates that the project will fail to reach its objectives and grade 4 indicates that the project will fully reach its objectives. In addition, we compare in a more detailed way the planned activities and the expected outcomes and results as they were described in the application forms with the real implementation and results achieved so far. The information base for this are the interviews with the project participants, the progress reports of project co-ordinators to TMT and additional reports and internet-presentations which were made available to the evaluation team. This analysis is complemented by the aspects of dissemination activities and the contribution of the project to the horizontal objectives of equality of chances and environmental protection/sustainable development. * Scale for the assessment of objectives: 0 = objectives will not be reached; 1 = objectives will only be achieved to a small extent; 2 = objectives will be achieved partly; 3 = objectives will be achieved to a big extent; 4 = objectives will be achieved fully. 21 Final Report December 2007 4.1 Accelerative Bio Business Activity I+II(ABBA) (Note: Since both ABBA projects are strongly linked we have considered them always as a single project for the purposes of evaluation) Project partners Name (lead partner in bold letters) Country of Origin: CCI Lyon Develpment Agency East Netherlands Universitetsholding i Linköping AB (F) (NL) (SE) Main Motivation Business development within Health (Biomedical Life Sciences) has to do with many issues, depending on the specific product/market, technology and the phase of development of the latent or existing company (and product). Within ABBA the different regions want to exchange experiences and learn from differences (caused by the regional circumstances and the development phase of a company or product). This subproject recognizes the problems associated with early business development from idea to incubation. Achievement of objectives The initial objectives of the project were: To develop and apply methods/tools to improve commercialization in Life Science for early and late stage SMEs/projects. The question whether starting companies or further developed companies are the target group depends on the region and also on the Part of the ABBA project. Specific targets: • Investigating the different circumstances for innovative business development in the distinctive regions; • Screening and selecting the propositions for innovative business development in the regions; • Developing a (uniform) tool to position the different propositions, to define the actual needs for further development and develop a roadmap on how to fulfill these needs. • Applying the tool for the selected propositions and make action plans. • Implementing the action plans within the latent and existing companies/projects, in collaboration with the distinctive entrepreneurs and necessary external partners. • Evaluating the different experiences and results and providing new methodology and tools to contribute to future policies for business development within biomedical life sciences. Objectives achieved: grade 4, scale from 0-4 Implementation of activities • Accomplishment of local studies and business plan design • Development of business plans • Selection and acquisition of companies • Recruiting of business consultants for individual business cases Stage of implementation: Activities already done, delays, problems Most of the action plans are finished or will be finished soon. (end of August) The conference was 22 Final Report December 2007 held in July to discuss the results among the project partners. The Report will be ready in the middle of September. There is no relevant delay. Achievement of expected final outputs and results Expected: From a methodical viewpoint to learn with workshops, regional conferences, studies, local surveys and other tools about appropriate diagnostic tools (Trans-national diagnostic tool), action plan definition and realisation, talent pool constitution, global evaluation. From a qualitative viewpoint to advance the development and viability of biotech companies, to increase the employment in healthcare sector, to increase the entrepreneurship activities, to ameliorate the viability of the start-ups. Further on an increase of attractiveness in terms of new companies and projects due to the success of the local companies. Achieved: Transfer of competencies, i.e. the competence of bargaining. A network was implemented, there is now relation with persons who do the commercial part. Because there are different cases different needs of the firms have to be identified. The process “identify competences - search for an expert - application of solutions” was elaborated/advanced. For every region between 6 and 8 projects are finished. Some projects already turned into real companies, which is considered as biggest success. The evaluation which measures the impact of the action in the projects for the company business development can be considered as soon as there are more results. Impact on regional / strategic level Better acknowledgements about the Clusters in the regions. Institutionalized links between SMEs and mortgagees. The developed tool can be given to other actors. Good acceptance in the regions, in France for example it is possible to have a continuation of the project, namely extending the methodologies to other companies, with the support of regional funds. Dissemination activities conducted Main target in the ABBA project is to spread information to people who care about business development. This was already done in regular meetings and will be done in future. The publicity or already established companies do not care so much about this information. The project was presented on seminars, local press releases have taken place. Most interesting point was to get together local firms for an informative meeting. Especially the action plans which were performed during the project rose big attention under the SMEs. Contribution to the equality of chances of discriminated groups No specific approach to address this issue. Contribution to environmental protection/ sustainable development No contribution to environmental protection, and it is too early to say something about the environmental compatibility of the later projects/companies. 23 Final Report December 2007 4.2 Analysis, Forecasting, Planning (AFP) Project partners Name Country of Origin: (lead partner in bold letters) Cumbria County Council Sörmland Regional Council Regional Council of Uppsala County County Administrative Board of Örebro South Great Plain Regional Development Agency Development Agency East Netherlands Lyon Commerce International, WTC Lyon UK SE SE SE HU NL FR Main Motivation The objective of this project is to examine and analyse the processes and mechanisms for the development of regional growth strategies. AFP will study tools and techniques for turning strategies into actions. Within the partner regions, regional toolkits will be developed for improved development strategies. This project is a wide cooperation between all of the five TOWER partner regions; cooperation in which seven partner organisations meet in this project to share experience and improve their work on regional development processes. Achievement of objectives The initial objectives of the project were: • to improve the understanding between regions of the methods and processes for developing growth strategies • to develop toolkits for each region that will demonstrate best practice in the development of strategies and in their implementation • to strengthen the links between the Tower regions and partners, to act as a platform for future project development • to provide a context for bringing together the learning from all Tower projects, so that Tower becomes truly a ‘learning partnership’ Objectives achieved: grade 3-4, scale from 0-4 Overall objectives achieved (except the functioning of the AFP project as a platform of exchange for all other projects within the TOWER programme). Implementation of activities According to the Application Form, the project will focus on 4 work packages, each of them to be conducted on basis of a seminar and a questionnaire: • Economic analysis (where are we now?) • Economic visioning and forecasting (where do we want to be in the future?) • Action planning (how will we get there?) • Regional Governance and Partnerships (who can deliver?) Stage of implementation: Activities already done, delays, problems WP2 questionnaires returned and summarised, WP3 questionnaires returned, WP4 questionnaires circulated to all partners closure of WP1 - report will be part of the good practice guide 24 Final Report December 2007 1 seminar (WP1) with 11 attendees 1 seminar (WP2) with 36 attendees Small delays respectively expansion of project duration; all work packages concluded by project end. Achievement of expected final outputs and results Expected: Successful Seminars, Completed work packages (questionnaire for each one), Production of good practice guide, Completed report; Toolkits /Guide demonstrating best practices in the development of strategies and their implementation. Achieved: Quantitative outputs achieved. A variety of different tools were developed in the different regions such as more quantitative analysis (e.g., concept of related variety in Netherlands) or more qualitative methods like scenario techniques. Due to very different framework conditions in the participating regions (e.g. character of the region as rural or agglomeration, political, administrative and legal conditions for planning and promotion of economic development) the transfer of tools and methods from one region to another is difficult. Hence, the project partners came to the conclusion that 'good practice' is something of a redundant concept in regional strategy development. So label was changed to ‘final report’ which did take into account that tools which are successful in one region have to be adapted to the specific conditions of other regions to make transfer fruitful. A simple copying of tools and methods is very risky and not recommendable. The identification of generic principles for developing regional growth strategies is therefore an important issue for the good practice guide. The recommendations to the target groups take these reflections into account and provide the key findings in a very attractive way which raises the readers’ interest to get to know more about the projects findings. Participants appreciate the provision of new ideas, the learning from the different cultural and political/planning background, the broadening of individual perspectives and the enrichment of the personal skills of participants for EU projects as an important result. A culture of mutual learning could be developed. This has stimulated changes for the governance of new regional development plans in the UK and Sweden. Weak points are the bringing together of the ideas and learning from all TOWER projects as well as the findings from the various case studies and methods which are partly inconclusive and cannot be transferred easily. Partly problematic was the different degree of engagement of participants. Impact on regional / strategic level: New ideas and concept for economic analysis applied in the Netherlands (concept of related variety); facilitates better identification of economic potentials like prospering branches, multi-party collaboration of regional stakeholders implemented (at least in the Netherlands); involve