Twinning Concept Deliverable D3.1 Twinning concept developed

Transcription

1 Document ID: IPF VINNOVA Dno: Twinning Concept Deliverable D3.1 Twinning concept developed

2 Description of the deliverable This is a formal delivery 3.1 within WP3 of the INNO-Partnering Forum (IPF) project, former EXCEDE. The deliverable is a description of the Twinning concept. The overall objective of WP3 is to use and develop the twinning concept in order to understand the possibilities and limitations regarding the transferability of best practice with regards to SME innovation support measures. The practical twinning exercises will generate learning on methods and processes to be used in transferring schemes from one context to another. The twinning concept describes the way this is to be done within INNO-Partnering Forum. Stockholm Jenni Nordborg Project Coordinator INNO-Partnering Forum Dissemination level: The dissemination level set for this deliverable is PP i.e. restricted to other programme participants (incl. the Commission Services). PAGE 2

3 This report was prepared by: Mariana Karepova Wolfgang R. Knapp Contact details: FFG - Austrian Research Promotion Agency Sensengasse 1 A-1090 Wien AUSTRIA Disclaimer: The views expressed in this report are those of the author(s). They do not necessarily reflect the opinion or position of the European Commission and in no way commit the involved organisations. PAGE 3

4 PAGE 4

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Overview of the process Identification of good practices and synthesis of the peer review results Peer reviews What do we mean by twinning within IPF? How do we link peer review and twinning cases? Synthesis of the peer review results The twinning process Pilot twinning case Time plan for PTW What happens after twinning? PAGE 5

6 european challenges 1 Overview of the process The INNO-Partnering Forum (IPF) is an INNO-Net project, which is financed by the European Commission and carried out by a consortium led by VINNOVA (SE) and consisting of the further five partners: NL Agency (NL), FFG (Austria), Enterprise Ireland (Ireland), TEKES (Finland) and TSB (UK). The objective of IPF is to develop better innovation support for European SMEs. IPF will identify, develop and exploit synergies between public innovation agencies in Europe and propose new approaches to innovation support for SMEs. The project will in particular explore and test new ways of service delivery, aiming to accelerate the take-up of the most advanced ways of supporting innovation in SMEs. In practical terms we will reach this objective following the IPF logic suggested by the diagram below: We first perform a series of peer reviews of the policy measures/programs at different European agencies (open call invitation) to identify the good and the better practices. Then we invite the agencies to express their interest in mutual learning, joint improvement or joint design of measures to meet the European challenges for SMEs (= twinning TW): Policy Measures at agencies addressing IPF European Challenges growth & internationalisation 1 private capital markets WP2 Innovation Process Peer Review of 4-6 learning platform Peer Reviews policy measures with smarter innovation support respect to GP and tranfserability access to public support schemes opportunities demand of innovation Synthesis of PR results Identification of Good Practice and needs of Better Practices 2 GP1 TW1 WP3 GP4 TW2 GP2 TW4 Open-Up / Open GP3 GP5 Offerring to design TW3 TW5 and implement GPs and BPs Peer Review to improve design 3 WP2 PAGE 6

7 Twinning together with the peer reviews is the central element of IPF. Its objective is to design or to improve the individual programs based on the experience of others. This includes the following 5 steps: I. Identification of good practices in the policy measures, which individual agencies bring to the table: Open call for peer reviews II. Synthesis of the peer review results (see below details on the synthesis model) III. Twinning activities leading to newly designed, re-designed, jointly designed or improved measures for innovative SMEs IV. Peer reviews to improve the results of the twinning exercises V. Generation and communication of IPF learning Due to the IPF logic twinning cases are always stemming from a peer reviews. Hence, good practices are identified and described through a peer reviewing process. Measures which have not been peer reviewed cannot provide good practices and thus cannot be subject to twinning. While this concept paper describes the steps II to III, the other steps are dealt with by other work packages and are described in other IPF documents. 2 Identification of good practices and synthesis of the peer review results 2.1 Peer reviews The IPF started its activities with three pilot peer reviews. The programmes/measures for these pilots as well as the peers (experts) were exclusively provided by IPF partner agencies. The following programmes were peer reviewed in this pilot stage: Small Business Innovation Research programme (SBIR) by SenterNovem (NL) Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI) by TSB (UK) Young Innovative Growth Companies programme (NIY) by TEKES (Finland) The details on the peer review model, procedures as well as individual peer review reports can be found in report D2.1 Peer review launch. After these pilot exercises there will be 3-5 more full-fledged peer reviews based on the expression of interest (open call) by the European innovation agencies. The cases will be selected by IPF Management Team. 2.2 What do we mean by twinning within IPF? Unlike the classical twinning models (for example those used by the EU to upgrade the administrative capacity of the EU Candidate Countries), twinning in terms of IPF is not PAGE 7

8 based on a tutor-student relationship but it rather presupposes a strong cooperation of two or more agencies on the equal basis. Within IPF we identify 3 types of twinning activities: 1. Direct twinning implying the improvement of an existing programme using good practice from another agency (or several agencies) 2. Transfer of a new good practice measure from one agency (or several agencies) to another (or to several agencies) 3. Joint design of a new measure or programme using the results of peer review The first type of twinning is very close to the classical model mentioned above. Although we do not exclude this case of direct or classical twinning, we expect such cases to be very rare. However, should the agencies come up with this kind of twinning which has an added European value, we might consider to support it. Hence, IPF will mainly focus on the second and the third type of twinning activities, whereas the first one will be only possible when it implies the creation of the European added value (criteria-based approach). In this case the WP3 will provide criteria but not a methodology for this type of twinning. The following diagram summarizes the way IPF deals with twinning cases: PR 1 PR2 PR2 PR3 PR4 PR5 Synthesis Report of PR results (according to classes of measures) Open Call for Twinning direct classical TW TW on Design TW on Improvement Peer Review on design / improvement IPF LEARNING 2.3 How do we link peer review and twinning cases? Peer review process identifies the good practices and the ideas for better practices given the reviewed measures. Both good practice and need for better practice will be stated in PAGE 8

9 the individual peer review reports. The challenge is to prepare these results for twinning, i.e. to divide the individual peer reviewed measures into the classes of measures to find a common language and a common understanding of the contextual and non-contextual parts of the measure to allow for the transfer of good practice or for the mutual design of the new measures based on the peer review results. This is achieved by a synthesis process described below. 2.4 Synthesis of the peer review results The objective of the synthesis is to analyse and compile the peer review results in such a way that a design exercise is made possible based on the peer review results. Hence, the good practices and better practices of the peer reviews are turned into design recommendations for other agencies interested in deploying similar measures in their contexts. The approach taken for doing this is to: Group the peer reviewed measures into classes of similar practices and measures in order to be able to assess and analyze them Develop reference models for the practices and measures in order to be able to assess, analyze and describe similar practices and measures in similar ways. Describe the identified practices in terms of the reference models and state the contextual and non-contextual aspects that a designer or an implementer has to consider when transferring the practice to a new context. This part constitutes the design recommendations that will be published. Below is a more detailed description of this approach: Each peer review will result in a detailed report, containing a short description of the measure and its context, analysis of strengths and weaknesses, a list of good practice, conclusions about the transferability of the measure, comments and suggestion related to the measure as well as remarks regarding the peer review process. An individual peer review report should not only indicate the good practices but also state the need for better practices. This report will be presented to and discussed with the host agency performing the programme at stake. After all peer reviews have been completed, the task is to reveal the good practice within, and across, the measures and to analyse the possibilities of their transfer from one agency to another. This is done through synthesizing peer review results. Obviously, this synthesis exercise makes only sense for the similar types of measures (like SBIR/SBRI in our pilot peer review series but not across the different measures (like SBIR/NIY). PAGE 9

10 The synthesis will be performed by FFG in close collaboration with NL Agency, which is responsible for peer reviews. FFG and NL Agency will develop a reference model for each class of measures. The synthesis exercises will be organised in the form of a workshop with participants being: NL Agency (responsible for the peer review process) FFG (responsible for twinning process including the preparatory phase, i.e. synthesis of peer review results) Programme experts of the peer reviewed programmes (advisors and information source) External experts (ex. facilitator, experts of other agencies, clients) The objective of the synthesis workshop is to analyse peer review results with regard to the reference model and to prepare for the design exercise using peer review results. The synthesis workshop constitutes a bridge between peer review and twinning process. The issue of transferability of the measure across different agencies (with regard to the objectives, the policy context as well as institutional context) is an integrative part of the synthesis exercise. The synthesis report will contain: 1) Quintessence of the good practice 2) Opportunities of and the limits to its transferability from one context to another 3) And it will make good practice evident to the interested institutions outside the IPF consortium. This approach is somewhat different to what we have originally planned in the description of work. In particular, the issue of transferability (transferability-check) now is part of peer review, but WP2 and WP3 will perform the synthesis work together. The results of the international peer reviews performed by WP (i.e. peer reviews outside of the EU) should also be included in the synthesis workshop. As mentioned above, the main instrument of the synthesis exercise is the reference model, which provides for the common understanding and common terminology in the description of the individual measures (or classes of measures) for twinning. By analysing the individual peer review results in terms of the reference model we start talking in the same way and relating different measures to each other: PAGE 10

11 Objectives Rationale class of measures GP Rules & regulations Design core of reference model contextual = individual non-contextual = join The synthesised results of the peer reviews will be made public. The interested community in and outside of IPF will get an overview about the good practices with regard to different or similar measures and will be invited through an open call to express its interest in Twinning. 2.5 The twinning process After the good practices and better practices have been revealed and described by the synthesis exercise, European innovation agencies will be invited via an open call to express their interest in twinning activities. The call will be organised in a similar way as the call for peer review. The IPF Management Team will evaluate applications and decide on the specific measures to be announced as subject to twinning. FFG will contract an external expert to support the synthesis, the call announcement and call evaluation processes as well as the twinning process. The twinning process for the selected good practices/better practices and the selected agencies will take place in form of facilitated workshops: There will be a minimum of 2 workshops per twinning case (1 synthesis and 1 twinning workshop). FFG will produce a report for each performed twinning case. The re-designed respectively newly designed measures stemming from the twinning cases should be evaluated a) to see whether the twinning concept works or should be modified to reach the best results and b) to draw conclusions on the issue of transferability of measures. Since the time frame of the IPF is not long enough to evaluate the implementation of the measures we will have to stay with the paper design (i.e. expost evaluation of the design of the new or the improved measure). Nevertheless, the twinning partners will be encouraged to include practical experiments (pilots or the like) at an earliest possible stage! In this case the ex-post peer review could also assess the practical impact of the new or improved measure. PAGE 11

12 3 Pilot twinning case The objective of the pilot is to test the twinning concept described above and at the same time refine and improve the twinning concept based on practical experience. Besides this objective, the pilot will also address real needs at the participating agencies thereby contributing to their internal plans to develop an SME measure. The pilot twinning case (PTW) is a full-fledged twinning case. As mentioned before, a twinning case can only stem from a peer reviewed programme or measure representing the good practices. The three pilot peer reviews we have done so far resulted in two clusters of measures: 1. Public Procurement of Innovation (SBIR-NL and SBRI-UK programmes) 2. Young Innovative Growth Companies programme (Finland) To test the twinning model before offering it to a broader public, we limit the participation to the IPF partners only. Three partner agencies expressed their interest to participate in the PTW: VINNOVA (Sweden), FFG (Austria) and TEKES (Finland). We selected the first cluster (SBIR/SBRI) for the pilot twinning case (PTW) since it fulfils the two objectives above. That is, FFG, Tekes and VINNOVA are all planning for developing pre-commercial procurement schemes. Since none of the agencies have this kind of measures in their portfolios, although VIN- NOVA and TEKES have already started designing the procurement measure, the PTW will be a joint design exercise: Joint design of an SBIR-Programme by VINNOVA, FFG and TEKES using good practices from NL Agency and TSB. We will start by analysing the results of the two peer reviews, i.e. The synthesis process, and by developing a reference model. The reference model should help develop design recommendations based on the experience from UK and Netherlands e.g. answering the question of transferability, i.e. What are the contextual elements which need to be taken into account while transferring this scheme to the other environment? PAGE 12

13 The diagram below suggests a possible reference model for the SBIR/SBIR case: SBIR/SBRI less similarities (rather contextual) many similarities joint design some similarities rather contextual Activation Identification Designing call Pre-commercial of for tender Procurement Commercial Deployment needs that can be in such a way Process procurement & addressed by that it is suitable Using EU rules based on results Impact pre-comm. of pre-commerc. for pre-commerc. Evaluation procumrent procurement procurment measures phases of SBIR etc Step 1 Activation Selling of SBIR to ministries (value proposition; SBIR as product/service to a ministry; reach the problem owner and not the purchaser); active search for SBIR opportunities; communication (i.e. external jury = ambassadors to SBIR) Step 2 Identification of needs for SBIR Problem space (real need for department & the market should exist); Innovation Procurement Plan (although rather theoretical rather than real good practice); being aware and positive about risks and failures. Need for better practice: Top down process to identify challenges (i.e. top-10 challenges of the department ) Step 3 Designing call for tender Committed departments (try to involve departments into the whole procedure / try to keep ownership in the department); call design process in the UK (clear design, understandable throughout different sectors!); ability to address new communities; use of different networks to attract new clients; Step 4 Pre-commercial procurement process 2-phase process to lower the risk; IPR stay with the company; 100 % financing (not really a good practice but the only possible practice according to the rules); short time to contract (6-8 weeks; publish contract early together with the call; don t ask for much information financial, etc; well-prepared call design; good will) PAGE 13

14 Step 5 Deployment and impact evaluation Official certificate to companies, which won the contract (acknowledgment); potential clients and financiers are jury members; well-structured SBIR process helps clients to be more innovative; demonstration and presentation or results to customers & government at the end of phase 2 After having analysed the elements of good practice with regard to its transferability, we will jointly design those parts of the new measure, which are more or less independent in terms of policy and institutional context. The pure contextual parts will be designed by the twinning partners on the individual basis. TSB and NL Agency will provide their guidance and expertise during the design phase and will act as a sounding board. The pilot will only cover a paper design of a SBIR-measure; hence, evaluation of the pilot is focused on two aspects: Design of the twinning concept Design of the SBIR using the twinning concept - Its implementation and deployment is outside the scope of the pilot The evaluation will be performed by an expert panel using design documentation and an interactive workshop consisting of the panel and pilot representatives from the pilot partners (FFG, VINNOVA and TEKES) the outcome of the evaluation is recommendation for improving the twinning concept and the process of reviewing twinning results. 3.1 Time plan for PTW Design PTW done in August 2010 Kick-off meeting on 2nd September 2010 in Brussels PTW completed by the end of November 2010 Report on PTW (including learning and documentation) completed by mid- December 2010 Should there be any uncertainties or discontentment with regard to procedure or the results of PTW, another PTW might be performed within IPF before going for an open call for twinning. PAGE 14

15 4 What happens after twinning? As mentioned, under 2.4, it is crucial to assess the results of the twinning exercises. Since the lifetime of the IPF project is rather short, an ex-post evaluation can be done only with regard to the on paper design of the measures (ex-post evaluation = ex-ante evaluation of on-paper design). Open call to be done after the first peer review phase (adjusted description of work): probably spring PAGE 15

16 PAGE 16

17 About the INNO-Partnering Forum INNO-Partnering Forum, the INNO-Net for better innovation support targeting SMEs, is a carried out by a consortium of leading European innovation agencies consisting of VINNOVA (SE), Tekes (FI), Technology Strategy Board (UK), Enterprise Ireland (EI), Agency NL (NL) and FFG (AT). INNO-Partnering Forum will identify, develop and exploit synergies between public innovation agencies in Europe and propose new approaches to innovation support for SMEs. The project will in particular explore and test new ways of service delivery, aiming to accelerate the take-up of the most advanced ways of supporting innovation in SMEs. The project has the ambition to become a sustainable learning platform for European cooperation on public support for innovative SMEs to unleash the potential of SMEs to contribute to innovation and job creation. An important vehicle to achieve this is the INNO-Partnering Council that brings together key public innovation support and policy actors to act as a sounding board for the initiative.