Você está na página 1de 55

OVERALL CLUSTER

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
REPORT FEB 2011 JUN
2013



Support to Cluster
Development



Contract No.
IPA2007/HR/16IPO/001-
020601



Identification No:
EuropeAid/127604/D/SER/
HR



Prepared for the Ministry of
Entrepreneurship and Crafts,
Ministry of Economy, the
Central Finance and
Contracting Agency (CFCA)
and the Government of the
Republic of Croatia



June 2013
Cluster Development Programme Final Report
2
Table of Contents

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 1
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3
1.1 Purpose and Context of the Report .............................................................................................. 3
2. The Development of the Cluster Development Programme ............................................... 3
2.1 Results of The Training Needs Analysis ...................................................................................... 3
2.2 The Approach and Methodology Adopted by the CDP ............................................................ 4
2.3 The Conceptual Underpinning of the Cluster Development Programme .............................. 5
2.4 Programme Organisation and Logistics ..................................................................................... 11
3. Participation on the Cluster Development Programme ......................................................... 13
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 13
3.2 Foundation Stage ..................................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Consolidation Stage ...................................................................................................................... 14
3.4 Growth Stage ................................................................................................................................. 21
3.5 New Foundation Stage and Combined Consolidation/Growth Workshops (Feb-Jun
2013).......................................................................................................................................... 25
3.6 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 31
4. Participant Evaluations ................................................................................................... 32
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 32
4.2 Foundation Stage ......................................................................................................................... 32
4.3 Consolidation Stage ..................................................................................................................... 34
4.3.1 Phase 1 Strategic Planning and Innovation Workshops ....................................... 34
4.3.2 Phase 1 - Work Organisation and Project Management .......................................... 35
4.3.3 Phase 1 Marketing and Branding .............................................................................. 36
4.3.4 Phase 2 Strategic Planning and Innovation ............................................................ 38
4.3.5 Phase 2 Work Organisation and Project Management ......................................... 39
4.3.6 Phase 2 Marketing and Branding .............................................................................. 41
4.4 Growth Stage ................................................................................................................................ 42
4.4.1 Workshop 1: Putting in the Foundations for Growth .............................................. 42
4.4.2 Workshop 2: Developing the Potential for Growth................................................. 44
4.4.3 Workshop 3: Managing Change and Growth Projects ............................................ 45
4.5 New Foundation and Combined Consolidation/Growth Stage Workshops (Feb-Jun
2013).......................................................................................................................................... 46
4.5.1 February 2013 Workshops ............................................................................................ 46
4.5.2 March 2013 Workshops ............................................................................................... 48
4.5.3 June 2013 Workshops ................................................................................................... 50
4.6 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 52
5. Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 52




1

Executive Summary

The report reviews the experiences of the Support to Cluster Development Re-launch Project
in developing and delivering the Cluster Development Programme (CDP), a major training and
learning development programme which was targeted towards cluster managers, cluster members
and potential members, the business support community and the university/research institute
community in Croatia.

The original concept for the CDP was built upon a training needs analysis (TNA) conducted with
the business support community, cluster members and other cluster stakeholders. The topics
identified as key areas of training need were married with an organisational development approach
to ensure that the CDP workshops were focused upon problem-solving at key points of cluster
development.

The CDP was originally delivered between February-December 2012. During that time, there were
48 days of workshops delivered in three phases: Foundation (considering start-up issues for
cluster organisations), Consolidation (considering survival and sustainability issues for cluster
organisations) and Growth (considering growth and internationalisati on issues for cluster
organisations). In the case of the Foundation Stage workshop, this was delivered over two days.
The Consolidation Stage workshops were delivered as three individual workshops: Strategic
Planning and Innovation, Work Organisation and Project Management; and Marketing and
Branding for Clusters. The Growth Stage workshops, which were conceptually underpinned by a
University of Durham framework for organisational growth, were also delivered as three individual
workshops. These were Putting in the Foundations for Growth; Developing the Potential for
Growth and finally, Managing Change and Growth Projects.

Due to continuing high demand a further set of so-called new Foundation Stage workshops
(which was a revised version of the original Foundation Stage workshops which incorporated the
Project Teams experience of cluster development in Croatia) and a combined
Consolidation/Growth workshop which selected key aspects of the six workshops delivered under
the Consolidation and Growth stages. A further 16 days of workshops were delivered between
February and June 2013.

In total, there have been 931 participants on the CDP of which the majority were from the private
sector. 474 were women and 457 were men representing a 51:49 percentage split. The Project has
therefore been very successful in engaging women and the private sector on the CDP workshops.
There were difficulties in engaging the university/research institutions and participation remained
very low. This might reflect the real and perceptual barriers which exist in Croatia in getting
industry-academia collaboration to work which is an essential part of building the triple helix.

In terms of evaluations of the workshops, the overwhelming majority of participants were positive
about all aspects of delivery. Very few expressed any dissatisfaction with the content, the
facilitators or the materials and this was borne out also by the qualitative information provided to
the Project Team.

There were a number of key suggestions made by participants for how the climate for cluster
development could be improved in Croatia and some of the key suggestions were:
The Government of Croatia putting in place long term funding schemes (using EU
Structural Funds) to support cluster organisations to become self-sustaining. There was

2
considerable dissatisfaction with the existing funding regime for clusters which appears to
offer relatively small as well as inconsistent funding;
Developing a mechanism to support the professionalization of cluster managers in Croatia
either through the creation of a new institution or through an existing management
development organisation;
Furthermore, to ensure that the cluster stakeholder community is able to benefit from the
CDP materials it is recommended that they be transferred to an appropriate institution
(e.g. a University).


3

1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose and Context of the Report

This report represents an overview of the delivery of the Cluster Development Programme (CDP)
and comprises a collation of a number of different reports, which have considered the Foundation
(Activity 3.1d), Consolidation and Growth Stages (Activity 3.1c) of the Programme. The CDP was
delivered between February-December 2012 originally.

However, due to continued demand for places from cluster stakeholders, a new round of
workshops was delivered from February 2013 until the end of the Project in June 2013. The
workshops delivered were so-called new Foundation Stage workshops and two-day combined
Consolidation/Growth workshops.

The report will consider the following:
The original concept for the CDP;
The approach used to deliver the CDP; and
The results achieved by the CDP in terms of participation and evaluation by participants;
The nature of participation in terms of cluster stakeholder groups and gender;
Suggestions from participants on how the environment for cluster development can be
improved in Croatia;
How sustainability can be achieved for the CDP so that there is a long-term legacy and
benefits for cluster stakeholders.

2. The Development of the Cluster Development Programme
2.1 Results of The Training Needs Analysis

The CDP was developed on the basis of a Training Needs Analysis survey that was conducted as
Activity 3.1a of the Project. The Training Needs Analysis (TNA) exercise identified six key focal
areas of training needs. These are set out in the table below.
1. Cluster strategy
development
cluster model selection, legal form and formation procedures
2. Cluster financing sourcing of funds and financial management skills
3. Cluster Marketing communication and promotion strategies, tools and techniques
4. Project
Management
sourcing, proposal writing, mobilizing and management of B2B
projects
5. Personal
effectiveness skills
teambuilding and the skills of fostering collaborative efforts
6. Innovation
Management
incremental, substantial and radical innovation in the context of
cluster competitiveness
Source: SCDP TNA Report, October 2011

Skills training identified by the Training Needs Analysis are summarised in the table below:

4

1. General Management
and Personal
Effectiveness Skills
1.1 Cluster formation skills + techniques
1.2 Networking skills
1.3 Teamwork + collaboration skills
1.4 Facilitation + training skills
1.5 Communication skills
1.6 Strategic planning; Negotiation; Presentation skills
1.7 Cluster promotion skills
2. Cluster Formation
and Organisation
2.1 Legal advisory on cluster formation
2.2 Operative management of a cluster
2.3 Principles of clustering benefits + obligations of cluster
membership
2.4 How to organise + maintain clusters in a organisational and
financial sense
2.5 How to recognise the need or opportunity to establish a cluster
3. Project Management
3.1 Preparing tender proposals
3.2 Sourcing + securing funds for clusters
3.3 How to create, initiate, develop, implement and monitor projects
for cluster members
4. Study Tours and
Case Studies
4.1 Study tours +visits to successful clusters in EU.
Source: Training Needs Analysis Report, SCDP, October 2011

The TNA also identified that the cluster community did not want more standard PowerPoint -
based lecturing. They wanted discussion based, case-study/practical example driven interactive
workshops. These desirable attributes were factored into the design of the Cluster Development
Programme and this is the approach that was delivered at the Foundation Stage and at all
subsequent stages.

2.2 The Approach and Methodology Adopted by the CDP

The approach and methodology underpinning the delivery process was driven by the fundamental
tenet of adult learning - that adults do not learn by being lectured to. Learning is best achieved
when the methodology is driven by self-learning. The course, therefore, focused heavily on
Participative Training Methods and included, at its core, the concept of action learning which is
focused on the philosophy that:

Participants learn by doing;
They learn from each other;
They learn from exercises as individuals in pairs and in groups;
They learn from discussions by sharing knowledge, ideas and experiences;
They learn from tutor inputs - presentational, interventionist during exercises and through
learning point extractions at the end of presentations and exercises.


5
Relevant and appropriate theories, concepts and models were used to both set the context for
discussion and to provide tools for addressing the issues when dealing with a specific
problem/pain-point of a particular participant, or the groups in general. The emphasis was to
make sure that participants understood and can now apply theoretical knowledge and concepts in
real life situations when solving issues related to their clusters.

The approach was heavily interactive and personalised to the dynamics within the groups in
different locations, with multiple, discussions taking place. The discussions were solution
focused and imparted learning through the pursuit of these solutions, learning in the process, from
each other and from the experience of the workshop facilitators.

2.3 The Conceptual Underpinning of the Cluster Development Programme

The CDP was designed on a modular basis. The strength of this was that participants could pick
and choose the appropriate training for them. Furthermore, the programme had the following three
phases as outlined in the diagram below:



Source: Cluster Development Programme Concept Paper, December 2011

The core concept of the programme is that cluster organisations are institutions which are similar
in certain respects to SMEs. They have different needs at different stages of development. The
Foundation stage focuses on ensuring that the foundations of the cluster organisation are in place
to enable it to start and move to the stage where it can be consolidated (be sustained and
developed the second phase). The third phase, that of growth, focuses on growing the cluster
either with a large increase in members or broadening the geographical scope of the cluster
organisation (i.e. increasing its geographical coverage within Croatia and internationalisation) or

6
looking to broaden its sectoral scope (i.e. recruiting members from upstream or downstream
sectors).

The primary intended target groups for participants on the CDP were:
Target Group Description
Cluster Managers The programme was primarily focused on individuals who are managing
clusters or are considering cluster management as a career.
Cluster Champions SME owner-managers and senior managers of large companies who have the
potential to drive forward the cluster and who would work closely with the
cluster manager in developing the cluster. These are potential (or existing)
cluster organisation board members.
Business Support
Service Professionals
Business support service professionals within such organisations such as
the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), Chamber of Economy (HGK)
and Chamber of Crafts (HOK) who have responsibility for cluster support
and development.
University/Research
Institution Personnel
To ensure better working of the triple helix within clusters, members of
the academic/research community with interest and responsibility for
working with industry, and specifically with clusters, were also invited to
participate in the programme.

On developing the agenda for the original Foundation Stage programme it was agreed by the
Project Team that the workshops would be delivered between 9.30 a.m. and 4 p.m. as
recommended by the Training Needs Analysis report.

The Foundation Stage of the Cluster Development Programme originally had the structure shown
in the diagram below:


7
Source: Cluster Development Programme Concept Paper, December 2011.

As mentioned, above, the timing was extended by 30 minutes in comparison to the original
concept.

The agenda for the programme was developed on the basis of the four topic areas in the diagram
above although the level of inputs on each were changed to increase the emphasis on EU best
practice and cluster management and organisation and to reduce the content on legal formats and
financing. This reorganisation was felt to be more appropriate for the needs of the actual
participants who attended the programme.


The subsequent Consolidation Stage programme would originally have comprised a three-day
workshop. However, following discussion with the Project Steering Committee in April 2012, it
was agreed that the workshops would be packaged as a group of three one-day workshops. In part,
this was due to it being felt that expecting participants to attend three days in a working week
would be a considerable ask and would reduce the level of participation. Furthermore, it was also
felt that it would be better to enable participants to have the opportunity to apply tools and
techniques discussed in each workshop prior to attending the subsequent workshop.

Grounded in the findings of the Training Needs Analysis, the three workshops were developed and
delivered as follows:


8

Consolidation Stage Workshops
1. Strategy and
Innovation
Focused on strategic planning and the role of innovation in the
development of clusters.
2. Work Organisation
and Project
Management
Focused on the personal organisation and project management skills
needed by cluster managers and those who support cluster
development.
3. Marketing and
Branding for
Clusters
Focused on the development of marketing and branding for clusters.
Uses a considerable number of case studies demonstrating the
effective use of marketing and branding techniques by clusters (and
other organisations as appropriate).

Again, the target groups were very similar to those for the original Foundation Stage workshops
with perhaps the exception of the Cluster Manager group. The Cluster Managers would, ideally,
be beyond the issues faced in starting a cluster, and would be looking for guidance and ideas from
the workshops on how to better sustain their cluster organisations.

In similar fashion, the Growth Stage programme was developed to be delivered as a series of three
one-day workshops. The three workshops delivered were as follows:

Growth Stage Workshops
1. Putting in the
Foundations for
Growth
Introduced participants to issues in growing clusters and a
diagnostic framework for growth.
2. Developing the
Potential for Growth
Focused on key issues such as financing growth and developing
leadership skills for growing clusters.
3. Change
Management and
Growth Projects
Focused on growth project identification and managing change in
clusters using specific case studies where relevant and appropriate.

The Growth Stage workshops were targeted to the same groups as in the Consolidation Stage. The
Growth Stage workshops have been conceptually underpinned by a diagnostic framework that
was originally developed at the University of Durham in the UK. This framework takes a holistic
look at organisations (in this specific case, cluster organisations) and can be summarised using the
diagram below:


9


The basis of the growth model is that growth is a strategic process. To grow the organisation
needs to move from a point A (where we are now) to a point B (where we would like to go). The
challenge is firstly to identify where the organisation currently is, secondly to identify where it
would like to go and then thirdly to make an assessment of whether the organisation is in a fit
enough state to make the journey. To assess this, we can use a diagnostic tool.

There are a number of factors which also need to be considered in planning the growth journey and
which are going to have an important impact on the likely success in reaching the end goal(s).
Firstly, what is the extent and depth of change that will be required, and how much time is
available to achieve the growth journey. Change in a very short timeframe (radical change) can be
much harder to manage and achieve than gradual change. This needs to be factored into growth
plans. Furthermore, since humans do not have perfect foresight it is possible that the growth
projects may not achieve the outcomes expected (either the organisation may fall short of its
targets or perhaps even exceed certain targets) and there are a range of possibilities that the
cluster organisation might achieve. Growth projects can be blown off course due to a number of
internal factors (factors which are, to a greater extent within the control of the organisation e.g.
strategy, systems, staff, etc.) and external factors (factors which are not within the control of the
organisation such as the state of the economy, social and cultural factors, the political
environment, the legislative environment, etc.).


10
The diagnostic tool has three parts (see the diagram below): The first part assesses the current
performance of the cluster (organisation). The second assesses the base potential for growth of the
cluster (organisation). The third part assesses the potential growth projects that are the potential
vehicles for growing the cluster (organisation).


The current performance can be assessed in three core areas: in terms of performance in the market
in which the cluster organisation operates; the effectiveness of its operations; and in terms of how
the cluster organisation is performing financially and the effectiveness of the control systems used
to manage the cluster organisation.

The potential for growth can be assessed in five areas including:
To include by not be limited to
Resource base The resources available to grow the cluster organisation (e.g. finance,
staff, premises, equipment, etc.).
Experience base Experience of implementing previous growth projects (if any).
Control base The quality of the internal management systems within the cluster
organisation.
Ideas base The sources and quality of ideas that are being actively considered to
grow the cluster organisation and the level of innovation within the
cluster organisation.

11
Leadership base The quality of leadership of the cluster organisation and who is going
to be responsible for leading and/or championing the growth
project(s).

The specific growth project(s) can be assessed in terms of:

Objectives What are the objectives of the growth project (e.g. increasing the
number of members of the cluster organisation or the development of
a joint product by existing members)?
Market Which market is the cluster organisation going to operate in
(perhaps increasing the geographical scope of the cluster
organisation or the range of sectors that the cluster organisation
covers or targeting a specific market with a joint product)?
Scale and Resources The scale of the proposed growth project and the additional
resources that are likely to be required to implement it?
Management Ability and
Commitment
Who is going to deliver the growth project and do they have the
necessary skills and commitment?
Financial Projections The associated financial projections linked to the project (cash flow,
profit and loss, balance sheet, etc.).


The CDP Growth Stage workshops have therefore been organised around use of the growth
framework and to focus on specific aspects of it. The first workshop was therefore Putting in the
Foundations for Growth, the second workshop was Developing the Potential for Growth and
the third and final workshop was Managing Change and Growth Projects: A Problem Solving
Approach.


2.4 Programme Organisation and Logistics

The original CDP was organised, without exception in the five main centres identified in the
Project Terms of Reference, namely: Osijek, Rijeka, Split, Varadin and Zagreb.

At each stage of the CDP (Foundation, Consolidation and Growth) there were always two groups
run in Zagreb due to unsurprisingly higher levels of demand for places there. In each of the other
venues, there was just one group.

During the original CDP, the following workshops were delivered:

Stage Volume of Workshops Locations and Dates
Foundation Stage
(Activity 3.1d)
Six two-day workshops
(12 days of delivery).
Zagreb 13-14 Feb 2012
Osijek 16-17 Feb 2012
Varadin 20-21 Feb 2012
Rijeka 22-23 Feb 2012
Split 27-28 Feb 2012
Zagreb 1-2 Mar 2012
Consolidation Stage
(Activity 3.1c)
18 one-day workshops (equal to 6
three-day programmes).
Rijeka 4, 18, Jun & 2 Jul 2012
Varadin 5, 19, Jun & 3 Jul 2012

12
Zagreb 6, 20 Jun & 4 Jul 2012
Split 18 Sept, 2 & 16 Oct 2012
Zagreb 20 Sept, 4 & 18 Oct 2012
Osijek 21 Sept, 5 & 19 Oct 2012
Growth Stage
(Activity 3.1c)
18 one-day workshops (equal to 6
three-day programmes).
Zagreb 7, 21 Nov & 5 Dec 2012
Varadin 8, 22 Nov &6 Dec 2012
Osijek 9, 23 Nov & 7 Dec 2012
Rijeka 13, 27 Nov & 11 Dec 2012
Split 14, 28 Nov & 12 Dec 2012
Zagreb 16, 30 Nov & 14 Dec 2012

48 days of workshops were therefore delivered during the original CDP.

Due to continued on-going requests for repeat workshops, it was decided that a new series of
workshops would be delivered between February and June 2013. These would be a combination of:

new Foundation Stage workshops (with a slightly altered format due to the Project Team
now being able to draw upon our greater experience of cluster development in Croatia but
remaining to be delivered over two days);
two-day combined Consolidation/Growth Stage workshops which sought to choose the
most essential topics within the respective original Consolidation and Growth Stage
programmes.

The decision to create two-day Consolidation/Growth Stage workshops was necessitated by the
resource constraints facing the Project.

The new workshops were delivered according to the following schedule:

Stage Volume of Workshops Locations and Dates
New Foundation
Stage
(Activity 3.1c)
3 two-day workshops
(6 days delivery)
Zagreb 5-6 Feb 2013
Split 18-19 Mar 2013
Zagreb 21-22 Mar 2013
Combined
Consolidation/ Growth
Stage
(Activity 3.1c)
5 two-day workshops
(10 days delivery)
Zagreb 13-14 Feb 2013
Split 25-26 Mar 2013
Zagreb 28-29 Mar 2013
Osijek 3-4 Jun 2013
Zagreb 6-7 Jun 2013

A total of 16 days were delivered in the new workshop formats in three locations. A total of 64
days of CDP workshops were therefore delivered over the course of the Project.

In terms of recruitment of participants, this was achieved through three main mechanisms:
The Project database of cluster stakeholders;
Assistance from local business support organisations;
Publicity on the Project website (www.razvoj-klatera.hr) with an ability to register there for
specific workshops.


13
3. Participation on the Cluster Development Programme
3.1 Introduction
This section of the report considers participation on several levels. Firstly, the report will consider
the overall number of participants at each stage of the CDP and secondly, the breakdown of
participants at each stage by target group and by gender.

3.2 Foundation Stage
As mentioned above, the original Foundation Stage of the CDP was delivered in February to March
2012 and there were six workshops. The workshops were facilitated by Mr Eugene OCurry and
Mrs Andrea Vugrinovi with supporting inputs from Mr Barry Condron, Project Team Leader and
Toby Philpott, Key Expert 3.

The participant breakdown by workshop was as follows:

Venue Dates Location Number of participants
Zagreb 13th and 14th
February 2012
Hotel Aristos 17
Osijek 16th and 17th
February 2012
Hotel Osijek 15
Varadin 20th and 21st
February 2012
Varadin
County HGK
32
Rijeka 22nd and 23rd
February 2012
RDA Porin
d.o.o.
12
Split 27th and 28th
February 2012
Microsoft
Innovation
Centre,
University of
Split
11
Zagreb 1st and 2nd
March 2012
Hotel Aristos 17
TOTAL 104

The most notable statistic from the above was that the Project had overwhelming demand for
places in Varadin with 32 participants. This was somewhat challenging for the facilitators to
handle. Unfortunately, it initially proved challenging getting satisfactory levels of participation in
Split and Rijeka and this proved to be a continuing theme for the delivery of the remainder of the
original CDP. Nonetheless, the Foundation Stage achieved an average participation rate of 17.3 per
workshop and so exceeded the target of 15 per workshop and significantly exceeded the required
target for Activity 3.1d of 75 participants.


14

Category Number
Private sector consultants and advisors 11 (11%)
Regional development agency staff, business
support organisation staff and local
government administation staff.
41 (39%)
Cluster managers, members and companies 48 (46%)
University and R & D Institution staff 4 (4%)

Just under half of participants came from clusters, either as managers, members, or as interested
parties in cluster development. The participants were therefore evenly divided between the public
and private sectors if the number of private sector consultants and advisers is added to the cluster
related participants.

The most cause for concern was the low level of participation from the University sector. This is
especially true given that invitations were extended widely to this sector and one of the
workshops was actually held on a University Campus (Split).

In terms of gender participation, 49 women and 55 men participated in the workshops
representing approximately a 47:53 split in percentage terms.

3.3 Consolidation Stage

As mentioned above in Section 2.4, the Consolidation Stage of the Cluster Development
Programme was delivered in two phases. This was in part due to the logistical challenges of
delivering workshops and maintaining sufficiently high levels of participation during the summer
months. Therefore, to avoid problems, it was decided by the Project Team to deliver three
programmes in Rijeka, Varadin and Zagreb as Phase 1 before the summer break. In the autumn it
was decided by the Project Team to deliver workshops in Split, Zagreb and Osijek.

The programme of three workshops were delivered every two weeks.

In Phase 1 the participation at the Strategic Planning and Innovation workshops was as follows:

Venue Dates Location Number of participants
Rijeka 4th June 2012 Hotel Aristos 12
Varadin 5th June 2012 Hotel Turist 9
Zagreb 6th June 2012 Hotel Aristos 21
TOTAL 42

15

As can be seen, levels of participation varied between locations and the overall level of
participation was 42 which was slightly below target.
The participation levels in Rijeka and Varadin were less than the Project Team anticipated and
efforts are in hand at the time of writing to boost the attendance figures in these locations.
In terms of the 42 participants these have been broken down further into four categories as in the
table below:
Category Number
Private sector consultants and advisors 6 (14%)
Regional development agency staff, business
support organisation staff and local
government administation staff.
9 (22%)
Cluster managers, members and companies 26 (62%)
University and R & D Institution staff 1 (2%)
Total 42 (100%)

Nearly two thirds of participants came from clusters, either as managers, members, or as interested
parties in cluster development. If the private sector consultants and advisors are added to this
total then three quarters of participants came from the pri vate sector.
In terms of gender participation, 19 women and 23 men participated in the workshops
representing approximately a 45:55 split in percentage terms. The participation rate of women in
the Cluster Development Programme thus remains high.
The primary trainers/facilitators were Eugene O'Curry and Barry Condron, the Project Team
Leader with support from Toby Philpott, the Business Process/Development Key Expert.
In the case of the second Work Organisation and Project Management workshops, t he details of
the events and the numbers of participants are set out in the table below.

Venue Dates Location Number of participants
Rijeka 18th June 2012 Hotel Aristos 15
Varadin 19th June 2012 Hotel Turist 14
Zagreb 20th June 2012 Hotel Aristos 14
TOTAL 43

As can be seen, levels of participation varied between locations and the overall level of
participation was 43, which was slightly below target. The relatively low attendance in Zagreb as
compared to previous workshops may have been due to proximity to a public holiday.

16

The participation levels in Rijeka and Varadin have improved since the Strategic Planning and
Innovation Workshops. It appears that extra efforts to recruit and follow-up with potential
participants paid off.
In terms of the 43 participants it was possible to break these down further into four categories as
in the table below:
Category Number
Private sector consultants and advisors 3 (7%)
Regional development agency staff, business
support organisation staff and local
government administation staff.
11 (26%)
Cluster managers, members and companies 27 (63%)
University and R & D Institution staff 2 (4%)
Total 43 (100%)

Once again, as during the Strategic Planning and Innovation workshops, nearly two thirds of
participants came from clusters, either as managers, members, or as interested parties in cluster
development. If the private sector consultants and advisors are added to this total then 70% of
participants came from the private sector. There was a slight improvement in terms of
University/R & D institutional participation.
In terms of gender participation, 23 women and 20 men participated in the workshops
representing approximately a 53:47 split in percentage terms. The participation rate of women in
the Cluster Development Programme thus remains high and for this week, exceeded that of men.
The primary trainers/facilitators were Stephen O'Mullane and Nenad Buljan wi th support from
Toby Philpott, the Business Process/Development Key Expert.

The final workshop in Phase 1 was the Marketing and Branding workshop. The following table
lists the number of participants by location:


Venue Dates Location Number of participants
Rijeka 2nd July 2012 Hotel Bonavia 18
Varadin 3rd July 2012 Hotel Turist 16
Zagreb 4th July 2012 Hotel Aristos 17
TOTAL 51

As can be seen, levels of participation varied between locations and the overall level of
participation was 51 which was above target. The overall target rate of participation for Phase 1
(135 people = 45x3) was achieved and slightly exceeded over the three weeks with 137.

17

In terms of the 51 participants we have been able to break these down further into four categories
as in the table below:

Category Number
Private sector consultants and advisors 4 (7%)
Regional development agency staff, business
support organisation staff and local
government administation staff.
13 (26%)
Cluster managers, members and companies 30 (60%)
University and R & D Institution staff 4 (7%)
Total 51

Unlike previous workshops, there was a higher representation of University and R&D institution
staff which was encouraging. During these workshops, the private sector representation continued
to be high and two-thirds of participants came from the private sector.

In terms of gender participation rates, 24 women and 27 men participated in the Marketing and
Branding for Clusters workshops. This represents a 47:53 split in percentage t erms. The
participation rate of women in the Cluster Development Programme has continued to remain high
throughout the Consolidation Stage so far.

The primary trainers/facilitators were Barry Condron, Team Leader and Toby Philpott, the
Business Process/Development Key Expert. For the workshops in Varadin and Zagreb the
trainers/facilitators were joined by guest speaker, Mrs Khrystyna Kravchyk from Cluster WEST,
Nantes, France. Mrs Kravchyk is responsible for the marketing and development of Cluster
WESTs activities in Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (Former Soviet Union).
She presented Cluster WESTs marketing and branding activities and discussed with participants
various aspects of cluster management.

Phase 2 was delivered between September and October 2012 and once again, workshops were
delivered at two-weekly intervals.

The Phase 2 Strategic Planning and Innovation workshops were held in Split, Zagreb and Osijek.
Participants were recruited using both the projects database of cluster related- contacts and
through assistance by Regional Development Agencies and the appropriate County branches of
HGK to whom the Project is grateful for their assistance.
Participants were also recruited through publicity on the project website (www.razvoj-klatera.hr)
and were able to use the website to register for individual workshops. The project Terms of
Reference required that each workshop should, on average train at least 15 people so the minimum
target was to have at least 45 participants (3 x 15) attend. It was intended to keep the maximum
level of participation to manageable levels and so the aim was to have no more than 25 participants
at each workshop.
The details of the events and the numbers of participants are set out in the table below.


18
Venue Dates Location Number of participants
Split 18th September
2012
Microsoft
Innovation
Centre
16 (30%)
Zagreb 20th September
2012
Hotel Aristos 18 (35%)
Osijek 21st September
2012
Hotel
Waldinger
18 (35%)
TOTAL
52

As can be seen, levels of participation were broadly consistent between locations and the overall
level of participation was 52, which was well above the target of 45.
In terms of the 52 participants we have been able to break these down further into four categories
as in the table below:
Category Number
Private sector consultants and advisors 4 (8%)
Regional development agency staff, business
support organisation staff and local
government administation staff.
22 (42%)
Cluster managers, members and companies 23 (44%)
University and R & D Institution staff 2 (4%)
Financial Sector (banks, etc.) 1 (2%)
Total 52 (100%)

Just under half of participants came from clusters, either as managers, members, or as interested
parties in cluster development. If the private sector consultants and advisors are added to this
total then just over half of participants came from the private sector (approximately 54%).
Attendance from the University and R & D institutions continued to be low and efforts to improve
participation in the workshops were continued.
In terms of gender participation, 29 women and 23 men participated in the workshops
representing approximately a 56:44 split in percentage terms. The participation rate of women in
the Cluster Development Programme thus remained high.
The primary trainers/facilitators were Eugene O'Curry, Senior Training Expert and Toby Philpott ,
the Business Process/Development Key Expert.


19
For the Phase 2 Work Organisation and Project Management workshops the details of the events
and the numbers of participants are set out in the table below.
Venue Dates Location Number of participants
Split 2nd October 2012 Microsoft
Innovation
Centre
14
Zagreb 4th October 2012 Hotel Aristos 22
Osijek 5th October 2012 Hotel
Waldinger
15
TOTAL
51

Attendance continued to remain high and exceeded the target attendance of 45. However, there
was still a need to be vigilant in Split to maintain numbers and efforts continue there to raise
participation at the final workshop scheduled for the 16th October 2012 on Marketing and
Branding for Clusters.
In terms of the 51 participants it has been possible to break these down further into four categories
as in the table below:
Category Number
Private sector consultants and advisors 2 (4%)
Regional development agency staff, business
support organisation staff and local
government administation staff.
21 (41%)
Cluster managers, members and companies 23 (45%)
University and R & D Institution staff 4 (8%)
Financial Organisations (Banks, etc.) 1 (2%)
Total 51

Once again, as during the Strategic Planning and Innovation workshops during this second Phase,
just under half of participants came from clusters, either as managers, members, or as interested
parties in cluster development. If the private sector consultants and advisors and financial sector
are added to this total then around half of participants came from the private sector.
There was a slight improvement in terms of University/R & D institutional participation.
In terms of gender participation, 24 women and 27 men participated in the workshops
representing approximately a 47:53 split in percentage terms. The participation rate of women in
the Cluster Development Programme thus remains more or less the same as that for men.
The primary trainers/facilitators were Stephen O'Mullane and Nenad Buljan with support from
Toby Philpott, the Business Process/Development Key Expert. Unfortunately Mr Buljan was not

20
available for the workshop in Osijek due to other Project commitments. He was therefore replaced
by Toby Philpott as the facilitator alongside Mr O'Mullane.
For the Phase 2 Marketing and Branding workshops the details of the events and the numbers of
participants are set out in the table below.

Venue Dates Location Number of participants
Split 16th October
2012
Microsoft
Innovation
Centre,
University of
Split
10
Zagreb 18th October
2012
Hotel Aristos 11
Osijek 19th October
2012
Hotel
Waldinger
19
TOTAL 40

As can be seen, levels of participation varied between locations and the overall level of
participation was 40 which was unfortunately below target. However, the overall target rate of
participation (135 people = 45x3) has been exceeded over the three weeks with 143 participants
overall.

In terms of the 40 participants we have been able to break these down further into four categories
as in the table below:

Category Number
Regional development agency staff, business
support organisation staff and local
government administration staff.
15 (38%)
Cluster managers, members and companies 22 (55%)
University and R & D Institution staff 2 (5%)
Financial Services 1 (2%)
Total 40 (100%)

During Phase 2 of the Consolidation Stage of the CDP there has been a larger representation of
RDA and other business support organisations (e.g. HGK, etc.). However, the level of private
sector participation remains strong and remains in the maj ority. We continue to look to engage the
University sector in the workshops (which has remained lower than we would have liked despite
even holding one of the workshops on one of the campuses of the University of Split and in close
proximity in Osijek to the University of Osijek. We will continue to work to engage the University
sector in our workshops to help bolster the triple helix in Croatian clusters.


21
In terms of gender participation rates, 19 women and 21 men participated in the Marketing and
Branding for Clusters workshops. This represents a 48:52 split in percentage terms. The
participation rate of women in the Cluster Development Programme has continued to remain high
throughout the Consolidation Stage and has been broadly similar to that of men.
The trainer/facilitator for these workshops was Toby Philpott, the Business Process/Development
Key Expert.

3.4 Growth Stage

As mentioned above, the Growth stage workshops were delivered between November-December
2012. The Growth Stage workshops were as follows:

1. Putting in the Foundations for Growth;
2. Developing the Potential for Growth; and
3. Change Management and Growth Projects.

The Putting in Foundations for Growth workshops were held in Osijek, Rijeka, Split, Varadin
and Zagreb (two groups). Two groups were run in Zagreb since experience from the previous CDP
stages had shown that one group would be oversubscribed.

Participants were recruited using both the projects database of cluster related contacts (which
included previous CDP workshop participants) and through assistance by Regional Development
Agencies and the appropriate County branches of HGK. The Project is grateful to the respective
RDAs and HGK for their continued assistance in recruiting participants.

Participants were also recruited through publicity on the project website (www.razvoj -klastera.hr)
and were able to use the website to register for individual workshops. The project Terms of
Reference again required that each workshop should, on average train at least 15 people so our
minimum target was to have at least 90 participants (6 x 15) attend the workshops. It was
intended to keep the maximum level of participation to manageable levels and so we aimed to have
no more than 25 participants at each workshop.

The details of the events and the numbers of participants for the Putting in the Foundations for
Growth workshops are set out in the table below:


22

Venue Dates Location Number of participants
Zagreb 7th November
2012
Hotel Aristos 11
Varadin 8th November
2012
Hotel Turist 15
Osijek 9th November
2012
Hotel
Waldinger
17
Rijeka 13th November
2012
City Hall,
Rijeka
7
Split 14th November
2012
Hotel Park,
Split
12
Zagreb 16th November
2012
Hotel Aristos 20
TOTAL
82

As can be seen, levels of participation varied between locations and the overall level of
participation was 82 which was unfortunately below target. The most disappointing levels of
participation were in Rijeka and also, to a lesser extent, in Split.

In terms of the 82 participants it has been possible to break these down further into four
categories as in the table below:

Category Number
Regional development agency staff, business
support organisation staff (HGK, HOK, etc.)
and local government administration staff.
24 (29%)
Cluster managers, members and companies 46 (55%)
University and R & D Institution staff 7 (8%)
Private sector consultants 4 (5%)
Financial Services 1 (1%)
Total 82 (100%)

The level of participation from the cluster community and private sector has continued to remain
considerable. During these workshops close to two thirds of participants were either cluster
managers, cluster members or private sector companies and consultants leading the development
of cluster organisations. There has been a modest increase in the participation from the University
and R & D community at these workshops and it is hoped that this will be sustained.

In terms of gender participation rates, 40 women and 42 men participated in the workshops. This
represents a 49:51 split in percentage terms. The participation rate of women in the Cluster
Development Programme has continued to remain high throughout the various stages of the CDP
and has been broadly similar to that of men.


23
The trainer/facilitator for these workshops was Toby Philpott, the Business Process/Development
Key Expert.

The second workshops in the Growth Phase, the Developing the Potential for Growth
workshops were also held in Osijek, Rijeka, Split, Varadin and Zagreb (two groups).

Participants were recruited using both the projects database of cluster related contacts (which
included previous CDP workshop participants) and through assistance by Regional Development
Agencies and the appropriate County branches of HGK. We are grateful to the respective RDAs
and HGK for their continued assistance in recruiting participants.

Participants were also recruited through publicity on the Project website (www.razvoj-klastera.hr)
and were, as before, able to use the website to register for individual workshops. Again, the Project
aimed for 90 participants (6 x 15) to attend the workshops and to aim to have no more than 25
participants at each workshop.

The details of the events and the numbers of participants are set out in the table below:

Venue Dates Location Number of participants
Zagreb 21st November
2012
Hotel Aristos 15
Varadin 22nd November
2012
Hotel Turist 9
Osijek 23rd November
2012
Hotel
Waldinger
16
Rijeka 27th November
2012
Hotel
Bonavia,
Rijeka
16
Split 28th November
2012
Microsoft
Innovation
Centre, Split
13
Zagreb 30th November
2012
Hotel Aristos 15
TOTAL
84

As can be seen, levels of participation varied between locations and the overall level of
participation was 84 which was unfortunately once again below target. The most disappointing
levels of participation were in Varadin, although this may be explained by a clash with a national
conference on clusters organised by the Ministry of Entrepreneurship and Crafts.

In terms of the 84 participants it was possible to break them down further into four categories as
in the table below:

Category Number
Regional development agency staff, business
support organisation staff (HGK, HOK, etc.)
and local government administration staff.
22 (26%)

24
Cluster managers, members and companies 54 (64%)
University and R & D Institution staff 3 (4%)
Private sector consultants 5 (6%)
Total 84 (100%)

The level of participation from the cluster community and private sector has continued to remain
considerable at 70%. The participation from the University and R & D community at these
workshops has remained modest and it is hoped that this will improve in the final round of
workshops.

In terms of gender participation rates, 47 women and 37 men participated in the workshops. This
represents a 56:44 split in percentage terms. The participation rate of women in the Cluster
Development Programme has continued to remain high throughout the various stages of the CDP
and has been broadly similar to that of men overall.

The trainers/facilitators for these workshops were Toby Philpott, the Business
Process/Development Key Expert and Mladen Lovreni who provided inputs on EU funds.

The Managing Change and Growth Projects: A Problem Solving Approach workshops were held
in Osijek, Rijeka, Split, Varadin and Zagreb (two groups). Two groups were run in Zagreb since
experience from the previous CDP stages had shown that one group would be oversubscribed.

Participants were recruited using both the projects database of cluster related contacts (which
included previous CDP workshop participants) and through assistance by Regional Development
Agencies and the appropriate County branches of HGK. We are grateful to the respective RDAs
and HGK for their continued assistance in recruiting participants.

Again, participants were also recruited through publicity on the project website (www.razvoj-
klastera.hr) and were able to use the website to register for individual workshops. The minimum
target was to have at least 90 participants (6 x 15) attend the workshops and the Project aimed to
have no more than 25 participants at each workshop.

The details of the events and the numbers of participants are set out in the table below.

Venue Dates Location Number of participants
Zagreb 5th December
2012
Hotel Aristos 14
Varadin 6th December
2012
Hotel Turist 13
Osijek 7th December
2012
Hotel Osijek 11
Rijeka 11th December
2012
Hotel
Bonavia,
Rijeka
16
Split 12th December
2012
Microsoft
Innovation
14

25
Centre, Split
Zagreb 14th December
2012
Hotel Aristos 14
TOTAL
82

As can be seen, levels of participation varied between locations and the overall level of
participation was 82 which was unfortunately below target.

In terms of the 82 participants we have been able to break these down further into four categories
as in the table below:

Category Number
Regional development agency staff, business
support organisation staff (HGK, HOK, etc.)
and local government administration staff.
19 (23%)
Cluster managers, members and companies 51 (63%)
University and R & D Institution staff 5 (6%)
Private sector consultants 5 (6%)
Financial Services 1 (1%)
Ministry of Entrepreneurship and Crafts 1 (1%)
Total 82 (100%)

The level of participation from the cluster community and private sector has continued to remain
considerable at 70%. There has also been a significant increase in the participation from the
University and R & D community at these workshops.

In terms of gender participation rates, 39 women and 43 men participated in the workshops. This
represents a 48:52 split in percentage terms. The participation rate of women in the Cluster
Development Programme has continued to remain high throughout the various stages of the CDP
and has been broadly similar to that of men.

The main trainer/facilitator for these workshops was Toby Philpott, the Business
Process/Development Key Expert and for the first three workshops he was joined by Mrs Krystyna
Kravchyk from Cluster WEST, Nantes, France who spoke about her cluster and the change and
growth projects they have undertaken. Mr Philpott delivered the final three workshops alone on
the 11th-14th December 2012 as it was unfortunately not possible to find a cluster manager from
the EU who was available for those dates. The Project Team is grateful to Cluster WEST for
making Mrs Kravchyk available to co-facilitate the workshops with Mr Philpott.

3.5 New Foundation Stage and Combined Consolidation/Growth
Workshops (Feb-Jun 2013)

Due to the on-going demand for places on the CDP, the Project Team decided to run a set of new
workshops. However, due to resource constraints, and to maximise the benefits to participants, a

26
slightly revised two-day New Foundation Stage Workshop and a two-day joint
Consolidation/Growth Workshop were developed. The content of the new Foundation Stage
Workshop drew upon the Project Teams experience of cluster development acquired in Croatia.
In the case of the joint Consolidation/Growth programme, the programme was developed to select
the key points out of each of the respective workshops that had been delivered on the
Consolidation and Growth Stages of the CDP.

Participants were recruited using the projects database of cluster related contacts (which
included previous CDP workshop participants and potential participants).

Participants were also recruited through publicity on the project website (www.razvoj -klastera.hr)
and were able to use the website to register for individual workshops. The project Terms of
Reference required that each workshop should, on average train at least 15 people so our minimum
target was to have at least 60 participants (4 x 15) attend the workshops. The details of the events
and the numbers of participants are set out in the table below.

Venue Dates and Type of
Workshop
Location Number of participants
Zagreb 5
th
February 2013
New Foundation
Hotel Aristos 32
Zagreb 6
th
February 2013
New Foundation
Hotel Aristos 29
Zagreb 12
th
February 2013
Combined
Consolidation/Growth
Hotel Aristos 17
Zagreb 13th February 2013
Combined
Consolidation/Growth
Hotel Aristos 19
TOTAL
97

The number of participants was very encouraging and demonstrated the continued demand for
further participation in workshops. In terms of the 97 participants we have been able to break
these down further into four categories as in the table below:

Category Number
Regional development agency staff, business
support organisation staff (HGK, HOK, etc.)
and local government administration staff.
34 (35%)
Cluster managers, members and companies 45 (46%)
University and R & D Institution staff 14 (14%)
Private sector consultants 3 (3%)
Other EU Project 1 (1%)
Total 97 (100%)

The most encouraging aspect of the workshops was the increased participation by the University
and R & D institutional sector. This has been challenging previously. Once again, the private

27
sector has dominated the workshops with just under half of participants attending from the
private sector.

The workshops also saw a significant increase in the level of women participating. There were 63
women and 34 men participating, representing a 65:35 split in percentage terms. Women came
close to outnumbering men at these workshops by 2 to 1.

A further round of new Foundation Stage workshops were held on the 18th and 19th March 2013
at the Hotel Park in Split and on the 21st and 22nd March 2013 at the Hotel Aristos in Zagreb. The
Consolidation/Growth Stage workshops were held on the 25th and 26th March 201 in Split and on
the 28th and 29th March 2013 in Zagreb at the same respective venues.

Participants were recruited in Split with the kind assistance of RERASD (the organisation
responsible for the development of the County of Split-Dalmatia), and in Zagreb from the Project
database. Participants were also recruited through publicity on the project website (www.razvoj-
klatera.hr) and were able to use the website to register. The Project Terms of Reference required
that each workshop should train at least 15 people on average. The numbers of participants each
day of the Foundation and Consolidation/Growth workshops are set out in various tables below.
The training rooms were all of the highest suitability for participatory workshops. Simultaneous
translation was also provided and was of the highest standard, contributing significantly to the
effectiveness of the workshop.

Participation Numbers at New Foundation Stage Workshops March 2013
Venue Dates Location Number of participants
Split 18th March 2013 Hotel Park 28
Split 19th March 2013 Hotel Park 28
Zagreb 21st March 2013 Hotel Aristos 11
Zagreb 22nd March 2013 Hotel Aristos 11
TOTAL
78

The level of participation in Split was exceptional and exceeded the minimum target of 15 each day
by a considerable margin of 13. For the entire week, the participation rate was 18 above the
minimum requirement.

A further categorisation of the participants at the March 2013 New Foundation Stage workshops
can be found below:

Category Number
Private sector consultants and advisors 5 (6%)
Regional development agency staff, business
support organisation staff and local
19 (24%)

28
government administation staff.
Cluster managers, members and companies 50 (65%)
University and R & D Institution staff 4 (5%)
Total 78 (100%)

We can see from the table above that nearly two-thirds of participants came from clusters and the
private sector with a further 6% coming from private sector consultancies taking the private sector
participation rate above 70%. In terms of gender participation rates, it is interesting to note that
whereas there has typically been a broadly equal participation rate amongst men and women on
the CDP, during this week women participants outnumbered men by 2 to 1. The participation ratio
was 67:33 in favour of women on the Foundation Stage workshops, again representing a major
increase in female participation.

For the March 2013 combined Consolidation/Growth Stage workshops the daily participation rate
is set out in the table below:

Consolidation/Growth Stage Workshops
Venue Dates Location Number of participants
Split 25th March 2013 Hotel Park 23
Split 26th March 2013 Hotel Park 21
Zagreb 28th March 2013 Hotel Aristos 16
Zagreb 29th March 2013 Hotel Aristos 13
TOTAL
73

Once again, despite the Consolidation/Growth Stage workshops being held close to Easter, the
average participation rates remained above the minimum requirement of 15 per day. Again, the
participation in Split was high and in Zagreb, even on Good Friday, the participation rate was only
slightly below the required average. The minimum required participation rate was exceeded by 13
for the entire week.

A further categorisation of the participants at the March 2013 Consolidation/Growth Stage
workshops can be found below:


29

Category Number
Regional development agency staff, business
support organisation staff and local
government administation staff.
15 (21%)
Cluster managers, members and companies 56 (76%)
University and R & D Institution staff 2 (3%)
TOTAL 73 (100%)

During this week of workshops, over three-quarters of the participants attending came from the
private sector, with a significant fall off in representation from the University/Research
Institutions and a slight reduction in participation from the business support community. This
would suggest that interest in clustering amongst private sector actors in Croatia is starting to
strengthen.

In terms of gender participation, the percentage split between female (46) and male (27)
participants was 63:37 which was a slight improvement regarding the participation of men in these
workshops.

Further workshops were held on the 3rd and 4th June 2013 at the Hotel Waldinger in Osijek and
on the 6th and 7th June 2013 at the Hotel Esplanade in Zagreb.

Participants were recruited in Osijek with the kind assistance of the RDA, and in Zagreb from the
Project database. Participants were also recruited through publicity on the project website
(www.razvoj-klatera.hr) and were able to use the website to register. The Project Terms of
Reference required that each workshop should train at least 15 people on average. The numbers of
participants each day of the workshops are set out in various tables below. The training rooms
were all of the highest suitability for participatory workshops. Simultaneous translation was also
provided and was of the highest standard, contributing significantly to the effectiveness of the
workshop.


30
Participation Numbers at June 2013 Consolidation/Growth Stage Workshops
Dates Number of participants
3
rd
June 2013 6
4
th
June 2013 6
6
th
June 2013 20
7
th
June 2013 20
TOTAL
52

The level of participant in Zagreb was reasonably high at 20 (although there were a considerable
number of participants who registered and then did not subsequently attend) each day.
Unfortunately, in Osijek this was not the case and participation was a disappointingly low 6 each
day. It appears that our workshop clashed with other workshops held in Osijek that day and it is
possible that some of our would be participants may have decided to attend the other workshops
instead. The overall participation rate for the entire week therefore averaged 13 per day and was
therefore slightly down on the desired average of 15.

A further categorisation of the participants at the workshops can be found below:
Category Number
Private sector consultants and advisors 2 (4%)
Regional development agency staff, business
support organisation staff and local
government administation staff.
16 (31%)
Cluster managers, members and companies 30 (58%)
University and R & D Institution staff 4 (7%)
TOTAL 52 (100%)

We can see from the table above that nearly 60% of participants came from clusters and the
private sector with a further 4% coming from private sector consultancies taking the private sector
participation rate close to two-thirds. Private sector participation has therefore continued to
remain strong in the workshops.

31

In terms of gender participation rates, it is interesting to note that female participation rates have
been slightly higher than those of men on the CDP. During this week, the participation ratio was
52:48 male to female. Although not as high a number as during the workshops in March 2013, the
level of participation by women still remained relatively high during the week.

3.6 Conclusions

The Cluster Development Programme has been reasonably successful in attracting participation
from a range of sectors. It has been very successful in attracting private sector participation, which
is relatively unusual for EU projects. Throughout the CDP the level of private sector participation
has tended to be at least half or even as high as three quarters of participants at workshops.

Furthermore, with the notable exception of the the Growth Stage workshops, the CDP has been
successful in achieving participation targets (see the table below). The slight deficit in
participation on the Growth Stage workshops has been more than compensated by increased
numbers on the Original Foundation Stage, Original Consolidation Stage and the New
Foundation and combined Consolidation/Growth workshops.


Activity Target Achieved Variation
Days Number of
Participants
Days Number of
Participants
Days Number of
Participants
3.1b Awareness
Seminars
10 350 10 512 0 +162
3.1c CDP
Consolidation Stage
18 270 18 279 0 +9
3.1c CDP Growth
Stage
18 270 18 248 0 -22
3.1c CDP New
Foundation Stage
8 120 6 139 -2* +19
3.1c CDP Combined
Consolidation/Growth
8 120 10 161 +2* +41
3.1c Cluster Clinics 14 105 15 68 +1 -37
3.1d CDP Foundation
Stage (Original)
10 75 12 104 +2 +29
TOTAL 86 1310 89 1520 +3 +201
Source: Support to Cluster Development Relaunch Project Final Report


In total there were over 931 participants of the Cluster Development Programme of which the
majority were from the private sector. 474 were women and 457 were men representing a 51:49
percentage split. The Project has therefore been very successful in engaging women with the

32
Project. Whether this reflects a greater willingness on the part of women to learn or due to other
factors is difficult to verify.

However, what it does demonstrate is that there is a strong desire for knowledge and ideas for how
clusters can be developed in Croatia. There is also a demonstrated willingness on the part of
cluster stakeholders as a whole to engage actively with the process, and a desire on their part to
see the Government of Croatia (particularly the Ministry of Entrepreneurship and Crafts) to play
an enabling role to support the process of consolidation and development of world leading clusters.

4. Participant Evaluations

4.1 Introduction

To ensure that the workshops were being delivered to a high standard and meeting the
requirements of participants each workshop had a feedback sheet to enable them to provide their
views to the Project Team.
The feedback form asked participants to score:
The level of the course (5 too advanced, 3 the right level, 1 too basic);
The length of the course (5 too long, 3 about right, 1 too short);
The quality of the hand-out materials (5 excellent, 3 average, 1 poor);
The usefulness of the course in their work (5 very useful, 3 useful, 1 no use at all);
Would you recommend the course to someone in a similar role to yourself? (Yes/No).
The effectiveness of the facilitators (5 excellent, 3 average, 1 poor);

Qualitative questions were also asked around the following topics:
Which topic/s did you find of most interest?
Which topic/s (if any) would you like to see deleted?
Any other comments or suggestions for improvement of the programme?
Do you have any recommendations for how the climate for cluster development could be
improved in Croatia?

The remainder of the section of the report reviews the feedback received from participants at the
different workshops.

4.2 Foundation Stage

The table below summarises the average quantitative scores for each of the individual workshops.
The numbers in brackets below the score is the standard deviation of responses. Unfortunately not
all participants completed the questionnaires despite being given a copy. The response rate was
81.6% of all participants.



33
Analysis of Completed Feedback Questionnaires
Zagreb 1
(n=16)
Osijek
(n=13)
Varadin
(n=22)
Rijeka
(n=11)
Split
(n=9)
Zagreb
2
(n=13)
Total
(n=84)
Level of Course 3.8
(0.9)
3.9
(0.47)
4.0
(0.37)
4.0
(0)
4.2
(0.63)
4.1
(0.47)
3.96
(0.57)
Length of Course 3.1
(0.75)
3.2
(0.42)
3.2
(0.49)
3.0
(0)
3.3
(0.47)
3.3
(0.46)
3.18
(0.52)
Quality of Handouts 4.3
(1.21)
4.4
(0.74)
4.3
(0.7)
4.6
(0.64)
4.8
(0.42)
4.7
(0.47)
4.47
(0.8)
Usefulness of Course in Work 3.7
(1.04)
3.8
(0.66)
3.8
(0.9)
4.3
(0.75)
4.2
(0.79)
4.1
(0.62)
3.96
(0.85)
Effectiveness of Eugene OCurry 4.9
(0.33)
4.8
(0.42)
4.8
(0.42)
4.9
(0.29)
4.9
(0.31)
4.8
(0.36)
4.83
(0.37)
Effectiveness of Andrea
Vugrinovi
4.2
(1.07)
4.6
(0.49)
4.7
(1.04)
4.6
(0.48)
4.8
(0.43)
4.9
(0.28)
4.63
(0.82)

The participants appear overall to believe the Foundation Stage to have been slightly advanced
(although there may have been some upward bias due to participants not reading the question
properly) with an overall score of 3.96. A standard deviation of 0.57 suggests a relatively low and
stable spread of scores.
A score of 3.18 strongly suggests that two days was the optimal length of time to deliver the
workshop. A standard deviation of 0.52 again suggests a relatively stable spread of scores and a
consensus amongst participants on the length.
The high average score of 4.47 for the hand-outs shows that the materials were well appreciated by
participants although there is some variation in responses suggested by the standard deviation of
0.8.
The course will be useful and close to very useful in their work with an average score of close to 4.
Again, the standard deviation of 0.8 is suggestive that there is some variation of opinion on the
Foundation Stage but the overall picture is very positive.
Both main trainers also were very well received, scoring close to excellent scores on average.
The qualitative feedback was also very positive from participants regarding the interactive nature
of the workshop. Several suggestions were also made on how to improve the climate for cluster
development which included better financing and support from the Croatian Government and
information on how to start a cluster.

34
In conclusion, therefore, both the quantitative and qualitative feedback received has been
overwhelmingly positive and the overwhelming majority of the participants would recommend the
programme to others in a similar position. Participants enjoyed the highly interactive nature of the
programme and appreciated the efforts made to make the course relevant for their needs.

4.3 Consolidation Stage

4.3.1 Phase 1 Strategic Planning and Innovation Workshops

The table below summarises the average quantitative scores for each of the individual Strategic
Planning and Innovation workshops. The numbers in brackets below the score is the standard
deviation of responses. Unfortunately, not all participants completed the questionnaires despite
being given a copy. The response rate was 81.0% of all participants.
Analysis of Completed Feedback Questionnaires
Rijeka
(n=12)
Varadin
(n=9)
Zagreb
(n=13)
Total
(n=34)
Level of Course
4.00
(0.58)
4.11
(0.31)
3.92
(0.62)
4.00
(0.54)
Quality of Handouts
4.17
(0.80)
4.89
(0.31)
4.45
(0.66)
4.47
(0.71)
Usefulness of Course in Work
4.00
(0.71)
4.56
(0.50)
4.00
(0.55)
4.15
(0.65)
Effectiveness of Trainers/Facilitators
4.58
(0.49)
5.00
(0.00)
4.62
(0.49)
4.71
(0.46)

In terms of the level of the workshops, it would appear that the participants saw the programme as
slightly advanced but there was a reasonable level of variation in the responses as evidenced by the
standard deviations in each location.
The quality of the hand-outs and materials (which were provided to each participant on a USB
stick) were seen as being of a high standard with all averages being above 4, and in the case of
Varadin, close to the maximum possible score of 5. In terms of usefulness in their work, the
average score for participants suggests that the workshops had content which was highly relevant
to their work.
The trainers were also seen as highly effective with an overall average of close to 5 and in Varadin
all participants rated them as excellent. In analysing all the scores given to the trainers at no point
did they receive a score below 4 from any participant.
All participants who completed the evaluation form would recommend the workshop to others.

35
In summary, the quantitative scores would suggest that the content of the workshops was highly
relevant, well delivered and the materials were of high quality.
The topic that the majority of participants found the most interesting was the participatory
exercise on business opportunity generation. The next most popular topic with participants was
the session on Six Hats, the thinking methodology developed by Edward de Bono which was
introduced to participants as a method for screening innovative ideas.
In terms of topics which participants did not find interesting and useful, only one participant
suggested that the strategic planning tools of SWOT, 7S, PESTEL, should not be covered in the
sessions on the development of strategic plans. As this individual was very much in a minority of
one this suggestion will be ignored. It was our experience from the Foundation Stage of the
Cluster Development workshop that the level of knowledge of these tools is generally low amongst
participants and that it is useful to discuss these tools in this place.
The majority of participants who expressed an opinion on how the workshops could be improved
suggested that more examples of best practice and case studies could be used. There were also a
significant number of comments which suggested that more group work could be used throughout
the day.
The comments on how the climate for cluster development in Croatia could be improved included
comments upon the funding regime and how it needs to be more targeted so that the better
clusters (in terms of organisation and strategic planning) are able to develop. There is a current
perception that funding for clusters is spread rather thinly amongst a lot of clusters rather than
being targeted as it is in other countries (e.g. Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, etc.). Further
comments were made on the need to use study tours for cluster managers.

4.3.2 Phase 1 - Work Organisation and Project Management

On this occasion, the response rate was 100.0% of all participants.
Analysis of Completed Feedback Questionnaires
Rijeka
(n=15)
Varadin
(n=14)
Zagreb
(n=14)
Total
(n=43)
Level of Course 3.47
(0.62)
3.36
(0.61)
3.21
(1.01)
3.35
(0.77)
Quality of Handouts 4.40
(0.71)
4.38
(0.49)
4.15
(0.95)
4.32
(0.75)
Usefulness of Course in Work 3.53
(0.88)
3.29
(0.80)
3.50
(1.40)
3.44
(1.06)
Effectiveness of Trainers/Facilitators 4.13
(0.72)
4.00
(0.76)
4.00
(1.20)
4.05
(0.91)

In terms of the level of the workshops, it would appear that the participants saw the programme as
about right in terms of level.

36
The quality of the hand-outs and materials (which were provided to each participant on a USB
stick) were seen as being of a high standard with all averages being above 4. In terms of usefulness
in their work, the average score for participants suggests that the workshops had content which
was relevant to their work.
The trainers were also seen as effective with an overall average of around 4.
There were three participants who completed the evaluation form would not recommend the
workshop to others and this somewhat of concern as all three were at the same workshop in
Zagreb. Indeed, in Zagreb the standard deviation of responses was relatively high reflecting a wide
variation in views on the level of the course, the usefulness of the course in work and the
effectiveness of the trainers.
In summary, the quantitative scores would suggest that the content of the workshops was relevant,
well delivered and the materials were of high quality although this was not necessary seen as true
for all participants.
The topic that the majority of participants found the most interesting varied slightly from location
to location. In Rijeka they found the communication skills section the most interesting followed
closely by personal organisation. In Varadin it was personal organisation that participants found
the most interesting followed by communication skills. In Zagreb, although both personal
communication skills and personal organisation featured as the most interesting topic for a
minority of participants, organisational structure and the management information system content
was found valuable by a significant number.
In terms of topics which participants did not find interesting and useful, a small minority of
participants did not find the management information system content interesting and useful. One
participant in Zagreb stated that they did not find the personal organisation material interesting.
Lessons were learned by the presenters/facilitators and it is notable that adverse comments tended
to be linked to the quality of the projection equipment (which was slightly problematic in
Varadin).
The majority of participants who expressed an opinion on how the workshops could be improved
suggested that more examples of best practice and case studies linked to solving problems within
clusters could be used.
The comments on how the climate for cluster development in Croatia could be improved included
organising more training both for cluster managers and also for SME owner-managers who could
be members of clusters. Further comments related to the perceived need to build networks
between cluster managers and between clusters. Although beyond the scope of the Terms of
Reference of the Project, it could be beneficial to develop a cluster manager's association within
Croatia which would facilitate experience exchange and sharing of knowledge and this suggestion
from several participants will be raised with the Ministry of Entrepreneurship and Crafts and the
Ministry of Economy who may be able to provide assistance to such an association/organisation.

4.3.3 Phase 1 Marketing and Branding

The table below summarises the average quantitative scores for each of the individual workshops.
The numbers in brackets below the score is the standard deviation of responses.

37
The Project received feedback forms from all participants bar one who arrived late and felt unable
and unwilling to complete the feedback form.

Analysis of Completed Feedback Questionnaires
Rijeka
(n=18)
Varadin
(n=16)
Zagreb
(n=16)
Total
(n=50)
Level of Course 3.89
(0.46)
3.94
(0.43)
4.13
(0.48)
3.98
(0.47)
Quality of Handouts 4.82
(0.38)
4.67
(0.47)
4.73
(0.44)
4.74
(0.44)
Usefulness of Course in Work 4.00
(0.88)
3.80
(0.83)
4.40
(0.71)
4.06
(0.85)
Effectiveness of Trainers/Facilitators 4.67
(0.47)
4.63
(0.48)
4.81
(0.53)
4.70
(0.50)

In terms of the level of the workshops, it would appear that the participants saw the programme as
slightly advanced in terms of level.
At this workshop, several printed hand-outs were provided to participants. They included a
SWOT analysis of the organisations marketing, a marketing audit, a new product development
audit and a marketing action plan. A marketing plan of a company based in Croatia was also
provided. The presentations and several example promotional videos from EU-based clusters were
also given to participants to review at their leisure on a USB stick. The materials at these
workshops were rated very highly by participants.

In terms of usefulness in their work, the average score for participants suggests that the
workshops had content which was particularly relevant to their work.

The trainers/facilitators were also seen as highly effective with an overall average of 4.7.

There was only one participant who completed the evaluation form who would not recommend
the workshop to others. This participant attended the workshop in Zagreb. This appears to be
counterintuitive given that the Zagreb workshop achieved the highest scores in terms of
usefulness to work and effectiveness of the facilitators/trainers.

In summary, the quantitative scores would suggest that the content of the workshops was relevant,
well delivered and the materials were of high quality.

The topic that the majority of participants found the most interesting varied slightly from location
to location and this, in part, reflected the fact that Mrs Kravchyk was not able to attend the
training on the first day in Rijeka. In Rijeka, the e-marketing and social media content was well
received as was the content on branding. Subsequently it was the Cluster WEST presentation by
Mrs Kravchyk and to a lesser extent the e-marketing and social media topics that were best
received in both Varadin and Zagreb.

During the workshops, the trainers/facilitators used several videos and this was very well received.
We will look to integrate more videos into the other two workshops.

In terms of the topics which participants did not find interesting and useful, a very small minority
did not find the theoretical aspects of marketing useful (one participant) and the e-marketing and

38
social media (one participant). In both cases this was because they had attended previous training
programmes elsewhere on these topics.

Suggestions for improvement of the workshops centred on the application of material to the
Croatian context and the desire for more examples such as Cluster WEST. It was also suggested
that guest speakers from overseas clusters could be brought in to share their experience of using e -
marketing and social media.

There were a number of comments on how the climate for cluster development in Croatia could be
improved. These comments focused on the need for further education and training for the various
stakeholders related to cluster development (cluster managers, SME owner-managers, government
officials at national and county level, etc.). Another key issue which was cited several times by
participants was the need for support in gaining more members.

4.3.4 Phase 2 Strategic Planning and Innovation

The table below summarises the average quantitative scores for each of the individual workshops.
Unfortunately, not all participants completed the questionnaires despite being given a copy. The
response rate was 84.6% of all participants.
Analysis of Completed Feedback Questionnaires
Split
(n=12)
Zagreb
(n=17)
Osijek
(n=15)
Total
(n=44)
Level of Course
4.17
(0.37)
4.00
(0.49)
3.87
(0.50)
4.00
(0.48)
Quality of Handouts
4.91
(0.29)
4.67
(0.47)
3.64
(0.81)
4.38
(0.80)
Usefulness of Course in Work
4.33
(0.47)
4.19
(0.81)
3.73
(0.77)
4.07
(0.76)
Effectiveness of Trainers/ Facilitators
4.83
(0.37)
4.76
(0.42)
4.53
(0.50)
4.70
(0.46)

In terms of the level of the workshops, it would appear that the participants saw the programme as
slightly advanced.
The quality of the hand-outs and materials (which were provided to each participant on a USB
stick) were seen as being of a high standard with an overall average above 4, and in the case of
Split, close to the maximum possible score of 5. In terms of usefulness in their work, the average
score for participants suggests that the workshops had content which was highly relevant to their
work although there was some variation in scores.

39
The trainers were also seen as highly effective with an overall average of 4.7 with the highest score
for effectiveness being in Split. In analysing all the scores given to the trainers at no point did they
receive a score below 4 from any participant.
All participants who completed the evaluation form would recommend the workshop to others.
In summary, the quantitative scores would suggest that the content of the workshops was highly
relevant, well delivered and the materials were of high quality.
The topic that the majority of participants found the most interesting was the participatory
exercise on business opportunity generation. The next most popular topics with participants were
the sessions on innovation and innovation gaps.

In terms of topics which participants did not find interesting there were no suggestions and
participants appear to have found the workshop as a whole interesting and useful.
There was a small number of participants who expressed an opinion on how the workshops could
be improved. They suggested that more examples of best practice and case studies could be used
(specifically from Croatia).
The comments on how the climate for cluster development in Croatia could be improved included
a desire for better communication within the cluster community (including a stronger publicity
campaign from the beneficiary Ministries), and a greater desire for more training for cluster
managers. Unlike the previous phase of Consolidation Stage workshops, there were no comments
related to funding clusters.

4.3.5 Phase 2 Work Organisation and Project Management

The table below summarises the average quantitative scores for each of the individual workshops.
The numbers in brackets below the score is the standard deviation of responses. Unfortunately,
not all participants completed evaluation questionnaires and so, on this occasion, the response rate
was 86.3% of all participants.


40
Analysis of Completed Feedback Questionnaires
Split
(n=11)
Zagreb
(n=18)
Osijek
(n=15)
Total
(n=44)
Level of Course 3.73
(0.45)
3.83
(0.60)
3.93
(0.44)
3.84
(0.52)
Quality of Handouts 4.18
(0.83)
4.50
(0.60)
4.47
(0.72)
4.41
(0.72)
Usefulness of Course in Work 3.73
(0.86)
3.72
(0.80)
4.07
(0.77)
3.84
(0.82)
Effectiveness of Trainers/Facilitators 4.36
(0.98)
4.39
(0.59)
4.67
(0.47)
4.48
(0.69)

In terms of the level of the workshops, it would appear that the participants saw the programme as
slightly advanced in terms of level.
The quality of the hand-outs and materials (which were provided to each participant on a USB
stick) were seen as being of a high standard with all averages being above 4. In terms of usefulness
in their work, the average score for participants suggests that the workshops had content which
was relevant to their work.
The trainers were also seen as very effective with an overall average of just under 4.5.
There were two participants who completed the evaluation form who would not recommend the
workshop to others, one in Split and the other in Zagreb. Indeed, in Split the standard deviation of
responses was relatively high reflecting a wide variation in views on the level of the course, the
usefulness of the course in work and the effectiveness of the trainers.
In summary, the quantitative scores would suggest that the content of the workshops was relevant,
well delivered and the materials were of high quality although this was not necessary seen as true
by all participants.
There was a wide variation in the views of the participants on which topics they found interesting
with communication skills, personal organisation and project management all featuring
prominently in participants responses.
Organisational structure was found to not be of interest by just two participants: one in Split and
one in Zagreb. The Split participant also did not find the content on the management role of the
cluster manager of interest. This was due to their having received a considerable level of education
on this topic at University.

41
The majority of participants who expressed an opinion on how the workshops could be improved
(which were around 20% of participants) suggested that more examples of best practice and case
studies could be used.
The comments on how the climate for cluster development in Croatia could be improved included
organising more training both for cluster managers and also for SME owner-managers who could
be members of clusters. Further comments related to the perceived need to build networks for
experience exchange and sharing best practice between cluster managers and between clusters
(including mentoring for new clusters and cluster managers). Although beyond the scope of the
Terms of Reference of the Project, it could be beneficial for the Ministry of Entrepreneurship and
Crafts (and possibly also the Ministry of Economy) to support the development of a cluster
manager's association within Croatia. The association could, in turn, facilitate experience
exchange and sharing of knowledge.

4.3.6 Phase 2 Marketing and Branding

The table below summarises the average quantitative scores for each of the individual workshops.
The numbers in brackets below the score is the standard deviation of responses.
We received feedback forms from most of the participants (37 out of 40) who at tended the
workshop.

Analysis of Completed Feedback Questionnaires
Split
(n=8)
Zagreb
(n=10)
Osijek
(n=19)
Total
(n=37)
Level of Course 4.00
(0.50)
4.00
(0.45)
4.05
(0.39)
4.03
(0.43)
Quality of Handouts 4.88
(0.33)
4.70
(0.64)
4.50
(0.60)
4.64
(0.58)
Usefulness of Course in Work 4.88
(0.33)
4.00
(0.77)
4.16
(0.81)
4.27
(0.79)
Effectiveness of Trainers/Facilitators 5.00
(0.00)
4.80
(0.40)
4.74
(0.44)
4.81
(0.39)

In terms of the level of the workshops, it would appear that the participants saw the programme as
slightly advanced.
At this workshop, several printed hand-outs were provided to participants. They included a
SWOT analysis of the organisations marketing, a marketing audit, a new product development
audit and a marketing action plan. The presentations and several example promotional videos from
EU-based clusters were also given to participants to review at their leisure on a USB stick. The
materials at these workshops were rated highly by participants.

In terms of usefulness in their work, the average score for participants suggests that the
workshops had content which was particularly relevant to their work. The trainer was also seen as
highly effective with an overall average of 4.81 and no participants stated that they would not
recommend the workshop to others.

In summary, the quantitative scores would suggest that the content of the workshops was relevant,
well delivered and the materials were of high quality.

42

The topic that the majority of participants found the most interesting varied slightly from location
to location. In Split, the e-marketing and social media part of the programme was particularly well
received although several participants also commented positively on the use of the videos in the
workshop and the EU cluster cases chosen to illustrate key points. In Zagreb the main preference
was for the traditional marketing and branding aspects of the workshop as opposed to e-
marketing and social media use and, once again, the examples shown of EU clusters were
positively received. In Osijek there was a more balanced view of both the traditional branding and
e-marketing topics.

During the workshops, the trainers/facilitators used several videos and this was very well received.

No participants suggested that any topics should be deleted during this phase of delivery.

Suggestions for improvement of the workshop centred on using even more cluster examples and in
the case of Osijek it was suggested that bee-keeping cluster-related content from the EU would be
a good addition (a significant number of participants have attended our workshops from the
beekeeping association centred on Osijek. Another comment suggested that greater linkage could
be made between social networking media and product placement in the workshops (although
this can often be very context specific which might not appeal to all participants).

There were a number of comments on how the climate for cluster development in Croatia could be
improved. These primarily centred on the development of forums for information exchange
between cluster managers (which could be a development of the project website) and the need for
awareness of the benefits of clusters to be further raised amongst potential participants in the
private sector.

4.4 Growth Stage

4.4.1 Workshop 1: Putting in the Foundations for Growth

The table below summarises the average quantitative scores for each of the individual workshops.
The numbers in brackets below the score is the standard deviation of responses.
We received feedback forms from most of the participants (73 out of 82 or 89%) who attended the
workshops.

Analysis of Completed Feedback Questionnaires
Zagreb 1
(n=10)
Varadin
(n=14)
Osijek
(n=13)
Rijeka
(n=7)
Split
(n=10)
Zagreb 2
(n=19)
Total
(n=73)
Level of Course 4.00
(0.45)
3.93
(0.26)
4.08
(0.27)
4.00
(0.00)
4.20
(0.87)
3.95
(0.57)
4.01
(0.48)
Quality of
Handouts
4.50
(0.50)
4.00
(0.78)
4.31
(0.61)
4.33
(0.47)
4.40
(0.80)
4.17
(0.58)
4.25
(0.67)
Usefulness of
Course in Work
4.30
(0.90)
3.86
(0.83)
4.00
(0.88)
4.57
(0.49)
4.20
(0.87)
4.24
(0.54)
4.15
(0.80)
Effectiveness of
Trainers/
Facilitators
4.80
(0.40)
4.79
(0.41)
4.77
(0.42)
4.71
(0.45)
4.89
(0.31)
4.95
(0.22)
4.83
(0.37)

43

In terms of the level of the workshops, it would appear that the participants saw the programme as
slightly advanced.
In terms of the quality of hand-outs, participants were enabled to download copies of the
presentations which served as the main material from the workshops. Participants who had not
previously attended CDP workshops were also provided at the workshop with a copy of a new
product development audit and a marketing audit to use as part of the process of assessing the
current performance of their cluster or organisation. It was decided by the Project Team to
discontinue issuing USB sticks with presentations and other materials on to economise on
incidental budget costs during the Growth Stage of the CDP.
In terms of usefulness in their work, the average score for participants suggests that the
workshops had content which was mostly relevant to their work. This may be a reflection of the
stage of development of the clusters of the participants or possibly that participants need more
support in applying the Growth Framework to their particular cluster as some participants are
perhaps only going to be considering growth in their clusters at a later stage. It should also be
noted that at 0.80 the standard deviation is quite high suggesting a relatively wide spread of
opinion on the usefulness of the workshop to the work of the participants.

The trainer was seen as highly effective with an overall average of 4.83 and no participants stated
that they would not recommend the workshop to others.

In summary, the quantitative scores would suggest that the content of the workshops was relevant,
well delivered and the materials were of high quality.

As might be expected, the topics that the majority of participants found the most interesting
varied slightly from location to location. At the first Zagreb workshop participants generally found
the whole day useful and there were also positive comments regarding the opportunity to share
experiences as cluster managers. In Varadin, and also in Split, the entire workshop content was
well received and several participants also mentioned that the diagnostic framework had given
them a better idea of the best way in which to develop their cluster organisation (or develop
clusters in the case of RDA participants). A similar response to the workshop was to be found in
Osijek, although some participants would have liked there to have been more time for case studies
and live examples of growth stage clusters. In Rijeka, it was easier to address such concerns as
there was only a relatively small number of participants and the workshop there appears to have
been well received. The second Zagreb workshop was also well received by participants and some
participants found the material on the marketing and financial current performance of the cluster
organisation particularly useful. There were some comments that it would be good to have more
time for questions and answers.

One participant in Zagreb suggested that perhaps the content on growth challenges could be
shortened during these workshops.

Suggestions for improvement of the workshop at all locations centred on using more cluster
examples and encouraging even more interaction between participants (although the trainer did
make all efforts to encourage participation and experience exchange at all stages). It was also
recommended that some cluster managers from the EU be brought into the workshops to provide
live case studies. Such participation is planned for the final set of workshops scheduled for
December 2012.


44
There were a number of comments on how the climate for cluster development in Croatia could be
improved. The main comment was on the desire for more workshops as delivered by the CDP.
Other suggestions included strengthening the links between research/academia and clusters in
Croatia, improving information exchange between cluster managers and also that one Ministry
should have overall responsibility for cluster development within Croatia.

4.4.2 Workshop 2: Developing the Potential for Growth

The table below summarises the average quantitative scores for each of the individual workshops.
The numbers in brackets below the score is the standard deviation of responses.
Feedback forms were received from most of the participants (74 out of 84, 88%) who attended the
workshops.

Analysis of Completed Feedback Questionnaires
Zagreb 1
(n=14)
Varadin
(n=8)
Osijek
(n=13)
Rijeka
(n=13)
Split
(n=12)
Zagreb 2
(n=14)
Total
(n=74)
Level of Course 4.07
(0.59)
3.88
(0.33)
4.00
(0.39)
4.08
(0.62)
4.33
(0.62)
3.85
(0.53)
4.04
(0.56)
Quality of Hand-
outs
4.25
(0.72)
4.50
(0.50)
4.08
(0.64)
4.23
(0.58)
4.17
(0.80)
4.43
(0.62)
4.27
(0.67)
Usefulness of
Course in Work
4.21
(0.67)
3.63
(0.86)
4.23
(0.70)
4.31
(0.82)
3.92
(0.86)
4.36
(0.61)
4.15
(0.78)
Effectiveness of
Trainers/
Facilitators
4.86
(0.35)
4.50
(0.50)
4.85
(0.36)
4.54
(0.50)
4.67
(0.47)
4.86
(0.35)
4.73
(0.44)

In terms of the level of the workshops, it would appear that the participants saw the programme as
slightly advanced.

In terms of the quality of hand-outs, participants were enabled to download copies of the
presentations which served as the main material from the workshops. Participants were also given
a pro-forma for the development of ideas for possible Projects of National Importance and they also
received a questionnaire related to a model of action-centred leadership originally developed by
John Adair, a British Professor of Leadership. Again, the quality of the materials appears to have
been seen as very good.

In terms of usefulness in their work, the average score for participants suggests that the
workshops had content, which was mostly relevant to their work. This may be a reflection of the
stage of development of the clusters of the participants or perhaps that the EU funds related
materials will be relevant in the future once Croatia joins the EU in July 2013. It should also be
noted that at 0.78 the standard deviation is quite high suggesting a relatively wide spread of
opinion on the usefulness of the workshop to the work of the participants.

The trainers were seen as highly effective with an overall average of 4.73 and no participants stated
that they would not recommend the workshop to others.

In summary, the quantitative scores would suggest that the content of the workshops was relevant,
well delivered and the materials were of high quality.


45
The qualitative comments on the workshop all suggest that the whole day was well received in all
locations and although participants overall stated a preference towards the material on EU funds
and project development, the leadership content was also well received.

The small number of suggestions for improvement of the workshop focused on the use of examples
of EU Structural Funds to support clusters. We responded to this suggestion by discussing in
subsequent workshops how France and the Czech Republic have used such funds to support
clusters.

There were a number of comments on how the climate for cluster development in Croatia could be
improved. The main comment was on the desire for more workshops as delivered by the CDP.
Other suggestions included strengthening the links between research/academia and clusters in
Croatia.

4.4.3 Workshop 3: Managing Change and Growth Projects

The table below summarises the average quantitative scores for each of the individual workshops.
The numbers in brackets below the score is the standard deviation of responses. We received
feedback forms from most of the participants (73 out of 82, 89%) who attended the workshops.

Analysis of Completed Feedback Questionnaires
Zagreb 1
(n=13)
Varadin
(n=12)
Osijek
(n=11)
Rijeka
(n=15)
Split
(n=9)
Zagreb 2
(n=13)
Total
(n=73)
Level of Course 4.15
(0.53)
4.08
(0.28)
4.00
(0.00)
4.33
(0.47)
4.22
(0.42)
3.92
(0.62)
4.12
(0.47)
Quality of
Handouts
4.44
(0.68)
4.36
(0.48)
4.40
(0.66)
4.43
(0.73)
4.22
(0.79)
4.31
(0.72)
4.36
(0.69)
Usefulness of
Course in Work
4.31
(0.82)
3.83
(0.80)
4.36
(0.77)
4.47
(0.50)
4.44
(0.68)
4.38
(0.74)
4.30
(0.75)
Effectiveness of
Trainers/
Facilitators
4.92
(0.28)
4.75
(0.43)
4.82
(0.39)
4.73
(0.44)
4.78
(0.42)
5.00
(0.00)
4.83
(0.37)

In terms of the level of the workshops, it would appear that the participants saw the programme as
slightly advanced.
In terms of the quality of hand-outs, participants were enabled to download copies of the
presentations which served as the main material from the workshops. They were also given a copy
of a questionnaire on attitudes to change to stimulate discussion on change management issues.
Some video content was also used related to leadership and change management. It appears that
the materials were generally well-received.
In terms of usefulness in their work, the average score from participants suggests that the
workshops had content which was highly relevant to their work. The standard deviation of 0.75
suggests a relatively wide spread of opinion on the usefulness of the programme. No participant
scored the workshop less than 3 (useful) on this dimension.

The trainers were seen as highly effective with an overall average of 4.83 and no participants stated
that they would not recommend the workshop to others. The workshops in Zagreb both appear to
have been particularly well received by participants.

46

In summary, the quantitative scores would suggest that the content of the workshops was relevant,
well delivered and the materials were of high quality.

The qualitative comments on the workshop from participants suggest that the whole day was well
received in all locations and the practical example from Cluster WEST in particular.

The small number of suggestions for improvement of the workshop focused on the increased use of
case studies such as the cluster WEST example.

There were a number of comments on how the climate for cluster development in Croatia could be
improved. The main comment was on the desire for more workshops as delivered by the CDP (and
some of the participants expressed their pleasure with the workshops they had attended). Other
suggestions focused on strengthening the links between the public and private sectors in Croatia.

4.5 New Foundation and Combined Consolidation/Growth Stage Workshops
(Feb-Jun 2013)

4.5.1 February 2013 Workshops

The table below summarises the average quantitative scores for each day of the New Foundation
Stage workshops conducted in February 2013. The numbers in brackets below the score is the
standard deviation of responses.

Feedback forms were received from most of the participants (54 out of 61, 88.5%) who attended
the workshops.

Analysis of Completed New Foundation Stage February 2013 Feedback Questionnaires
Zagreb
Day 1
(n=28)
Zagreb
Day 2
(n=26)
Average
(n=54)
Level of Course 4.18
(0.47)
3.88
(0.28)
4.04
(0.47)
Quality of
Handouts
4.14
(0.62)
4.00
(0.92)
4.07
(0.78)
Usefulness of
Course in Work
4.36
(0.72)
3.92
(0.92)
4.15
(0.85)
Effectiveness of
Trainers/
Facilitators
4.71
(0.45)
4.52
(0.57)
4.62
(0.52)

In terms of the level of the workshops, it would appear that the participants saw the programme as
slightly advanced.
In terms of the quality of hand-outs, participants were enabled to download copies of the
presentations which served as the main material from the workshop. They were also given a copy
of a questionnaire on Belbin team roles, where they were able to identify their own Belbin
preferences. It appears that the materials were generally well-received.

47
In terms of usefulness in their work, the average score from participants suggests that the
workshops had content which was very relevant to their work. The standard deviation of 0.85
suggests a relatively wide spread of opinion on the usefulness of the programme though. No
participant scored the workshop less than 3 (useful) on this dimension.

The trainers were seen as highly effective with an overall average of 4.62 over the two days and no
participants stated that they would not recommend the workshop to others.

In summary, the quantitative scores would suggest that the content of the workshops was relevant,
well delivered and the materials were of high quality.

In terms of qualitative responses, for the first day of the workshop it would appear that the
strategic planning and building the Triple Helix topics were the most well received. The delivery
of the story of how the Project developed the Pilot Competitiveness Clusters was also well
received by participants who appreciated the candid approach to some of the challenges and issues
the Project had faced. Cluster management and leadership during the Growth day was also well
appreciated.

In terms of improving the climate for cluster development in Croatia, many of the participants
believe that there should be more encouragement and awareness-raising by the Government of
clusters and the benefits of merging several of the smaller clusters in the country. There was also a
strong expression of desire to see the Government providing more resources to support the start -
up and sustainability of clusters.

The table below summarises the average quantitative scores for each day of the combined
Consolidation/Growth workshops conducted in February 2013 in Zagreb. As before, the number in
brackets below the score is the standard deviation of responses.

Feedback forms were received from most of the participants (33 out of 36, 92%) who attended the
workshops.

Analysis of Completed Consolidation/Growth Stage February 2013 Feedback Questionnaires
Zagreb
Day 1
(n=15)
Zagreb
Day 2
(n=18)
Average
(n=33)
Level of Course 4.00
(0.37)
4.00
(0.00)
4.00
(0.25)
Usefulness of
Course in Work
4.33
(0.60)
4.50
(0.60)
4.42
(0.60)
Effectiveness of
Trainers/
Facilitators
4.80
(0.40)
4.89
(0.31)
4.85
(0.36)

In terms of the level of the workshops, it would appear that the participants saw the programme as
slightly advanced.
Since the Project Team had taken a conscious decision to make the materials available to
participants via download from the Project website, it was decided to no longer ask the question
about the quality of hand-outs.


48
In terms of usefulness in their work, the average score from participants suggests that the
workshops had content which was very relevant to their work. The standard deviation of 0.60
suggests a relatively wide spread of opinion on the usefulness of the programme though. No
participant scored the workshop less than 3 (useful) on this dimension.

The trainers were seen as very effective with an overall average of 4.85 over the two days and no
participants stated that they would not recommend the workshop to others.

In summary, the quantitative scores would suggest that the content of the workshops was relevant
and well delivered.

On the Consolidation Day (Day 1) it appears that many participants appreciated all of the content
that day, although some drew especial emphasis to the importance of innovation and management
within clusters. Change management and management within clusters were also topics of interest
to participants.

In terms of improving the climate for Croatian clusters, one of the participants recommended that
a particular institution be created to both support cluster development and also to open itself up
to providing education and training to existing and potential cl uster managers.

4.5.2 March 2013 Workshops

The tables below summarise the average quantitative scores each day on each of the March 2013
workshops. The numbers in brackets below the score is the standard deviation of responses.
Unfortunately, not all participants completed the questionnaires despite being given a copy. The
response rate was 77% of all participants for the Foundation Stage workshops and 86% of all
participants for the Consolidation/Growth Stage workshops.

Analysis of Completed Feedback Questionnaires March 2013 New Foundation Stage
Workshops
Split
18
th
March
2013
(n=21)
Split
19th March
2013
(n=20)
Zagreb
21
st
March
2013
(n=10)
Zagreb
22
nd
March
2013
(n=9)
Total
(n=60)
Level of Course 4.22
(0.61)
4.00
(0.45)
3.90
(0.30)
3.78
(0.42)
3.98
(0.50)
Usefulness of Course in
Work
4.22
(0.89)
4.00
(0.80)
4.40
(0.80)
4.22
(0.79)
4.13
(0.85)
Effectiveness of
Facilitator
4.89
(0.50)
4.72
(0.43)
4.70
(0.46)
4.56
(0.68)
4.73
(0.51)


49
The participants appear overall to believe the Foundation Stage to have been slightly advanced
(although there may have been some upward bias due to participants not reading the question
properly) with an overall score of 3.98. A standard deviation of 0.50 suggests a relatively low and
stable spread of scores.
The course will be useful and close to very useful in their work with an average score of just over 4.
Again, the standard deviation of 0.85 shows that there is some significant variation of opinion on
the Foundation Stage but the overall picture is very positive.
With an average score over the week of 4.73, the facilitator can be shown to be highly effective and
with a standard deviation of 0.51 there is strong agreement amongst participants on this.
The overwhelming majority of participants stated that they would recommend the Foundation
Stage workshop to others.
In the case of the Consolidation/Growth Stage workshops a similar picture emerges. Again, the
level of course is seen as advanced with a score of 4.13.
In terms of usefulness of the programme in work, again, participants on average have stated that
the programme would be very useful in their work with an average score of 4.21, although there
was quite wide variation in scores with a standard deviation of 0.80.
In terms of the effectiveness of the facilitator, the average score was 4.78 which suggests that the
facilitator was seen as highly effective by participants and the relatively low standard deviation of
0.45 suggests that there was considerable consensus on this amongst participants.

The overwhelming majority of participants also stated that they would recommend the workshop
to others.

Analysis of Completed Feedback Questionnaires Consolidation/Growth Stage Workshops
Split
25th March
2013
(n=19)
Split
26th March
2013
(n=19)
Zagreb
28
th
March
2013
(n=12)
Zagreb
29
th
March
2013
(n=13)
Total
(n=63)
Level of Course 4.16
(0.36)
4.16
(0.36)
3.83
(0.69)
4.31
(0.46)
4.13
(0.49)
Usefulness of Course in
Work
4.16
(0.81)
4.26
(0.71)
4.00
(0.91)
4.38
(0.74)
4.21
(0.80)
Effectiveness of
Facilitator
4.79
(0.41)
4.89
(0.31)
4.67
(0.62)
4.69
(0.46)
4.78
(0.45)

50

The qualitative feedback was utilised by the facilitator to seek improvements to the programme
and also to identify issues which could be addressed to improve the environment for clusters in
Croatia.

For the Foundation Stage workshops, common comments related to improving the programme
were around a desire for more case studies and examples as part of the workshop delivery. The
participants appear to have welcomed the content on the development of the triple helix in
clusters and also some practical tools with a wider application such as Belbin Team Roles. Some
participants also expressed a desire for a one stop shop where they could get support for starting
and developing a cluster.

The Consolidation/Growth Stage workshops were more challenging in terms of delivery as there is
a considerable level of potential content (originally the Consolidation and Growth stages had
three days of training dedicated to each stage). Some of the comments from participants (in both
Split and Zagreb) reflected a desire for the training to take place over a longer period of time so
that certain issues could be considered and discussed at greater length. The material delivered was
well received and the range of topics covered during the workshops appear to have been
appropriate. Apart from a desire to see more training workshops related to cluster development
there were few comments related to how the climate for cluster development could be developed.
Those comments that were made by participants were related to the need for more effective
coordination of cluster development policy and strategy by the Government of Croatia.

In conclusion, therefore, both the quantitative and qualitative feedback received has been
overwhelmingly positive and the overwhelming majority of the participants would recommend the
programme to others in a similar position. Participants enjoyed the highly interactive nature of the
programme and appreciated the efforts made to make the course relevant to their needs.

4.5.3 June 2013 Workshops

The tables below summarise the average quantitative scores each day on each of the workshops.
The numbers in brackets below the score is the standard deviation of responses. Nearly all
participants completed the questionnaires (just one participant failed to do so during the week).

Analysis of Completed Feedback Questionnaires
Osijek Osijek Zagreb Zagreb Total

51
3
rd
June 2013
(n=5)
4
th
June 2013
(n=6)
6
th
June 2013
(n=20)
7
th
June 2013
(n=20)
(n=51)
Level of Course 4.60
(0.49)
4.33
(0.47)
3.68
(0.46)
3.90
(0.61)
3.94
(0.61)
Usefulness of Course in Work 4.60
(0.49)
4.17
(0.69)
3.89
(0.91)
4.29
(0.88)
4.16
(0.87)
Effectiveness of Facilitator 5.00
(0.00)
4.50
(0.50)
4.63
(0.58)
4.57
(0.73)
4.63
(0.62)

The participants appear overall to believe the workshop to have been slightly advanced (although
there may have been some upward bias due to participants not reading the question properly)
with an overall score of 3.94. A standard deviation of 0.61 suggests a stable and fairly compact
distribution of scores.
The course will be useful and close to very useful in their work with an average score of just over 4.
Again, the standard deviation of 0.87 shows that there is some significant variation of opinion on
the workshop programme (notably on the 6th June 2013, the score was slightly below 4) but the
overall picture is very positive.
With an average score over the week of 4.63, the facilitator can be shown to be highly effective and
with a standard deviation of 0.62 there is reasonably strong agreement amongst participants on
this and the feedback was extremely positive in Osijek on the 3rd June 2013 with the facilitator
receiving a score of 5.00.
All participants who stated an opinion stated that they would recommend the joint
Consolidation/Growth workshop to others.
The qualitative feedback was utilised by the facilitator to seek improvements to the programme
and also to identify issues which could be addressed to improve the environment for clusters in
Croatia.

In Osijek, the workshop was well received and participants expressed a wish that there could be
more workshops on cluster development. One participant commented that they would like to see
more about social entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship related clusters in the programme.
They also expressed a wish that the County Administration was more involved in cluster
development and had participated in the workshop. There was also some disappointment that the
workshop had not been better attended (there were only 6 participants each day unfortunately,
partly due to clashes with other workshops organised by the RDA in Osijek).

In Zagreb, the workshops were much better attended (20 each day). The feedback was also more
varied. In terms of improving the programme, some participants were very keen to see a stronger
involvement of the Ministry of Entrepreneurship and Crafts so that policy issues could be
discussed there. There were also some difficulties in covering all the material adequately in the

52
time available (due, in part, to considerable interaction amongst the participants which took up
more time than foreseen) and some participants expressed frustration that there had not been time
to cover all topics. Several participants also expressed a desire to see a greater number of practical
examples in the workshops (although a number of EU-based examples were presented to
participants both in terms of spoken examples, by way of illustration of particular points, and
practical marketing examples through the showing of promotional videos of cluster organisations).
Participants have also expressed some concern at the Zagreb workshop about the funding
situation facing clusters, and the need for better Government intervention to support clusters and
also, to take a (more) proactive role in promoting the benefits of clustering to the business
community in Croatia.

Other comments ranged over a desire to see the legal status of clusters more clearly defined by the
Government of Croatia,

In conclusion, therefore, both the quantitative and qualitative feedback received has been generally
positive and the overwhelming majority of participants would recommend the programme to
others in a similar position. Participants enjoyed the highly interactive nature of the programme,
and appear to have appreciated the efforts made to make the course relevant to their needs.

4.6 Conclusions

The evaluations of the workshops have, been very positive and this is in part due to the deliberate
decision to focus on a highly participatory and needs driven approach to delivery. It also reflects
the efforts made by each of the workshop facilitators to ensure that issues raised by participants
were addressed during the workshop. In part, it is also due to the high levels of engagement in the
workshops by the participants themselves. It was very notable that participants were willing to
engage in group activities and to share knowledge, ideas and experience with each other.

The Project was also fortunate in being able to bring into the workshops the experience of Mrs
Krystyna Kravchyk from Cluster WEST, France who very ably shared her experiences of cluster
management. Once again, the Project would like to express its thanks to Cluster WEST for
enabling us to involve her in our workshops.

5. Conclusions

The Cluster Development Programme has been successful in delivering knowledge and, up to a
point, skills to those involved in cluster development in Croatia. The CDP was very successful in
engaging the cluster managers, the private sector as existing and potential members of clusters, the
business support sector (RDAs, HGK, local self-government at all levels from County to
Municipality, Centres for Entrepreneurship, etc.). It was also very successful in engaging women
to participate with a slight majority of participants over men. Where it was perhaps less successful
was in engaging the university and research institution sector. Only a small number of participants
came from this sector and it took the Project a considerable level of effort to improve engagement.
This effort did not show results until 2013 when the New Foundation and combined

53
Consolidation/Growth workshops were delivered. This may be indicative of current issues in
Croatia with respect to barriers to building better university/research institution and private
sector cooperation, both real and perceptual.

There are a number of issues which the Ministry of Entrepreneurship and Crafts might wish to
address which have arisen from the comments of participants which include:

Ensuring that there is long-term funding for clusters in Croatia to enable them to develop on
a consistent path until they are able to become self-funding organisations. There is strong
potential for this to happen through EU Structural Funds but it may be necessary to encourage
greater cooperation between cluster organisations and possibly mergers to achieve;

Supporting the professionalization of Cluster Managers this might require support for the
creation of a professional body to support cluster manager development or might be achieved
through existing management development organisations in Croatia;

Linked to the previous point, ensuring that the CDP materials are able to be continually used to
develop Cluster Managers and other stakeholders involved in cluster development in Croatia.
The materials are tried and tested, have been well received by the overwhelming majority of the 931
participants that have taken part in the Programme. There is potential for sustainability through
transfer of the materials to an appropriate institution (potentially a University). The agendas for
the workshops and the materials delivered for the workshops are available electronically from the
Project either through electronic transfer or from the Project website. They have not been
appended to this report as they are voluminous.

There is a strong community of people committed to cluster development in Croatia as has been
demonstrated by their engagement in the CDP. The key challenge now facing Croatia is: to channel
their energies into effective collaboration and cooperation within clusters; ensure that they have
the know-how and skills to develop, in the first instance, sustainable cluster organisations (this
may require rationalisation); and then to put in place platforms to support the development of
clusters into innovative, strategically well-positioned organisations which are able to deliver
world class products and services. This is not an easy task and will take time. The Project Team
believe that the CDP has made a contribution to disseminating the necessary knowledge and skills.
The remainder is up to the people of Croatia.