CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY AND ORGANISATION OF THE STUDY

2.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The study was co-ordinated by The CIRCA Group Europe Ltd., Dublin, under the direction of
Dr Tom Higgins.

The core project team comprised the CIRCA Group, Dublin, Professor Lena
Tsipouri, University of Athens and PricewaterhouseCoopers (Mr Robert van
der Lande),The Hague N.L. Fig 2.1

The main subcontractors were Fraunhofer ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany, PREST,

University of Manchester UK, Challenge Lisbon and Dr Tony Dignan, Belfast
N. Ireland.

A high level advisory committee (HILAC), comprising three international

specialists in the field of regional innovation, was established to advise on
best practice and to provide quality assurance. The members were:

Professor Charles Edquist, Linkoping University, Sweden

Professor Franco Malerba, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy
Professor Michael Storper, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) USA

HILAC held two meetings - Dublin and Athens - attended by the experts, the
Commission Services and the consultants.

Figure 2.1 Project Management

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

CIRCA GROUP

HILAC

COOPERS & TSIPOURI

LYBRAND

FRAUNHOFER LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL PREST

CONSULTANTS CONSULTANTS CONSULTANTS

• Germany • Italy • Ireland • Greece • UK

• Spain • N. Ireland • France
• Austria • Portugal
• Belgium
• NL
• Sweden
• Finland

DG XVI Thematic Evaluation of RTDI

8
2.2 MAIN FEATURES OF THE DESIGN
As required by the terms of reference, a thematic framework was adopted for
the analysis. The development of this framework was based on interviews
with Commission personnel at the outset - mainly desk officers for
participating regions and countries in DG XVI and with personnel in DG XII
and DG V. Six main themes were identified and agreed with the
Commission, as follows:

1. Capacity enhancement
2. Innovation and technology transfer
3. Management processes
4. Policy development and delivery systems
5. Learning and interaction
6. Economic impacts

Regional innovation profiles were developed for all participating Objective 1

and 6 regions, using standard templates. The results are presented in Volume
2 of the Main Report. Based on criteria of dynamism, potential for
improvement and very difficult regional conditions, a selection was made of
three regions from each of the four cohesion countries (those with a regional
structure), for more focused regional case studies. The results of the RTP
evaluation in Objective 1 regions, notably Central Macedonia, and Castilia Y
Leon were also drawn on. One of the new Objective 6 regions in Finland and
Ireland were also included as ‘case regions’. Table 2.1

Table 2.1 Case Regions

Type Country
Spain Portugal Greece Italy Ireland
Dynamic Valencia North Central Abruzzo Ireland
Macedonia
W Greece
Improving Castillia Y Leon Central Thrace Apulia
Difficult Andalucia Algarve Epiros Campania
New Regions Objective 6 Regions/Finland

A case study approach was used to provide an in-depth analysis of a sample of RTDI actions
in beneficiary countries and regions. The basic approach was to cluster cases for comparison
and to use the information gleaned to illuminate the thematic framework. Cases were
selected in conjunction with the thematic framework and with each other, some based on
positive reports and a few with negative reputations, with the aim of having a mix of
contrasting cases and a good geographical spread.

See Table 2.2 and 2.3 below.

9
Table 2.2 Case studies
Theme Topic Location

Capacity enhancement Science Parks Andalucia, Spain

Science Parks Italy
Advanced Tech Centres N.Ireland
Pats Ireland

Innovation support R&D co-operation/govt industry Saxony, Germany

linkages
Networking & Industry Associations Greece
SME Impacts
All

Management Processes & structures Forbairt, Ireland

processes Processes & structures CDTI, Spain
Processes & structures Regional Govt., Sicily

Financing mechanisms Global grant Spain

Measure 1 Ireland
V.Capital Merseyside, UK

Policy RTD-innovation links Portugal

Table 2.3 Case Studies by Country

Spain Italy
• Andalucian science parks • Science parks
• CDTI • Management processes
• Global grant • 15 SMEs
• 15 SMEs

Greece Ireland
• Industry associations • PATs
• 15 SMEs • Forbairt
• Measure 1
• 15 SMEs

Germany UK
• R&D co-operation/Industry gov’t links • Merseyside venture capital
• 15 SMEs • Advanced technology centres
• 15 SMEs

Portugal NL, Belgium, Austria, Sweden, France

• RTD-Innovation linkages 15 SMEs
• 15 SMEs

In addition, a study of SME impacts based on interviews with a cross section of selected
SMEs in each Member State, was used to gain insights into the demand side impacts and to
supplement the thematic cases and provide a specific focus on SME issues. Five high-
performance SMEs - “exemplars” by reputation - were selected for face to face interviewing
by the local consultants. Ten others, five frequent EU RTD participants and five other
benefiting firms were interviewed by phone.

2.3 STRUCTURE OF PROJECT

10
The work programme was structured in stages, as follows and as illustrated in
Figure 2.2

STAGE 1
Methodology and design, including identification of key issues and
development of the thematic framework.

STAGE 2
Data assembly and compilation of statistical information.

STAGE 3
Desk based literature reviews, Commission reports and documentation and
available evaluation reports on Structural Funds and on RTPs, RIS and
RITTS.

STAGE 4
Production of Interim Report - the 'June Report' dealing with the major issues
and lessons based on interviews with senior personnel in participating
Member States

STAGE 5
The main fieldwork stage involving interviews with key informants. The output
from this stage comprised the country reports and regional innovation profiles,
case regions studies, the SME survey and the case studies. Preliminary
regional innovation profiles were provided for the 'June Report'.

STAGE 6
Comparative analysis of all regional and country reports by the project team,
including review of overall results and impacts, best practice, Community
added value, key issues and the scoping out of future directions for the CSFs
in support of RTDI.

STAGE 7
Preparation of synthesis, thematic and final reports.

Fig 2.2 Structure of Study

11
 Structure of the Study

1: Methodology Design Inception Report

2: Data Assembly 3: Desk Study -Literature Work Docs

Main Issues
HILAC 4: Main Issues June Report
& Regional Profiles
Regional Reports
Country Reports
5: Country Case Studies
& SME Reports
Regional Studies

6: Comparative Comparative Analysis

HILAC Analysis Report

Final Report
7: Synthesis
DG XVI Thematic Evaluation of RTDI

12