SWOT FROM PEST SWOT to needs 1 Strengths

SWOT

FROM PEST – SWOT to needs (1) Strengths + Threats R&D performance is better than in other Outsourcing of R&D to low cost countries areas (high median value and presence of excellences) Needs (Obstacles) Critical mass in R&D themes Risk of brain-drain and of shortage of technical educated personnel Internal competition in common areas of specialisation High tech employment Demographic change / Risk of brain drain High-skilled human resources scarcity to strengthen development Dynamic entrepreneurship (early stage and Economic crisis as a difficulty for start-ups and Difficulties of emerging new ideas due to brain drain and start-up in particular) financing investments and innovation lack of public support ICT endowments (in some areas ICT is a Online shipping could have negative spatial ICT services volatility smart specialisation sector) and social effects

FROM PEST – SWOT to needs (2) Opportunities + Weaknesses Smart specialisation strategy Low performance of SMEs in R&D Territorial polarisation Programmes Low performance of SMEs in R&D Territorial Needs (Potentials) Innovative potential of clusters around the borders for smart specialisation and innovation Involvement of SMEs in international networks for research polarisation World bank policy Reduction of available resources for welfare Social innovation for a more effective welfare especially regarding ageing European and regional policy (ecoinnovation) Low performance of SMEs in R&D Eco-innovation as a driver of competitiveness

FROM PEST – SWOT to needs Needs Pertinence Potential added value (governance level) Regional, local High-skilled human resources scarcity to strengthen development National, regional, local Difficulties of emerging of new ideas due to brain drain and lack of public National, regional, local support ICT services volatility Regional, local + + + Obstacles Critical mass in R&D themes (policy attention) + Innovative potential of clusters around the borders for smart specialisation Regional, local and innovation + + National, regional Social innovation for a more effective welfare especially regarding ageing National, regional, local Eco-innovation as a driver of competitiveness National, regional, local + + + Potentials Involvement of SMEs in international networks for research

TOOL : FOCUS GROUP

Focus group Definiton A focus group is a form of qualitative research in which a group of people are asked about their perceptions, opinions, beliefs, and attitudes towards a product, service, concept, advertisement, idea, or packaging. Questions are asked in an interactive group setting where participants are free to talk with other group members. Facilitation tools • • Concept mapping Metaplan ® Dual Group Moderator

Performing a Focus group Cabaret setting Presentation Brain storming / break question Wrap up Structured discussion

FROM PEST – SWOT to needs (3) P Existence of National Strategy for Innovation and Research E Global crisis has reduced the investments in risky sectors S Global crisis has increased the disparity among the regions T Old technologies tend to be obsolete Possible shortage of high skilled workers (risk of brain drain) Needs (obstacles) for Smart Growth Needs (potentials) for Smart Growth Critical mass in R&D themes Innovative potential of clusters around the borders for smart specialisation and High-skilled human resources scarcity to strengthen development innovation Difficulties of emerging of new ideas due to brain drain and lack of public support Involvement of SMEs in international networks for research ICT services volatility Social innovation for a more effective welfare especially regarding ageing Eco-innovation as a driver of competitiveness

Role play: Focus group Project assessment unit • 1 - Relevance • 2 – Expected impact • 3 – Effectiveness / efficiency Stakeholder Evaluation experts • n. 1 • n. 2 • Lessons learned from evaluation

Project assessment (ex-ante) Project assessment unit 1 • Project n. 1 «The project aims to increase the competition in R&D in the programme area» • Expected impact: More competition • 2 jobs and 100 dollars investments • Project n. 2 «The project aims to increase the labour mobility out and within the programme area» • Expected impact: More labour mobility • 1 jobs and 200 dollars investments • Project n. 3 «The project aims to promote the development and adoption of new technologies» • Expected impact: Adoption of high techologies in the area • 1 jobs and 200 dollars investments Relevance P 1 P 2 P 3

Project assessment (ex-ante) Project assessment unit 2 • Project n. 1 «The project aims to increase the competition in R&D in the programme area» • Expected impact: More competition • 2 jobs and 100 dollars investments • Project n. 2 «The project aims to increase the labour mobility out and within the programme area» • Expected impact: More labour mobility • 1 jobs and 200 dollars investments • Project n. 3 «The project aims to promote the development and adoption of new technologies» • Expected impact: Adoption of high techologies in the area • 1 jobs and 200 dollars investments Expected impact P 1 P 2 P 3

Project assessment (ex-ante) Project assessment unit 3 • Project n. 1 «The project aims to increase the competition in R&D in the programme area» • Expected impact: More competition • 2 jobs and 100 dollars investments • Project n. 2 «The project aims to increase the labour mobility out and within the programme area» • Expected impact: More labour mobility • 1 jobs and 200 dollars investments • Project n. 3 «The project aims to promote the development and adoption of new technologies» • Expected impact: Adoption of high techologies in the area • 1 jobs and 200 dollars investments Efficiency / effectiveness P 1 P 2 P 3

Stakeholders’ perspective Donor n. 1 sitting in the Monitoring Committee • Stakeholder n. 1: • We want project increasing the competitiveness, • We want to finance the adoption of new technologies • We need job creation • Stakeholder n. 2: • We need job creation • We want to finance the adoption of new technologies • We prefer to finance green technologies Donor n. 2 sitting in the Monitoring Committee

Evaluation lessons learned External experts • CBA: Projects are in general not sustainable (in terms of producing the effects over time) • External coherence: Other programmes contradict the interventions • What if (counterfactual): The added value of this type of intervention seems very limited • Implementation procedures: Projects in general meet their targets in terms of input, procedural and output indicators, however in some sectors there are some problems

Key questions • What is the relevance of the projects? • To what extent are projects expected to produce impact? • What is the effectiveness / efficiency of the projects? • What do you think about the projects in terms of policy filter? • What can we learn from the past? • How can we «control» over time the quality and the performance of the projects? • How can we reach an agreement?

RISK AND CHALLENGES BIZARRE TOOLS AND OBVIOUS OUTCOME ONE PREDOMINANT VOICE POLARIZATION AND AMBIVALENCE