6Aika - The Six City Strategy

Transcription

1 Peer exchange & Learning Multi-level governance for Smart Specialisation 6Aika - The Six City Strategy Bilbao, 12 April 2018 Seppo Haataja Business Tampere Member of the 6Aika Steering Group

2 Strategy of Helsinki, Espoo, Tampere, Vantaa, Oulu and Turku Six largest cities act as innovation and experimentation environments to strengthen national competitiveness Carried out between The strategy is funded by the ITI mechanism European Regional Development Fund (intermediate body Helsinki-Uusimaa Regional Council) European Social Fund (intermediate body The ELY Centre for Häme) Working Together Towards Open and Smart Services 2

3 Vision and change - Cities as experimentation environments for new products and services to create world-class reference sites - Collaboration to create economies of scale - To create and embed an operating model for joint urban development on different levels of city administration agile co-operation during and after the Six City Strategy - Successful solutions implemented in the six cities are reproduced for use in others 3

4 Quadruple Helix as the framework of the Six City Strategy 4

5 Management and steering

6 Regional Characteristics

7 Internationally significant marketplace: 30% of population living in the six cities 41,5% of the all jobs in Finland are in the Six Cities Helsinki Espoo Tampere Vantaa Oulu Turku

8 Main regional characteristics In Finland, local authorities have broad responsibility for the provision of basic public services to their residents and strong self-government based on local democracy and decision-making and the right to levy taxes. National impact of the regions of the Six Cities: 40 % of total company revenues 61% of GDP is produced 75% the RDI expenditure Common features of the Six Cities competitiveness: strong population growth high education level above the national average students, 10 universities & 9 universities for applied sciences well-functioning infrastructure ability to utilize digitalisation Shared challenges: Social problems, i.e. dependence on social assistance benefit is more common in the biggest cities. 8

9 Priorities identified in RIS3 The Smart Specialisation priority areas in Finland are: 1. Manufacturing & industry 2. Key Enabling Technologies 3. Sustainable innovation 4. Human health & social work activities 5. Information & communication technologies In the areas of the six cities: Helsinki-Uusimaa region (Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa) Urban Cleantech, Digitalising Industry, Citizen City and Health and Wellness Pirkanmaa (Tampere) Digital Manufacturing, Smart City Solutions, Circular Economy, Well-being and Health Services and Systems Southwest Finland (Turku) Blue Growth and Industrial Modernisation, Innovative Food Chains, Life Science and Health Technologies Northern Ostrobothnia (Oulu) ICT and Software Applications for Industry, Mining, Steel and Processing Industries, Wood Processing, Clean Technologies, 9 Health and Wellness Technology

10 Multi-level governance for Smart Specialisation

11 The RIS3 governance arrangements In Finland, the RIS3 approach is embedded in the regional strategic programmes Overseen by the Regional Councils The regions can if they wish, also develop separate RIS strategies Tightly coupled with other regional plans and objectives The innovation strategies of cities mostly based on smart specialisation priorities, complementing the regional RIS3 Finland s Structural Funds Programme for Sustainable Growth and Jobs is based on smart specialisation Contains different financing instruments as tools for implementation, such as The Six City Strategy 11

12 The Six City Strategy framework for multilevel governance Managing Authority (MA) Governance Ministry of Employment and the Economy - The selection of urban areas / integrated urban strategies Urban Authorities (=Cities) Integrated Sustainable Urban Strategies = The Six City Strategy - Responsible for tasks related to the selection of operations (expediency consideration) Implementation Management Group (6Aika) Funding Bodies ERDF - Helsinki-Uusimaa Regional Council ESF - Centre for Economic Development, Transport and Environment of Häme - Legality and compliance consideration Steering Group (6Aika) OPERATIONALISING SMART CHOICES: TRANSLATING STRATEGIES INTO PROJECTS The Six City Strategy Office The public sector The business sector The science and education sector Civil society actors 12

13 Smart specialisation in the Six City Strategy The Six City Strategy brings together the focus areas from the regions smart specialisation strategies Partly the objectives and needs are the same, partly complementary more synergy advantages S3 priorities are not limited to and defined by a geographical area The strategy includes many favourable elements for smart specialisation, as it e.g. strengthens the cities capabilities to utilize the opportunities of digitalisation in a cross-sectoral way Key elements of smart specialisation in the Six City Strategy 1. Collective learning 2. Involvement of stakeholders 3. Entrepreneurial discovery process (EDP) 4. Open innovation models 5. Quadruple helix approach 13

14 Changes and innovations for the public sector Developing a new model for a smart city The cities function as open innovation ecosystems for new services and business, enhancing new types of partnerships and cooperation models Cities open up their processes The change from triple helix to the quadruple helix approach which builds upon the entrepreneurial discovery process (EDP) Community-driven bottom-up approach The switch from a linear innovation process to an open innovation processes, engaging different stakeholders in the development work 14

15 Examples of joint projects for smart specialisation 15

16 Successes and challenges Main successes: National level: Six cities are able to work together in the role of an intermediate body. They select and implement projects together which combine their interests, challenges and needs for smart specialisation. Regional level: Strengthened cooperation regarding smart specialisation between regions and cities (in Regional Management Committees and through joint projects where the Regional Councils are also as project partners.) Local level: The entrepreneurial discovery process has strengthened the involvement of all stakeholders in the co-development also on a local level (within the cities). Main challenges: National, regional and local level: Communication and dissemination of the results and outputs achieved and the lessons learnt which could be of use to other cities and regions nationally (and internationally). This includes telling also about the challenges faced and the pitfalls encountered. 16

17 The Three Questions

18 Question 1: What are the best practises in multilevel governance to evaluate how the objectives of the RIS3 are realised on the project level? Why: RIS3 has ambitious long-term objectives, yet the scope of a single project is limited in terms of its focus and goals. In addition, the implementation projects only operate for 2-3 years. What has been done: The Six City Strategy has approx. 30 pilot projects running. We have developed a tool to steer and support the projects to achieve higher impact. In addition, the project network shares knowledge, results and lessons learnt in different workshops and events. What worked: The regional smart specialisation strategies steer the selection of 6Aika projects for financing since it is in the selection criteria. However, the same criteria should be used more systematically to monitor the projects during and after the implementation. What did not work: The results of a single project are not sufficient to indicate the impact of the whole strategy. In order to do this, we need a more systematic way to monitor the fulfillment of the strategy s goals through projects in the long run. 18

19 Question 2: What kind of a governance structure of RIS3 would enable you to react quickly to the changing needs of your region? Why: The structural funds period is long, yet the needs of cities and regions can change rapidly. For example, digital transformation and the change to a platform economy may require changes in the governance structure. How can relevant stakeholders affect the content of RIS3 during the programming period? Who should be involved? Would a network-based structure work better than a hierarchical one? What has been done: Representatives of the six cities give updates of the strategy implementation in the Regional Management Committee meetings (1-2 in a year per area). In these occasions, the challenges and upcoming changes in the operational environment can also be brought forward and discussed. What worked: On the operational level, the six cities can react more quickly to the current (and perhaps more focused) needs and situation of the areas by placing emphasis to these issues when jointly defining the content of calls for project proposals. The same applies for the selection of projects for financing. What did not work: Although the strategy implementation and achieved results are presented to e.g. the Regional Management Committees on a regular basis, there is too little communication and exchange of information between the different levels of governance. How could the information flow between different levels be more efficient? 19

20 Question 3: How do you involve the private sector in entrepreneurial discovery processes (EDP) in the implementation phase? Why: In order to formulate a truly effective and responsive smart specialisation strategy, the planning and implementation of the strategy should include contributions from all the relevant stakeholders. For EDP to work, the cooperation should be constant and reciprocal. What has been done: The Six City Strategy is based on the quadruple helix approach. Projects consortiums include actors from the public sector, R&D&I institutions and the third sector. Many of the actions are targeted to companies (and should benefit them) and/or the development is done in co-development with companies. What worked: The programme for agile piloting has engaged companies, cities and citizens in co-developing and testing new solutions to tackle real-life challenges e.g. in a city district or in a school setting. The programme is based on procuring fast experimentation (up to six months) from companies. What did not work: It is still a challenge to engage companies in the co-operation if the projects cannot offer financial support for the companies time and resources used. Also, as the development work can take time, the realisation of the benefits can seem slow. 20