WHAT SUCCESS LOOKS LIKE AND HOW IT SHOULD BE MEASURED THE EVALUATION OF THE FINNISH STRATEGIC CENTRES FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION (SHOK)

Transcription

1 WHAT SUCCESS LOOKS LIKE AND HOW IT SHOULD BE MEASURED THE EVALUATION OF THE FINNISH STRATEGIC CENTRES FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION (SHOK)

2 STRATEGIC CENTRES: THE OBJECTIVES Industrial interests Speeding up innovation activity / processes Academic interests Seeking world-class expertise and global breakthroughs National interest Making Finland more attractive partner for research, development and innovation

3 SHOK CONCEPT: GUIDING PRINCIPLES Industry-driven, focus selected by strategic choices made by economic stakeholders. Open innovation intended as the mode of operation: precompetitive cooperation in SHOK research programmes seeking to create results to be utilised in the longer term. Balance Stakeholders Industry relevance vs. scientific excellence Short-term (corporate interest) vs. longterm (research interest) Shareholders vs. Societal expectations Shareholders, Limited companies set up for the coordination tasks Broad network mobilised for the programmes Strategic level actors national level ownership issues 40-60% funding model, 20% of Tekes funding, annual Collaborative ethos: broader and more ambitious collaboration, with both private and public actors committing themselves to concrete, longterm cooperation Spatiality of innovation within SHOKs Footloose industries Cross-and multi-disciplinary research Activities beyond industrial branches and traditional clusters Locally embedded innovation environments vs. virtual global communities Finnish focus vs. Global drive

4 SHOK SHOK SHOK SHOK SHOK SHOK FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS EVALUATION POLICY LEVEL: STRATEGY / POLICY / PREMISES Questions R, E1, E2, US POLICY Contextual update ORGANISATION LEVEL: 1. RELEVANCE 2. EFFECTIVENESS SHOK SHOK SHOK SHOK SHOK SHOK Questions R 1 -R N Questions E1 1 -E1 N Relevance Effectiveness Future policy & strategy options 3. EFFICIENCY 4. UTILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY Questions E2 1 -E2 N Questions US 1 -US N Efficiency U & S International benchmarking of practices To provide an independent of the Finnish Strategic Centres for Science, Technology and Innovation (SHOK) policy, strategy and activities, To present key findings and lessons learned to improve SHOK strategy, activities and utilisation of results, and To develop a set of forward-looking guiding ideas and recommendations to support the ministries 4

5 EVALUATION QUESTIONS

6 RELEVANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS Are the general policy goals and premises originally set by RIC in still valid and relevant? Are each individual SHOKs strategy and SRA relevant, focused and challenging enough to achieve the original policy goals? To what extent have the general strategy, policy goals and premises set in by the RIC have been achieved? To what extent have the goals and objectives outlined in bv the SRAs been achieved? How relevant are the following goals: 1. Promoting internationally high quality research and expertise 2. Enhancing industrial renewal - Targeting the resources to strategically selected clusters - Have the SRAs been assessed? - Have the SHOKs strategies (SRA) responded to changes in business and operational environment? How? - Have the industrial partners strategies been radically altered? - Do the SRAs target research areas most important for economic and industrial renewal? - Does the SHOK concept meet the preconditions for contributing to industrial renewal, internationalisation, quality of research, as well as a more long-term perspective? If no, why and if yes, how? - How central are the SHOK activities in promoting these goals, when compared with other policy instruments that the shareholders and programme actors have at their disposal?

7 EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS What is the strategic position of SHOKs as a policy instrument in the Finnish economy and R&D&I system? Is the SHOK more or less significant / effective than other Finnish policy instruments targeting R&D&I? In what way? To what extent have the general strategy, policy goals and premises set in by the RIC have been achieved? To what extent have the goals and objectives outlined in bv the SRAs been achieved? Does the SHOK concept meet the preconditions for contributing to industrial renewal, internationalisation, quality of research, as well as a more long-term perspective? If no, why and if yes, how? How central are the SHOK activities in promoting these goals, when compared with other policy instruments that the shareholders and programme actors have at their disposal?

8 EFFICIENCY AND APPROPRIATENESS EVALUATION QUESTIONS Is the SHOK concept an appropriate and effective way of organising R&D&I collaboration (in comparison to other known instruments nationally and across international benchmarks)? How appropriate is the SHOK governance? What kind of impacts has been achieved and can be expected? SUB-QUESTIONS - What are the strengths and weaknesses of SHOKs compared to other funding and networking instruments? (e.g. TEKES and Academy of Finland programmes, EU FP7, competence clusters, Centre of Expertise etc.)? - How does the cooperation work on the policy level? - How does the management and governance enable making such decisions? - How does the SHOK level cooperation work? - How efficient is the management, leadership and - administration? - What bottlenecks or problems may have affected the goalachievement? How have these been solved? - What have been the facilitating factors in goal-achievement? How have these been mainstreamed? -What are the impacts in the participating companies? (Adopted from the impact model of Tekes and Academy of Finland: Economy and renewal (see Q8), Environment, Wellbeing and Knowledge and competences) What is the added value of SHOKs? -Does it make Finland more attractive as a research and business / innovation environment? -Does the SHOK concept bring more or less potential value added to the stakeholders than other policy instruments do? What may explain such differences? What are the key results and impacts of a SHOK among its stakeholders (achieved/expected)? How appropriate is the SHOK concept for the renewal of businesses? - Have SHOKs enabled and/or inspired new forms of collaboration? - Have the SHOK organizations solved problems associated with collaborative RDI? - Have the SHOKs enabled access to partners or knowledge sources previously unavailable? - Have the SHOKs affected the volume of participants RDI in monetary terms or person years? - Has SHOK RDI resulted in development and/or introduction of new-tothe firm products or services? - Are there ways of assessing the value added, relevance and appropriateness of SHOK actions, as well as deciding when to make changes (including of abandoning / readjusting certain activities)?

9 UTILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY EVALUATION QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS What is the added value of SHOKs? -Does it make Finland more attractive as a research and business / innovation environment? -Does the SHOK concept bring more or less potential value added to the stakeholders than other policy instruments do? What may explain such differences? What are the key results and impacts of a SHOK among its stakeholders (achieved/expected)? - Have SHOKs enabled and/or inspired new forms of collaboration? - Have the SHOK organizations solved problems associated with collaborative RDI? - Have the SHOKs enabled access to partners or knowledge sources previously unavailable? - Have the SHOKs affected the volume of participants RDI in monetary terms or person years? - Has SHOK RDI resulted in development and/or introduction of new-to-the firm products or services? How appropriate is the SHOK concept for the renewal of businesses? - Are there ways of assessing the value added, relevance and appropriateness of SHOK actions, as well as deciding when to make changes (including of abandoning / readjusting certain activities)?

10 For more information on the evaluation, please do not hesitate to contact me! Kaisa Lähteenmäki-Smith