The Cluster ObservatoryEvaluation ModelRegional Programmes & Cluster ProgrammesCoaching &ImplementationLearning AcrossRegi...
SimplerSurveysTMSurveys1. Surveys of member firms/organisations in cluster2. Surveys of cluster organisations3. Surveys of...
Level of Data and VariablesIIIIIIIVMethod Data point VariablesSIMPLER Firm Value AddedProfitabilityWagesJobsSurvey Firm Ge...
IIIIII IV1. A Member firms/organisationsB Cluster LeaderC Cluster Organisation BoardSIMPLERresultsSurveyresultsInterviewre...
1.2.3.4.Component Strengths WeaknessesI SIMPLER 1. and 4. 2. and 3.II Survey tools 1. 2. 3. and 4.III Interviews 2. and 3....
2012-06-12 © Grufman Reje 2012All companies in X region 2010
2012-06-12 © Grufman Reje 2012All companies in cluster X 2010
Cluster XRegionCluster X outperforms its peer cluster and the region in generalChange in value added among member firms in...
Performance measurement over 5 years based on 3 indicatorsEuropean Cluster ObservatorySIMPLER AnalysisComparison of 12 Clu...
$CompaniesResearchorganisationsEducationorganisationsGovernmentCapitalThe dream of dynamic clusters
IIMeasured the degree of networking across innovation gaps:Firm- to- firm (SMEs cooperate with large firms)Firm- to-resear...
IIResults – Innovation PerformanceCluster Firms have improved their innovation performance significantly by beingmembers i...
Benchmarking regionsIV
The Cluster ObservatoryEvaluation ModelRegional Programmes & Cluster ProgrammesCoaching &ImplementationLearning AcrossRegi...
TCI2012 The Cluster Observatory Evaluation Model
TCI2012 The Cluster Observatory Evaluation Model
TCI2012 The Cluster Observatory Evaluation Model
TCI2012 The Cluster Observatory Evaluation Model
TCI2012 The Cluster Observatory Evaluation Model
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

TCI2012 The Cluster Observatory Evaluation Model

100

Published on

Matts Williams on the cluster observatory evaluation model for regional programmes & cluster programmes, presented at the 15th TCI Global Conference, Basque Country 2012.

Published in: Technology, Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
100
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

TCI2012 The Cluster Observatory Evaluation Model

  1. 1. The Cluster ObservatoryEvaluation ModelRegional Programmes & Cluster ProgrammesCoaching &ImplementationLearning AcrossRegions and Clusters in EuropeEvaluation Model
  2. 2. SimplerSurveysTMSurveys1. Surveys of member firms/organisations in cluster2. Surveys of cluster organisations3. Surveys of social media (text analysis)1. Interviews(process tracing/confirmation stats)A Member firms/organisationsB Cluster LeaderC Cluster Organisation Board2. Participatory observation1. Benchmarking with otherA RegionsB ClustersC Cluster organisations2. Peer Evaluation Teams1. Company Financial Performance(Collection/Cluster definition/Control groups)A Value addedB WagesC Profitability2. Statistical AnalysisBenchmarking&Peer EvaluationThe Evaluation Model - Four Complementary Components
  3. 3. Level of Data and VariablesIIIIIIIVMethod Data point VariablesSIMPLER Firm Value AddedProfitabilityWagesJobsSurvey Firm General performance: Innovation gaps:Cluster networking Firm-to-firmCluster identity Firm- researchTrust Firm - educationInnovation performance Firm- capitalBusiness development Firm - publicSustainability Firm - other clustersFirm - globalCluster organisation Internal performance (memberships, workshops, projects etc.)General external performanceInnovation gap performanceInterview Firm Participation within cluster activitiesEffects from activities (intended and unintended)Pros and cons being a memberExpectations from being a memberRecommended actions to cluster leaderCluster leader & ObjectivesCluster board FinancingInternal and external performanceBenchmarking Region Up to around 50 variables measuring regional quality and attractivenessCluster Cluster observatory data rankings: size, specialisation and focus of cluster employmentCluster organisation Size, objectives, financing, performance of peers
  4. 4. IIIIII IV1. A Member firms/organisationsB Cluster LeaderC Cluster Organisation BoardSIMPLERresultsSurveyresultsInterviewresultsFullevaluationThe Full Evaluation Model - TimingIII 2. Participatory observationII3. Social media/Email server/text analysis
  5. 5. 1.2.3.4.Component Strengths WeaknessesI SIMPLER 1. and 4. 2. and 3.II Survey tools 1. 2. 3. and 4.III Interviews 2. and 3. 1. and 4.IV Benchmarking 1. and 4. 2. and 3.Cluster Observatory Model 1. 2. 3. 4.The Model is Designed to Capture Unintended Effects andControlling for Outside ExplanationsTM
  6. 6. 2012-06-12 © Grufman Reje 2012All companies in X region 2010
  7. 7. 2012-06-12 © Grufman Reje 2012All companies in cluster X 2010
  8. 8. Cluster XRegionCluster X outperforms its peer cluster and the region in generalChange in value added among member firms in a cluster, as compared toA) Firms in an unorganized peer cluster andB) All firms within the region within the cluster categoryPeer Group% Change in Value AddedIResults
  9. 9. Performance measurement over 5 years based on 3 indicatorsEuropean Cluster ObservatorySIMPLER AnalysisComparison of 12 Clusters in a European Region 2006 - 2010 (unidentified names)Value Added Growth Profitability % of Value Added Wages per employeeTotal Rank Cluster Cluster Peer Diff Rank Cluster Peer Diff Rank Cluster Peer Diff Rank SUM1 A 38% 21% 17% 3 5% -13% 18% 2 17% 7% 10% 1 62 B 27% -1% 28% 2 12% 7% 5% 6 16% 8% 8% 2 103 C 8% -6% 14% 4 12% -4% 16% 3 3% -2% 5% 4 114 D 67% 21% 46% 1 12% 7% 5% 6 13% 11% 2% 6 135 E -11% -8% -3% 12 10% -16% 26% 1 12% 9% 3% 5 186 F 16% 4% 12% 6 -2% 1% -3% 11 17% 9% 8% 2 197 G 40% 28% 12% 6 3% -2% 5% 6 11% 10% 1% 8 208 H 31% 18% 13% 5 5% 5% 0% 10 13% 11% 2% 6 219 I 18% 11% 7% 9 0% -15% 15% 4 11% 11% 0% 9 2210 J 29% 20% 9% 8 7% 1% 6% 5 8% 15% -7% 12 2511 K 33% 26% 7% 9 9% 8% 1% 9 13% 13% 0% 9 2712 L 45% 38% 7% 9 -4% 12% -16% 12 10% 14% -4% 11 32Results10 out of 12 Clusters perform better than their peer groupsin terms of financial results and wage development (productivity)I
  10. 10. $CompaniesResearchorganisationsEducationorganisationsGovernmentCapitalThe dream of dynamic clusters
  11. 11. IIMeasured the degree of networking across innovation gaps:Firm- to- firm (SMEs cooperate with large firms)Firm- to-researchFirm-to-educationFirm-to-capitalFirm-to-public organisationsFirm-to- other clustersFirm-to-global marketsResultsSome clusters are much better at networking across the innovation gaps = area whereSLIM helps out with learning across clustersSome clusters exhibit a negative development after the 2008 crisisCome a long wayLarge gaps still exist
  12. 12. IIResults – Innovation PerformanceCluster Firms have improved their innovation performance significantly by beingmembers in clustersModerate effects on sales performance and very limited effects on equality andsustainability01020304050607080902006 2007 2008 2009Performance increases over time - by performance typeSalesCost BenefitsEmployment increaseNew investmentsBetter Products and ServicesNew Products and ServicesEqualityIntegrationSustainabilityInnovation
  13. 13. Benchmarking regionsIV
  14. 14. The Cluster ObservatoryEvaluation ModelRegional Programmes & Cluster ProgrammesCoaching &ImplementationLearning AcrossRegions and Clusters in EuropeEvaluation Model Mats.Williams@hhs.se
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×