studies_regional_technology_transfer_strategies

ASSESSMENT OF THE REGIONAL
INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER STRATEGIES AND
INFRASTRUCTURES (RITTS) SCHEME
Final Evaluation report
August 2000
David R Charles
Claire Nauwelaers
Benedicte Mouton
David Bradley
CURDS (The University of Newcastle)
and MERIT(The University of Maastricht)
with PAIR and OIR
Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies
University of Newcastle
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 7RU
Tel. +44(0)191 222 8016
Fax. +44(0)191 232 9259
Web URL: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/~ncurds/

© ECSC-EC-EAEC Brussels-Luxembourg, 2000
Neither the European Commission, nor any person acting on behalf of the
Commission, is responsible for the use which might be made of the information
in this report.
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the policies of the European Commission

RITTS final evaluation report
i
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VII
Introduction vii
The RITTS regions vii
Achievements of the RITTS Programme vii
Reasons behind RITTS ‘successes’ and ‘failures’ and the diversity in achievements of the
projects x
Conclusion : overall appreciation of the RITTS programme xii
Suggestions for future RITTS projects xii
Beyond RITTS xiii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
The objectives of the study 1
The approach 2
The regional fiches 3
The case studies 3
Methodological approach to case studies 6
The structure of this report 7
2. THE RITTS PROGRAMME 8
Programme description 8
Coverage of the programme 8
Financial support 9
Duration 9
Implementation 9
Method of the programme 9
Consultants 10
Management structures 10
International dimension of the programme 10
Evolution of the programme 11
3. THE REGIONS 12
Introduction 12
Typologies of regions 12
Regional conditions and capacities 13
Project driving force 15
Relationship between types of regions and RITTS 16
4. EVALUATION OF SCHEME DESIGN AND DELIVERY 18
Programme level design and delivery 18
The role of the Commission in projects 19
Project design and definition 20

ii
Management of regional projects 22
Steering committees, monitoring committees and advisory boards 22
The role of the steering committee : 22
Steering committee Leadership 25
Management Units 26
Working groups 27
Embedding RITTS Management post-RITTS 29
Use of consultants 31
List of consultants 31
Roles of consultants 33
Choice of consultants and evidence of learning across projects 35
Embedding of consultants 36
Methodological tools applied 39
Contextual analyses 39
Analysis of demand 39
Analysis of supply 46
Other approaches and tools 48
The inter-regional dimension of RITTS 49
Direct learning by RITTS management through contacts with other regions 51
Indirect learning on innovation and technology transfer through comparison 52
5. IMPACT ASSESSMENT 54
Impact on the understanding of the regional innovation and technology transfer system 54
Added value of the analyses 55
Understanding the regional innovation system 56
Improvement of analytical skills in the region 57
Added value of international views and comparison for analysis 58
Impact on the efficiency of the regional innovation and technology transfer support 58
Improvement, creation or removal of regional support organisations 58
Creating a dialogue to sustain the improvement of the support as a system 59
New actions responding to SMEs needs 61
Added value of international comparison for support 64
Institutional capacity building 65
Increased involvement of public authorities in innovation and technology transfer policy 66
Change in strategic policy making culture 67
Improved consensus building capacity 69
Impacts at national level 70
Learning effects between regions within one country 71
Better co-ordination between national and regional policies and actors 72
6. RESULTS OF THE RITTS EVALUATION 75
Achievements of the RITTS Programme 75
Reasons behind RITTS ‘successes’ and ‘failures’ and the diversity in achievements 81
General conclusions of the evaluation 85
7. SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RITTS PROJECTS 86
The definition and policy involvement of the RITTS leadership 86
Main recommendations 91
8. BEYOND RITTS 92
The linear roots of the RITTS programme 92

iii
Problems with the linear approach 93
Preventing the acknowledgement of innovation as a business-driven, interactive process 93
Favouring a closed view of the regional innovation system 94
Overlooking the importance of policy aspects 95
How to go further ? 95
ANNEXES 98
Annex 1: List of key questions to be dealt with in case studies interviews 98
Annex 2: Questionnaire for case study interviews 100
Annex 3: Case studies selection 103

iv
List of case study boxes
Box 1: Management structures in Western Norway..................................................24
Box 2: Identifying and selecting consultants in Rotterdam .......................................32
Box 3: Selecting consultants in Milan ......................................................................33
Box 4: Trento’s use of Danish Technology Transfer.................................................37
Box 5: Problems with postal questionnaires .............................................................42
Box 6: Building on existing company data collection in Ireland ...............................43
Box 7: Demand analysis in Rotterdam .....................................................................44
Box 8: The value added of analyses in South Sweden ..............................................55
Box 9: Providing a vision of the regional innovation system in East Midlands .........56
Box 10: Work on innovation and R&D indicators in Canarias..................................57
Box 11: A more collaborative approach for innovation support in Berlin.................59
Box 12: Developing more consensual framework for innovation in Overijssel .........60
Box 13: Financing of innovation in Poitou Charentes...............................................62
Box 14: Voucher scheme in Uusimaa.......................................................................62
Box 15: Cluster policy in Overijssel.........................................................................63
Box 16: Learning about intermediary structures from elsewhere ..............................65
Box 17: Increasing awareness of regional authorities about innovation in Uusimaa..66
Box 18: A policy learning process in Extremadura...................................................67
Box 19: Redirecting innovation support for greater efficiency in Bremen.................68
Box 20: Building communication, co-operation, consensus and learning in a weak
regional innovation system in Suedbrandenburg...............................................69
Box 21: Cross-fertilisation between national and regional policy making through
RITTS in South Sweden...................................................................................73

v
List of tables and figures
Figure 0.1 : Types of achievements of the RITTS programme (first two calls) ..........ix
Figure 0.2 : Underlying factors behind RITTS "successes" and "failures"..................xi
Table 1.1 List of regions in call 1 and 2 of RITTS (case studies highlighted) .............4
Table 3.1: RITTS regions categorised by economic development status and
peripherality.....................................................................................................14
Figure 3.1 : The various dimensions of regional capacity and project driver in RITTS
.........................................................................................................................17
Figure 4.1: participant views on the role of the steering committee ..........................23
Figure 4.2: Proposed ‘System of innovation’ for Milano ..........................................30
Figure 4.3: Use of consultants as ‘experts’ to complement indigenous skills ............38
Table 4.1: Analysis of demand in each RITTS .........................................................40
Table 4.2 Most commonly identified unsatisfied needs ............................................45
Table 4.3 Conclusions of supply-side analyses.........................................................47
Figure 4.4 Participant views on the benefits from inter-regional links.......................50
Figure 5.1 Rating of interest and support from policymakers at start and end of project
.........................................................................................................................71
Table 6.1: General achievements of the RITTS programme (first two calls).............75
Table 6.2: Priorities shown in RITTS strategy documents, for the improvement of
regional TTI infrastructure ...............................................................................76
Figure 6.1: Types of achievements of the RITTS programme (first two calls) ..........78
Figure 6.2: Underlying factors behind RITTS "success" and "failures".....................84
Figure 8.1: The bow-tie model.................................................................................92

vi
Acknowledgements
The research undertaken for this study was carried out by a consortium consisting of
CURDS, MERIT, PAIR and ÖIR. The four named authors on this report were solely
responsible for the preparation of the final evaluation report itself, but we wish to
thank colleagues within our respective organisations for work on data collection and
regional case studies. These include Paul Benneworth and Neil Pollock from CURDS,
and Franz Delapina and Marc Tsagaris from ÖIR.
In addition, we would like to express our thanks to officers of the European
Commission and the Innovation programme Technical Assistance Unit for the
guidance and information they provided. Michael Busch and Mika Rantakokko
oversaw the project for the Commission, whilst within the TAU Kimmo Halme and
Fabienne Corvers helped to provide the huge quantity of background documentation
needed to commence the project.
Finally we would like to thank all the respondents from RITTS projects who provided
reports and information, completed questionnaires and were interviewed within case
studies. The RIS-RITTS Network staff also supplied copious information on the
networking aspects of the project.
The views expressed in this report remain however the responsibility of the four
authors, and all the above are absolved for any responsibility of the contents.

vii
Executive Summary
Introduction
On behalf of the European Commission, an evaluation of the first two calls of the
RITTS programme in 1994 and 1996 (a total of 42 regions) has been carried out by
CURDS and MERIT, in collaboration with PAIR and ÖIR. The aim of this evaluation
was to take stock of the results achieved so far within the RITTS programme, in order
to diffuse lessons learnt to a wide audience of policy makers.
The first phase of work consisted of the collection and examination of reports and
documents prepared within each of the regional projects and the preparation of 42
regional fiches (regional fiches are available in the web-site of Innovating Regions in
Europe Network: http://www.innovating-regions.org/). The second phase of work
sought to overcome the gaps in the available information by sending the draft fiches
to RITTS project managers for comments; and sending a questionnaire to get the
RITTS stakeholders' subjective appreciation of the key elements of the RITTS. The
third phase examined good practices through 20 case studies of projects.
The RITTS regions
The 42 regions supported through the first and second calls of RITTS present a range
of diverse characteristics that could not be greater within Europe. The variation
between of regions can be demonstrated through two main groups of characteristics:
½ Regional capacity - which encompasses the institutional capacity of the region, its
political autonomy, maturity and competence in developing innovation policies
and innovation support, openness to learn from outside, along with its socio-
economic conditions in terms of economic development and innovative capacity.
½ Project driving force - which encompasses the legitimacy, political backing and
strength of the project driver, the experiences of the partnership in working
together and developing strategy, and the openness and inclusiveness of the
partnership.
The pre-conditions for a RITTS project are a complex combination of these various
attributes of both the region and the project driving team, and so simple typologies as
explanation for outcomes are impossible to identify.
Achievements of the RITTS Programme
The following nine types of results have been obtained through the implementation of
the RITTS scheme.

viii
KNOWLEDGE
1. Study : An evaluation of the efficiency of the technology transfer and innovation
(TTI) infrastructure at work in the region, with reference to the needs for support
shown by regional SMEs;
STRATEGY & ACTION
2. Supply-side reorganisation : The adaptation and improvement of the TTI
infrastructure in response to evaluation findings;
3. Design of new projects & measures : The identification and design of new TTI
measures to reorganise the support or foster demand-led projects, to be
implemented in the region;
4. Implementation of new projects and support services : Ensuring the
implementation of projects and services that have been identified and designed
through the RITTS, or were previously planned but not implemented;
POLICY
5. Policy : The development of a regional concept and politically endorsed strategy
for TTI;
6. Dialogue : The creation or enhancement of an inclusive regional dialogue between
stakeholders concerned with TTI in the region;
7. Institutional capacity building : Raising innovation awareness in policy circles,
improved consensus building capacity, reinforcing governance at sub-regional
level;
EVALUATION
8. Monitoring and evaluation : The introduction of monitoring and evaluation
approaches and instruments for TTI policy;
9. Inter-regional learning : Benchmarking of the region’s policy and support
instruments with other regions.
CONCLUSION 1: Overall, RITTS achieved its objective to support regional policy
makers in upgrading their TTI infrastructure for a better response to SMEs' needs
CONCLUSION 2: The implementation of RITTS showed an additional achievement
of the programme, less clearly planned, concerning capacity building for innovation
policy in the regions
CONCLUSION 3: RITTS is an ambitious programme, containing several
complementary objectives which, taken as a complete menu, have proved to be
beyond the reach of most regions.
CONCLUSION 4: RITTS implementation has taken place in a much more complex
manner that the sequential model : analysis-strategy-action-evaluation suggested in
the programme

ix
Figure 0.1 : Types of achievements of the RITTS programme (first two calls)
: Planned achievements in the RITTS Scheme
: Steps planned in the RITTS scheme
: Additional achievements reached through RITTS implementation
: Steps achieved in the implementation of RITTS (dotted line : weaker)
CONCLUSION 5: Success in RITTS needs to be appraised with regard to the
starting conditions in the region : achieving significant changes in a number of
KNOWLEDGE
STRATEGY &
ACTION
EVALUATION
RITTS
RITTS
POLICY

x
dimensions of the RITTS is the key criterion to be applied (rather than comparing
results with some "best practice" model).
CONCLUSION 6 : A very strong message emerging from this evaluation is that of
RITTS as a (key) moment in a long term policy building process.
Reasons behind RITTS ‘successes’ and ‘failures’ and the
diversity in achievements of the projects
Overall, the evaluation showed that, while "pre-conditions" to the RITTS, in the form
of regional capacity and the nature of the RITTS driving force, were important
determinants of the RITTS achievements, even more important were the choices made
for running the projects, as failures to achieve significant results in the RITTS were
mainly due to weaknesses in project management rather than to unfavorable starting
conditions.
CONCLUSION 7: Success in RITTS is explained by a favourable interaction
between regional capacity conditions, RITTS driving force and RITTS management
decisions. The latter set of conditions has the largest important influence on RITTS
achievements (understood in an evolutionary sense).
CONCLUSION 8: The crucial management decisions for achieving the best results
in the RITTS are:
Political backing at early stage and throughout the project;
Sound management of consultants;
Choice of project leaders with high legitimacy and capacity;
Intense and bottom-up involvement of regional innovation stakeholders in the project.

xi
Figure 0.2 : Underlying factors behind RITTS "successes" and "failures"
RTDI Capacity
Institutional
capacity of the
region
Economic
conditions
Regional
capacity
RITTS
driving
force
Previous
experience of
strategy
Legitimacy and
political backing
of project driver
Openness &
inclusiveness
of project
driver
RITTS
Management
Management
of
consultants
Political
backing
throughout
RITTS (at
Legitimacy
& capacity
of project
leader
Inclusiveness
of process

xii
Conclusion : overall appreciation of the RITTS programme
The RITTS programme implemented in 42 European regions had positive impacts on
the following aspects:
1. It brought in a much needed move towards strategic thinking for innovation-
oriented regional development;
2. It offered mechanisms and incentives to create a regional dialogue in fragmented
regions (in geographic, institutional and cultural senses);
3. It helped to develop a broader concept for innovation, different from technology
transfer, and put this higher on the policy agenda;
4. It supported many regions to clarify the scene of innovation support
infrastructure and to develop actions to rationalise, better define and augment
the visibility of this infrastructure.
The degree of success achieved by the various RITTS has been shown to depend not
only on the prevailing starting situation in the regions, but also, and more importantly
so, on the appropriateness of management practices in the RITTS process itself.
Suggestions for future RITTS projects
Several suggestions are proposed for further implementation of projects under the
RITTS programme.
RECOMMENDATION 1: The RITTS decision maker should be either regional
policy makers themselves, or a neutral agency enjoying lasting and solid policy
support from the regional authority.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The leadership of the RITTS by a regional authority
should go along with an inclusiveness of the exercise, where all actors in regional TTI
have voice in the process.
RECOMMENDATION 3: Steering committees should be chaired by a senior figure
who can command respect and ensure the participation of key figures from other
agencies.
RECOMMENDATION 4: The area definition of the RITTS should correspond to a
meaningful area, in policy terms.
RECOMMENDATION 5: RITTS projects should devote resources to a permanent,
experienced, full-time management team for the life of the project.
RECOMMENDATION 6: Practical training on the job for innovation policy
designers, in the form of exchanges of experience, visits, etc. , is to be made available
at national and international levels.
RECOMMENDATION 7: RITTS should include a more explicit concern for the
"legacy" of consultants in the regions in terms of methods and skills. Consultants
should be well embedded in the RITTS process, rather than seen as "neutral"
evaluators.

xiii
RECOMMENDATION 8: RITTS should start with a solid phase 0, where the
detailed objectives, and questions to be solved by the RITTS are discussed and
detailed. This could even take the shape of a feasibility phase for the whole project.
RECOMMENDATION 9 : There is a role for the Commission to exploit the pool of
knowledge gathered by the set of consultants involved in RITTS. The best way to do
this would be in frames facilitating the exchange of tacit knowledge rather than
codified pieces (available in RITTS reports), through, for example seminars for
experts or collaborative studies of those experts.
RECOMMENDATION 10: Inter-regional activities should be enlarged beyond the
project co-ordinator, and involve key organisations and firms in the region.
RECOMMENDATION 11: Exchanges of experience between projects in the same
country, through national seminars, creation of a network, visits and exchanges,
should be favoured.
RECOMMENDATION 12: Benchmarking methods and data should be made
available to regions wishing to go further in exploiting the diversity of European
regions in innovation policy, freed from a limited “best practice” approach which
mostly leads to marketing presentations of non-transferable instruments.
RECOMMENDATION 13: A more systematic informing of national
administrations about RITTS-like exercises need to be organised, not only at the level
of each project, but also by the Commission.
Beyond RITTS
The problems of the linear approach to innovation
The RITTS scheme was proposed to regional authorities of the European Union with
a work programme that reinforced a linear view of innovation : the "supply-demand"
focus of the methodology was built into the first analytical phase of the RITTS and
the vast majority of regions followed that model in practice. Accordingly, the main
thrust of the analysis phase of many RITTS projects is expressed as follows: ‘What do
regional SMEs need in terms of support for innovation, and what does the regional
supply organisation offer? How do the demand and supply match and where are the
gaps between the two?’. This has been schematised in the case of North Holland, in a
“bow tie” model composed of the three following elements: firms, intermediaries and
the innovation and technology supply.
Firms
"demand"
Innovation and
technology
suppliers
Intermediaries

xiv
This "supply-demand" orientation generates in fact three types of problems :
PROBLEM 1 : Preventing the recognition of innovation as an interactive process
The main problem with such a linear approach to innovation is that it is in
contradiction with the current understanding of the real nature of innovation. Both
current academic research and innovation enquiries (including those undertaken in
RITTS projects) emphasise a non-linear view on innovation: innovation is a firm
process, mainly driven by market considerations, and the main issue for innovation is
how do firms organise to be more innovative. Thus, the main problem is not how to
match a set of supply services with firms’needs, but how to improve innovation
management processes in firms. The focus is on an "innovation system", with firms at
the core, as they are the source of innovation, rather than on an "innovation support
system", with suppliers and intermediaries at the core. Then the policy question shifts
to how styles of innovative behaviour and capabilities for innovation in firms can be
improved.
Therefore, there is a risk that the results of supply-oriented RITTS, whatever their
intrinsic value, will fall short in tackling the more open question ‘how can
innovativeness in firms be improved?’
PROBLEM 2 :A closed view on the regional innovation system
The "demand-supply" approach in RITTS implicitly favours a closed view of the
regional innovation system: in the overwhelming majority of regions involved in
RITTS, the above question has been treated with a limited focus on regional firms and
regional supply organisations, as if the objective would be necessarily to match the
two. In an open, globalised world, where the knowledge base necessary for the
development of firms is growing in diversity and complexity, such a closed approach
is unlikely to be successful.
If firms are put at the core of the exercise, then it does not matter if the support comes
from within or outside the region, the important point is how firms search for, absorb,
engineer and use this support for their own innovation goals.
PROBLEM 3 : Overlooking the importance of policy aspects
The "supply-demand" approach in RITTS prevented sufficient attention being paid to
policy involvement in the implementation of the RITTS, at least in the first years of
implementation of the programme. Under the RITTS approach indeed, it is implicitly
assumed that fine-tuning the supply and intermediary organisations in better
accordance to SMEs needs could be achieved if those suppliers and intermediaries are
put together and agree on the directions of the changes to be taken. The RITTS issue
is thus mainly one for technology transfer agencies or intermediaries, and relates to
the optimisation of their own strategy.
However, such an approach neglects the fact that various policy levels need to be
involved in decisions, because in the majority of cases they will hold the power to
decide on, and finance the desired changes. Furthermore, the role of policy makers is
essential in taking a broader view of the various instruments to be put in synergy for
better support to firms, and to ensure that specific actions taken are in the benefit of
the society.
This under-recognition of the role of policy to reach RITTS objectives has also led to
a neglect of the involvement of the national level in these exercises.

xv
Suggestions for the future
Thus, if regional governments have the goal to promote more innovativeness in their
business sector, there is more to do than a RITTS, which has a more restricted goal of
improving the regional support infrastructure. Even if the two goals may overlap in
some respect, the first goal needs another approach, focused on the innovation process
itself.
The targets of such a future scheme should shift towards and concentrate on :
½ Opening windows of opportunities for firms to favour innovation, both
through a variety of types of knowledge useful for their activities, and
through access to foreign sources of knowledge;
½ Developing innovation management capacities in firms;
½ Putting more accent on human resources as main carriers of knowledge to
support innovation moves;
½ Transforming the underlying "best practice" framework for inter-regional
exchange activities into favouring exchange in a learning perspective;
½ Increasing absorptive capacities of regional policy-makers and policy
implementers towards new ideas and new practices in innovation policy.
The evaluation points to the relevance of building a new European scheme, on the
basis of the RITTS programme, which would:
½ incorporate a more up-to-date notion of innovation, less linear in nature,
½ focus on an open vision of the regional innovation system;
½ develop the tools proposed beyond a simple supply-demand approach and
½ integrate the policy dimension at the core of the scheme
Such a new scheme would differ from its parent RITTS in the following ways.
1. it should not include (only) a ’demand’ analysis, in the sense that the
expectations and rate of satisfaction of the firms towards the regional support
infrastructure are investigated, but rather, it should be founded on an analysis of
the behaviour of firms with regard to innovation;
2. the ’supply’ analysis should not be foreseen at the start, but rather, after the
firms’ analysis, there should be a decision on what are the key drivers and barriers
for innovation in the firms located in the region;
3. the consensus-building idea should be abandoned. Rather, the inclusiveness
criterion should be put at the forefront;
4. the international dimension, mainly brought in by the consultants in the
RITTS implementation, should be kept, as it was one of the main successful
elements of this scheme. Both the use of consultants and the shape of inter-
regional networks, should be made more specific, moving away from the more
generalist tools that were developed in the early RITTS;
5. the driving role of the regional authorities, as masters of the whole process,
should be rooted in the scheme.

1
1. Introduction
In recent years in Europe there has been considerable interest in the way in which
innovation policies can be used to underpin economic development at EU, national
and regional scales. This has led to a proliferation of localised innovation support
mechanisms such as science parks, regional technology advisory centres, venture
capital funds, university technology transfer offices, collaborative research centres
etc. However with the growth of such mechanisms questions have been asked about
how to better integrate and target support, about whether there are good practices
which can be applied in different contexts, and what is the most appropriate mix of
support in a particular region.
The European Commission has been contributing to many of these discussions
through a variety of policies and programmes, as well as providing part funding
through the Structural Funds and through specific support mechanisms via the
SPRINT and Innovation programmes. A key development in promoting strategic
thinking and transfer of good practice at the regional level has been through the
RITTS programme and the parallel RIS programme1
. RITTS (Regional Innovation
and Technology Transfer Strategies and Infrastructures) was a programme launched
in 1994 by what is now called the Innovation Programme, formerly within DG XIII,
and now within DG Enterprise. It is funded out of the Framework Programme for
RD, within a measure that is concerned with promoting innovation and SMEs
generally (the name and details of the programme have varied in different Framework
Programmes, but the aims have remained the same). The programme has provided
regions with relatively small subsidies and technical support for them to develop
innovation strategies, through a standardised process involving the support of an
international team of expert consultants.
This report provides an evaluation of the experience of the first two calls of the
RITTS programme, in which a total of 42 regions participated.
The objectives of the study
The aim of this evaluation study has been to take stock of the results achieved so far
within the RITTS programme, in order to diffuse, to a wide audience of policy
makers, the lessons learnt.
The study was constituted as addressing three main elements:
1. Evaluation of scheme design and delivery
2. Impact assessment
3. Suggestions for future policies and good practice lessons
Evaluation of scheme design and delivery: This first element involved a complete
overview of the original 42 projects using a variety of documentary evidence and a
1
The RIS programme (Regional Innovation Strategies) was funded by DG XVI (Regions) and has been
evaluated separately. The main differences between RIS and RITTS are explained in chapter 2.

2
specially designed questionnaire leading to the delivery of a set of 42 fiches. We also
examined programmatic aspects of the delivery of the scheme on the basis of
information from the RITTS regions. The aim was to provide a general review of the
benefits realised by the programme as a whole, including the value added from the
existence of a multi-region programme over a set of unconnected regional projects.
Impact assessment: The second main task of the study was to deal with the question
of the effects of the scheme with regard to the objectives assigned to it: answering the
question of whether RITTS was appropriate, and effectively used, to help regions
improve their infrastructures and policies to support technology transfer and
innovation in the business sector. Impact was assessed through analysis of
quantitative and descriptive materials from the regional projects, but mainly through
20 case studies involving interviews with key participants. The analysis followed the
lifecycle of the project from the initial understanding of the concept and the consensus
on objectives, through to measurable impacts on infrastructures and firms. This
element has contributed to this overall evaluation report and a set of case studies
”good practice stories”.
Suggestions for future policies and good practice lessons: The final element was the
preparation of lessons from the RITTS experience:
½ Improving policy-making at EU level for the benefit of future actions in this field,
and
½ Diffusing the lessons learnt to regional authorities
The actual recommendations include: methodological improvements that can be made
to the RITTS implementation plans at the regional scale and at European level; needs
for and improvements in the networking infrastructure in support of future
programmes of this nature; and wider good practice guidelines and underlying
conceptual frameworks for the development of innovation policies at the regional
scale and their implementation through a variety of funding programmes.
The approach
The project was undertaken through four phases.
The first phase of work consisted of the collection and examination of reports and
documents prepared within each of the regional projects and the preparation of 42
draft regional fiches.
The second phase of work sought to overcome the gaps in the available information
on which this output was based, and hence two actions were taken in this stage:
sending the draft fiches to RITTS project managers for comments; and sending a
questionnaire to get the RITTS stakeholders' subjective appreciation of the key
elements of the RITTS.
The questionnaires were sent out to the project manager and members of the Steering
Committee in each region to substantiate our judgement on each RITTS project on :
½ the attributes of the region such as institutional thickness and the maturity of the
research, technological development and innovation (RTDI) system
½ the orientation of the RITTS : studying the regional innovation system, re-
organising the support infrastructure, building overall policy frameworks,
launching pilot projects, etc; and

3
½ the concrete results and actions occurring as a result of the RITTS.
The initial objective was to obtain four or five questionnaires per region and in order
to do this a variable number were sent out depending on the rate of response and level
of assistance from the project managers. Responses varied by region, and in some
regions the movement of personnel meant that there were no individuals still in post
with direct experience of the RITTS or willing to respond. We have responses from
87 participants in 34 of the regions from which we amended the fiches (see separate
report)and made some horizontal analysis.
The third phase consisted of 20 case studies of projects to examine good practices.
These projects were selected to give a good representation of the different character of
RITTS and of the different regional environments. The case studies are listed in Table
1.1. (A more extensive description of each region can be found in Annex 3) The case
studies were used to identify a set of good practices, as presented in the accompanying
Good Practice Report, and are used as illustrations in this evaluation report.
Finally, in the fourth phase, the information gathered over the previous phases was
used in the production of the final evaluation report.
The regional fiches
As noted above the first two phases of work concentrated on the production of a set of
42 regional fiches outlining the projects to be evaluated in some detail. The
production of fiches was primarily based on material supplied to the Commission in
the form of progress reports and the main deliverables of the RITTS projects. This
was complemented with information provided by regions through a questionnaire.
A standard reporting format was developed within the team for the fiches (see
separate report for a full set of the fiches) which enabled some comparison between
the different projects. Regional fiches are available in the web-site of Innovating
Regions in Europe Network: http://www.innovating-regions.org/. The main areas
covered by the fiches are as follows:
½ Overview of the region
½ Origins and driving force of the RITTS
½ Objectives and how they evolved
½ Project management structures
½ Methodologies and descriptions of phases of work
½ Results and actions
½ Embeddedness
The information collected within the fiches was used in the construction of this
evaluation report, but also was used in the preparation of various categorisations used
in the selection of case study regions.
The case studies
The main aim of the case studies was to deepen the information gathered in each
region from project reports and the questionnaire survey, in order to acquire a better
understanding of results achieved, evaluate the impact of the RITTS scheme as a
whole, and identify good practices.

4
Table 1.1 List of regions in call 1 and 2 of RITTS (case studies highlighted)
Country Region Call
Austria Wr.Neustadt 1
Belgium Vlaanderen 1
France Nord-Pas-de-Calais 2
France Rhône-Alpes 2
France Poitou-Charentes 1
France Aquitaine 1
Finland Häme 2
Finland Uusimaa 1
Germany Berlin 2
Germany Bremen 1
Germany Hamburg 1
Germany Neubrandenburg 2
Germany Südbrandenburg 1
Germany Aachen 1
Greece Crete 2
Greece Thessaly 1
Iceland Iceland 2
Ireland Ireland 1
Italy Marche 2
Italy Milano 2
Italy Sicily 1
Italy Trento 2
Italy Tuscany 2
Italy Umbria 1
Netherlands Noord Holland 2
Netherlands Overijssel 2
Netherlands Rotterdam 2
Norway Western Norway 2
Portugal Lisbon Tagus Valley 2
Spain Madrid 2
Spain Andalucia 1
Spain Canary Islands 2
Spain Extremadura 1
Sweden North Sweden 1
Sweden South Sweden 2
UK Dorset Hampshire 2
UK East Midlands 2
UK Highlands and Islands 1
UK Kent 2
UK North East of England 1
UK North London 1
UK Oxfordshire 2

5
The case studies were intended to provide an evaluation of the effects of the scheme
with regard to the objectives assigned to it : answering the question of whether RITTS
was appropriate, and effectively used, to help regions improve their infrastructures
and policies to support technology transfer and innovation in the business sector. The
issues addressed follow the lifecycle of the project from the initial understanding of
the concept and the consensus on objectives, through to measurable impacts on
infrastructures and firms. Each of the regions at the outset of their RITTS project was
characterised by a specific form of regional innovation system, hence there was the
potential for developing a regional innovation system that can contribute to
differentiated economic performance. The aim of the RITTS is first to understand the
nature and characteristics of the existing regional innovation system, and then to make
adjustments to meet the needs of the productive sector.
We therefore first evaluated the extent to which the RITTS partnerships have
developed a shared understanding of the system, and the manner in which that has
been communicated to other social groups: is this understanding more coherent than
before, and has it been used to identify gaps, weaknesses or opportunities? In other
words, we focused here on the quality of the knowledge building aspects of the
RITTS exercise and on the question of the inclusiveness of the RITTS.
Secondly we assessed the extent to which the partnership used this understanding to
better integrate policy instruments to adjust the existing hard and soft infrastructure.
Thus, we investigated how the policy exercise was carried out, if the RITTS resulted
in an improved political understanding of the role of innovation for regional
development, and if this improved understanding was translated into the policy
framework of the region.
Third, evidence of results obtained with this improved infrastructure, either on the
functioning of innovation agencies themselves, or in terms of impact in the productive
sector, was sought. To do this, we enquired about the reality and the results
obtained with RITTS actions, be they geared towards an improvement of the
support infrastructure, or towards the setting up of projects at firm level.
Fourth, the role of the of inter-regional framework of the RITTS scheme was
investigated, in order to get insight on the potential benefits accruing to regions
through the exploitation of the possibilities offered there.
In sum, through the case studies, we aimed to develop a detailed knowledge of the
ways and means used (success factors), and of results obtained (actions), by the
regions.

6
Methodological approach to case studies
Because the RITTS covers a relatively short period in the innovation policy
development process in the regions, we took an evolutionary view of the scheme, and
tried to understand how the RITTS was instrumental in starting, developing, or
improving such a policy building process. Therefore, although the mandate of this
study is to cover the RITTS period, as formally defined by the contracts between the
Commission and the regions, we chose not to ignore the policy developments
occurring before and after the RITTS. The value added of the RITTS to this policy
development process, was at the core of our investigation.
The case study analysis involved the realisation of up to twelve interviews with key
actors and firms, within each of the 20 case study regions. The aim was to develop
both the quantitative aspect of the data, and to collect new qualitative data on items of
relevance with the impact question. (Further details and a copy of the questionnaire
used are included as annexes 1 and 2.)
The design of the case study questionnaire and the selection of actors to be
interviewed were made with the objective of responding to more qualitative questions,
that could not be tackled properly with tools used in the first step of the research
(reports analysis and questionnaire survey). This relates mainly to the question of the
impact of the RITTS scheme at regional level (what actions are effectively put in
place, and what is their impact?), but also to a finer understanding of the key elements
describing the RITTS.
Selection of interviewees
The selection of people to be interviewed in the case studies was carried out by the
evaluators, on the basis of the information already gathered in the first steps of the
study. Assistance from the RITTS managers was also important to identify the key
RITTS stakeholders. Typical interviewees included :
½ The RITTS manager(s);
½ The main representative(s) of the regional authority in charge of innovation
policy;
½ Representative(s) at the national level, in charge of innovation policy;
½ The Chairman and / or influential member(s) of the RITTS Steering Committee;
½ Leader(s) of important working groups set up during the RITTS;
½ Individuals responsible for the main project(s) issuing as concrete results from the
RITTS;
½ Representative(s) from the main innovation support agency(ies) of the region; and
½ Expert or process consultants when they played a key role in the RITTS
development.
According to the various degree of complexity of the case studies, the number of
interviewees were expanded or restricted. However, an average of 10-12 interviewees
was set as a target for each of the case studies.

7
The structure of this report
The main sections of the report reflect the three main elements of the evaluation as set
out above:
½ the evaluation of scheme design and delivery,
½ impact assessment, and
½ suggestions for future policies and good practice lessons
Before these there are two more descriptive chapters to provide a context for the
evaluation. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the RITTS scheme with its main
characteristics: its duration, geographic coverage, finance and basic methodology.
Many of the issues that arise later in the evaluation relate to specific characteristics of
RITTS as designed and the particular nature of differences from the related RIS
programme are important considerations in the distinctive nature of RITTS’
achievements.
Chapter 3 then provides a description of the regions that participated in the first two
RITTS calls from a typological perspective. We identify two groups of three factors
that are important to the nature of RITTS projects in terms of regional conditions and
capacities, and the driving force for the project. We argue that the implementation of
RITTS in a region will depend on the complex inter-relationships between existing
conditions in the region and the legitimacy, nature and capabilities of the project
driving force.
Following these contextual chapters, the main evaluation starts with chapter 4 which
examines the design and delivery of the scheme and regional projects. The emphasis
of this chapter is on the management of the projects and the methodologies used
within projects to assess regional needs and existing policy frameworks. Throughout
this chapter we introduce a set of recommendations for various stakeholders, and
examples of good practice from the case studies.
The second main evaluation chapter is chapter 5 which presents the impact of the
RITTS projects. This focuses on the impacts on institutional learning and capacity
building, on the actions developed from the RITTS, and on the co-ordination between
regional and national levels.
Finally, the overall conclusions and recommendations (chapters 6, 7 and 8) present
the main achievements of the programme and open up a debate on the relevance of
different models of innovation policy. Success in developing regional strategies is
placed not just on the pre-conditions for RITTS projects, but on the manner in which
projects have been managed. A central issue has been the extent to which particular
models, such as the supply-demand relationship, have limited the scope of enquiry
and strategy development, and in the suggestions for future policies we suggest ways
in which new thinking on the nature of innovation in regions can enhance the existing
RITTS model and scheme (chapter 7), and expand the scope of possible actions into
new kinds of programmes and initiatives (chapter 8).

8
2. The RITTS programme
Programme description
The Regional Innovation and Technology Transfer Strategies and Infrastructures
(RITTS) programme was launched by the Commission in 1994, under the Innovation
programme run by DG XIII-D (now Enterprise DG) in Luxembourg.
It was designed for policy makers and regional development organisations to help
them in assessing the technology transfer support infrastructure in their region,
developing strategies and implementing actions aimed at improving the quality of
linkages between the services provided by the regional funding agencies on the one
hand and the needs of regional firms on the other (especially SMEs).
A related programme has been run by DG XVI (now known as Regional Policy DG),
RIS (Regional Innovation Strategies). The main differences between the two
programmes concern the focus of RIS on ERDF assisted areas and the stronger
requirements for developing partnership of key actors and on the embeddedness of the
results in the Structural Funds planning frameworks. The role to be played by external
consultants is a specific feature of the RITTS : while RIS are more focused towards
innovation based regional development, RITTS are specifically centered on the
efficiency of the innovation support infrastructure and policies.
To date there have been three calls for proposals, in 19954, 1996 and 1998, and over
this period, the documentation from the Commission has moved from stressing the
differences between the two schemes, towards enlightening the common goals. This
evaluation only covers the first two calls covered by the scheme, so some of the more
recent experiences are not included.
Coverage of the programme
The regional infrastructure for technology transfer and innovation support has
been defined in this programme as the following organisations and their networks :
research centres and technology resource centres (universities, public research
institutions, private contract research organisations, …), interface structures
(university liaison offices, technology brokerage services, consultancy organisations),
finance providers, training centres or general business support services (Chamber of
Commerce, business innovation centres, …).
The geographical areas concerned cover the whole of the EEA countries, that is
including Norway and Iceland as well as the 15 EU states. Project areas should be
wide enough to be meaningful in terms of economic fabric, technological resources,
support services, margin of manoeuvre of the various actors involved, financial
resources, etc.) but therefore not necessarily matching official administrative areas
(such as NUTS 2 areas).
The project promoters should be bodies that have a formal mission in terms of
regional development (regional governments, regional development organisations).

9
Financial support
The regions engaged in RITTS benefit from a financial contribution from the
Commission, covering up to 50% (75% in ERDF assisted areas) of the costs of
employing a transnational consortium of experienced experts. The maximum
contribution is 175.000 EURO per project ( 250.000 EURO in ERDF assisted areas).
Duration
The duration of projects has increased during the life of the programme, starting at 15
months for the first call projects, then established at 18 months in the second and third
call, but in reality very often extended for another six month period.
Implementation
Method of the programme
The main approach taken in RITTS is to analyse the mismatch between the supply
and demand for technology transfer and innovation support through analysis carried
out by a team of international experts, chosen from a list produced by the Commission
services. Thus, an accent has been put on an international benchmarking approach
to bridging the demand-supply gap in technology transfer and innovation
support.
Three characteristics underpin the whole RITTS workprogramme :
1. The programme foresees that RITTS should be demand-led : the driving
force of the projects should be the question of how technology transfer and
innovation (TTI) infrastructure could better respond to SMEs needs, as identified
in a study.
2. The programme requires efforts to be devoted to build a consensus: in
order to generate priorities for practical actions as an outcome of the exercise, it is
important to involve as many regional technology transfer and innovation support
actors as possible from the very beginning of the exercise. The RITTS exercise
puts great emphasis on achieving consensus among these actors. The Steering
Committee is seen as the major tool for achieving such a consensus.
3. RITTS is about developing practical actions as a response to the
mismatches identified in the analysis phase. The development of monitoring and
evaluation indicators to measure the realisation and impact of these actions is
somehow contained in this third feature, but it is always understressed in all
Commission’s documents describing the RITTS programme and action plan.
The RITTS consisted, at the beginning of the implementation of the scheme, of three
phases :
½ Phase 1 (analysis), where the regional infrastructure for supporting innovation
and technology transfer is examined and its relevance to the technology needs of
regional firms, particularly SMEs, is assessed. This phase delivers a demand
and a supply analysis, as well as conclusions on the relationship between the
two analyses;

10
½ Phase 2 (strategy), where different scenarios to improve the technology transfer
infrastructure towards the needs of firms are proposed. This phase delivers a
strategic paper and priority definition;
½ Phase 3 (implementation/evaluation) where priority actions defined in the
previous stages are implemented. In addition, monitoring and evaluation
mechanisms are defined.
Subsequently, a Phase 0 has been added in the RITTS scheme, to check for a proper
organisation of the management structure, ensure co-financing for the project, and
establish a more detailed working plan agreed by the main RITTS partners.
Consultants
The hiring of a team composed of national and international consultants lies at the
core of the RITTS scheme, shown by the initial label of Consultancy scheme for
infrastructures and regional strategies for technology transfer and support to
innovation.
The following rules for consultants were applied at the start of the programme :
½ The consortium should consist of at least two organisations from two different
member states;
½ The consultants should be drawn from lists agreed by the Commission, an A list
of process consultants (at least two A consultants should be present), and a B
list of specialist consultants;
½ No single consultant organisation can be assigned to more than four projects in a
single RITTS call;
½ No process consultant can be allocated a number of man days below one-third of
the total number of man-days for the RITTS. Specialist consultants can intervene
for a maximum of 20 days;
½ In addition, a C list of consultants is available for the organisation of reference
panels.
Management structures
Besides the inclusion of core consultants (national and international), the RITTS
programme suggested the establishment of two structures for the RITTS :
1. A ’Management Group’, that should be formed around the project champion;
2. A ’Steering Committee’, consisting of the main regional stakeholders, with
the role of consensus building and identification of core issues.
International dimension of the programme
The international aim of the RITTS is expressed as : to encourage the diffusion of
best practice by seeking to assist development organisations in taking advantage of
experience already gained in other regions. This aim must be stressed as the RITTS
programme itself emerged from a wider programme concerned primarily with
international technology transfer rather than regional development. 9This point is
discussed further in the next chapter.)

11
To address this aim, in addition to the role of international experts, the Commission
has also funded a RITTS-RIS Network, with the three main objectives :
1. Providing general information to regions : guidelines, studies, newsletter,
website, profile of the regions;
2. Facilitating personal contacts : conferences, workshops, hotline;
3. Collecting and diffusing experience : training sessions, thematic subgroups.
The Network was run by a consortium of consulting companies, some of which acted
also as consultants in RITTS projects. The Network served both RITTS and RIS
projects.
Evolution of the programme
The RITTS programme has been implemented in three phases :
½ 21 RITTS projects were selected in the first generation 94-96
½ 21 RITTS projects were selected in the second generation 96-98
½ 24 RITTS projects were selected in the last generation 98-00.
The main changes that took place in the programme’s implementation relate mainly to
two elements :
1. An increasing pressure from the Commission’s side to fund project
management for a stronger commitment of project leaders;
2. An increasing recognition on the Commission’s side, of the necessity to bring
policy actors and firms in the RITTS projects, and not leaving these in the hands
of transfer agencies only. This has been translated in the addition of a Phase 0, to
check on inclusiveness and policy commitment.

12
3. The Regions
Introduction
The 42 regions incorporated into the first and second call of RITTS present a range of
diverse characteristics that could not be greater within Europe. They range
geographically from the extremes of North, South, East and West (North Sweden,
Canaries, Crete and Iceland), and encompass a full range of development states and
potentials. They include some of the most dynamic urban areas in Europe (e.g.
Rhône-Alpes, Madrid) and some of the most lagging of rural and peripheral regions
(e.g. Thessaly, Extremadura), dynamic centres of new high technology industries (e.g.
Uusimaa) and old industrial regions (e.g. Nord-Pas de Calais). All have in common
the desire to better organise the support for innovation in industry, even if their
emphasis may vary from high technology small firms to the promotion of innovation
in traditional sectors.
A key question for the evaluation of the outcomes from the RITTS process has been
the extent to which the pre-existing characteristics and conditions have affected the
process and outcomes. Are there particular conditions that are propitious for RITTS-
type actions? Or are there types of regions for which RITTS-type actions are
inappropriate? Such regional pre-conditions may relate to the state of innovative
potential or economic development in a region, or to the institutional capacity or
social capital needed to carry through a RITTS into strategy formulation and
implementation. As an experiment in institutional change, the RITTS programme has
tested its methodology in such a wide range of regional contexts that it can provide
very broad lessons for the importance of such pre-conditions and barriers.
Typologies of regions
The previous evaluation of the RTP pilot actions posited a typology based on the
existing level of innovation planning experience, and compared this with outcomes
that were strategic or project oriented in nature. Key issues in the development of the
typology were:
½ The level and type of regional development
½ The degree of autonomy of the region
½ The competence of the regional administration
½ The rationale behind the application for support
½ Political backing
(Boekholt, Arnold and Tsipouri, 19982
).
2
Boekholt, P., Arnold, E. and Tsipouri, L (1988) The Evaluation of the Pre-pilot Actions under Article
10: Innovative Measures regarding Regional Technology Plans, European Commission.

13
These issues were considered in the case of RITTS regions also, although the nature
of RITTS led to far greater variability in region as will be explained below. Three key
differences between RITTS and the RTP/RIS programme however do significantly
increase the variability of input conditions.
½ First, RITTS was open to all regions of the EU and EEA. Hence rather than just
regions experiencing problems of lagging economies or industrial decline, RITTS
included dynamic growth oriented regions, stable wealthy regions, and two
regions outside of the EU.
½ Second, the criteria for definition of a ‘region’ under RITTS was more flexible
than under RTP/RIS, so the regions included small areas at NUTS 3 level (and
even below) up to NUTS 1 and including two nation-states. Some of the RITTS
were initiated by sub-regional local authorities whilst others covered territories for
which there was no ‘regional’ scale authority - the region was an artefact of the
project.
½ Thirdly, the RITTS programme permitted a wider diversity of organisations to co-
ordinate projects, so although the majority were regional/national or local
government, some projects were initiated and/or co-ordinated by universities,
technology transfer agencies or other agencies without direct accountability.
In developing our overview of the variability of regions involved and hence a possible
typology, we are faced with two main dimensions which themselves can be
decomposed into a number of variables:
½ Regional capacity - which encompasses the institutional capacity of the region, its
political autonomy, maturity and competence in developing innovation policies
and innovation support, openness to learn from outside, along with its socio-
economic conditions in terms of economic development and innovative capacity.
½ Project driving force - which encompasses the legitimacy, political backing and
strength of the project driver, the experiences of the partnership in working
together and developing strategy, and the openness and inclusiveness of the
partnership.
In many regions the two are related in that the project driving force is directly due to
the regional government and its maturity, but this is not always the case. Furthermore
in some cases whilst there is a legitimate regional body or scale of intervention, the
RITTS has taken place at a sub-regional scale involving a body with a different form
of legitimation. We can contrast here what might be termed real regions with
administrative or regulatory power, and ad hoc regions. Examples would range from
Western Norway as an ad hoc region comprising four local authorities to Vlaanderen
as an institutionally strong region. In such cases of ad hoc regions we have had to
consider the regional capacity at the level of the project area rather than any wider
region within which it is located.
Regional conditions and capacities
General economic conditions. As already noted the RITTS regions range from the
wealthiest to the poorest in the EU. In addition regions could be placed in a rough
categorisation according to whether they were peripheral/rural in nature or core/urban.
This latter divide conflates somewhat two concepts but recognises that some major
urban areas in the periphery of Europe are different in nature from their surroundings
and have some of the attributes of core regions, whilst some areas outside of the major

14
urban centres are nonetheless highly connected into the core urban areas of Europe
(e.g. Oxfordshire).
Table 3.1 shows a rough categorisation of regions by economic conditions. The
placement of some regions may be contentious, especially as many can be considered
to be on the margins of categories - e.g. only partly covered by objective 2 status, or
designated as core because they lie between key agglomerations - however there is an
underlying trend between an economically weak periphery and a prosperous core. On
this basis it could be argued that whilst the poorer regions have most to gain from the
RITTS process, the wealthier regions are asset rich and can use RITTS to underpin
their success. There is however the question of whether the regions are rich in
innovation potential.
Innovation or RTDI potential. In general there is a correlation between economic
success and innovation, and this provides justification for the entire RITTS/RTP/RIS
process. All of the regions included in the core/non-assisted box have high RTD
spend, and mature and sophisticated RTD institutions. In such regions a RITTS
process is invariably focused on enhancing and making adjustments to the existing
policy or mechanisms. The presence of a rich RTD base does not imply an existing
strategy, as the endowment may emerge from national policies, but there is a potential
advantage that accrues to the region from the presence of a large pool of scientific
labour, and the potential for firms to gain knowledge through a variety of formal or
informal mechanisms.
Table 3.1: RITTS regions categorised by economic development status and
peripherality
Peripheral/rural Core/urban
Lagging regions, usually
designated as objective 1
or 6 under the Structural
Funds.
Neubrandenburg
Suedbrandenburg
Crete, Thessaly
Ireland
Sicily
Andalucia, Canarias
Extremadura
North Sweden
Highlands and Islands
Lisbon
Industrial decline regions
usually designated as
objective 2 under the
Structural Funds
Wiener Neustadt
Häme, Aquitaine
Poitou-Charentes
Marche, Umbria
North East England
Nord Pas de Calais
Berlin, Bremen, Aachen
Tuscany, Overijssel
Madrid, Kent
East Midlands, N London
Wealthier regions Iceland
Trento
Western Norway
South Sweden
Vlaanderen, Uusimaa
Rhone Alpes, Hamburg
Milano, Noord Holland
Rotterdam, Oxfordshire
South Coast of England
Outside of the successful core regions there is a variety of situations ranging from
Nord-Pas de Calais with an extremely dense set of support organisations to regions

15
with very poorly developed RTD infrastructure such as Thessaly. In such RTD-poor
regions, primarily in the more peripheral, economically-weaker regions, the emphasis
of RITTS is placed more strongly on developing new kinds of support services and
mechanisms, perhaps to be part funded from the Structural Funds, whilst
simultaneously gaining better value from any existing institutions. It is commonly
asserted that universities and other public sector RTD institutions in the lagging
regions are less market oriented than in the core regions, and hence in terms of a
RITTS there is a need to develop strategies that encourage them to be more sensitive
to local demand.
Overall these two dimensions of economic conditions and innovative capacity provide
a base typology, but the likelihood of positive outcomes from a RITTS depends also
on another set of regional characteristics that we group together under the heading of
institutional capacity.
Institutional capacity. Under this heading we group a number of regional
characteristics that broadly address the ability of regional institutions to take
advantage of regional assets. This includes issues such as the degree of political and
institutional autonomy, the maturity of institutions, social capital and institutional
thickness, and the general competence and sophistication of the regional
administration and other major institutions in the region.
On these measures we see that some of the weaker regions have strong advantages -
whether it is the autonomy of the Spanish regions, the long established authority of
Highlands and Islands Enterprise in Scotland, or the nation state powers of Ireland.
Similarly some of the stronger regions have some ambivalence on this characteristic:
Oxfordshire and South Coast of England being sub-regional units with no tradition of
RTD strategy, fragmented governance in Uusimaa and South Sweden, and relatively
weak provincial government in the Netherlands. This suggests that some of the
stronger regions economically would struggle to develop an agreed strategy, as turned
out to be the case, although some of the regions with strong institutional capacity also
experienced difficulties.
Project driving force
A distinctive attribute of RITTS as already noted is the diversity of lead agencies, and
the outcomes of a RITTS project therefore emerge from the interaction between
regional conditions and the management of the RITTS project. Project management
issues are explored in much greater detail in the next chapter, but here we note three
main characteristics of project driving forces that influence outcomes.
Legitimacy and political backing of project drivers: It has already been noted
above that whilst some projects were conducted at the level of regional governments,
and were co-ordinated by such bodies, others were initiated by other forms of
organisation with varying degrees of public legitimacy. Even where the scale of the
project was coterminous with a regional tier of government, the body leading the
project may not always have full legitimacy (as was the case of the East Midlands for
example). It is important that in a RITTS project the management is in the hands of a
body which is either responsible for the funding or implementation of innovation
policy, or which can maintain the confidence of regional partners in this field. Further
to being legitimate, the role of the project driver should also be recognised as
politically important for the definition of innovation policies in the region: RITTS,
even conducted by a legitimate organisation, should not be viewed as just a study.

16
Previous experience of innovation strategy development: Related to legitimacy is
the question of previous experience and maturity in developing innovation policies. A
body can overcome the barrier of lack of formal legitimacy if they can demonstrate
competence on the basis of experience. Experience also enhances the likelihood of a
legitimate body in being able to effectively co-ordinate and adopt innovative solutions
to the policy development process. Dutch regions have gone a long way in developing
innovation policies, while in Sweden, at the time of RITTS, it was new to talk about
innovation policies at sub-national level.
Openness and inclusiveness. Finally, another related attribute is the openness and
inclusiveness of the driver towards the contributions from other agencies and bodies
in the region and from outside the region. A highly closed small group of partners,
excluding the private sector, universities and particular policy agencies would for
example appear to be of negative value to the successful construction of a regional
consensus. Indeed, in one case, the domination of a project by a limited group of
central government bodies led to the project being a technical study, that was never
widely disseminated outside of the steering group, and in which there was no pressure
for action.
The openness to learn from foreign experience is a facilitating factor, if not even a
pre-condition, for the successful exploitation of the international dimension of the
RITTS: through a sound use of external consultants, a pro-active search for exchanges
with other RITTS-RIS regions, the development of joint cross-border actions. The
RITTS in Iceland is an example of a project that started with a favourable setting in
this respect.
Relationship between types of regions and RITTS
We can therefore view the pre-conditions for a RITTS project as being a combination
of these various attributes of both the region and the project driving team (Figure 3.1),
and so simple typologies as explanation for outcomes are impossible to identify. In
this evaluation report, these attributes are variously used to explain the nature of the
outcome in terms of the process and of the achievements of the projects, but a simple
categorisation is not feasible. No region scores badly on all of these factors, and those
that performed poorly may have scored well on all but one or two, but the extent to
which a weakness can be overcome through good project management or effective
leadership will be explored in the analysis that follows.

17
Figure 3.1 : The various dimensions of regional capacity and project driver in RITTS
RTDI
Capacity
Institutional
capacity of
the region
Economic
conditions
Regional
capacity
RITTS
driving
force
Previous
experience
of strategy
Legitimacy
and political
backing of
project driver
Openness
and
inclusiveness
of project
driver

18
4. Evaluation of scheme design and delivery
Programme level design and delivery
The design of the RITTS scheme at the outset had a number of key elements that were
highly significant to the development of the programme. These basic principles set the
direction and nature of the programme and distinguished RITTS actions from other
national and regional strategic developments. Central to this was the trans-national
element, whereby in return for financial support from the Commission, regions had to
use an international team of consultants, rather than their own staff or consultants
from within the region. A number of regions had previously invested in various forms
of study and strategic analysis, but mainly within a national framework. The trans-
national orientation of RITTS traces back to its origins within the old SPRINT
programme, itself a technology transfer programme whose actions were limited to
those with a trans-national dimension. Given that SPRINT, and subsequently RITTS,
was not restricted to less favoured regions then direct regional support without an
international learning dimension would seem to infringe state aids policy. This
distinction between RITTS and the DG XVI scheme RTP/RIS is important, as the
application of RITTS in regions that would not be eligible for any form of regional
assistance imposes restrictions on the design of the programme that had ramifications
for a number of regions, both Structural Funds-assisted and non-assisted.
The detailed structure and nature of RITTS also owed much to the previous Science
Park Feasibility Programme (SPFP), which had been managed by SPRINT. The SPFP
had been a programme to assist the international transfer of experience about
establishing and managing science parks, and provided subsidies for science park
promoters to make use of international consultants to undertake an analysis of demand
for and existing supply of technology transfer infrastructure as part of a feasibility
study for a new science park. This model, based on the concept of the international
transfer of expertise, was closely followed in the launch of RITTS, which was initially
seen as a sister programme and was launched alongside a SPFP and a parallel Science
Park Evaluation Programme call. This linkage with science park programmes created
some confusion in places, for example in Uusimaa and Thessaly. The parallel
programmes led to confusion over what was the RITTS element and what it was an
outcome of science park studies. In the case of Uusimaa there was a blurring of the
boundaries with the evaluation of the Otaniemi science park and the feasibility study
of the Helsinki science park.
The nature of the project, its management and the form of analysis were guided by a
set of guidelines issued by the Commission and supplemented by a RIS/RITTS
handbook. Within this the Commission set out a format for the phasing of the
elements of RITTS projects that again followed the lead set by the SPFP. A first stage,
known as phase 0, (introduced for call 2) was an initial orientation and planning stage,
to be followed by a phase 1 that incorporated an analysis of supply and demand as in
the SPFP. A second phase was to incorporate the building of a consensus around the
recommendations, to be then followed by implementation.

19
The Commission’s approach to the analysis suggested a preference for a rather formal
kind of supply and demand analysis, with some kind of extensive survey that was
frequently interpreted by project managers and consultants as a postal survey, or at
least a high number of firm interviews. There were some alternative approaches
developed during the programme as will be explained below, but this usually required
a sophisticated or determined project management to implement.
The role of the Commission in projects
There were a number of possibilities for the role of the Commission in a programme
such as RITTS. Having set up a framework, the Commission could seek to be heavily
committed and interventionist and seek to enforce good practices, or else a hands-off
attitude could be taken, leaving regions to succeed or fail accordingly. In reality limits
on staff resources limited the role of the Commission, although a number of regions
commented on specific roles and interventions taken by the Commission in the
evolution of the projects. These interventions were varied although concentrated at
the inception phase of the project (phase 0).
At the outset there were views expressed by regions about their perceptions of the
Commission’s view on the eligibility of regions, with some projects claiming that
their definition of the region had been influenced by the perception of the
Commission as to what was a region. In Western Norway for example a first call
proposal by a Bergen-based promoter was said to be too narrowly defined and that
success in the second call would be more likely if a larger regional consortium were
assembled. In the end a consortium of four county councils was proposed and
accepted. Another example was that of Rhône-Alpes where the geographical scope of
the project was extended to the entire region with the support of the European
Commission. Generally support was given for administrative regions, although some
examples of project manager-defined regions did get support, such as North London
and the South Coast in the UK.
A second key area of intervention from the Commission concerned the selection of
consultants, as the selection was subject to the agreement of the Commission. As
already noted, the Commission had provided a list of consultants for regions, although
regions had some leeway in proposing additional consultants, especially local
consultants to work in partnership with international consultants on the main list (this
issue is further discussed later in this chapter).
Regions reported that the Commission had given some support in the selection of
consultants, although they were not permitted to directly advise on the suitability of
individual consultants. The Commission did however comment on the mix of
consultants. In one case the Irish project managers had originally suggested one UK
and one Irish consultant for their project, but were told by the Commission to add
another international consultant, preferably from another Cohesion country
background. In this case an Italian consultant was added to the team, although in the
event their contribution was limited, in part due to language and travel difficulties.
However, for reasons of impartiality the Commission were not able to provide
detailed advice on appropriate consultants, nor was there a means of assessing the
performance of consultants on previous RITTS projects. Thus the emphasis for
regions selecting consultants was placed on the regions themselves to check out the

20
credentials of consultants, although the presence of some on the Commission’s list
was a form of approval.
Overall, the role of the Commission was very much limited to the financial and
administrative part. When the Commission played a more hand-on role, this
concerned mainly the question of inclusiveness of the steering committee, the check
on the relevance of consultants, and on the strength of project management (in call 2).
Recommendation:
• The Commission should be clearer about the nature of the area eligible for
support, and should place an emphasis on areas for which there is an
administrative authority. They should engage more with the project leadership
and steering committee in recommending appropriate structures. In providing
support for the selection of consultants, the assembly of the list of consultants
should be more transparent, subject to a more rigorous vetting procedure, and a
full list of which consultants have worked in which regions should be published,
with contact details for representatives of the regions so that new project
managers can check on previous track records.
Project design and definition
Central to the design of projects was the identification of the objectives of the
projects. The aims and objectives of RITTS projects have varied considerably
between regions. The setting out of clear aims and objectives together with some ex-
ante assessment to consider whether they are realistic and achievable appears to have
been a crucial factor in whether the RITTS projects are viewed as successful by the
participants in the RITTS process in the regions concerned.
A minority of regions had a very clear rationale for wanting to participate in RITTS
and knew what they wanted to achieve from it. Bremen, Trento, and London
Technopole, Overijssel, Rotterdam, present clear examples of such regions. In
Bremen the authorities wanted to make international expertise available to assist the
government in revising its innovation policy. In Trento the research institute leading
the project (ITC) was keen to become more actively involved in technology transfer
and to achieve this without deflecting from its academic objectives. In the case of
London Technopole the identification of future funding opportunities for the lead
organisation appears to have influenced the direction of the strategy. In the two Dutch
regions, existing innovation policies needed to be extended to the entire region
(Overijssel) or applied more effectively to some sectors in the light of foreign
experiences (Rotterdam).
A few other regions developed apparently clear objectives at the outset but which later
proved to be unrealistic. North Sweden provides a good example of such a region. At
the proposal stage the main objective was ambitious, to increase the visibility,
improve co-ordination and most controversially rationalise the supply of innovation
support in the region. Those leading the project however failed to secure the close
involvement of the main actors in project. Furthermore the region covered by the
project did not have a political legitimacy. In Rhône-Alpes also the original objectives
were clear and pertinent (inter-firm collaboration to stimulate innovation) but had to
be modified. Under the pressure of the key policy-makers, the RITTS was eventually
oriented towards the improvement of the support system and the technology supply.
Another interesting case was that of Iceland where the aim of finding possible

21
partners for joint-ventures with Icelandic firms throughout Europe, was high on the
agenda of project promoters, but had to become more ancillary in view of the
requirements of the programme to concentrate on the relevance and efficiency of the
RTDI support infrastructure.
Other regions developed a clear rationale during the course of the RITTS project. The
Provincia di Milano for example realised early in stage 0 the ‘political’ role that
RITTS could play. Milano developed a framework of actions within ‘an innovation
system’ which placed the Provincia at the very centre of it. In Western Norway a
workshop was held for the steering committee and the external experts to build
consensus on the main objectives of the project. In Nord-Pas de Calais, the idea of
innovation support extending well beyond the research and technology transfer area,
gradually impregnated the agenda of the RITTS.
For others RITTS had a much broader role and the regions were more open as to the
direction of research and strategic ideas. In such cases we could say that the RITTS
played a more exploratory role. South Sweden can be cited as a typical representative
of this case.
At the other end of the spectrum several regions had not adequately assessed the
implications of participation and appear to have initially viewed the project as little
more than a study which might come up with some interesting findings (e.g.
Vlaanderen). In a few cases it seems that there was some hope on the part of a
promoter that the RITTS would contribute to an ongoing budget on strategy. In one
case for example RITTS was seen as a means of funding an expanded evaluation of
existing initiatives.
These projects appear mainly to be those which hoped that the consultants would
produce a study that would give their region some policy ideas. Some regions clearly
did not satisfactorily answer questions such as:
½ Why are we bidding for this project?
½ What do we want to achieve?
½ What do we know already about innovation in the region?
½ What do we need to find out?
½ How will we achieve our goals and what will it cost?
½ What can we do ourselves?
½ What help do we need from the consultants, and from other regions?
Regions which failed to carefully consider such questions appear to have been
generally less ‘successful’ projects in terms of the emergence of concrete actions.
Very few of the RITTS regions however could be described to have failed totally.
Indeed some regions have managed to recover from initially weak project design.
Recommendations:
• The Commission should require regions at the proposal stage to provide clear
answers to questions relating to the purpose of the RITTS, the role of partners and
the value added by consultants.
• The Commission should also ensure that projects have secured substantial
matched funding from the lead agency

22
Management of regional projects
The structures set up to manage the RITTS projects, although unique to the context in
which they have operated, generally share the same basic structures. The shape to be
taken by the RITTS management structures, was indeed one of the clearest guidelines
provided by the Commission within the RITTS programme, and a main point on
which the Commission provided advice or caution during phase 0 of the projects.
In almost all cases the regions selected a project co-ordinator and established a small
team to manage the day to day co-ordination of the project - a management unit. Also
almost every region established some sort of grouping to oversee the strategic
direction of the project – a steering committee. These were mandatory structures.
Furthermore, almost half the regions formed working groups to assist in the formation
of strategies and proposal of actions. Although the latter were not mandatory, they
were often promoted by Commission officials as an adequate means to secure
regional participation to the exercise.
Steering committees, monitoring committees and advisory boards
Virtually all regions had some form of group which was broadly representative of
relevant interest groups within the region. Notable exceptions were
Seudbrandenburg, Aquitaine and Hamburg which did not have a steering committee
and regions such as Bremen, Ireland, Extremadura and Flanders which were steered
by small committees which included representation from less than six organisations.
In the majority of cases the RITTS regions were successful in assembling
representative groups which typically included key players from the major public
sector agencies and universities within the territory covered by the RITTS. The
structure of the steering committees in many cases added considerable legitimacy and
political weight to the analysis. Typically (well over half) of regions formed steering
committees with between 12 and 20 representatives.
Generally, the primary role of the steering committee was to give strategic direction to
the study and secure political support. In some cases its role has been more orientated
towards the achievement of broad political support. In such regions the steering
committee has tended to be relatively large. Rhone Alpes for example had some
thirty organisations represented on its steering committee, although there was a more
important informal steering committee limited to the five key regional stakeholders, ie
the four main policy organisations and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. In
regions where the RITTS was more or less limited to a study of regional strengths and
weaknesses in innovation support, and did not extend towards the development of
broad innovation policy frameworks, the steering committee followed the RITTS
from a distance (this was the case, e.g. in South Sweden). Similarly, in some cases
where the main aim of the RITTS was to develop specific actions in some sectors, the
steering committee played a somewhat limited role, as was the case in Rotterdam
where an intermediary group of cluster heads was the real drive behind the whole
project.
The role of the steering committee :
In the evaluation questionnaire sent to all 42 regions, participants were asked about
how they saw the role of the steering committee.

23
A general point was that most of the potential roles identified in the questionnaire
were seen as important or crucial by a significant proportion of the sample, with the
least important role being seen as fundraising with only just over 30% identifying this
as important, and more than half identifying it as irrelevant or not important.
The most important roles identified as such by around 70% of the respondents were
the two concerned with consensus building around the diagnosis of the problems and
the strategy for the region. These were followed by other roles related to consensus in
the form of an information platform, an advisory group, political support and
legitimacy. It becomes clear then that members of steering committees primarily see
their roles as focused on debate, advice and political legitimacy rather than a more
action oriented approach as in fundraising, identifying projects, implementation or
providing expertise.
Figure 4.1: participant views on the role of the steering committee
Two tier structures
In a minority of cases the regions have seen a benefit in dividing the strategic
guidance and political support responsibilities. For example Western Norway has
formed a steering committee with around ten members to steer and monitor the
Role of Steering Comittee
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Fund raising
Information platform
Consensus building, diagnosis
Consensus building, strategy
Identifying concete projects
Decision on practical actions
Advisory group
Political support for
implementation
Think tank
Expertise pool
Legitimacy of the RITTS
Networking with national bodies
K
e
y
r
o
l
e
s
Respondents
Not relevant
Not important role
Minor role
Important role
Crucial role

24
project and a larger ‘monitoring committee’ or ‘advisory board’ to achieve political
backing. The Overijssel RITTS formed a steering committee and a monitoring
committee for similar reasons.
Box 1: Management structures in Western Norway
The project managers in the Hordaland County Council (based in Bergen)
took some care to ensure that the management structures were in place before
the start of the project, forming a steering committee to represent the four
County Councils, the private sector, the labour organisations and national
interests. A project leader was appointed in the form of a consultant who was
involved in the project throughout, and the chair of the steering committee
was an industrialist from Rogaland, one of the other four counties. To ensure
that the steering group understood their task they collectively visited an
existing RITTS project in North Sweden. This visit was particularly
welcomed by some members of the steering committee whose experience of
these matters were limited. A second wider forum was established as a
reference group to provide feedback from a range of regional stakeholders,
although the difficulties of local geography limited its contribution and
involvement.
There were two forms of problems associated with such two tier management
structures:
½ Large advisory groups were often quite unwieldy in terms of getting the members
together, and maintaining interest when there was no direct responsibility, so they
usually met infrequently and may have been replaced by dissemination seminars
towards the end of the project
½ Given the different levels of engagement between the main steering committee
and these wider bodies, it was difficult to ensure a good sharing of knowledge
between the two groups.
Indeed in Overijssel, the contribution of the monitoring committee was limited But a
two tier structure proved to be interesting in some regions because it allowed both an
effective steering of the project and a wider diffusion of information and results of the
project. This was also the case in the Canary Islands.
Several regions experienced some difficulty in achieving continuity in the
involvement of its members. This appears to have been a particular problem for
regions which attempted to secure the direct involvement of businesses such as Crete
and several UK regions including Kent, East Midlands and London Technopole.
Although these regions were successful in securing the initial participation of the
private sector, the purpose of meetings and the role of the private sector participants
was less well planned and implemented and consequently commitment from the
majority of private sector partners quickly waned. In the case of Rotterdam this it was
claimed was planned (steering committee membership would evolve with the project).
The majority of regions have sought to achieve representation from the business
community via bodies such as Chambers of Commerce and industrial associations.
This approach has generally led to greater consistency of involvement.

25
Recommendations
• Steering committees and project managers should visit other regions with a
similar regional context to learn how to run RITTS project before starting and
ensure there is a consensus on this within the steering group
• Project promoters should select the steering group carefully and involve all
members in the learning process
• Steering committees should devise mechanisms to spin out learning more widely
within the region.
Steering committee Leadership
The choice of steering committee leader may have been a factor behind the success of
regions in securing the involvement of key players. Leadership of the ‘steering
group’ by the head of a key public sector organisation has in all cases managed to
secure the involvement of very senior representatives of other organisations (e.g.
Iceland). In contrast, in regions where the leader has been a less senior figure,
correspondingly less senior figures from other regional organisations have been
engaged in the project. Several of the RITTS regions within the UK failed to secure
the direct involvement of the leader of the key agency - the East Midlands RITTS for
example was led by a senior manager of a sub-regional training company and
generally those involved were of comparable seniority and were thus not in a position
to make significant strategic decisions, commit new resources or directly support
concrete actions.
The choice of a chairperson from the public sector might have had a negative effect
on the level of involvement of the private sector. In several countries, notably in
Spain, France, Greece and Italy, regions found it difficult to attract significant and
sustained private sector involvement. The regions with steering groups led by the
public sector may have added to the impression that the RITTS was a ‘game of the
administration’ and that there was no point for the private sector to be involved.
In Western Norway by contrast the public sector organisations opted to select an
industrialist as chairman to ensure business engagement. Although there may be the
risk that a private sector chairperson may become frustrated with the limitations of the
public sector decision-making processes, there are many advantages from having
representation of the demand side so central to the process:
½ The project remains client focused;
½ The consultants are challenged on their representation of the demand side;
½ Duplication and competition within the public sector is challenged; and
½ The results are likely to be more widely distributed rather than hidden away.
In contrast, a few regions had very closed public sector steering committees, such as
in Ireland where there was no representations from outside of central government
institutions. Although in this case it was intended to open up the process to a wider
constituency in the second phase, in the end this was replaced with a couple of
consultation meetings which were thinly attended by business representatives.
Even in those regions where projects were basically run by the administration
consensus was not always achieved. The relevant competencies for innovation policy
are often split across different departments and agencies, from education and training,

26
research and industrial affairs. In Spain this has been particularly noticeable both at
regional and national level. There is an intention to create an innovation ministry, but
even so the wide range of interests are unlikely to be combined effectively.
Recommendation:
• Steering committees should be chaired by a senior figure who can command
respect and ensure the participation of key figures from other agencies. A private
sector chairperson is a useful way to ensure practical relevance and commitment
from the private sector in the process. (This might be possible in some regions but
not everywhere. It seems difficult in France and Spain considering the
institutional regional contexts). If the entire steering committee is comprised of
public sector figures then there is a danger that the RITTS will be inward looking
or (and) poorly implemented
Management Units
It has been vital for regions to secure sufficient political and financial support. This
ensures both that the project has the necessary political support for implementing
changes, but also that adequate management support is in place, preferably including
a full-time project manager. All of those regions that were ultimately successful in
securing additional investment in innovation support and in implementing a set of
concrete actions had all been able to secure sufficient financial and political resources
needed to effectively manage the project. The resources needed to manage and co-
ordinate successfully are significant and should not be considered as a soft matched-
funding option. It is clear that some regions were reliant on matched funding ‘in kind’
from other partners and that others seriously underestimated the scale and complexity
of effectively managing a project such as RITTS.
Full time experienced staff are needed throughout the project, and a significant
minority of regions greatly underestimated the amount of management resources that
would be needed. Some regions such as the East Midlands and Overijssel were
fortunate in being able to secure the financial support of a lead partner.
The credibility and acceptance of the project manager is also a key to success : in
Crete the project management was weak and can be contrasted with the good example
of South Sweden, where Teknopol was unanimously recognised as the obvious
project leader when it comes to promoting technology transfer and innovation in the
region.
Several regions have lacked a full time project co-ordinator. That element is often
correlated with a lack of political support to the RITTS. The value added by the
RITTS project appears to have suffered as a result. Problems encountered include:
½ unclear lines of communication
½ unclear definition of roles
½ lack of supervision of consultants
½ delays in the completion of projects
½ instability within the steering group as its members become unsure of the value of
their involvement.
½ Difficulty to ensure integration of RITTS results in main policy framework in the
region.

studies_regional_technology_transfer_strategies

studies_regional_technology_transfer_strategies

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to studies_regional_technology_transfer_strategies

Similar to studies_regional_technology_transfer_strategies (20)

More from Marcello EUSANI

More from Marcello EUSANI (6)

studies_regional_technology_transfer_strategies