A Proposal for a Standard With Innovation Management System

Anca Dodescu
Development Plans. At regional level, the RDAs are coordinators for Regional Development Plans,
but without policy or strategy capacity, their role is only an administrative one, as a facilitator of
interactions between regional actors and their actual capacity to mobilize regional stakeholders and to
put in practice regional innovation strategies is poor.
Limited both in terms of resources and of competences, Romanian development regions were rather
created as a functional response to the European Union regional policy requirements, in accordance
to the structural funds absorption criteria, than for wide regional functions or purposes, including those
related with fostering SMEs and innovation system. The “regional focus” in RDI policy implementation
appeared as a response to European integration requires, process that will show results in the future,
in “learning” of new modes to “make” public policies, characteristic to a multi-level governance and
partnership culture, beside the complex process of policy transfer.
However, there are reasons for optimism after the experience gained through implementation
Regional Innovation Strategies in 6 regions, monitoring projects funded by the 2007-2013 National
RDI Plan, regional Research Exhibitions, the Innovation Roadshow, the INNOBAROMETER, and,
especially, after the experience gained through implementation Operational Programmes that
European Regional Development Fund contributes to innovation policy: Regional Operational
Programme and Increasing Economic Competitiveness Operational Programme (Ranga 2010:3).
The projects implemented under 2007-2013 financial perspective are convincing arguments for the
role of the Operational Programmes as contributors to national or regional innovation strategies.
Nevertheless, while the EU is concerned to address “innovation imperative” as the “best means to
help put the European economy back on track” through incentive schemes for an “innovation-friendly”
business environment, Romania is unfortunately facing, at the present, the "short-sightedness" of
SMEs to the government. Too preoccupied with public sector cutting costs for “exiting the crisis”
reasons, Romanian government appears to have completely lost sight of the private sector, especially
the SMEs, and its growth potential. The emergence of a new regional awareness articulated directly
in the strategic planning frameworks for 2014-2020 must address multi-level governance deficits and
also regional coordination limits, inter-regional and sub-regional disparities conflicts in development
decisions in the field of fostering SMEs and innovation.
4. Conclusions
Different regional experiences presented in the first part of paper lead us to some lessons to learn
and models to apply in Romania. First of all, a “more regionalized” innovation policy design framework
is necessary, fundamentally aimed at increasing the capacity of SMEs to innovate as a principal
source of regional competitiveness. Second, we note the importance of the increasing the role of
partnership and the involvement of research and private sector at regional level, including in projects
designing, selection, implementation, evaluation and establishing an efficient regional innovation
system for collective learning and spreading of knowledge. The examples of good practice presented
in the first part of paper, strengthen the importance of strategic partnership, at regional level, between
business community, social partners, academic and education institutions and the public
administration, and of the role of SMEs for innovation support. Third, the innovation policy model must
to focus not only of R&D, concentrated almost exclusively in capital region in Romania too like all over
the Europe, but on supporting the overall innovation system, and covering all Romanian regions.
As we shown, the most common response of less favoured regions across Europe to the need of
“preparing territories for innovation” is to stimulating both innovation and entrepreneurship through
actions such as investing, supporting and encouraging: business start-ups, cluster based incubators,
cluster-based technology hubs, entrepreneurs’ and innovation networks etc. Also, the most common
response for the “exiting the crisis” imperative is strong budgetary commitment to education, research
and innovation combined with smart fiscal consolidation and incentive schemes for an “innovationfriendly”
business environment. The model of EU Innovation policy divided in three policy areas:
innovation friendly environment, knowledge transfer and support to innovation poles and clusters,
boosting applied research and product development and applying as instruments: infrastructures and
facilities, aid schemes, education and training (Expert Evaluation Network 2010) is not only applicable
but also an urgent need in Romania.
171