Clusters are individuals - VDI/VDE-IT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$(Microsoft PowerPoint - Naturstyrelsen Hvordan rimer \370konomisk ...$

onment (for further details see chapter on the effect of the technology domain on the performance of clusters). Research-driven clusters appear less frequently in media than industrial-driven clusters do. This may be attributed to cluster-specific interests in the extent of press and media coverage. Industry-driven clusters and their members have a larger interest in a wide press and media coverage than research-driven clusters and their members have. A wide press and media coverage is essential for sales and marketing, thus industry-driven clusters promote their activities, products and services more actively. In contrast, R&D-driven clusters and their members tend to limit their efforts to scientific journals and are less interested in a broader “more public” press and media coverage as they are more interested in “discussing research results than in selling products”. 2.3.2 CLUSTERS WITH A SMALL OR HIGH SHARE OF PUBLIC . FUNDING ARE SIMILAR IN TERMS OF STRUCTURE AND . GOVERNANCE, BUT DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF IMPACT In terms of structure and governance clusters with a small share of public funding (private funding has a share of more than 75 per cent in total funding of the cluster management organization) and a high share of public funding (the share of public funding in total funding of the cluster management organization is higher than 75 per cent) are similar. However, there are some differences between these two types of clusters (see Figure 10). There are more clusters with a high industrial orientation that have a cluster management organization that is financed to more than 75 per cent by private means. • Clusters with a cluster management organization that is financed to more than 75 per cent by private means show specific characteristics of governance more often than clusters with cluster management organizations that are financed to a large extent by public funds. They have more often a dedicated legal form (e.g. registered association or limited liability), their governance structure is more often centralized and there are more cluster management organizations that report a high clarity of tasks and roles. Thus, clusters with a high share of private funding tend to be more often highly institutionalized than clusters with a high share of public funding. • Cluster management organizations that are funded to a large extent by private means report a financial situation for the next three years that is less secured compared to cluster management organizations that are funded to a large extent by public means. • Cluster management organizations that are funded to a large extent by private means are often older. Share of clusters Private financing rate Share of clusters having a strategy Share of clusters with high clarity of tasks & roles Figure 10: Characteristics of clusters with a small or a high share of public funding Age 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 Share of clusters with highly centralised governance structure Median value Public funding rate > 75 % Private financing rate > 75 % Share of highly specialised clusters Numbers of members Share of clusters with a high Industrial orientation Share of cluster members within 150 km Share of clusters having a dedicated of legal form When it comes to impact of cluster management organizations, those with a high share of private funding perform better (see Figure 11). Cluster management organizations that depend to a large degree on private funding have a larger impact on R&D activities of SME, R&D activities of research institutions, business activities of SME and internationalization activities of SME. The explanation for this pattern is quite obvious: private financiers have a pronounced expectation of a return of investment. Public funding organizations also expect a return of investment, but they impose less pressure upon beneficiaries, particularly in the case of grant funding. It is much easier for a private financier to terminate his financial support in case of non-performance than it is for a program owner. Private support is normally based on a contract that clearly outlines results and deliverables as well as sanctions for non-performance. In contrast, a typical grant program also defines results and deliverables, but lacks sanctions for non-performance. 25
Share of clusters with high appearance in press / public Share of clusters having initiated many successful co-operations 125 100 Percentage of median value (%) 150,0 125,0 100,0 Percentage of median value (%) Impact on internationalisation activities of SME 75 50 25 0 Impact on R&D activities of SME Impact on business activities of SME 75,0 50,0 25,0 0,0 Share of clusters with high appearance in press / public Impact on business activities of SME Median value Public funding rate > 75 % Private financing rate > 75 % Impact on R&D activities on research institutions Impact on R&D activities of SME Less than 50 members More than 50 members Younger than 5 years 5 years or older Figure 11: Impact of clusters with a small or high share of public funding Figure 12: Effect of age and size on the impact 2.3.3 THE VISIBILITY AND ATTRACTIVENESS OF A CLUSTER AND THE IMPACT OF THE CLUSTER MANAGEMENT OR- GANIZATION ON SME DEVELOPMENT DEPENDS ON CERTAIN DETERMINANTS There is a strong correlation between the age and the size of a cluster and the impact of the work of the cluster management organization on business and R&D activities of SME. Clusters that are five years or older and have more than 50 members perform significantly better than younger and smaller clusters in this regard as well as in terms of the numbers of initiated successful co-operations and therefore have a larger impact. This is also an indicator for the cluster’s attractiveness and its visibility in terms of press and media coverage (see Figure 12). Apparently, larger and matured clusters provide a much better environment for results and impacts as an effect of activities of a cluster management organization. The older and larger a cluster is, the more institutionalized it is in terms of having a legal form (with regard to the cluster management organization) and clarity of tasks and roles (e.g. through statutes or contracts) of its institutional parts such as the cluster management organization, a steering committee or board and a general assembly (see Figure 13). 26
Page 1 and 2: CLUSTERS ARE INDIVIDUALS NGP NGP Cl
Page 3 and 4: CLUSTERS ARE INDIVIDUALS CREATING E
Page 5 and 6: TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 7 and 8: INDEX OF TABLES Table 1: Benchmarki
Page 9 and 10: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In economic and i
Page 11 and 12: 1. INTRODUCTION In economic and inn
Page 13 and 14: There is an emerging consensus that
Page 15 and 16: DIMENSIONS INDICATORS Age of the cl
Page 17 and 18: 2. RESULTS OF THE BENCHMARKING OF C
Page 19 and 20: 2.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF CLUSTER MANA
Page 21 and 22: these clusters since the establishm
Page 23 and 24: 2.2.5 FINANCING OF CLUSTER MANAGEME
Page 25: Age Share of clusters having initia
Page 29 and 30: 2.3.4 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A CLUS
Page 31 and 32: Against the backdrop of the other k
Page 33 and 34: 3. RESULTS OF THE BENCHMARKING OF C
Page 35 and 36: 3.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF CLUSTER PR0G
Page 37 and 38: NAME OF THE PROGRAM ESTABLISHMENT O
Page 39 and 40: Cluster Offensive Bayern No Yes No
Page 41 and 42: and regular meetings between progra
Page 43 and 44: REGIONAL CLUSTER PROGRAM OSKE - CEN
Page 45 and 46: 3.3 KEY FINDINGS The benchmarking o
Page 47 and 48: ment through Competence Networks Ge
Page 49 and 50: 3.3.4 INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CLUST
Page 51 and 52: Programs that attach high relevance
Page 53 and 54: The rationale behind a more active,
Page 55 and 56: tool to support the further develop
Page 57 and 58: implementation) the following princ
Page 59 and 60: 4. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Clusters
Page 61 and 62: THE AUTHORS THOMAS LÄMMER-GAMP is
Page 63 and 64: 1. INTRODUCTION The benchmarking of
Page 65 and 66: 2.1.1.3 Term of the Program, Financ
Page 67 and 68: INDICATORS Output Results Impact
Page 69 and 70: 2.2.1.3 Term of the Program, Financ
Page 71 and 72: 2.2.2 ZENTRALES INNOVATIONSPROGRAMM
Page 73 and 74: 2.2.2.4 Instruments ZIM-NEMO provid
Page 75 and 76: 2.2.3 CLUSTER OFFENSIVE BAYERN (BAV
Page 77 and 78:
2.2.3.4 Instruments The key element
Page 79 and 80:
With R&D programs 4 3 2 1 0 With bu
Page 81 and 82:
Coordination of activities through
Page 83 and 84:
2.3 NORWAY 2.3.1 NORWEGIAN CENTRES
Page 85 and 86:
2.3.1.3 Term of the Program, Financ
Page 87 and 88:
2.3.1.6 Monitoring and evaluation s
Page 89 and 90:
Norway (SIVA) and the Research Coun
Page 91 and 92:
2.3.2.4 Instruments Support for the
Page 93 and 94:
How important is the cluster progra
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
2.4.1.6 Monitoring and evaluation s
Page 99 and 100:
2.4.2 REGIONALT KLUSTERPROGRAM (REG
Page 101 and 102:
manner. Companies that were partner
Page 103 and 104:
2.5 FINLAND 2.5.1 THE CENTRE OF EXP
Page 105 and 106:
Competence Cluster Centre of Expert
Page 107 and 108:
environments in order to lure inter
Page 109 and 110:
The coordination of the program wit
Page 111 and 112:
organizations. Technology, service
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
2.6.1.4 Instruments The program pro
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
The program provides grant funding
Page 121 and 122:
2.7 POLAND 2.7.1 POLISH CLUSTER SUP
Page 123 and 124:
Name of the program Operational Pro
Page 125 and 126:
2.8 FRANCE 2.8.1 GRAPPE D’ENTREPR
Page 127 and 128:
How important is the cluster progra
Page 129 and 130:
Page 132:
CO-SPONSORS:
show all

Clusters are individuals - VDI/VDE-IT

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?