This paper presents the methodical approach of an INTERREG project aiming to improve the implementation and evaluation of European Research & Innovation strategies. The P2L2 project applies interregional policy learning and exchange of experiences on aspects influencing the regional innovation ecosystems in the field of advanced materials. The key enabling technology “advanced materials” complements the regional economic and research tissue of six participating regions with a stable opportunity for future growth and jobs. P2L2 goes beyond traditional 'good practice sharing' and results are expected not only to improve policy instruments. All activities related to the definition, implementation and evaluation of the RIS3 and smart specialization strategies are described in terms of an ISO/IEC 330xx conformant Process Reference and Assessment Model (PRM/PAM). The improved process capability aligns regional policies and strategies between sectors in order to facilitate the establishment of real innovation ecosystems beyond administrative regional boundaries and identifies overlaps, gaps and complementarity for European collaboration.
The work described in this paper is part of the INTERREG EUROPE Project “Public
Policy Living Lab” (P2L2). The project has started in 2016 and is running for four
years. The overall objective of the P2L2 project is to improve the effectiveness of
regional development policies in fostering research and innovation in advanced
materials and related sectors thereby contributing to the economic modernisation and
increased competitiveness of Europe. Advanced materials have been identified as one
of the priority areas in many Research and Innovation Smart Specialisation Strategies
(RIS3) [
regional level through evidence-based policy-making by applying a process oriented approach to RIS3 definition and implementation.
coordinate and align them, by exchanging experiences between partner regions and developing a joint information base.
Pioneers of Research and Innovation Smart Specialisation Strategies stress the fact
that RIS3 defininion and implementation is a process oriented activity. This idea is
confirmed by many authors from Dani Rodrik who declares: „When it comes to
industrial policy, specifying the process is more important than specifying the
outcome“ [
This paper describes the initial steps towards a methodology to address the process
capability of activities related the the RIS development, implementation and
monitoring. The process oriented approach provides a solid starting point for regional
analysis in the participating regions. Guiding principle of this approach is to analyse
the process capability of a regional innovation eco-system to develop a strong and
successful RIS3 – following the ideas of quality management that “product quality is
the result of processes quality”[
Innovation policy is a strongly interconnected area. In [
Based on this observation a basic assumption of the P2L2 project is that the development of a suitable research and innovation strategy needs a certain capability on personal, organizational but also on system level. Furthermore, to be able to manage the development of a RIS and to monitor and improve this process accordingly, a management framework on different dimensions is needed. In these terms process improvement can be understood as “policy learning”. 1.2
The principles of “Smart Specialization” are an important element of the 2014-2020
cohesion policy of the European Commission. The Guide to Research and Innovation
Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3) of the European Commission explained the
need for smart specialization as follows [
Based on this six step approach and an identification of three critical factors for
each of these steps a (self-) assessment approach is presented in [
RIS3 is a new policy approach applied for the first time during the ESIF 2014– 2020 programming period. This policy instrument has never been field-tested before, hence leading to a necessary in-itinere evaluation aiming at constantly improving it. 2
P2L2 follows an novel approach for improving innovation delivery policies: the focus on a specific policy field (advanced materials and sectors of application) selected as a regional priority area of specialization, varied policy instruments and a partnership with different regional combinations. It goes beyond the traditional 'good practice sharing' and results are expected not only to coordinate the evaluation of implementation of S3 strategies, but are expected to add value identifying overlaps, gaps, complementarity and opportunities for cross-border collaboration. Starting from the S3 strategies of the regions, P2L2 identifies activities and initiatives the partner regions have used to support innovation in the advanced materials domain. At the same time, the participating regions will exchange experiences in the methodology for implementing, monitoring and evaluating their S3 strategies. Core activities of project phase 1 are the development of a limited mapping model and policy effectuation.
The limited mapping methodology is based on the ISO/IEC 330xx1 conformant process capability maturity modelling approach. It will result in a process reference model (PRM) and a corresponding process assessment model (PAM). Guided selfassessment within each partnering region will evaluate the limited mapping model during the first project year. The process capability determination detects the current innovation capability and helps to further increase the ability to improve the regionally selected policy instruments. The assessment reports form the basis for future policy recommendations and a strategic policy framework. The project follows a bottom-up approach in line with the entrepreneurial discovery process followed for the definition and improvement of the regional S3 strategies. This will be ensured through the active participation of a remarkable stakeholders group representing interest of the industry.
The partner regions started their initiatives within the ERDF2 and RIS3 context already in the last programming period. Hence, political decisions which had been taken are currently being implemented in the period 2014-2020. P2L2 is thus complementing ongoing policy actions with a collective approach. The regional Policy Instruments (PIs) which are due for adjustment in the mid-term review of the Operational Programmes initiate, support and accompany industrial and research activities. Considering information obtained from analysis (assessments) and the feedback obtained during study visits, 3 case studies will be performed in order to define scenarios considering regional variables, best practices and lessons learnt. With these results, each partner region will prepare one policy brief with recommendations to be adopted at regional level and will submit to the internal procedures for the regional approval (regional internal procedures for preparing the adoption of the recommendations and the improvements in the selected policy instrument) informing all involved authorities at the highest level. After making necessary modifications to be approved, the partners will prepare 6 regional Action Plans, with a clear roadmap for the implementation of the improvements and all legal, administrative and political procedures for ensuring the success of the process.
Key stakeholders will play an important role in both phases: Formall, they take an advisory role but, the project will apply a ‘bottom up’ learning approach that 1 Currently in revision – see chapter 3.1 2 ERDF = European Regional Development Fund, OP = Operational Programme of the respective region represents a move away from the top down planning of previous regional innovation strategies where public authorities were expected to steer innovation processes. In this new model, priorities are supposed to emerge out of the entrepreneurial discovery process and the role of public authorities is rather to create the right conditions for and support the entrepreneurial process of discovery building continuously on the innovation capability of the actors. 3
The above described task of the INTERREG project P2L2 is to assess existing
regional innovation strategies. There are a number of tools available including [
Fig. 2. Entrepreneurial Discovery Process Roles
According to [
For more than two decades, capability maturity models are applied in different type of
organisations to assess and improve the level of capability of relevant business
processes. “There are well accepted Process Capability / Maturity Models (PCMMS),
such as ISO/IEC 15504, CMMI, iCMM. […] These models are used as an evaluative
and comparative basis for process improvement and/or assessment, assuming that
higher process capability or organizational maturity is associated with better
performance in terms of predictability of process results.” [
A process in this syllabus is a collection of activities designed to produce a specific outcome for a particular purpose. The ISO/IEC 15504 conformant process reference models imply a strong emphasis on what should be done. How the specific practices are performed remains in the responsibility of the defined process owner. A process is thus an organization specific or independent ordering of activities across time and place, with a defined beginning and end, defined inputs and outputs.
As the P2L2 project aims to apply a methodology allowing European regions to assess, compare and improve their materials-related regional strategies, the well established process capability determination approach is fullfilling the requirements of all phases of regional innovation eco-system management. Latter processes allow to modify the strategy where appropriate. Different levels of measurable capability and their expected improvements are the benefits for the societal actors (institutional organisations as facilitators and demand-driven entrepreneurial agents ).
The proposed model takes into account each of the role agents’ (see above) expectations and presumed (both explicit and tacid) action paths. The interaction of the specific competences and process knowledge is based on the acknowledgement of each role actor’s competence. Industry, for example, will know exactly what knowledge area including staff resources and machinery they have, whereas a regional development agency has specific connaissance on policy processes and to how to apply for ERDF funding. The newly drafted process reference and assessment model cope with this role-oriented approach and condense the activity model into a generalizable and standard conformant format.
As the development, implementation, monitoring and improvement of RIS3 in a region is connected with the transparency and the democratic level of public consultation whilst defining the discoveries and priorities, it is included into the model on process level. Likewise, the drafting of the regional strategy (RIS3) brings together various elements of demand-for-support (DfS). The DfS result in being implemented in concrete actions. These concrete actions lead to Policy Instruments being evaluated by each region.
Both, the RIS3 definition and its implementation are processes of transformation to a region. Supposedly, a center piece of the RIS3 establishment is the consulatation process embedded into the Entrepreneurial Discovery process (EDP). In contrast to a traditional top-down regional development strategy, RIS3 is understood as a bottomup exercise in terms of its decision-making. The direction of decision-making processes depends on the process owners. As it is indicated in Figure 2, RIS3 and EDP have three roles of actors: institutional organizations, entrepreneurial agents and the remainder of civil society. Conventional top-down decision-makers for regional development strategies are institutional organizations. In the case of RIS3, they are also main decision-makers; the difference is that in RIS3 the decision-making process is a distributed one. The degree and extent depends on the institutions’ and entrepreneurial agents’ capability to engage in a shared decision-making process. Like an elephant cannot be eaten at once, the challenge of RIS3 development cannot be resolved at once. This “elephant” is the accumulated knowledge for regional transformation. RIS3 cannot dispense without regional macro level analysis, context of neighbouring regions, EU strategies and global trends. The phase of drafting the macro level analysis is very sensitive to undesirable (dominant) influences from any of the role actors. It must be performed in mutual trust and very consciously and treated as preliminary, informative, non-binding. A further psychological factor has to be considered as well: The threshold to change a decision is much higher than the threshold to take decisions.
The RIS3 Guide defines “Identification of priorities” as follows: “Priority setting
in the context of RIS3 entails an effective match between a top-down process of
identification of broad objectives aligned with EU policies and a bottom-up process of
emergence of candidate niches for smart specialization, areas of experimentation and
future development stemming from the discovery activity of entrepreneurial actors.”
[
As provided above in subsection 1.2, RIS3 consists of six structural parts according to the RIS3 wheel. At logical level, these structural parts can be divided into three groups as RIS3 process capability process model categories and subcategories: governance, macro level and micro level. The governance group consists of Step 2 “Set up of a sound and inclusive governance structure” and Step 6 “Integration of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms“. The macro level group consists of Step 1 “Analysis of the regional context and potential for innovation” and Step 3 “Production of shared vision about future of the region“. The micro level group consists of Step 4 “Selection of a limited number of priorities for the region” and Step 5 “Establishment of suitable policy mix“. In terms of process capability maturity modelling, the macro and micro level groups together compose the primary process category while the governance group is the organizational process category.
Macro and micro levels groups are ilustrated here in Figure 3, where macro level
ends by strategic vision and allocative rule formulation and micro level – by action
plans as a response to the discoveries’ demand for support. A published analysis of
regional RIS3 strategies discovered some gap between the macro and micro levels or
more precisely between the RIS3 development and implementation. The expert group
concludes: „Across all RIS3, the elaboration of the implementation plans was very
weak. […] More problematic would be the explanation that the RIS3 strategy is
disconnected from the implementation of the Operational Programmes. This could be
due to functional divides (other authorities responsible for the OPs than the RIS3),
inertia of existing policy programmes and measures, local lobbying for certain
policies or lack of capacity with the public authorities to adapt and improve the policy
mix on the basis of the RIS3 exercises.” [
As a starting point for development of the RIS3 process capability assessment model, the current preliminary RIS3 development process model is also provided in Figure 3, containing process identification by process name for strategy definition including macro and micro analysis levels and strategy implementation including monitoring and evaluation.
The mapping of the identified processes to the RIS3 Assessment wheel [