Regional Innovation Monitor 2010

26 October 2010
Regional Innovation Monitor

Thematic Paper 1
Conceptual layout of the Regional Innovation Monitor
Fraunhofer ISI
Thomas Stahlecker, Henning Kroll, Elisabeth Baier
In association with:
Fraunhofer ISI & UNU MERIT
www.technopolis-group.com
Table of Contents
Introduction 2 
1. Regional innovation policy: A literature review 3 
1.1 Innovation policy as a remedy for systemic failure 4 
1.2 Regional innovation policy and multi-level governance 7 
1.3 Policy learning in the field of regional innovation policy 8 
1.4 Summary 12 
2. RIM as a new approach to evidence-based policy-making 14 
2.1 The objectives of RIM (and value-added for users) 14 
2.2 Baseline information on the RIM 14 
2.3 Specific information on regional innovation policies 17 
2.4 Specific information on regional stakeholders, 20 
2.5 The RIM database and the RIM benchmarking tool 22 
2.6 Stakeholder/User involvement in the RIM 27 
2.7 Analytical information provided by the RIM 28 
Conclusions 31 
References 32 
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Systematic to localise systemic failures in innovation systems
(incl. examples)......................................................................................... 7 
Figure 2: A regional page (example) ........................................................ 16 
Figure 3: Linkages to specific information on regional innovation policies
................................................................................................................. 18 
Figure 4: Policy document pages on the RIM platform (example) ........... 19 
Figure 5: Linkages to specific information on regional stakeholders ...... 21 
Figure 6: Organisation page on the RIM Platform ................................ 22 
Figure 7: The RIM benchmarking tool (single indicator) ......................... 24 
Figure 8 : The RIM benchmarking tool (expert)................................... 27 
Regional Innovation Monitor i

Introduction
In late 2009, the General Directorate for Enterprise and Industry commissioned the
Regional Innovation Monitor (RIM) project to improve the scope and quality of policy
assessment by providing policy-makers, other innovation actors and researchers with
the analytical framework and tools for regional policy learning and evidence-based
policy learning.
The key moment of novelty in the project is that it will combine information on the
characteristics of regional innovation systems with information on the innovation
strategies developed and the innovation policy measures implemented in their specific
context. The aim of the Regional Innovation Monitor thus is to extend the scope of
policy assessment and policy learning from one focussing on the effectiveness of
individual measures to one focussing on contextualisation and the assessment of
situational adequacy. The following thematic paper will sketch the background against
which the RIM approach was conceived and elaborate in some detail on the specific
elements of the approach itself.
The first section will sum up the current state of play with regard to the literature on
regional innovation systems and regional innovation policy. It will elaborate on the
role that regions play as platforms for innovation policy in a system of multi-level
governance and point out what differences evidence-based approaches and policy
learning have been known to make.
Against this background, the second section will point out how the Regional
Innovation Monitor aims to provide new starting points for both evidence-based
considerations and policy learning. It will point out in which ways the Regional
Innovation Monitor differs from earlier approaches and how these will open up new
opportunities for evidence-based approaches and policy learning
The third section will then introduce the different functionalities of the Regional
Innovation Monitor Website in more detail. It will demonstrate how policy-makers
and other stakeholders can access information on a web-based platform and how the
Regional Innovation Monitor can assist in benchmarking exercises.
Finally, a concluding section will sum up the central findings and point to the
challenges still to be addressed in the framework of the Regional Innovation Monitor
approach to ensure that its objectives are ultimately achieved.
Regional Innovation Monitor 2

1. Regional innovation policy: A literature review
The role of research and technological development in regional policy-making has
clearly gained importance over the last 15-20 years. Accordingly, at various levels, a
number of individual policy measures aiming to leverage local technological potentials
– and thus taking into consideration the strength of a location/region - came to the
fore in the past two decades. More recently, since the 1990s, the focus has shifted
towards policies that take a more comprehensive approach based on the concept of
regional systems of innovation (Koschatzky, 2001). These broadly based approaches
have lifted regional innovation policy from the level of individual interventions to the
strategic level. In many cases, regions have now begun to devise “regional strategies
for innovation” which were to be translated into different actions and measures.
Unfortunately, however, this process of translation has been less than successful.
The reasons for this are manifold. As a cross-cutting policy field, innovation policy
raises a number of coordination issues that may be bridged at the strategic level, but
then re-surface at the day-to-day implementation level. Moreover, innovation is an
extremely interactive process in which informal institutions and implicit knowledge
play a central role. In this field, however, policy measures remain poorly developed. At
the same time, the speed of change in many areas of the economy and society as a
whole calls for speedy and agile reactions of the policy system, so that little time
remains for intensive coordination, resulting in an ever more specific, complex and
fragmented array of policy measures.
Consequently, the more pervasive use and cultivation of strategic policy intelligence is
clearly needed and difficult to achieve. The Regional Innovation Monitor will address
this crucial need by providing a systematic repository of information and analyses on
latest developments in regional innovation policies in Europe.
Policy-driven efforts to stimulate the development of certain technologies and
processes of innovation have been undertaken almost everywhere in the world, often
with an explicit emphasis on regional networks and clusters (Rosiello/Orsenigo 2008),
infrastructure-related measures, human capital, single-firm R&D and innovation
support. All these initiatives, be they implemented by national or regional
governments, have in common that regional production factors are the basis for
regional and innovation promotion (Koschatzky 1997: 185-187) and that regions
compete against each other for investment in science and technology, both public and
private.
Thus, according to Koschatzky/Gundrum 1997: 212), public regional innovation and
technology promotion has three tasks:
• to activate and carefully complement regional resources for the development and
application of new technologies (regional innovation conditions);
• to co-ordinate and interlink these resources in regional innovation networks,
bringing in all the relevant actors in industry, science and policy; and
• to integrate these regional networks into national and international clusters of
technology development and production, through creating active interfaces and
promoting supra-regional co-operation.
Creating regional research and innovation systems is now an explicit goal in
innovation and technology policy (Koschatzky 2001: 10). The role of regions,
therefore, is not a passive one. They have become active players in the national system
of innovation rather than mere recipients of public funding (Dohse 2007). They have
to be creative to succeed in inter-regional competition, so “strategic intelligence” is

needed to bundle and activate their technological and innovative resources and to
establish modes of self-organisation.
According to Kulke (2004), regional innovation policy is more than the adoption of
certain micro-level policy instruments. In fact, they constitute a co-ordinated bundle
of measures aiming at one or more policy goals (e.g. to raise regional employment,
regional competitiveness or regional technological capabilities). In parallel, incentives
are provided to promote attracting new investment, constructing the physical and
institutional infrastructure as well as transport and communication networks. With a
view to regional RTDI policy measures, the funding of research institutes, technology
transfer centres, single-firm R&D and innovation funding, joint research activities are
among the most popular approaches. In addition to these standard measures, policy-
makers have been taking into account the spatial and cultural proximity between firms
and supporting institutions as well as the existing spatial structure of socio-economic
and RTDI potentials in a country. For example, as technology- and knowledge-
intensive industries have an acknowledged tendency to cluster, network and cluster
approaches for instance have been applied quite extensively (Sternberg 2003).
Regarding the regional or regionalised portfolio of innovation related instruments it
can be observed that these are clearly influenced by the strengths of the regions, both
in institutional and innovation terms. This observation is in line with the most
important overall objective of innovation policy to strengthen the
technological/innovation strengths of a regional (or national) innovations system,
rather than using innovation policy and its respective portfolio of instruments to
balance the regional development (balance-oriented objective). Furthermore, strong
regions are typically regions with an effective regional innovation system which are
characterised by strong institutions being able to permanently adapt to changing
framework conditions and adjust their portfolio of innovation instruments. Thus,
strong regions (and strong regional players) are believed to have an impact on the
design of instruments in support of innovation in their own region and possibly
regarding the national level.
1.1 Innovation policy as a remedy for systemic failure

The intervention of the government in technological development and innovation – be
it at a regional or national level - is not indisputable (Dreher 1997: 26-31). The “market
failure” rationales in RTDI policy are dominant for neoclassical welfare economics as a
meta-rationale for government action and inaction (Laranja et al. 2008). The
discourse about public policy intervention in all policy spheres continues to be
influenced by the view that policy intervention is justified only in circumstances where
markets clearly fail to allocate resources so as to optimise overall social welfare
(Howlett/Ramesh 2003). According to Laranja et al. (2008), typical policies
associated with the market failure rationale are those directed at compensating for
market failures in the allocation of private resources to scientific activities and
knowledge diffusion.
This approach however may be considered somewhat narrow and economistic, given
that innovation is an interactive, reciprocal and non-linear process characterised by
uncertainty. Based on the concept of national systems of innovation introduced by
Lundvall (1992), a systemic approach to innovation at the regional level was first
developed by Cooke (1992). According to Cooke et al. (2004), regional innovation
systems can be understood as concentrations of interacting private and public
organisations, formal institutions, and other organisations that function according to
organisational and institutional arrangements conducive to the generation, use and
dissemination of knowledge (Doloreux 2004). According to Asheim/Coenen (2005), a
regional innovation system consists of a knowledge and institutional infrastructure
supporting innovation within the industrial structure of a region. Regional systems are
not national systems in miniature, but respond to different rationales, institutional
and governance settings which can be found at the sub-national territorial level. It is a
distinct characteristic of the concept that a region does not offer all factors and

institutions necessary for innovation, but that it is a part of a superior, i.e. national
system, and has to cooperate with other regional or national systems in order to merge
all necessary resources in the specific territory (Cooke et al. 2004).
An important part of the (regional) innovation system is the research system which
overlaps with the former to a certain extent, but comprises research aspects which do
not have direct impacts on innovation activities (Kroll & Stahlecker 2008). Since
research creates new knowledge and improves the already existing scientific
knowledge base, the knowledge derived by research activities is an important input in
innovation activities. Nevertheless, new knowledge is also created in multiple feedback
loops during the innovation process itself (Kline & Rosenberg 1986). This knowledge
can be tacit i.e. confined to those individuals or organisations which are involved in
the knowledge-generation process (Polanyi 1967), or it can be of a non-specific
character, become codified and enrich the regional knowledge base (Nonaka 1994,
Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995, Niosi/Bellon 2002).
The approach of the regional innovation (and research) system emphasises the
dynamic, cumulative and social nature of the innovation (and research) process and
the network of relationships between the structure of production and the institutional
setting in which they are embedded. Like several other territorial innovation models
(Maillat/Lecoq 1992; Mouleart & Sekia 2003), the regional innovation system
approach emphasises the importance of both formal and informal networks featuring
mutual economic and technological inter-dependencies. Schätzl (2003) points to the
following constitutional characteristics of such networks:
• Formal, informal and social contacts between many regional actors (firms, labour
force, clients, and institutions) allow for network action, encourage collective
learning and reduce uncertainties in the course of technological change; this may
result in solving problems, synergies as well as the reduction of transaction costs.
• Regional delineation of networks: crucial for the innovation dynamic is the spatial
proximity of the different actors; “face-to-face” contacts, the mobilisation of
intraregional human capital, trustful cooperation between mostly small and
medium-sized enterprises, flexible supply chains, an innovation-oriented
cooperation of business and policy, etc. require regional networks.
In general, the concept of regional innovation systems and the network approach (as
well as many other national and regional concepts, see, for example, the cluster
approach) stress the importance of learning in the innovation process and underline
the specific character of tacit knowledge and its implications for spatial proximity and
the necessity of being embedded in certain spatial contexts for technological
development and innovation (MacKinnon, 2002; Mouleart & Sekia 2003).
Consequently, whether a regional(-ised) research and innovation policy could be
effective does not only depend on the concrete policy concept, but also on the ability of
the policy-makers to coordinate RTDI policy, especially against the background of a
multitude of governance mechanisms and layers that coexist in countries with a
federal constitution.
The key argument underlying the rationale for regional innovation policy is thus not
“market failure” but “systemic failure“(Klein Woolthuis et al. 2005), based on the
systems of innovation approach (Edquist 1997). This approach emphasises that
innovation is an interactive, reciprocal and non-linear process and that only when this
complex process can develop smoothly and without interruption can innovations
evolve successfully. Various authors, including Carlsson and Jacobsson (1997), Smith
(1997), Smith (1999), Johnson and Gregersen (1994), and Edquist et al. (1998), paid
attention to systemic imperfections which in summary can be classified as follows:
• infrastructural failure relating to the physical infrastructure that actors need to
function and the science and technology infrastructure;

• transition/capabilities failure relating to the inability of firms to adapt to new
technological developments (e.g. lack of capabilities to learn rapidly and thus be
locked into existing technologies);
• lock-in/path dependency/strong network failure relating to the inability of
complete regional innovation systems to adapt to new technological paradigms
(e.g. due to a certain “blindness” that evolves if actors have close links and as a
result miss out on new outside developments);
• hard institutional failure relating to failures in the framework of regulation and
the general legal system,
• soft institutional failure relating to failures in the social institutions such as
political culture and social values¸and
• weak network failure relating to a lack of linkages between actors that lead to
insufficient use of complementarities, interactive learning, and creating new ideas.
The systemic failure approach thus argues that a correct allocation of resources is
merely one of many necessary criteria, so that public interventions have a more
important role to play in this field than in general economic policy. Klein Woolthuis et
al. (2005) have argued that systemic failures can best be understood when one follows
the dimensions of an innovation system as defined by Edquist (1997). To that end,
they differentiate between an actor perspective and a perspective focusing on networks
and framework conditions.
Figure 1 illustrates how systemic failures apply to different actors (or missing actors)
in innovation systems. In a simplified heuristic of an innovation systems consisting of
private actors (business sector), the public sector (e.g. universities, policy, technology
institutes) and “third parties” (e.g. intermediaries like banks, venture capital firms,
consultants, semi-public actors) regulatory failures can typically be observed with a
view to laws, regulation, and innovation hampering factors caused by failures in
incentives or rules. In our heuristic such failures apply particularly to public and semi-
public actors (incl. innovation policy) as these actors are normally in a position to
govern or implement rules. On the other hand, a strong network failure or a certain
“blindness” to new developments happening outside the region applies in particular to
companies and knowledge institutions (partly also to “third parties”). Strong links in
regional innovation systems can primarily be observed between actors within the
business system or between actors of the knowledge creating sector and the business
sector which causes the danger of “closed networks” in terms of a permanent
repetition of action and interaction.

Figure 1: Systematic to localise systemic failures in innovation systems (incl.
examples)
Regulatory failure
“Blindness“ to new outside

developments
Source: Klein Woolthuis et al. 2005

According to Laranja et al. (2006), systemic and complex policy measures seek to
increase the connectivity within the different elements of the innovation system. The
objective of these measures is to achieve the adequate coordination and collective
understanding to support the interdependencies and specialisation in the production
of knowledge in the system. The systemic orientation of policies aim to stimulate
interactions between industries exploiting vertical as well as horizontal linkages
between firms and with the wider matrix of knowledge-generating institutions,
including the relationship between firms and between firms and other institutions.
1.2 Regional innovation policy and multi-level governance

When, against the background of the above mentioned rationales, policy-makers
decide to intervene at the regional level, various challenges exist with regard to the
efficient design and implementation of RTDI policy. One main reason for this is that
the governance of regional innovation systems is becoming increasingly complex in
terms of the number of stakeholders involved and the interrelationships between
them.
In many European countries, top-down policy design has been replaced by bargaining
and substantial regional autonomy (Koschatzky & Kroll 2007), as regional interests
and preconditions for policy measures are taken more and more seriously. In
consequence, policy coordination in the form of multi-level and multi-actor
governance has become an essential issue in many European countries and regions
(Scharpf, 1994; Kuhlmann, 2001; Hooghe & Marks 2001; Uyarra et al. 2007;
Loughlin; 2007).
The term “multi-level, multi-actor governance” refers to governance performed jointly
by actors at the different policy or administrative levels. Tellingly, it was defined in
studies on EU structural funding (Scharpf, 1994), characterised by a mix of quite
complex financing mechanisms (e.g. co-financing). In recent years, these activities
have become more rather than less relevant for regional innovation policy.
The characteristics of European multi-level governance are particularly relevant in the
area of RTDI policy. Recent political efforts to create a "European Research Area" have
responded to the need for achieving greater vertical and horizontal coordination and

coherence of RTDI policy across member states and to the developments taking place
in EU RTDI policy in the last two decades (Uyarra 2006).
For Cooke (2002) as well as for Uyarra et al. (2007), therefore, multi-level governance
is the key to the discussion about the importance of the role that policy and politics
play for regional innovation systems. Likewise, Fürst (2001) defines regional
governance as a weakly institutionalised process in which regional actors aim to
achieve common goals of regional development by means of network-oriented modes
of cooperation. With a view to regional innovation policy, such common goals could be
an increase in R&D activities of the industrial sector, the exploitation of technological
potentials or an increase in the number of start-ups. Relevant regional actors could,
for example, be universities, technology-oriented enterprises, knowledge-intensive
business service firms (KIBS), regional government or administration, project
management organisations, intermediaries (e.g. technology transfer offices, venture
capital firms) or non-university research institutes.
1.3 Policy learning in the field of regional innovation policy

Today, multi-actor and multi-scalar governance structures continue to emerge across
the EU. Thus, there is a need to examine how these developments translate into new
challenges for regional policy design and implementation. As of today, many regions
lack both the financial and the institutional resources to develop sufficient “strategic
intelligence” that would allow them to design policies that sufficiently take into
account the challenges posed and opportunities offered by a multi-level governance
system.
In addition to the institutional and financial power of regions, endowment in
innovation-related resources, different countries and regions are also characterized by
different innovation policy cultures. This offers the opportunity for policy-makers to
learn from the experiences in other countries by analyzing success and hampering
factors, identifying similarities and differences and relating them to path dependencies
and national as well as regional idiosyncrasies. Learning can take different forms, for
instance, learning by doing, learning from the experiences of others or learning by
interaction and coordination. In theory, therefore, policy learning should take into
account all relevant framework conditions, the most important dimensions of which
have been discussed in the preceding section: a systemic analysis of local challenges
and a due acknowledgement of the situatedness in a system of multi-level governance.
In the early years, when the approach was in its infancy, however, many observers
found that “policy learning is in effect learning about instruments” (cf. e.g. Howlett &
Ramesh 1993).
Policy Learning
One specific form of policy-coordination in use today is the European Union’s open
method of coordination (OMC). It was introduced in 2001 (White Paper on Involving
Experts in the Process of National Policy Convergence) and represents a new measure
to enhance collective action to foster compatibility, consistency or convergence
between the Member States’ public policies. It is based on soft law mechanisms such
as guidelines, indicators, and benchmarking (cf. Arrowsmith et al. 2004). The
method's effectiveness relies on a form of peer pressure, as no Member State will want
to be revealed as the worst performer in any given policy area. It is intended to help
Member States converge towards common objectives in areas such as employment,
economic reform and social cohesion. OMC works in four stages. Firstly, EU ministers
agree on policy goals in the area concerned. Secondly, Member States translate these
guidelines into national and regional policies, with specific targets. Thirdly, the
ministers agree on benchmarks and indicators to measure and compare policy
performance within the EU and worldwide. Finally, through evaluation and
monitoring, Member State's performance is assessed, relative to each other and to
their declared goals. The OMC differs significantly across the various policy areas to
which it has been applied: reporting periods may be shorter or longer, guidelines may

be set at EU or Member State level and enforcement mechanisms may be stricter or
more lenient.
Advocates of this 'soft' (i.e. not regulation based) approach argue that it enables
Member States to co-operate closely, still recognises their diversity and thus avoids
forced harmonisation. But it is a fact that this method has allowed the EU to extend
the concept of joint action into new policy areas. It gives a key role to the Commission,
not only in analysing policy intelligence, but also in drafting guidelines and issuing
recommendations on improving the effectiveness of policies.
With a view to the regional level, the increasing variety of regional innovation policies
and their implementation in different regional and national contexts in Europe offers
a vast fund of experiences to learn from. In recent years, therefore, an increasing
number of European projects were conducted to promote international policy learning
in the field of regional innovation policy. Some of these efforts were conducted directly
within the framework of the OMC (OMC-Net under the 6th Framework Programme),
others were conducted in the framework of the “Innovating Regions in Europe”
Initiative (Mutual Learning Platform), or in the context of the multiple activities and
projects under the umbrella of PRO INNO EUROPE (INNO APPRAISAL, INNO VIEWS, INNO
NETS etc.). In many cases, these projects were intended to move beyond mere learning
about instruments towards what could be described as evidence-based policy learning,
i.e. an approach taking into account regional specificities to enable regions to
contextualise their learning efforts – taking into consideration that policy learning in
its different forms requires both capabilities and money in regional policy circles.
Experience has shown, however, that such an approach is far from trivial to
conceptualise (Finlombarda et al. 2009). Nonetheless, when striving towards a more
evidence-based approach to policy learning, European policy-makers can draw on
long-lasting experiences with evidence-based approaches in innovation policy-making
at both the national and the regional level.
Evidence-based Approaches
Inevitably, the term evidence-based approach implies evaluation, both within and
outside the context of ESF and ERDF programming. In itself, however, it is a broader
term covering benchmarking exercises, strategic intelligence (e.g. regional foresight
exercises) and regional strategy development processes, as well as evaluation in a
narrow sense (IPTS, Joanneum 2002; European Commission 2006). In addition to
these targeted processes, the notion of evidence-based approaches can be extended to
the compilation and provision of customised R&D and innovation data by regional
statistical offices as well as the work of the local think-tanks that were set up by some
regions to provide specific analyses to local policy-makers.
Evaluations
To understand more about the success and failure of single programmes, measures
and institutions, and to assess the impact of innovation policies on regional
competitiveness and regional economic performance, evaluations have become an
integral part of innovation policy-making in Europe. Evaluations address different
challenges in and different levels of the innovation system. Broadly, the following
types of evaluations can thus be distinguished: programme evaluations (assessing
individual support measures), institutional evaluation (assessing the performance of
actors of the innovation system), systemic evaluation (assessing the systemic failures
of an innovation system, i.e. the adequacy of interactions and framework conditions
beyond the mere performance of the actors).
The European Union has promoted the use and development of evaluations in
(regional) innovation policy-making in a number of projects during the last years.
Nonetheless, not all Member States are equally active with regard to evaluation
activities. Some, like Austria, conduct extensive and multi-level evaluation activities,
whereas other countries make do with fulfilling the minimum requirements of EU
structural funding (e.g. some Mediterranean and many new Member States). For
many countries, therefore, policy learning remains important, not only with regard to

their own limited experiences, but even more so with regard to experiences with the
evidence-based assessments of policies (i.e. evaluations) in other countries.
To improve the overview of measures that may lend themselves to international policy
learning, the project INNO-Appraisal was launched under the PRO INNO EUROPE
umbrella. It found that, so far, most experiences with evidence-based approaches are
available at the national rather than at the regional level. Likewise, most of the
evaluations carried out are interim evaluations, although the majority of the
evaluations combine both summative and formative aspects. So far two thirds of the
evaluations that are carried out in the field of innovation policy were already planned
during the design phase of the measure. Topics covered by these evaluations vary
greatly, from support of networking and industry-science co-operations via direct
financial support measures up to diffusion-oriented measures. Good practice examples
of evaluations with an explicit recognition of regional innovation policy programmes
are:
• the interim and ex-post evaluation of the regional impulse centres in Austria;
• the interim evaluation of the Regional Innovation Fund in the UK;
• the interim evaluations of "Innovative Regional Growth Poles" in Germany;
• the mid-term evaluation of the Danish regional ICT effort;
• the mid-term assessment of regional incubators in France; and
• the mid-term evaluation of Bavarian cluster policy in Germany.
The long-term experience with evaluations makes them a valuable tool for the
generation of evidence in regional innovation policy-making. However, there is
nothing like a blueprint evaluation in the sense of "one size fits all". Evaluations have
to be designed individually to accommodate regional specificities and adjusted to the
objectives of the respective exercise that they are set up to assess.
Strategic Intelligence
The second major strand of evidence-based activities, strategic intelligence,
pertains to the collection, processing, analysis, and dissemination of information and
knowledge that is required for devising political strategies in a visionary yet realistic
way. It is considered as complementary to evaluation practice (IPTS, Joanneum
2002). In the field of regional innovation policy most efforts aimed at strategic
intelligence include either regional foresight exercises or regional benchmarking.
Regional foresight activities are promoted in order to support and enhance a
systematic planning of the future in European regions. Foresight programmes are
often designed to influence policy-making, especially technology and innovation
policy. Regional foresight, like all foresight, can be considered as “the systematic
attempt to look into the longer-term future [...] with the aim of identifying the areas of
strategic research and the emerging of generic technologies likely to yield the greatest
economic and social benefits” (Martin 1995). This includes identifying challenges,
economic, social and technological trends and influencing policy-making. Regional
foresight processes often pursue a participative approach, trying to include major
actors, political decision-makers, relevant experts and to integrate decisive knowledge
sources. Of particular importance are interdependencies between societal, cultural,
technological and economic development in the region. Foresight thus draws on
strategic planning and horizontal policy-making.
Regional foresight processes were and are carried out in various European regions. To
share experiences with foresight activities, the European Foresight Monitoring
Network (EFMN) serves as the discussion forum for experts and the public. Within
this forum, the project FOR-LEARN supported by the European Commission collects
regionally dispersed knowledge on that topic and makes it available in form of reports
on regional foresight processes. Among the best-practice examples are:

• Future Radar 2030 is a regional initiative of a semi-private non-profit
organisation, the ZIRP (Zukunftsinitiative Rheinland-Pfalz, Future Initiative
Rhineland Palatinate) that started in 2001. Future Radar 2030 was planned as a
dynamic and open process to engender positive thinking about the issue of
demographic change and more awareness of the problems entailed with the
public.
• Central Macedonia Technology Foresight was initiated as an effort to identify the
long-term trends for the development of specific thematic fields. The overall aim
was to define priorities to support the regional innovation system and amend the
regional development plan - under the 3rd CSF – and also to develop the regional
development plan under the 4th CSF. It was the aim of the project to meet
knowledge demands for the interest in the future and forthcoming developments
in science and technology in the region, and in designing the major strategic
elements for these policies (R&D and innovation).
• Lombardia – RISE: The regional government of Lombardia decided to launch an
RDTI strategy, aimed at supporting the local scientific and industrial systems to
achieve a strong competitive position at the international level in a few emerging
technology areas. In order to provide this strategy with a reliable basis and strong
commitment of the most relevant regional players, a foresight study, named RISE,
started in 2002 with a time horizon of 10 years, since mostly enterprises were
involved.
Regional foresight processes have become increasingly popular during the last decade.
As mentioned before, many regions initiated foresight processes in order to be able to
meet future demands, and societal and economic developments with a high degree of
awareness. Regional foresight processes can become rather complex, often involving a
mix of methods from moderated work-shops, scenario-building, road-mapping and
Delphi studies. Critical thinking concerning long-term developments is a key element,
as well as a participatory approach. This calls for highly developed skills to moderate
among heterogeneous groups of regional actors. The challenge remains in the transfer
of results into actual policy-making implications.
Benchmarking
With its conceptual origins rooted in management science, regional benchmarking
constitutes a “systematic process for comparing performance of [...] organisations,
functions, processes of economies, policies, or sectors of business against the ‘best in
the world’” (European Commission 1999). Common elements of most approaches
include the comparison with a defined maximum (the “benchmark” ”) by means of
quantitative indicators, as well as the conceptualisation of benchmarking as a learning
process, which goes beyond mere comparisons, but aims at an understanding of the
underlying processes that cause different performances (IPTS, Joanneum 2002). In
the words of Arrowsmith et al. (2004), “benchmarking offers actors a means of
resolving the horizontal and vertical collective action problems that often bedevil the
development and implementation of decision-making”. Consequently, they find that
“in the EU, benchmarking [...] is everywhere”, not least because it is perceived as
providing a response to the tensions between central regulation and local
responsibility.
Nonetheless, they explicitly caution against the imminent tendency to “degenerate into
‘checking and verifying rather than doing’” (Arrowsmith et al. 2004: 312). Likewise,
there are certain general limits to the application of benchmarking to innovation
policy (IPTS, Joanneum 2002) since no aggregate indicator can cover the often given
diversity in policy goals, relations between policy intervention and the changes in
outcome cannot easily be established or understood and the effects of policy have a
high degree of context dependency, so that in most cases there is more than one way to
design a successful policy.

For any benchmarking process, the definition of the indicators to be used is a central
and decisive one. Yet it is not at all a straightforward task (IPTS, Joanneum 2002):
• policies and public authorities – unlike enterprises - often pursue multiple goals.
Therefore, a whole array of indicators rather that a single one has to be used;
• the diversity of innovation systems cannot adequately be captured if measured by
a single, highly aggregated performance indicator;
• there are often problems in finding comparable data even when well-established
indicators like R&D expenditure or patents are used; and
• for most processes underlying the development of innovation systems
internationally comparable statistics are not available. Hence many studies rely
very much on national expertise, ad hoc studies and on subjective expert
judgement.
As in the case of regional foresight processes, the adequate performance of a regional
benchmarking study requires a high degree of specialist expertise that not many
regional administrations have at their disposal.
Regional Strategy Development Processes
Since the middle of the 1990s, when the first ‘Regional Technology Plans’ (RTP) were
launched in 1994, policy-makers have paid increasing attention to the targeted
development of innovation strategies, not only at the national, but also at the regional
level. In recent years, succeeding projects like RPIA or RIS/RITTS (Innovating
Regions in Europe) have continued to target knowledge- and innovation-based
activities and extended the process of the development of regional innovation
strategies by providing substantial financial support. By 2008, hundreds of regions
had developed their own innovative plans, strategies and instruments, sometimes
within a sound strategic framework, often as ad-hoc trial and error processes.
Moreover, the stipulations for 2007 to 2013 Structural Fund programming require the
development of concepts for policy action in the field of innovation policy. As the
above sections showed, however, the efficient adoption of an evidence-based process
for policy design and implementation, appropriate to a specific region, is not a
straightforward task. It requires substantial governance capacity at the level of
regional authorities in charge of designing and implementing regional innovation
policies. Against this background, the RIS/RITTS initiatives were aimed at “socially
engineering” regions by creating the right environmental, and in particular
institutional, conditions to increase the innovative capacity of the regional economy.
1.4 Summary
Our review of the literature revealed three main challenges that regional policy-
makers are facing in the field of designing and implementing regional innovation
policies:
Firstly, the literature review established that it is hugely important to understand the
systemic failures in regional innovation systems, before an adequate rationale for
regional innovation policies can be developed. Such an approach, however, requires a
detailed knowledge about regional actors, networks and framework conditions. With
regard to these characteristics of regional innovation systems, most policy-makers
have an intimate knowledge of their own and often some adjacent or nationally
important regions. However, whether this knowledge comprises knowledge of the
systemic failures of their own regional innovation system as well cannot be anticipated
a priori. Their knowledge about the performance of international regions, in contrast,
tends to be more limited. Consequently, there is a prevailing lack of information on
how local systemic characteristics can be put in a broader perspective. Against this
background, a value-added of the Regional Innovation Monitor will be the support of
the strategic intelligence exercise in European regions and the provision of tools to
obtain a more objective view on local systemic failures. As mentioned further down

below, RIM will contribute the understanding of the differences in policy portfolios in
similar regions – even though the policy objectives may be similar.
Secondly, the literature review clarified that not only the starting conditions, but also
the characteristics of the policy delivery process differ among regions. Even when an
adequate rationale is developed and the overall objectives are set, a detailed
understanding of the regional constraints of, and options for, policy action is required,
before operational targets can be set and measures designed. Both the general
framework of governance and preceding political strategies on which new concepts
have to build are relevant in this regard. With regard to the starting conditions, a lack
of knowledge prevails among regional policy-makers with regard to the multi-level
governance systems and long-term policy frameworks of other countries. Thus, RIM’s
value-added will be a solid, complete, easily accessible, comparative and well-
organised repository of information of regional innovation policies. With regard to
multi-level governance and “coordination” of regional policies for instance, very little
is known about what exists at regional vs. national level nor what the interrelationship
between the different policy/administrative levels are.
Thirdly, the literature review illustrated that a broad array of evidence-based
approaches to regional policy-making are available, based on nearly two decades of
experience in publicly promoted regional strategy-building. Yet, until today, a more
widespread use of evaluation and foresight at regional level, as well as policy learning
that goes beyond the mere comparison of measures, remains at large. Likewise, the
use of evidence-based methods is far more widespread in some Member States than in
others, so that the latter could substantially benefit from learning from international
experiences. It seems that a wealth of international experiences is available, but that a
structured overview is missing. At the national level the project INNO-Appraisal
provided some remedies, while a similar effort at the regional level remains to be
performed.
The Regional Innovation Monitor (RIM) is thus initiated at a time where the central
challenge is less one of generating additional information, but rather of compiling and
structuring the plethora of information that is available in a fragmented fashion. The
following chapter will illustrate how this challenge can be addressed by the different
project elements.

2. RIM as a new approach to evidence-based policy-making
2.1 The objectives of RIM (and value-added for users)
The overall objective of the Regional Innovation Monitor (RIM) is to contribute to the
competitiveness of European regions by increasing the effectiveness of regional
innovation policies and strategies. In this context, the purpose – and the specific
contribution – of this action is to enhance the scope and quality of policy assessment
by providing policy-makers, other innovation actors and researchers with the
analytical framework and tools to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of regional
policies and regional innovation systems. Based on the review of the literature and
past experiences, the Regional Innovation Monitor does so in three main ways:
• firstly, it collects and compiles information on the characteristics of regional
innovation systems so that regional policy-makers can put their knowledge about
local structures and performances in perspective;
• secondly, it collects and compiles information on governance set-ups and long-
term policy frameworks in different Member States and, for each region,
illustrates the implications that these have for regional innovation policy; and
• thirdly, it collects and compiles information on the use of evidence-based
approaches in European regions and the resulting strategy and evaluation
documents that resulted from those processes.
In detail, the objectives of the Regional Innovation can be defined as follows:
• to provide the RIM user with a good, complete, easily accessible, comparative and
well organised repository of information of regional innovation policies;
• to provide a tool for comparing innovation policy approaches and trends at
regional level, including facilitatation and improved implementation of the
innovation-related strands of the Structural Fund Operational Programmes;
• to facilitate the knowledge management of regional innovation policies with a view
to transferring good practices;
• to provide an overview of Community measures in support of developing and
implementing regional innovation initiatives;
• to involve regional governmental actors in EU initiatives, such as the Lisbon
process and the Lead Market Initiative; and
• to provide easy access to existing analytical activities with relevance for innovation
at sub-national level.
2.2 Baseline information on the RIM

As pointed out above, the Regional Innovation Monitor takes a novel approach by
integrating different types of information about regional framework conditions
(baseline information). While the idea of a page with background information as a link
for more specific information is not novel as such, the Regional Innovation Monitor is
the first website to combine indicator-backed information on all fields relevant to
understand the systemic performance of a regional innovation system and spot
possible failures: economic framework conditions, RTDI framework conditions,
governance framework conditions and the long-term policy framework.
A brief, concise, and simultaneous overview of all four dimensions will put even the
user not acquainted with a certain region in the position to quickly grasp the
opportunities and challenges that this particular region is facing. Moreover, a

summary of central benchmarks against the national and the European average will
enable the users to put its structure and performance in perspective.
For each European region covered by the RIM, key baseline information is presented
on a clearly arranged regional page. On this page, a selection of baseline
indicators is presented in pre-specified and pre-arranged tables and figures.
Moreover, short summary texts written by the regional experts allow the users to
acquaint themselves with regional specificities, like intra-regional disparities or the
specific situatedness of regions in systems of multi-level governance. Together, all four
fields of baseline information create a more profound understanding of regional
innovation measures and policy learning in the region than any mere repository could
achieve.
Consequently, the regional pages will be designed as the central entry point for all
users of the Regional Innovation Monitor website. All links to further, more specific
policy information on a region are technically rooted in the regional pages. To avoid
the danger of users accessing policy documents out of context, the RIM interface thus
necessarily guides the users to the regional pages first and provides them with the
opportunity to take in a number of the regional key features at a glance. It is a core
tenet of the RIM approach that, by means of its design alone, the website does its
utmost to prevent drawing one-size-fits all conclusions and the resulting policy
fallacies. To live up to this ambition, the regional page is presented in a format suitable
to giving an overview of all tables and figures on a standard 17” screen. The set of
tables will involve a presentation of key indicators and benchmark them against the
respective European average in bar charts, column charts and a spider chart.
According to the four dimensions, the regional page will have four sub-sections that
contain the brief explanatory 2,000 character texts. In most cases the individual texts
have to be accessed by means of scrolling.

Figure 2: A regional page (example) 
 
Source: beta version
On the left hand side, the regional page contains links to the benchmarking tools
which allow the user to select from a broad range of indicators which can complement
the information presented in the baseline texts. By means of summary output
functionalities, in the form of a “one click solution”, as well as an expert benchmarking
tool to run customised queries, the user will be able to conduct benchmarking analysis
both easily and tailored to meet his or her needs (see below).
For a selected sample of regions, moreover, extensive regional reports will be drafted
and made available to illustrate and explain the characteristics of the regional
innovation system in more detail. While the 2,000 word texts can only provide the
basis for an analytical understanding of the regional innovation system, the regional
reports will highlight strengths and weaknesses as well as opportunities and threats.
These regional reports will be accessible from the regional pages.
The tables, figures and texts presented in individual regional pages are printable via a
print button on the page itself in a re-arranged .PDF format. The resulting printout
will have the format of a short regional report.

2.3 Specific information on regional innovation policies
According to the original terms of reference, the key purpose of the Regional
Innovation Monitor is to “provide users with a panorama of the state of development
of regional innovation strategies and their implementation”.
Consequently, the Regional Innovation Monitor offers concise yet detailed information
on a large number of regional strategies for innovation policy (if any) and the specific
policy measures that those result in. Generally, the Regional Innovation Monitor
compiles information on those strategies designed and those measures implemented
by the regional government of the region selected by the user. In those cases where a
government level corresponding to the NUTS region in question does not exist the
Regional Innovation Monitor compiles information on strategies designed and
measures implemented with substantial involvement of stakeholders from the region.
This may include sub-regional initiatives as well as initiatives that are funded by the
national stakeholders, but in their concrete design shaped by regional stakeholders.
Additionally, the Regional Innovation Monitor will cover Regional Operational
Programmes and report on the local priorities of European Structural Funding with
regard to innovation, wherever possible.
The geographical areas of reference of activities covered by the RIM can thus be
diverse, even if it is intended to focus on the selected region of reference as exactly as
possible. To reduce ambiguity about what is covered, the RIM will attach information
on the standard area of reference of any strategy, measure or organisation it reports
on.
In each region, about 9 strategies and measures will be covered, in as much as a
similar number of activities can be identified. While in politically very active regions
the RIM may not be able to cover each and every detail, the involvement of regional
experts ensures that users are provided with a comprehensive selection of the most
relevant actions taken.
For purposes of clarity, the Regional Innovation Monitor approach distinguishes
systematically between documents that define general approaches or action plans
(strategy level) and documents that regulate individual measures
(implementation level). While both are relevant, they constitute different stages in
the process of policy design and different levels of commitment and concretisation. In
order to create an intuitively understandable panorama of the process, therefore, they
have to be treated separately. Accordingly, specific information on innovation policy
actions will be provided in two types of templates.
Beyond the title and the area of reference (see explanation above) of a document, a
strategy document template contains information on its date of publication, the
organisation responsible for its drafting, the involvement of other organisations and of
course its content, as well as contact points from which more information could be
retrieved.
In a similar way, policy measure templates complement the information on the
title and area of reference (see explanation above) of a measure with details on
duration, specified objectives, technical implementation, budget, sources of funding,
visible effects on policy learning (if any), as well as contact points from which more
information could be retrieved.
Both types of documents will be directly accessible from the individual regional pages
and separately printable in .PDF . The length of each printout will not exceed 3 pages.
To provide a good overview, links to the relevant selection of templates will be
presented in a table type format at the bottom of the regional pages. The RIM thus
enables its users with one glance at the bottom of the regional page (Figure 3) to assess
whether a region:
• has developed strategies and derived concrete policy measures from it;
• has developed strategies but not taken any concrete action; or
• is taking action, but does so without an explicit overarching framework.

Figure 3: Linkages to specific information on regional innovation policies 
 
 
 

 
Figure 4: Policy document pages on the RIM platform (example) 
 
INNO-Policy TrendChart Tool

Like many existing repositories, the Regional Innovation Monitor will cater for the
needs of those users who are interested in specific, detailed information by allowing
them to access the templates through the regional pages. However, there may be
situations in which a user wants to take a either cross-regional or a cross-thematic
perspective on the compilation of specific information provided in the RIM.
On a central page, therefore, the Regional Innovation Monitor will allow its users to
obtain a structured overview by listing the number of regional level activities in a
selected policy field covered by RIM. It will be possible to list both the number of
initiatives in a single region as well as the overall number of initiatives in the regions
of a selected nation (cf. Figure 3). From this centralised nexus, direct linkages will be
provided to the respective regional pages. The listing will be structured along the lines
of the established INNO-Policy TrendChart classification and, for comparative
purposes, contain external links to INNO-Policy TrendChart reports on national level
activities.
For those interested in a direct theme-based overview only, a direct link to the INNO-
Policy TrendChart Tool – and its planned merger with Erawatch - will be set from the
RIM homepage. With one click on the homepage it will thus be possible to get an
overview of the total number of regional measures covered by the RIM in the different
policy fields as defined by INNO-Policy TrendChart.
For the reasons stated above (non-desirability of out of context approaches), however,
the tool is mostly intended to serve as an opportunity for users to step back from a
specific regional analysis and to find points of reference in other related regions.
Consequently, the RIM website will provide a link to the INNO-Policy TrendChart
Tool (and its possible successor within the context of a merger with Erawatch)

prominently on each regional page, below the general list of links to the policy
templates (Figure 2).
Regarding RIM’s contribution to policy learning a thematic search for policy measures
along the TrendChart categories could be enhanced by sorting regions according to
their membership of a similar “cluster” in terms of their policy mix. From the users
point-of-view it could be interesting to analyse the balance between types of measures
in the regional policy portfolio and compare this balance across regions in order to
understand if and how similar regions with possibly similar policy priorities
implement them with different policy portfolios.
With regard to the INNO-Policy TrendChart Tool, it is important to bear in mind that
RIM provides a representative expert selection of regional policy measures in the EU,
but it does not provide full coverage. However, the selection of measures covered
reflects the relative importance of the measures in the regional portfolio The purpose
of the INNO-Policy TrendChart Tool thus is to allow the RIM users to take a cross-
regional, thematic perspective on the repository. In contrast, it does not allow the user
to compare the total number of policy measures between regions.
2.4 Specific information on regional stakeholders

For practitioners and policy-makers who have taken a concrete interest in a certain
region, the Regional Innovation Monitor alone may not provide sufficient information
about the policy measures or about framework conditions. As pointed out above, all
experiences in the field of regional innovation policy are highly context-specific and
even the baseline information provided on the RIM platform will not be able to
remedy this completely. Consequently, there will be a need to identify and contact the
institutions in charge of, or knowledgeable about, policy definition in the region that
the user considers to be of interest.
RIM anticipates this need and aims to provide central contact points for stakeholders.
Following the example of the European Cluster Observatory, it aims to collect this
information in a wiki-based approach. Throughout the project, all users are explicitly
invited to provide the Regional Innovation Monitor with their own contact
information or that of any other organisation or key person they consider of relevance
for the design and implementation of innovation policy actions in a certain region.
Entries can be made for organisations or persons in templates based on those used in
ERAWATCH (organisation template, “who is who” template). The templates require
the registered user to enter information on the exact name of an organisation, the
regional scope of its activities, its location, its mission, activities as well as contact
points at which more information about it could be retrieved. The “who is who”
template will be structured accordingly. All external entries have been and will be
cross-checked by the core team to avoid spamming. While any user is entitled to
propose a new template, non-regional users have to provide a brief justification of why
they consider themselves or their organisation of specific relevance to innovation
policy design in the region in question. To kick-start the process, the core team has on
its own account entered a first batch of key organisations at the regional level. Links to
all organisations and “who is who” templates that have been entered and approved so
far will be anchored in the regional pages (cf. Figure 5).

Figure 5: Linkages to specific information on regional stakeholders
 

Figure 6: Organisation page on the RIM Platform
 
2.5 The RIM database and the RIM benchmarking tool

The literature review illustrated that the standard repository approach known from
other policy websites may not be sufficient to cater for the needs of regional policy-
makers who are interested in establishing new evidence-based approaches to policy
learning. Likewise, the terms of reference asked for “a tool for comparing innovation
policy approaches and trends at regional level, including facilitating and improving the
implementation of the innovation-related strands of the Structural Fund Operational
Programmes”. In addition to the panorama provided by means of the specific
information in templates, the Regional Innovation Monitor therefore provides
functionalities for users who want to go beyond pre-packaged data sets and ready-
made interpretations.
Non-interactive RIM benchmarking tool (single indicator and executive
summary)
The first functionality that the RIM platform offers in this respect is the single
indicator and executive summary benchmarking tool. It is intended as a ready-to-use
solution for political stakeholders or other interested parties who want easy-to-extract
yet reliable answers to simple benchmarking questions without having to contemplate
possible pitfalls in data quality, availability, or validity.
Typically, such questions take two forms:
• the user wants to know where the region stands with regard to a certain indicator;
or
• the user wants to know where the region stands in a certain perspective, e.g. “in
the economic field” or “with regard to RTDI performance”.
By means of the single indicator and executive summary benchmarking tool, the
Regional Innovation Monitor platform caters for both needs.
Firstly, the single indicator option allows the user with one click to benchmark the
region with regard to a single indicator selected in a drop-down menu.

The value of the respective region will be displayed in a column chart in comparison to
the 5 highest values, the 5 lowest values, the national average and the European
average. Secondly, all those values will be benchmarked in a bar chart against the
national and the European average. Thirdly, the development of the regional figures,
the national average and the European average in the course of the past 5 years will be
displayed in a line chart.
If the selected indicator should have an ordinal character, the regional figure will only
be compared against all national averages. A comparison to the 5 highest values and
the 5 lowest values would in most cases not make sense, as more that 5 regions will
have reported either the highest or the lowest possible value on the ordinal scale.
If the selected indicator should have a nominal character, the output will focus on
illustrating how many regions have given which answer to the different options
provided. It will thus allow the user to assess whether the region has given a common
or a less common answer and which other answers were more widespread.
Secondly, different simplified and predefined templates are provided. By means of
these brief templates, the RIM user can gain an at-a-glance overview of the central
benchmarking indicators with regard to a selected region. The basic notion of this
functionality is to generate easy-to-read printouts for e.g. use in meetings. Executive
summary output can be generated on a one-click basis for the four baseline
dimensions.
In detail, the following types of executive summary output are available:
• executive summary output (socio-economic);
• executive summary output (RTDI);
• executive summary output (SF indicators);
• executive summary output (governance); and
• executive summary output (policy).
Typically, the predefined templates cover slightly less than 10 indicators each to be
covered by a separate combination of graphs and tables.
The tables, figures and annotations generated are first displayed in .HTML format to
gain an impression of the results. They are, however, also printable via a print button
on the generated .HTML page in .PDF format. In most cases, the resulting printout
will amount to 1-2 pages (single indicator output) or 5-10 pages (executive summary
output) respectively.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Figure 7: The RIM benchmarking tool (single indicator) 
 
Source: own concept, to be implemented
Interactive RIM benchmarking tool (expert)

On the basis of the baseline indicator repository, the interactive RIM benchmarking
tool provides users with the opportunity to conduct their own analysis and produce
custom-made output. The key purpose of this tool is to go beyond the limitations of
the simplified tool which only allows benchmarks against national and EU averages.
The interface of the expert tool, in contrast, allows the user to benchmark any NUTS 0,
1 or 2 region in Europe against any other any NUTS 0, 1 or 2 region, as long as data is
available. Moreover, groups of regions can be defined freely and treated as a single
item, based on either their average or their sum. The interactive RIM benchmarking
tool thus allows the expert user to benchmark any group of EU regions against any
other group of regions (on the basis of a pre-defined category of regions or own
categorisations) with regard to any indicator available at the point in time selected.
Furthermore, values from different regions or groups of regions can be combined and
jointly displayed in summary pie charts.

In detail, the benchmarking tool is able to generate the following types of output:
• line charts,
• bar charts,
• column charts,
• pie charts, and
• spider charts.
It enables the user to export the results of his or her benchmarking query into .PDF
and .XLS format as well as directly print out the dynamically generated charts.
The interactive benchmarking tool was conceived with the clear aim of providing a tool
for experts. Consequently, no restrictions whatsoever were imposed on the free
combination of indicators and regions.
It is therefore important to stress that it remains up to the user to define meaningful
groups of regions and to ensure that the right options are set for groups, depending on
whether an indicator has an absolute or a relative character. Naturally, this complex
functionality requires a certain degree of expertise to generate meaningful results and
should be dealt with accordingly. For quick, easy-to-handle output, the single
indicator and executive summary output functionalities appear preferable.
In line with the executive summary output, the interactive benchmarking tool will be
based on socio-economic, RTDI, SF, governance, and policy indicators (see tables 1
and 2 below). As the first ever regional level policy monitor, the Regional Innovation
Monitor builds on expert assessments to compile a diverse set of baseline
indicators on governance framework conditions and policy trends. Some
indicators have an ordinal and some have a nominal character, but both provide
concise and standardised information that can easily be used for cross-EU
comparisons. The necessary information was collected through surveys from a broad
network of regional correspondents.

Table 1: Baseline indicators on the socio-economic and RTDI dimension
Table 2: Baseline indicators on governance framework conditions and policy trends

• the governance level that is most important for the design of inn. policy in the region
• the general degree of institutional autonomy of the regional authorities in the region
• the key policy areas in which the region has autonomy
• the degree of institutional autonomy of regional authorities with regard to RTDI policy
• the main focal field of innovation policy in which the region exerts its autonomy
• the type of approach that regional innovation policies follow (top-down vs. bottom-up).
• the approximate share of regional budget dedicated to innovation policy (5 classes)
• the set-up of regional institutions tasked with the development of innovation policy (if any)
• the degree of formalisation of regional innovation strategy (if any)
• the presence of horizontal coordination mechanisms between different regional players
• the presence of inter-regional coordination mechanisms
• the presence of vertical coordination mechanisms between e.g. regional and national level
• the key drivers of innovative activities
• the general set-up of the regional system of policy delivery (centralised or de-centralised)
• the relevance of the EU Structural Funds, in terms of funding
• the relevance of the EU Structural Funds, for regional strategy development
• the existence of a Structural Funds regional (or multi-regional) operational programme.
• the existence of a Structural Funds administration

• how effective the regional governance process has been judged by evaluations (if any)
• the field the region’s innovation policy is most strongly focused (public vs. business)
• the main focus of support for business innovation (high-tech sectors vs. high-tech firms)
• the involvement of the region in hot innovation / RTDI Policy Topics
• documents on which the strategic design of regional innovation policies is based (if any)
• the frequency of the use of evaluations for regional policy learning
• the frequency of the use of evidence-based methodologies in regional policy-making
Figure 8 : The RIM benchmarking tool (expert)
 
2.6 Stakeholder/User involvement in the RIM

As pointed out above, the literature review indicated that reading about the
experiences of others may be a useful first step, but that interaction and co-operation
is required to actually learn. User involvement is one of the most basic tenets of the
RIM approach. It aims to build a community that involves stakeholders in a way so far
unknown to most policy repositories. To establish the Regional Innovation Monitor as
an interactive platform, it is the aim of the project consortium to create a community
of registered users that publicly submit their own as well as other relevant parties’
contact information.
Consequently, all first-time visitors to the website will be explicitly invited to join the
community from which, beyond newsletters and update alerts, they can benefit in
terms of genuine and direct involvement:
Each registered user will have access to a personal “dashboard” page on which
information from the individual regional pages can be organised, printed and exported
to .PDF format. Additionally, the user can select regions which he would like to
“follow”, i.e. for which he or she would like to receive notifications as soon as new
documents are uploaded. Additionally, users can decide to follow region- and country-
specific news streams.
Once registered, all users are assigned feed-in rights. Only in case of repeated
misdemeanours on the website or at explicit request can the feed-in rights of a
registered user be withdrawn. After thorough consideration, the project consortium
has decided to follow a half-way wiki approach which requires the user to register
before any contribution to the RIM can be made. The aim of this process is to ensure a
meaningful process of quality control and to avoid situations in which the contributor
cannot be traced, so that an otherwise relevant contribution would have to be
discarded.

In summary, registered users can contribute different types of feed-ins, they can:
• create a personal who-is-who page for themselves, which is included in their
region's repository and linked to their profiles on the large personal networking
platforms (e.g. xing, Linked in, twitter);
• they can post news and events of interest to the community following a specific
region, to be displayed on the respective regional page under News & Events; and
• they can post news and events of interest to the overall RIM community, which
will be displayed on the RIM Homepage under News & Events.
Due to the sensitivity of the subject and the high degree of expertise needed to select
the most central policy measures and documents for a region, the respective templates
can only be submitted by the regional correspondents involved in the project.
Likewise, the analytic texts for the regional profiles can only be edited by the regional
correspondents.
Nonetheless, all registered users of RIM are assigned commenting rights that allow
them to inform the regional correspondent about their satisfaction or dissatisfaction
with certain templates or regional profiles. This will be done by means of a ranking
functionality. The core team will be able to access the results of this ranking via a
window that is automatically displayed on the template pages. If a high number of
negative ranking occurs for a certain page, a process of quality control will be initiated.
However, while all users are thus invited to comment on specific and general issues on
the RIM website, the RIM team regrets that the project’s budget does not extend to
implement a continuous user support.
Furthermore, the project team envisages establishing the Regional Innovation
Monitor on which the European Commission and other interested parties can launch
short one-question surveys (“Quizzies”) to collect the opinion of relevant
stakeholders on current issues of significance to European regional innovation policy.
Participation in the Regional Innovation Monitor community is thus a novel way for
regional stakeholders to make their voices heard in Brussels.
As the user community of policy-makers should not solely be based on electronic
interchanges, without offering regular opportunities for face-to-face interaction,
stakeholder involvement will also take place by means of regular thematic expert
workshops in which all registered users are invited to express their interest to
participate (see following section for more details). In addition to the workshops,
linking of RIM to already established communities of policy-makers like ERRIN, the
committee of the regions, IRE community, etc. would be another option.
2.7 Analytical information provided by the RIM

Beyond the launch and maintenance of the website as an interactive platform
“ensuring systematic dissemination of information concerning regional innovation
policy”, the RIM project aims to extract and validate “good practices and results from
the regional activities, other existing networks at regional level and translating these
into lessons and policy recommendations”. To that end, the core team will regularly
conduct in-depth analyses on the basis of the information compiled on the Regional
Innovation Monitor website and in the Regional Innovation Monitor database.
Additionally, workshops with independent experts will regularly be held, in which the
results of these analyses are discussed, put in perspective and actively made
transparent to a broader community. The outcome of these extensive analytical
exercises will take the form of comprehensive written reports.
The terms of reference foresee a diverse set of different types of reports, the specifics
of which are explained below. The reports will be made available to the general public
on the RIM Homepage and, in many cases, publicly presented in the context of the
workshops. It is not necessary to register as a user to obtain a report.

Regional innovation reports
The main aim of the regional innovation reports is to provide a description and
analysis of contemporary developments of regional innovation policy, taking into
account the specific context of the region as well as general trends. All regional
innovation reports will be produced in a standardised way, using a common
methodological and conceptual framework, in order to allow for horizontal analysis,
with a view to preparing the annual regional innovation monitor reports. In particular,
common indicators for assessing regional innovation profile, and common approaches
and questions for describing innovation governance and policies, will underpin each
regional report.
It will be structured in three main parts:
• innovation system trends and performance;
• innovation policy governance and strategies; and
• innovation policy instruments.
Thematic papers
Two thematic papers per contractual year will be produced. The thematic papers will
discuss different cross-cutting topics based on the information made available by the
regional correspondents. Themes have been and will be determined in agreement with
the Commission. Unlike the regional innovation reports, they will not provide an
inventory of local measures and approaches or assess a particular situation, but
provide a global overview of the state of development of regional policies and
strategies on innovation and on the difficulties and successes of their implementation.
Following this conceptual paper, the following topics have been presented for the first
year of the project.
“Benchmarking regional innovation performance”
This paper would be of an explorative nature and assess the feasibility of designing
performance and policy indicators which can be used to measure the impact of
support measures on regional innovation performance. It would first collect data to fill
the indicators and would then link these indicators to data on regional innovation
performance to explore the link between policy support and innovation performance.
“Innovation in the Structural Funds”
The thematic paper would seek to differentiate what sorts of innovation-related
interventions are funded in different programmes and Member States and which
changes have resulted over time. Moreover, it would identify the types of analyses that
have influenced policy choices and to determine whether any particular shifts can be
identified that could be attributed to the recent general changes in framework
conditions, such as the end of the micro-targeting approach and the alignment with
the Lisbon objective. Furthermore, it would determine whether the increasingly strict
financial control rules mean that more innovative projects are less likely to be funded
or if any other rules constrain funding for innovation. Moreover, it would determine if
any factual interaction or coordination between SF support for innovation and other
sources of EU funding for innovation, especially CIP and FP7, can be identified.
Finally, it would analyse how SF strategies and projects fit in with the existing set of
domestic interventions. The paper would aim to determine if and how SF programme
strategies for innovation are co-ordinated with lower level strategic goals. It would
clarify what types of interactions exist between SF and domestic support for
innovation at the project level.

For subsequent years, a process of bottom-up consultation will be conducted with
the steering group members, as well as other regional stakeholders, on the priority to
be given to the topics discussed. In practice, this could be realised via an interactive
web-tool on the RIM collaborative platform. Possible topics have been identified as:
• “Strategic approaches to innovation policy design at the regional level: Learning
from 15 years of experience (RTP, RIS, RITTS, RPIA, etc.)”;
• “Designing and implementing demand-side innovation policies at regional level”;
• “Participatory multi-actor approaches and public private partnerships: making the
triple-helix a reality?”;
• “Regional clusters and innovation policy (possible joint event with European
Cluster Observatory)”; and
• “Innovating to create sustainable regions (possible joint event with the future Eco-
innovation Observatory under Europe INNOVA)”.
Annual regional innovation monitor report
The preparation of the report will involve the following main activities:
• analysing the diversity of regional profiles, based on standardised indicators
gathered for all EU regions;
• horizontal analysis of policy measures and other information on regional
innovation policies collected in EU regions;
• horizontal analysis of regional reports on innovation; and
• identification of good practices in the above two sources.
In addition, recent developments and analyses available in academic papers, policy
reports and consultancy work will be incorporated in the analysis supporting the
annual RIM report. This analysis will be carried out by the core team, drawing on the
pool of knowledge accumulated though own work and projects, and resulting from
their access to on-going studies and projects on regional innovation policy in Europe.
• Executive summary (5-10 pages)
• Part 1. Regional Innovation Performance and Challenges (20 pages)
• Part 2. Regional Innovation Policies Trends and Evolutions (90 pages)
• Part 3. Regional Innovation Policies: thematic issues (40 pages)
• Annexes and References
Policy workshops
All of the analytical output listed above, but most of all the thematic papers will be the
basis for policy workshops with external experts and regional innovation policy-
makers aimed at discussing the RIM output and at policy learning. Workshops are
typically one-day events with 35 to 50 participants. As much as possible, the Regional
Innovation Monitor workshops will use synergies with other regional events to ensure
broad possibilities for participation. The first RIM workshop will be held on 26
October 2010 in Brussels to announce the launch of the Regional Innovation Monitor
website.

Conclusions
In conclusion, this first, introductory thematic paper illustrated how the Regional
Innovation Monitor will address topical challenges with regard to policy learning and
evidence-based policy-making.
A brief review of the literature and past projects showed that a plethora of experiences
is available in the field of regional innovation policy, both with regard to the design of
measures and to the design of strategies. Likewise, a great number and variety of
evidence-based approaches were transferred to the regional level in the field of
evaluation as well as in the field of strategic intelligence and there are manifold
examples of regionalised processes of strategy development. Despite more than two
decades of policy development, however, an overview combining background
information with information on regional innovation policies is not available for the
regional level. As of today, most information is either presented out of context or with
limited coverage. For that reason, it remains difficult to leverage the opportunities for
learning that are in principle offered by the wealth of experiences on which knowledge
is available in a fragmented form.
In a concerted effort of three core partners and a network of regional experts, the
Regional Innovation Monitor has set out to remedy this situation by means of the
following actions.
Firstly, it provides a wealth of information on the characteristics of regional economic,
RTDI, and governance systems as well as the currently prevailing policy paradigm. On
that basis, it becomes far easier to assess if regions are facing similar challenges so that
they could possibly be meaningfully matched in future processes of policy learning. In
this regard, the Regional Innovation Monitor provides information as such, as well as
expert analyses on the most topical issues.
Secondly, it provides functionalities by which users can benchmark any selected region
based on a broad set of relevant indicators. A core team of experts has selected existing
indicators which can be considered relevant for such exercises and has performed the
necessary quality checks. Moreover, new indicators have been generated via a survey
of regional correspondents. Thus, the RIM platform will facilitate regional
benchmarking for non-experts while at the same time keeping it reliable and valid.
Thirdly, the Regional Innovation Monitor constitutes in our knowledge the first ever
web 2.0 based approach to policy learning in the field of regional innovation policies.
It recognises that no repository can replace the personal exchange of experience, so
that information about contact points is given high priority – including a wealth of
external links to relevant social networks. Moreover, users are invited to participate in
the compilation of the repository in a wiki-type approach to, with a bit of luck, turn a
mere webpage into a living community.

References
1. Amin, A. (1999): An institutional perspective on regional economic
development, in: International Journal for Urban and Regional Research,
23 (2), pp. 365-378.
2. Arrowsmith, J., Sisson, K., Marginson, P. (2004): What can
‘benchmarking’ offer the open method of co-ordination? Journal of
European Public Policy, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 311–328
3. Asheim, B.T. and Coenen, L. (2005): Knowledge bases and regional
innovation systems: comparing Nordic clusters, in: Research Policy, 34,
pp. 1173-1190.
4. Bandelow, N. C. (2003): Policy Lernen und politische Veränderungen, in:
Schubert, K. und Bandelow, N.C. (ed.): Lehrbuch der Politikfeldanalyse,
München, p. 298ff.
5. Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S. (1997): In search of useful public policies: key
lessons and issues for policy makers. In: Carlsson, B., (ed.), Technological
Systems and Industrial Dynamics, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht.
6. Cooke, P. (1992): Regional Innovation Systems: Competitive Regulation in
the New Europe, Geoforum 23, pp. 365-382.
7. Cooke, P. (2002): Knowledge Economies. Clusters, learning and
cooperative advantage. Routledge: London and New York.
8. Cooke, P.; Heidenreich, M.; Braczyk, H.-J. (eds.) (2004): Regional
Innovation Systems, Second Edition. Routledge: London and New York.
9. Dohse, D. (2007): Cluster-Based Technology Policy – The German
Experience, in: Industry and Innovation, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 69-94.
10. Doloreux, D. (2004): Regional innovation systems in Canada: a
comparative study, in: Regional Studies, 38, pp.479-492.
11. Dreher, C. (1997): Technologiepolitik und Technikdiffusion. Auswahl und
Einsatz von Förderinstrumenten am Beispiel der Fertigungstechnik.
Baden-Baden.
12. Edquist, C. (1997): Systems of Innovation, Technologies, Institutions and
Organisations, Pinter, London.
13. Edquist, C., Hommen, L., Johnson, B., Lemola, T., Malerba, F., Reiss, T.,
Smith, K. (1998): The ISE Policy Statement—the Innovation Policy
Implications of the ‘Innovations Systems and European Integration’.
Research project funded by the TSER programme (DG XII). Linköping
University, Linköping.

14. EU Commission (2006): SMART INNOVATION: A Practical Guide to
Evaluating Innovation Programmes. A Study for DG Enterprise and
Industry. Co-ordinated by: Louis Lengrand & Associés, PREST University
of Manchester, ANRT (Association nationale de la recherche technique),
Reidev Ltd. ECSC-EC-EAEC: Brussels-Luxembourg.
15. European Commission (1999): First Report by the High Level Group on
Benchmarking. www.pedz.uni-mannheim.de/daten/edz-
h/gdb/00/benchmarking-rpt1hlg.pdf. European Commission: Brussels.
16. Finlombarda, Fraunhofer ISI, IReR, Zlin Region, Sodercan, IBS (2009):
Development of a common comprehensive methodology. Project report:
Supporting Policy Making with innovative assessment tools. Support to
mutual learning and co-ordination in research policy making (RTD-OMC-
NET). Call Identifier FP6-2005-RTD OMC-NET.
17. Fürst, D. (2001): Regional Governance – ein neues Paradigma der
Regionalwissenschaften? In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung, Heft 5-6,
S.370-380.
18. Hooghe, L., Marks, G. (2001): Types of Multi-Level Governance. European
Integration Online Papers, Vol. 5, No. 11.
19. Howlett, M. and Ramesh, M. (1993): Patterns of Policy Instrument Choice:
Policy Styles, Policy Learning and the Privatization Experience, in: Policy
Studies Review, Bd.12, Nr. 1-2, S.15.
20. IPTS, Joanneum Research (2002): RTD Evaluation Toolbox - Assessing
the Socio-Economic Impact of RTD-Policies. IPTS Technical Report Series,
EUR 20382 EN. ECSC-EC-EAEC: Brussels-Luxembourg.
21. Johnson, B., Gregersen, B. (1994): System of innovation and economic
integration. Journal of Industry Studies 2, 1–18.
22. Klein Woolthuis, R., Lankhuizen, M., Gilsing, V. (2005): A system failure
framework for innovation policy design. Technovation, Vol. 25, pp. 609–
619.
23. Kline, S. J., Rosenberg, N. (1986): An overview of innovation. In R. Landau
& N. Rosenberg (eds.). The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology
for Economic Growth. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, pp.
275–305.
24. Koschatzky K. (2005): The Regionalization of Innovation Policy: New
Options for Regional Change? in Fuchs, G. and Shapira, P. (eds.):
Rethinking Regional Innovation: Path Dependency or Regional
Breakthrough?. New York: Springer, pp. 291–312.
25. Koschatzky, K. (1997): Innovative regionale Entwicklungskonzepte und
technologieorientierte Unternehmen. In: Koschatzky, K. (ed.):
Technologieunternehmen im Innovationsprozess. Management,
Finanzierung und regionale Netzwerke, Heidelberg, pp.181-206.
26. Koschatzky, K. (2001): Networks in Innovation Research and Innovation
Policy – An Introduction. In: Koschatzky, K./Kulicke, M./Zenker, A. (eds.):
Innovation Networks. Concepts and Challenges in the European
Perspective. Heidelberg, New York, pp. 3-23.

27. Koschatzky, K. and Gundrum, U. (1997): Innovation Networks for Small
Enterprises. In: Koschatzky, K. (ed.): Technology-Based Firms in the
Innovation Process. Management, Financing and Regional Networks.
Heidelberg, pp. 203-224.
28. Koschatzky, K. and Kroll, H. (2007): Which Side of the Coin? The Regional
Governance of Science and Innovation, Regional Studies, Vol.41.8, pp.
1115-1127.
29. Kroll, H., Stahlecker, T. (2008): Europe’s regional research systems:
current trends and structures. Directorate-General for Research. European
Commission: Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-
research/pdf/download_en/kf2008.pdf
30. Kuhlmann, S. (2001): Future governance of innovation policy in Europe –
three scenarios. Research Policy 30, No.6, pp. 953-976.
31. Kuhlmann, S. (2004): Governance of Research - The Role of Evaluative
Information. Contribution to the CRIS 2004 conference. Antwerp: CRIS.
32. Kuhlmann, S. and Meyer-Krahmer, F. (1995): Practice of Technology and
Policy Evaluation in Germany: Introduction and Overview, in: Becher, G.
and Kuhlmann, S. (eds.): Evaluation of Technology Policy Programmes in
Germany. Kluwer: Dordrecht, pp. 3-29.
33. Kulke, E. (2004): Wirtschaftsgeographie, Schöningh, Paderborn.
34. Laranja, M., Uyarra, E., Flanagan, K. (2008): Policies for science,
technology and innovation: Translating rationales into regional policies in
a multi-level setting, in: Research Policy, 37, pp. 823-835.
35. Laranja, M., Uyarra, E., Flanagan, K. (2006): Policy mixes and
instruments for intervention in regional science and innovation, in:
Uyarra, E. et al.: Unpacking geographical spaces in research and
innovation in Europe (ERASpaces). Final Report, Manchester.
36. Loughlin, J. (2007): Reconfiguring the State: Trends i Territorial
Governance in European States. Regional and Federal Studies, Vol. 7, No.
4, pp. 385-403.
37. MacKinnon, D. (2002): Learning, innovation and regional development: A
critical appraisal of recent debates, Progress in Human Geography 26, pp.
293-311.
38. Maillat, D. and Lecoq, B. (1992): New Technologies and Transformation of
Regional Structures in Europe: The Role of Milieu, in: Entrepreneurship
and Regional Development, 1, pp. 1-20.
39. Martin, B. (1995): ‘Foresight in Science and Technology’, Technology
Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 140.
40. Moulaert, F., Sekia, F. (2003): Territorial innovation models: A critical
survey. Regional Studies 37 (3), pp. 289-302.
41. Niosi, J., Bellon, B. (2002): The absorptive capacity of regions. Colloque
“Economie Mediterranée Monde Arabe”. 20-21 Septembre 2002. Sousse,
Tunisie.
42. Nonaka, I. (1994): A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge
Creation. Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 14-37.

43. Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. (1995): The knowledge-creating company. New
York: Oxford University Press.
44. Polanyi, M. (1967): The Tacit Dimension. New York: Anchor Books.
45. Rosiello, A. and Orsenigo, L. (2008): A critical assessment of regional
innovation policy in pharmaceutical biotechnology, in: European Planning
Studies, Vol.16, No.3, pp. 337-357.
46. Scharpf, F.W. (1994): Community and autonomy: multi level policy-
making in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, No. 1,
pp. 219-242.
47. Schätzl, L. (2003): Wirtschaftsgeographie 1 – Theorie, 9. Aufl., Schöningh,
Paderborn.
48. Smith, K. (1997): Economic infrastructures and innovation systems. In:
Edquist, C., (Ed.), Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and
Organisations, Pinter, London.
49. Smith, K. (1999): Innovation as a systemic phenomenon: rethinking the
role of policy. In: Bryant, K., Wells, A. (Eds.), A New Economic Paradigm?
Innovation-Based Evolutionary Systems, Commonwealth of Australia,
Department of Industry, Science and Resources, Science and Technology
Policy Branch, Canberra, pp. 10–47.
50. Sternberg, R. (2003): New Firms, Regional Development and the Cluster
Approach – What can Technology Policies Achieve, in: Bröcker, J., Dohse,
D., Soltwedel, R. (eds.): Innovation Clusters and Interregional
Competition. Springer: Berlin, pp. 347-371.
51. Uyarra, E. (2006): Unpacking geographical spaces for research and
innovation in Europe: towards a research agenda, in: in: Uyarra, E. et al.:
Unpacking geographical spaces in research and innovation in Europe
(ERASpaces). Final Report, Manchester.
52. Uyarra, E., Koschatzky, K., Héraud, J.-A. (2007): Understanding the multi-
level, multi-actor governance of regions for developing new policy designs.
ERA Spaces, ERISP projects. Presented at the PRIME general conference
in 2007. www.prime-noe.org.

Technopolis Belgium
Avenue de Tervuren 12
B-1040 Brussels
Belgium
T +32 2 737 74 40
F +32 2 727 74 49
E info.be@technopolis-group.com
www.technopolis-group.com

Regional Innovation Monitor 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Regional Innovation Monitor 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

26 October 2010

Regional Innovation Monitor

Regional Innovation Monitor i

Regional Innovation Monitor 2

Regional Innovation Monitor 3

1.1 Innovation policy as a remedy for systemic failure

Regional Innovation Monitor 4

Regional Innovation Monitor 5

Regional Innovation Monitor 6

“Blindness“ to new outside

Source: Klein Woolthuis et al. 2005

1.2 Regional innovation policy and multi-level governance

Regional Innovation Monitor 7

1.3 Policy learning in the field of regional innovation policy

Regional Innovation Monitor 8

Regional Innovation Monitor 9

Regional Innovation Monitor 10

Regional Innovation Monitor 11

Regional Innovation Monitor 12

Regional Innovation Monitor 13

2.2 Baseline information on the RIM

Regional Innovation Monitor 14

Regional Innovation Monitor 15

Regional Innovation Monitor 16

Regional Innovation Monitor 17

Regional Innovation Monitor 18

INNO-Policy TrendChart Tool

Regional Innovation Monitor 19

2.4 Specific information on regional stakeholders

Regional Innovation Monitor 20

Regional Innovation Monitor 21

2.5 The RIM database and the RIM benchmarking tool

Regional Innovation Monitor 22

Regional Innovation Monitor 23

Interactive RIM benchmarking tool (expert)

Regional Innovation Monitor 24

Regional Innovation Monitor 25

Table 2: Baseline indicators on governance framework conditions and policy trends

Regional Innovation Monitor 26

Figure 8 : The RIM benchmarking tool (expert)

2.6 Stakeholder/User involvement in the RIM

Regional Innovation Monitor 27

2.7 Analytical information provided by the RIM

Regional Innovation Monitor 28

Regional Innovation Monitor 29

Regional Innovation Monitor 30

Regional Innovation Monitor 31

Regional Innovation Monitor 32

Regional Innovation Monitor 33

Regional Innovation Monitor 34

Regional Innovation Monitor 35

You might also like