I3U Project Meeting & Technical workshop Vienna, 14-15 September 2015 I3U “Investigating the Impact of the Innovation Union“ WP7, D7.1 Literature Review and Data Collection, Commitment 29 Rumen Dobrinsky, wiiw I3U Project Meeting & Technical workshop Vienna, 14-15 September 2015 This project is co-funded by the European Union

Workpackage 7, D7.1, Commitment 29 Outline of the presentation Commitment map Theoretical literature Empirical literature Indicators and approach to impact assessment Some conclusions

Commitment 29 Map (tentative)

Review of theoretical literature The notion of partnership The rationale of partnerships Taxonomy of partnerships Partnerships for innovation Main sources: McQuaid, R.W. (2000), “The theory of partnership. Why have partnerships?”; OECD (2008), Public-Private Partnerships; Hausmann, R. and Rodrik, D. (2003), “Economic development as self-discovery,” Rodrik, D. (2004), “Industrial Policy for the Twenty-First Century,”; Wessner, C. (ed.) (2003), Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies.

Review of the empirical literature Empirical assessment of partnership experiences The key factors of success of partnerships Some empirical evidence on the EIPs since their inception EIP AHA EIP Water EIP-Agri EIP RM EIP SCC

Measuring the EIPs impact: data issues All EIP’s have tasked themselves with the adoption of Monitoring and Evaluation Frameworks to enable regular monitoring of progress towards their objectives and critical evaluation of the efficiency of their operations Progress with this task so far has been mixed: Two EIPs (EIP RM and EIP Water) have adopted such MEFs EIP AHA commissioned the EC Joint Research Centre to prepare their MEF EIP-Agri and AIP SCC have not yet undertaken practical steps in this direction EIP RM has already produced its first Annual Monitoring Report for 2014 (the first of the sort)

Some indicators of performance evaluation and impact assessment of the EIPs EIP AHA Innovation deliverables delivered (as result of commitments/Action initiatives) Implemented guidelines (as result of commitments/Action initiatives) Number of SMEs involved in implementation Decline in hospital bed days (less hospital admissions) Increase in employment rate “Scaling up and multiplying” of actions Less social isolation (wellbeing indicator) Population covered by actions (wellbeing indicator) Quality of life of patients/users (wellbeing indicator)

Some indicators of performance evaluation and impact assessment of the EIPs EIP Water Number of submitted Expressions of Commitment (115 by 2015) Identified, addressed and removed innovation barriers Number of ‘innovations’ (patents/ trademarks/ proprietary methods) rooted in EIP related actions (25 by 2015) Number of (full scale and pilot) ‘implementations’ of innovations mentioned (under the above indicator) (25 by 2015) Progress towards the 4 general and 8 specific headline targets New or established project team New members in the project team Number of participating entities (in Action groups) (20 Action Groups by 2015) New sources of cash/in kind contributions (internal/external) Estimated implementation effect (e.g. employment)

Some conclusions Main characteristics of innovation partnerships (from the theoretical and empitrical literature): set common R&D/innovation objectives, to the benefit of the society at large; involve as partners a wide range of “innovation stakeholders”; establish collaborative governance of the partnership; provide for sharing of commitments and pooling of resources among the partners to pursue these objectives; provide for sharing of risks, costs, responsibilities and benefits; establish co-operative working relationships based on a common plan; provide for continuous knowledge-/information-sharing among the partners; promote connectivity, interactions and collaboration in the innovation process; can be instrumental in promoting not only technological innovations, but also managerial, institutional and policy innovations

Some conclusions (continued) Negative lessons (from the empirical literature): forced partnerships and ritualistic partnerships (not matching the characteristics above) have no value and cannot be sustained; partnerships should not be viewed as a permanent linkage; they should only last as the respective conditions are in place; not all organizations have the appropriate skill to be good partners; the lack of strategic planning or priority setting may lead to failure; the establishment of public-private partnerships is sometimes driven by the private interests of (some) partners; such partnerships are not sustainable.

Thank you! dobrinsky@wiiw.ac.at In modalità Presentazione fare clic sulla freccia per accedere alla pagina della guida introduttiva di PowerPoint.