Peer eXchange & Learning Entrepreneurial Discovery Process for Smart Specialisation Strategies (EDP) in the Region of Jämtland Härjedalen, Sweden - 126 000 people - 7000 SME Entreprenuorial driven Not industrialized Small young university Strong sectors; Sport, turism, outdoor, manufacturing, Cultural & Creative industry, accounting & business support Long distances ”Island in the inland” Close to growth centre in Trondheim, Norway Innovation focus on co-creation, entrepreuorship, digitalisation, circular economy, crowded solutions/sourcing/funding Magdeburg, 8 March 2018 Erik Noaksson, Innovation Strategist Erik Andersson, Senior Advisor Roger Nöjdh, Projectleader Industry 4.0

Our there main questions for this meeting (1) How do we (as Regional authority) continuously create value & motivate our entrepreneurs to participate in the EDP-process (facilitation)? (2) How do we build critical mass and knowledge based on the new concepts of Entrepreneurial Regional Innovation System (ERIS) and the DEA- model (Northern Review, Ylinenpää 2017)? (3) How do we, in the best way, support the implementation of public interventions in the ERIS model? In order to make the discussion at the workshop as efficient and useful as possible, it is important to move out of the ‘classical’ presenting mood and head towards a more concrete approach to issues that need to be faced on the ground, while establishing and implementing your strategy. For this reason it is important to define a focus of your presentation, which would act as a ‘red thread’ in your presentation. Please remember that the more linked to your presentation the questions are, the more relevant feedback you might get. By presenting the questions up front, you allow your peer critical friends to keep them in mind while you give your presentation. The questions should be repeated at the end of the presentation. Questions of a very general character can be made relevant for you specific region only if you give related information in your presentation.

Overview of RIS3 process in Region Jämtland Härjedalen Main regional characteristics & governance Extremely strong entrepreneurial driven community in a northern rural region with people living “everywhere” over long distances. Young university (MiUN, 2004) with limited SME-R&D value creation & connections. Innovation hub in Sport, Tourism & Outdoor (www.peakinnovation.se). No high output of convectional Science Park infrastructure with limited support and access to peripheral SME’s. Strong sectors are tourism, manufacturing, cultural & creative industries, business supporting services & accounting. The Region of Jämtland Härjedalen (2015) is responsible for facilitating the RIS3 process with its regional politicians as clients. Focus areas in Innovation strategy (RIS, 2014) & Innovation programme (RIP, 2016) - Bolded activities prioritised below! Overall objectives (RIS): (1) Smart specialisation on our terms, (2) Boost the external view of what makes us unique, (3) Effective use of external resources (http://www.regionjamtland.se/innovation/wp- content/uploads/2015/11/RIS_ny-layout-dec-2015-eng.pdf) Main focus areas (RIP): (1) Support for innovators, (2) Creative meetings, (3) Creative bureaucrats, (4) Developing talents, (5) The things about Jämtland Härjedalen, (6) Borderless neighbours, (7) Circular economy as a driver for development (http://www.regionjamtland.se/innovation/?page_id=2105) In order to make the discussion at the workshop as efficient and useful as possible, it is important to move out of the ‘classical’ presenting mood and head towards a more concrete approach to issues that need to be faced on the ground, while establishing and implementing your strategy. For this reason it is important to define a focus of your presentation, which would act as a ‘red thread’ in your presentation. Please remember that the more linked to your presentation the questions are, the more relevant feedback you might get. By presenting the questions up front, you allow your peer critical friends to keep them in mind while you give your presentation. The questions should be repeated at the end of the presentation. Questions of a very general character can be made relevant for you specific region only if you give related information in your presentation.

EDP for the RIS3 design in Region Jämtland Härjedalen (RIP) “The regional innovation programme wants to inspire more creative people to create benefit for others. Public resources cannot cover all the needs that are awaiting a solution and the same applies in business, civil society and academia…………” “…Here, Region Jämtland Härjedalen is a facilitator, one that wants to use the innovation programme to inspire co-creation. Co-creation based on activities that the people of Jämtland Härjedalen have told us are important to work on over the next five years….” “….The Region will take a lead by creating the right conditions for regular, dialogue-based meeting places throughout the region, at which citizen-run progress groups tackle these activities…..” “….The hope is that the Region can contribute funding and a range of supporting measures, but we will only succeed if we work together and are smart in the use of our current resources……” “…..The focus of the innovation programme is co-creation, trust and willingness. The Region cannot force this, it can only make involvement interesting….” Robert Uitto Regional Commissioner Björn Eriksson Regional Director In order to make the discussion at the workshop as efficient and useful as possible, it is important to move out of the ‘classical’ presenting mood and head towards a more concrete approach to issues that need to be faced on the ground, while establishing and implementing your strategy. For this reason it is important to define a focus of your presentation, which would act as a ‘red thread’ in your presentation. Please remember that the more linked to your presentation the questions are, the more relevant feedback you might get. By presenting the questions up front, you allow your peer critical friends to keep them in mind while you give your presentation. The questions should be repeated at the end of the presentation. Questions of a very general character can be made relevant for you specific region only if you give related information in your presentation. Anders Byström Vice Regional Director

”Flagship initiative” on co-creation and EDP between the regions of Jämtland Härjedalen and Tröndelags Fylkeskommune (Norway) A co-creational innovation plattform to boost Circular economy in the Mid Nordic Regions (Best P; http://www.sustainablecleveland.org/)

or ”It’s the second mouse that get’s the chees mechanism” Entreprenours extremely good at making business out of customer driven incrementel innovation or ”It’s the second mouse that get’s the chees mechanism” (Best practice: www.vemservice.se)

New scientific insights on Entrepreneurial Regional Innovation Systems (ERIS) in Sweden and our region! Håkan Ylinenpää (2017) The State of  Innovation in Sweden and its Regions

New evidence for the best return of investment (ROI) of public funding and support according to the DEA-model - Fine balance between knowledge building and valuecreation/transition of that knowledge! Regions with most innovative rescource combinations. Regions catching up with innovative leaders. Regions lagging behind innovative leaders.

Average change in totaltfactor productivity in Swedish regions 2002-2006 (Region Jämtland Härjedalen second from the left together with Stockholm and Gotland)

Summary & next steps how the EDP has evolved from a “one-off” process to a continuous one, to be embedded in the implementation of RIS3 strategies, including monitoring, evaluation and policy instruments. – Test and prototyping e.g. www.smice.nu, BUT more action is needed! We seek advice and support here! how to keep the momentum and stakeholders' motivation – We seek for our best facilitating role and incentives/actives to test in our region! – Help is needed, best practice etc.! Changes and innovations introduced in the "EDP" during the RIS3 implementation (as compared to the RIS3 design) – We test a strength based methodology (Appreciative Inquiry) in the www.smice.nu project, with academic partners in the US (http://www.sustainablecleveland.org/) and Mid Sweden University (MiUN)! What are the main factors influencing the sustainability of the EDP (e.g. political cycle? stakeholders commitment?) – Leadership from all levels and strong stakeholders commitment! It needs to be improved in our region. Factors? – We need practical help here from you! Challenges and reflections on the behaviour of the different actors during the EDP, in particular, the role of the SMEs. – Very positive insights and response on the ERIS-model from SME’s and www.smice.nu Next step is to explore our true comparative advantages (Simpler analysis/Bisnode), point public incentives and support towards these strengths and implement continues activities and co-creational processes, directly to our entrepreneurs/SMEs (DEA-model, Ylinenpää etal.), with less investment focus on R&D at our regional university In order to make the discussion at the workshop as efficient and useful as possible, it is important to move out of the ‘classical’ presenting mood and head towards a more concrete approach to issues that need to be faced on the ground, while establishing and implementing your strategy. For this reason it is important to define a focus of your presentation, which would act as a ‘red thread’ in your presentation. Please remember that the more linked to your presentation the questions are, the more relevant feedback you might get. By presenting the questions up front, you allow your peer critical friends to keep them in mind while you give your presentation. The questions should be repeated at the end of the presentation. Questions of a very general character can be made relevant for you specific region only if you give related information in your presentation.

Question 1: How do we (as Regional authority) continuously create value & motivate our entrepreneurs to participate in the EDP-process? Why: Innovation is about people and creation of value. Without a strong bottom-up engagement, the EDP-process will stop or get hampered. What has been done: The Region has build sufficient competence in the Interreg-project www.smice.nu, focusing on creative , open, trustful meetingplaces that connects people physically and digital in a rural/global context with circular and bioeconomy as the driving forces for development. What worked: Strong interest in community building activities from a grassroot perspective. Circular economy attracts engagement and co-creation between people, sectors, cross-business etc. What did not work: Entrepreneurs do not have the time or money to participate in non-profit actions. Digital co-creation can not replace physical meetings. This slide focuses on your question: try to formulate on this slide your answers to the following questions: What is your question/issue? Has something been done by policymakers in your region to address this issue or is it a completely new issue? If you have done something in this area, what are the things that worked well for you? If there was anything you have done to address this issue and it did not work, it would be useful for other participants to learn from your experience.

Question 2: How do we build critical mass and knowledge based on the new concepts of ERIS and the DEA-model? Why: The concept and scientific evidence behind ERIS and DEA are few and less well described in the literature and existing growth models, due to the challenge to make general models out of entrepreneurial processes in business. Knowledge about this system and its mechanisms needs to be further explored! What has been done: Empiric evidence has been analysed in Swedish regions by Håkan Ylinenpää et al. which leads proof of the DEA-approach in a Swedish context. What worked: Show that the payoff from public financing to a strong entrepreneurial community dedicated to incremental innovation processes, deliver more or equal GDP/productivity per capita/labour, well matching the outputs from large institutional driven innovative systems (IRIS) in the cities/large university structures (radical innovation) What did not work: It works! Rural peripheral regions with entrepreneurs transferring (ERIS) new knowledge into products and services (incremental innovation) can contribute equal or better than the IRIS system. This slide focuses on your question: try to formulate on this slide your answers to the following questions: What is your question/issue? Has something been done by policymakers in your region to address this issue or is it a completely new issue? If you have done something in this area, what are the things that worked well for you? If there was anything you have done to address this issue and it did not work, it would be useful for other participants to learn from your experience.

Question 3: How do we, in the best way, support the implementation of public interventions in the ERIS model? Why: It is still a very open question what and how the public support should be oriented to support incremental innovation e.g. how do public intervention best hit the entrepreneurs/individuals/doers/grassroots that are the change agents? What has been done: Traditional support and our innovation system has been build up in the Swedish/EU model to support radical innovation. We have seen only limited success with limited connections between academia and SME. We do believe that we have to build an ERIS model for our region for the next program period to come. What worked: Single support activities to entrepreneurs and SMEs outside the IRIS-system have had large impact and value creation for these SMEs and the regional growth (eg. www.vemservice.se) Now we want to put that into a continuous ERIS model. What did not work: We need to build critical mass around the ERIS model to gain momentum and support for this model both in a policy perspective and in real action throughout all rural areas in EU! This slide focuses on your question: try to formulate on this slide your answers to the following questions: What is your question/issue? Has something been done by policymakers in your region to address this issue or is it a completely new issue? If you have done something in this area, what are the things that worked well for you? If there was anything you have done to address this issue and it did not work, it would be useful for other participants to learn from your experience.