1. Economic Development Forum, Florence 27-29 March
27/03/2019
Results of the Survey for EDF Innovation City Lab
Aleksandra Olejnik and Pietro Reviglio
EUROCITIES
#EDFCities

2. General Section
Main Question: General info about Innovation strategy in your city, and preferred area of focus Suggested Reading: Local Innovation Ecosystems: Lessons learnt from local governments, EUROCITIES, Sept 2017

3. Most of the cities are committed to innovation through a specific strategy

4. Specific Open Questions:
General Section
Specific Open Questions:
Briefly list three major goals you set within the strategy (e.g. establishing innovation procurement practices)
Briefly list three major challenges you face in the implementation of the strategy

5. Major Goals Cities set for their Local Innovation Strategy
Foster (Business) Innovation through City Labs
Experiment, Test and scale-up innovative (tech) solutions into the market
Foster Innovative and sustainable solutions through (Public) Procurement
Increase the amount of (good) jobs
Use Open and Big Data in Innovative ways
Providing new forms of funding for SMEs
Build a sustainable and circular economy

6. Major Challenges Cities face in the implementation of their Local Innovation Strategy
Define the role of local action in a multilevel governance (tackle national legislations and bureaucratic procedure)
Build up a culture of innovative practices both within entrepreneurs and within local administrations ( risk aversion)
Breaking silos and creating holistic structures with long-term visions
Investments and Funding opportunities ( Infrastructure, Jobs and Skills)
Lack of clear best practices and successful models to follow

7. Section on Role of EU Tools
Main Question: How should EU tools support the future development of SIE in Cities? Suggested reading: •EUROCITIES Briefing Note ON HORIZON EUROPE: PROPOSAL FOR THE NEW RESEARCH AND INNOVATION FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME, 2018 •EUROCITIES BRIEFING NOTE ON DIGITAL EUROPE PROGRAMME, 2018 •EUROCITIES Statement on The Urban Agenda for the EU, Nov 2018 Optional: • A smart investment in people EUROCITIES position on ESF+, EUROCITIES, Oct 2018; Background Note: a place-based approach to EU industrial policy, Committee of the Regions, 2019 • Executive summary only: Territorial Agenda 2020 put in practice Enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of Cohesion Policy by a place-based approach, European Commission

8. EU Tools/Programmes are useful, but more to do on involving local stakeholders and use best-practices

9. EU Tools/Programmes help creating a more united and stronger European model

10. Section on Role of EU Tools
Specific Open Question:
Describe What EU funds/ financial instruments your city is using to boost innovation?
How would you evaluate cooperation with other cities in EU programmes?
How does your city measure the real impact of these funds/instruments for the development of economic innovation/ support to local sustainable ecosystems in your city?
List three major challenges you have faced in the implementation phase
List three ideas that could improve the design of EU Tools to better respond to cities' needs
Please list a maximum of five topics that you would like to discuss on EU Tools.

11. Key messages coming from members’ responses (1/2)
WIDE ADOPTION AND PENETRATION BUT LITTLE STABILITY: EU tools and programmes (Horizon 2020, ERDF,  ESF, ITI,UIA,Interreg) are widused by cities, with success. Cities sometimes struggle with a process as well as short project life cycle for real impact.
NOT MEASURING IMPACT IN AN INNOVATIVE WAY BY DEFAULT. Cities try to measure impact of their projects (particularly individual EU-supported projects with target goals, and in general trying to connect projects and related impact on city strategic planning) but it is not done in a consistent and holistic way.
Best-practices on how indicators and framework to measure impact of projects are often lacking or not easily accessible;
Due to the difficultly of establishing common and objective indicators, there is often resistence by city administrator into adopting particular impact assessments in their strategy ( fear of accountability);
Very often cities measure impact of their projects by focusing on spurious and simple models that look only at number of jobs created/and economic output.

12. Key messages coming from the Open Questions (2/2)
NEED TO BRIDGE INFORMATION GAPS: Lack of complete information about project requirements and goals (e.g. resources needed and benefits) remains the major challenge for cities applying for EU tools and programmes
NEED TO FOSTER COOPERATION AND CAPABILITIES AT THE LOCAL LEVEL: Lack of internal coordination between city depts and knowledge necessary for EU applications (e.g. Lack of know-how, resources and skills in EU project management) remains an equally important limit for cities.
USING EU TOOLS TO REALLY FUND INNOVATION: Very often EU tools and programmes, rather than funding innovation, are used by cities to fund investments that should be funded by cities directly (e.g. (social) infrastructure) due to current drop of public investments at local level. At the same time, innovation should not be dependent on external inputs, but should start and build-up from within.
CREATING A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR APPLICANTS AT LOCAL LEVEL: The Application process remains pretty bureaucratic, inflexible, and opportunities for capacity-bulding and mentoring programmes are not easily found at this stage; Need to involve local stakeholders in design of EU programmes and tools-good example Urban Agenda for EU.

13. TOP 5 Topics selected to be discussed
InvestEU
HorizonEurope and Mission-oriented approach
Citizens involvement/ Subsidiarity
Cohesion Policy/ MFF
Digital tools for simplification of EU Programmes/
Digital Europe

14. Section on Cooperation with Universities
Main Question: How can the cooperation between public authorities, universities, R&D institutions foster the capabilities crucial to build SIE? Suggested reading: • Making Smart Regions Smarter: Smart Specialization and the Role of Universities in Regional Innovation Ecosystems • Higher Education for Smart Specialisation A Handbook: Chapter 8: Chapter 8: Advice for regional authorities in working with Higher Education Institutions
#EDFCities

15. EU R&I programmes foster cooperation but are not always impactful for local economies

16. The majority of Cities is trying to connect education and training programmes with local business ecosystem

17. Section on Cooperation with Universities
Specific Open Question:
To what extent do you think EU programmes help to foster cooperation with Universities? Describe your city experience in this area
Outline three major challenges you are facing when trying to create an education system which fosters Sustainable Innovation Ecosystems and how do you think the European Institutions can help solve them.
Describe specific training/education programmes to boost (social) entrepreneurship in your city?
Describe how you are measuring/ or not the impact/success rate of your education/training programmes?
Please outline three challenges you face in making sure your (entrepreneurial) education programmes achieve scale and boost economic development
What kind of stakeholders are involved in the creation of education programmes aimed at boosting social, economic and ecological innovation?
do you think EU funded research impacts your city administration and local firms/companies? list three ideas that could improve that
In your opinion, is the cooperation between the city hall and university/vocational education strong enough? Is there a long term view which takes into account disruptive changes? If not, how do you think this could be overcome?
Do you think European/National education policies help you achieve your own city strategy? Please name 3 policies that could help improve that relationship
Please list a maximum of five topics that you would like to discuss on Cooperation with Universities.

18. Key messages coming from members’ responses (1/2)
AMPLIFY CITY ADMINISTRATION ROLE IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF URBAN LIVING LABS IN EU PROJECTS: Cities have the potential to become test-beds for innovative solutions, but research institutions do not always involve local stakeholders and administrators. Cities ask for research outcomes to be better communicated and also used more effectively at the local level.
BETTER COMMUNICATION AND COOPERATION WITHIN CITY ADMINISTRATION AND WITH RESEARCH ACTORS AND BUSINESSES. Actors at the local level do not communicate enough with each other, both during R&I projects (Eg. H2020), as well as following end of project cycle. This means that research agendas are not always relevant and theoretical, and when they are they are not picked up by local policy-makers or local businesses. Research communities are more centred in a dialogue at national level.
INSTITUTIONAL SET-UP DOES NOT FACILITATE CITIZENS’ INNOVATION. R&I projects at EU level sometimes can be too centred around research agendas that are too self-centred around research community. Unevenly distributed expertise in EU project bids make it hard to test citizens demands and proposals with innovative solutions. Control over resources is also unevenly distributed
CITIES ARE TRYING TO CONNECT HIGHER EDUCATION WITH LOCAL INNOVATION ECOSYSTEM AND LABOR MARKET: Some cities are successfully creating strong synergies between university, start-up and incubators (eg. Innovation Parks; Impact Hubs), trying to foster new cooperation for a stronger impact at local level.

19. Key messages coming from members’ responses (2/2)
CITIES ARE TRYING TO CONNECT HIGHER EDUCATION WITH LOCAL INNOVATION ECOSYSTEM AND LABOR MARKET: Some cities are successfully creating strong synergies between university, start-up and incubators (eg. Innovation Parks; Impact Hubs), trying to foster new cooperation for a stronger impact at local level.
EU TOOLS (Eg. H2020) SHOULD INCENTIVE UNIVERSITIES TO BREAK SILOS: A lot of local R&I institutions compete with each other and work in silos. To incentivize an holistic and innovative culture cities ask EU programmes to be designed to incentivize collaboration. To foster innovative ideas, cities would like include more students in EU projects
EU PROGRAMMES (Eg. H2020) SHOULD MAKE BETTER USE OF AND INCENTIVIZE DIGITAL TOOLS: In order to facilitate applications as well as building a European model of innovation, cities are asking for better digital communication tools (eg. MOOC; gamification) and a one-stop portal for best-practices. Cities want to be supported in the digital transition of education sector
EU PROGRAMMES SHOULD HELP TACKLE BRAIN-DRAIN FOR MEDIUM SIZED CITIES: Some medium-sized cities struggle to retain successful entrepreneurs once they reach success
CITIES CO-CREATE EDUCATION PROGRAMMES Education programmes in most of cities are a successful example of co-creation between different stakeholders at the local level
IMPACT OF EDU/TRAINING PROGRAMMES IN LOCAL ECONOMY NOT MEASURED Cities are not measuring the impact of their programmes with consistency. Major reasons are lack of expertise, frameworks,funding and competing authorities.

20. Section on Cooperation with Entrepreneurship and Start-ups
Main Question: What kind of financial, educational and participation tool can stakeholders use to facilitate the development of entrepreneurship and innovative thinking? Suggested reading: • Restart Italia! Why We have to restart from the Youth, Innovation and Start-ups • Executive summary only: Territorial Agenda 2020 put in practice Enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of Cohesion Policy by a place-based approach, European Commission
#EDFCities

21. Cities recognize (some) added value of EU programmes for local Entrepreneurship

22. Most Cities are fostering entrepreneurship by funding education and training programmes

23. Cities are trying to improve cooperation and communication among ecosystem stakeholder but still struggle to simplify and reduce administrative burdens

24. Section on Cooperation with Entrepreneurship and Start-ups
Specific Open Question:
to what extent do you think EU programmes help to foster cooperation with Entrepreneurship and Start-ups? describe your city experience in this area
Has your city created specific education/ training programmes that foster entrepreneurship and SMEs towards a sustainable economy? Describe the results
Have you created a strategy to simplify tax and administrative burdens for entrepreneurs and start-ups? Describe
Have you created (funding) tools and training programmes that foster entrepreneurship and facilitate the growth of SMEs? Describe
Have you developed specific cooperation/communication campaigns to boost relationship between higher education/students and the business world? Describe
Briefly explain how are you trying to foster innovative thinking in relation to sustainable and/or circular business models
Briefly outline three major challenges your entrepreneurs face to achieve scale and how you think the European Institutions can help solve them
List a maximum of five topics that you would like to discuss on

25. Key messages coming from members’ responses (1/2)
BUSINESS INCUBATORS AND ACCELLERATORS ARE WIDELY ADOPTED ECOYSTEM TOOLS AMONG MOST OF (BIG) CITIES : Cities are trying to foster their entrepreneurial (culture) and innovative sector by setting business incubators and related programs, with mixed successes. Business incubators seem to be less frequent (and successful) as well as more recent in medium sized cities.
MOST OF THE SIMPLIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE BURDENS IS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL. For most of cities there is little they can do to simplify administrative burdens for entrepreneurs, since it falls under the national authority. Some cities have tried to offer counseling to better “navigate” bureaucratic burdens. Dialogue with central government on this aspect remains weak.
MOST CITIES ARE STARTING TO SET-UP SPECIFIC FUNDING CALLS. Most of the cities have recently started to offer funding calls for entrepreneurs. However, funds can accommodate only a fraction of good ideas. At the same time, funding is sometimes fragmented and at different level of government.
(SOME) CITIES ARE FORMING COOPERATION WITH STUDENTS AND UNIVERSITY TO FOSTER SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS MODEL: Cities with a track-record for innovation are starting to create programs specifically aimed at fostering education, funding and trainings towards sustainable businesses and circular models.

26. Key messages coming from members’ responses (2/2)
MORE FUNDING AND NEED TO SUPPORT A STRONGER ENTREPRENEURIAL CULTURE: Most cities said that the major challenges they are facing when fostering Entrepreneurship and SMEs is access to funding, seed capital and financial tools, as well as difficulty into creating an international business culture.
MORE COOPERATION WITH NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO IMPROVE ACCESS TO AND THE DESIGN OF FINANCIAL TOOLS: Cities are asking EU Institutions to cooperate more strongly with National Governments to improve access to financial tools as well as design measures that can support local needs for entrepreneurs at the local level; but also to better define subsidiarity principles in this context
MORE GUIDELINES ON HOW TO BUILD LOCAL INNOVATION ECOSYSTEMS ARE NEEDED: Cities are asking for the availability of knowledge and best-practices around smart-solutions for local start-up (both for young and older people), successful cases of scalability for companies, how to facilitate administrative and procurement burdens at local level, and how to ensure a successful cooperation with local actors

27. Section on Cooperation with Citizenship
Main Question: How can stakeholders design a model which facilitates the co-creation and co-design of open innovation in line with the needs of the citizens? Suggested reading: •Ostrom in the City: Design Principles and Practices for the Urban Commons Optional: • The City as a Commons Papers: The founding literature and inspirational speeches: Ch.1 Recent Developments in Urban Commons Transitions
#EDFCities

28. EU Programmes are not perceived as a strong enabler for cooperation with citizenship

29. Involvement of the community in city’s economic and social projects is not always successul and/or inclusive

30. Cities believe that involvement of citizens can have a positive impact on social relations within the community

31. No legal framework to manage the commons has been established, but cities are generally open to experiment

32. Most of the cities are experimenting with participatory processes

34. Section on Cooperation with Citizenship
Specific Open Questions:
Briefly outline three key challenges for cooperation between NGOs/Associations and city administration on issues related to innovation?
Have you developed specific legal frameworks for managing common resources in a non-profit manner and for the benefit of the community?
What kind of activities, frameworks and digital tools have you developed to foster cooperation in neighbourhoods/city district?
What kind of financial and technological tools have you developed to foster citizens' initiatives?
Briefly outline the strategy you developed to foster citizens participation and volunteering? List 3 challenges and 3 opportunities
what do you think is the impact of projects that foster cooperative and social businesses on social relations of the community?
Please list a maximum of five topics that you would like to discuss on Cooperation with Citizenship.

35. Key messages coming from members’ responses (1/2)
NGOs AND CITIZENSHIP’S INITIATIVES HAVE MORE FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT WITH INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS: Cities believe that NGO’s and civic initiative can complement local administrations role when it comes to testing innovative solutions, without the fear of risks and liabilities that are often stopping local authorities from innovating.
CREATING SUCCESSFUL LEGAL AND COOPERATION FRAMEWORKS REMAIN A CHALLENGE CO-DESIGN AND CO-MANAGEMENT OF INNOVATIVE PARTNERSHIPS. Cities say that creative innovative partnerships with citizens is often undermined by a lack of clear legal and cooperation frameworks that are commonly agreed and used with ease by city administrators. There is a will to understand how to use public procurement innovatively in these partnerships.
STABLE FUNDING REMAINS A MAJOR PROBLEM TO CREATE PARTNERSHIP WITH CITIZENSHIP. Most of the cities are not extending resources in a systematic way, and there is often a lack of will and clear intent fro city administration. Often cooperation change from one administration to the other. Partnerships rely too much on volunteers actions and not on stable management. A lack of a national framework is often another stopping factor.
VERY FEW CITIES ARE EXPERIMENTING WITH THE COMMONS BUT WILL IS THERE: Not many cities are experiment with innovative way of managing common resources at the local level, but the majority is willing to experiment if resources and successful frameworks are put in place. Some are experiment on city administration as enabler for social innovation ( rather than simply service provider).

36. Key messages coming from members’ responses (2/2)
CITIES ARE EXPERIMENTING WITH DIFFERENT DIGITAL PLATFORMS TO ENGAGE CITIZENS ACTIVISM: Most of cities are using digital online tools and solutions to engage citizens into participating in consultations for decisions at the local level. At the same time, digital online tools are also used to develop offline engagement, particularly at neighbourhood and community level.
PARTICIPATORY BUDGET IS THE MOST COMMON PRACTICE FOR CITIZENS ENGAGEMENT. When asked about support to citizens initiative local administrators respond that they are setting aside part of the budget to be spent on the basis of people’s preference
SOME CITIES ARE INTERESTED INTO LEARNING HOW TO ATTRACT PARTICIPANTS FROM DIFFERENT BACKGROUND IN PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE Some cities understand that not all the age groups and levels of income are involved in their citizens’ initiative and are looking for best-practices on how to bridge this involvement and knowledge gap with both digital and physical solutions

37. Section on Cooperation with technological sector
Main Question: How can the technological sector (Civic-tech, Industry 4.0, Software developers) can contribute to a local innovation ecosystem that builds on the cities’ cultural, human and economic assets Suggested reading: • NESTA Policy Brief: “How can the technological sector ( Civic-tech, Industry 4.0, Software developers) contribute to a local innovation ecosystem” • Beyond Technology: Identifying Local Government Challenges for Using Digital Platforms for Citizen Engagement • Data driven disruptive commons based model: Conclusion: from platform capitalism to commons-based models. Proposals for a transition project Optional: • INNOVATION TEAMS AND LABS A Practice Guide: Section A • EUROCITIES BRIEFING NOTE ON DIGITAL EUROPE PROGRAMME, 2018
#EDFCities

40. Section on Cooperation with technological sector
Specific Open Question:
to what extent do you think EU programmes help to foster cooperation with the technological sector?
Which multi-stakeholder cooperation strategies can be implemented on a local scale to foster technological innovation (digital marketing, big data, machine learning, artificial intelligence) ?
How can local authorities intervene to address the regulation and the architecture of these emergent technologies? How can we face the broader ethical and social implications of urban technological interventions?
Have you experimented with alternatives economic models for the platform/collaborative economy (e.g. digital local social networks)?
Which EU projects/programmes have expressed solutions capable of combining technological innovation, sustainable development of cities/neighbourhoods and an open and shared decision-making process, and how can we guarantee that these are in sync with the goal of making cities more liveable? (e.g. Solution Labs, Innovation Labs)
Briefly explain how are you using new innovative technologies/govtech and/or behavioural sciences in your city to foster a sustainable and circular economy
Which process and product tech innovations can be used to foster local democracy and citizens participation in local decision-making? (e.g. Digital Participatory Budgeting )
Please list five topics that you would like to discuss on Cooperation with the Technological sector. These should be targeted to the EU Institutions

41. Key messages coming from members’ responses
Challenge in context of looking/using funding support from EU for development technologies in many cases much easier way is to cooperate with the private sector.
There is a need for stronger support to cooperate between universities, large companies and start- ups at an early stage.
Important to have from city perspective test beds, opening of city assets/services/data as platforms for innovation, pre-commercial procurement, joint r&d projects or other examples.

42. Key messages coming from members’ responses
Need for investment and institutional support to exchange amongst the cities and other stakeholders in the context of data management ( e.g. open data).
Need the support for collecting examples and exchange practices on standards ethics, innovative procurement.
More and clearer focus on digital inclusion e.g. ensuring the most deprived neighbourhoods get full fibre connectivity and the most vulnerable to automation get access to digital skills training.

43. TOP 5 Topics selected to be discussed
1. Possibilities and challenges within managing the GDPR and suppliers from countries who do not have the same judicial or cultural approach to data sensitivity.
2. How to get the products and services we actually need and should prioritize, and not buy the products with the good sales pitches.
3. How to use Lean Startup, Design Thinking and other methodologies to streamline and better our innovation processes?
4. How much technological knowledge should the municipality have to really understand the impact of digitalization, industry 4.0 and growth of artificial intelligence? How can we get a good quality input about these global trends to take better decisions?
5. What should be the role of the municipality in the innovation eco system when technology is designed. How can EU help us be more competitive and collaborate with other EU cities to become mutually stronger in a more globalized and digitized world?

44. Q&A