Kreo tn2 Karlsruhe, Rhône Alpes, Emilia-Romagna and Oxfordshire Thematic Network for the Support of Innovative Companies

3Methodology

The methodology adopted for the present study is based on the one developed by the KREO network as for the collection and organisation of information on the regional frameworks and the good practices.

With reference to the definition of the regional frameworks and the gathering of quantitative information, a set of indicators has been defined, the basis of this being the European Innovation Scoreboard. Information taken into consideration has been structured according to the following categories:

• 
  Human resources;
  
• 
  Creation, transmission and diffusion of knowledge;
  
• 
  Innovation performance of the region.
  

In addition to those coming from the European Innovation Scoreboard, other relevant indicators have been considered as they provide additional information on the regions, in particular:

• 
  General background: area dimension, population, main macro-economic indicators;
  
• 
  Employment in medium and high-tech sectors.
  

As for the data management, the following basic principles have been applied:

• 
  Source of data is particularly important, therefore: official sources have always been used; when available the same sources have been used for all regions; sources have always been mentioned.
  
• 
  Geographic dimension of the data: data have been collected for the four regions (TechnologieRegion Karlsruhe and Pforzheim, Rhone-Alpes, Emilia-Romagna and Oxfordshire). Data relating to the nearest geographic dimension have been used (e.g. data for Karlsruhe and South East England region).
  
• 
  For data comparison, the same years have been used when possible, if not different years have been mentioned.
  

In addition to the quantitative indicators, information on the “regional innovation systems” have been considered, including physical and non physical resources, organised according to the following macro-categories:

1. 
   Higher education and research
   
2. 
   Innovation support infrastructures, including science parks, technology transfer and service centres, incubating facilities and industry-research platforms
   
3. 
   Measures and programmes supporting business start up companies
   
4. 
   Spin-off financing
   

A common framework for structuring this set of information has been defined and used by the partners, a comparison for each category has been made, thus finding out main similarities, differences and indications on successful solutions possibly replicable. For each section results of comparison and comments are followed by a set of original information, provided by KREO partners, including some details on the items taken into consideration. Additional information is available within the Regional Frameworks on Innovation and Measures for Supporting Innovative start ups. ⁵

As for the good practices identification, selection and analysis, a common format has been defined and used by the KREO partners.

The identification of the practices has been made in relation to the four thematic areas of the project (1. New approaches in the creation of innovative firms; 2. Research centres and Universities spin-off mechanisms; 3. Real and virtual network for supporting innovative companies; 4. Learning programmes for entrepreneurship), and they have been selected according to partner regions’ priorities and needs, as well as their relevance for the partners.

The analysis has been made through an ad hoc questionnaire that includes the following main sections:

• 
  Description of the practice including indications on the problem/weakness tackled by the practice, its level of maturity, main objectives, achieved results, partnership involved and users
  
• 
  Sectoral focus of the practice
  
• 
  Tools developed within the practice including their specific working mechanisms
  
• 
  Financial and human resources
  
• 
  Development of the practice over time
  
• 
  Monitoring and evaluation activity, including tools and indicators applied
  
• 
  Success factors and problems encountered during the implementation
  

The good practices thus selected and analysed represent the knowledge base of KREO network and the starting point of the following learning process based on exchanges and experience sharing.

Both practices already analysed (within KREO 1 or 2) and others of potential interest for the various regions (that may be analysed in 2004 and 2005), have been mapped according to the four thematic workpackages and within one or more of 9 specific topics representing the various elements of an ideal support scheme for innovative start up creation and development.

4About KREO regions: main figures

A series of data has been collected for all four regions. It has to be highlighted that, for comparison purposes, the same data sources have been used for the four regions, namely EUROSTAT REGIO database and 2003 European Innovation Scoreboard.

As regards the area of Oxfordshire, on the REGIO database there was a lack of information at the county level, therefore the data collected refers to the larger area dimension of South East England region.

Similarly, data collected for the TechnologieRegion Karlsruhe and Pforzheim is related to the closest regional dimension i.e. Karlsruhe region.

As for the Rhône-Alpes region, collected data are related to the whole regional dimension whereas the situation of Lyon and Grenoble is quite different as they represent the two performing poles of the region as regards wealth and business concentration, research activity and the starting-up of new businesses.

4.1Background data

Table 1 – Background data of the KREO regions

AREA BACKGROUND	Unit	Data Source	Year	de12 Karlsruhe	Fr71 Rhône-Alpes	it4 Emilia-Romagna	ukj South East	Oxfordshire^6
SPACE
Geographic area	km2	EUROSTAT	2002	2,235.37	43,698.1	22,124.4	19,110.7	NA
POPULATION & EMPLOYMENT
Total population	1000 inhabitants	EUROSTAT	2000	2,676.3	5,677.2	3,981.1	8,095.9	632.0
Active population	1000 people	EUROSTAT	2001	1,286.1	2,541.3	1,840.2	4,262.4	NA
Unemployment ratio (%)	%	EUROSTAT	2001	4.7	7.0	4.6	2.2	NA
ECONOMIC INDICATORS
GDP per capita	EURO	EUROSTAT	2000	29,171.9	23,925.0	25,678.9	28,759.8	NA
GDP Purchasing Power Standard per inhabitant	EURO	EUROSTAT	2000	28,118.9	23,224.1	30,038.5	24,844.3	NA
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Number of local units^7		Our processing on Eurostat data	1999	9,068	216,810.0	339,632.0	381,200.0^8	3,060.0
Number of local units/inhabitant		Our processing on Eurostat data	1999	around 0.003	around 0.04	around 0.08	around 0.05	around 0.005

The four considered regions widely differ in terms of dimension both as regards their surface and the size of their population and active population.

With 2,235.37 Km², Karlsruhe represents the smallest regional dimension with a population of around 2.7 million inhabitants showing a particularly high density of around 1,200 persons per Km².

South East England has a surface of 19,110.7 Km² and the largest population in the four areas (more than 8.0 million inhabitants) showing a high demographic density (around 423 inhabitants per Km²).

Emilia-Romagna has a surface of 22,124.4 Km² with a population of 3.981 million inhabitants showing a demographic density of about 180 inhabitants per Km².

Rhone-Alpes is the widest region as regards both surface (43,690 Km²) and population (5,7 million inhabitants), with a density of 130 inhabitants per Km².

As regards employment indicators, South East England shows one the lowest unemployment ratio in Europe (2.2% of active population that is of 4.2624 million people) followed by Emilia-Romagna (4.6% of active population that is of 1.8402 million people), Karlsruhe (4.7% of an active population counting 1,286.1 million people) whereas, in Rhone-Alpes, the unemployment rate is the highest of the four regions (7% of an active population of 2,541.3 million people).

As regards economic performances, data on GDP per capita have been collected for the four regions. All four regions show a GDP per capita much higher than EU average (equal to 22,603 EUR in 2000), even if there are large differences between the regions. Karlsruhe appears first ranked with 29,171.9 EUR per capita in 2000, followed by South East England with 28,759.8 EUR per capita, Emilia-Romagna with 25,678.9 EUR and Rhone-Alpes with 23,925.0 EUR per inhabitant. It also appears interesting to observe what was the GDP at Purchasing Power Standard per inhabitant as, being the GDP in national currency deflated to consider life cost in each region, it gives a fairer view of the situation. As regards this particular indicator, Emilia-Romagna ranks first whereas, in this case, Karlsruhe is second, South East England is third and Rhone-Alpes fourth.

As regards information on entrepreneurship in the regions, the available data concerning the number of enterprises for Karlsruhe, Emilia-Romagna and Rhone-Alpes was related to local units present in a number of economic sectors that may only provide a general idea of entrepreneurship dynamism in the regions. Specific data for the manufacturing sector has also been collected and compared to the global information on presence of local units.

As regards the presence of businesses in the regions, South East England shows the major presence of local units (around 381,200 are based in the region) but, if compared to the dimension of regional population, proportion of this presence (0.05 local units per inhabitants i.e. one every 21 inhabitants) is lower if compared to Emilia-Romagna. Indeed, Emilia-Romagna appears to be the region with the major presence of local units per inhabitants (339,632 in total are based in the region i.e. around 0.08 per inhabitant corresponding to about one every 11 inhabitants), followed by Rhone-Alpes (216,810.0 local units in the region i.e. around 0.04 per inhabitant corresponding to 1 unit every 26 inhabitants), whereas, in Karlsruhe there are 9,068.0 local units which corresponds to 0.003 units per inhabitant. If observing the specific situation of entrepreneurship in Oxfordshire, being a largely rural county, it can be noted that it is very different from the one observed in the South East region with its 0,005 enterprises per inhabitant, while it is quite similar to the one observed in Karlsruhe.

After this general view of the KREO network’s regions as regards general context indicators, it is now important to observe the situation as far as innovation is concerned.