Summary objectives The background 7

ANNEX 3

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE IDENTICATION AND ANALYSIS OF GOOD PRACTICES

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE SELECTION AND ANALYSIS
OF GOOD PRACTICES
This document aims at collecting information on good practices regarding the creation of innovative companies that the KREO partners wish to analyse and transfer to the other partner regions. The questionnaire should be completed concisely, but as in-depth as possible, indicating where questions are not relevant for the practice being analysed and adding further information that are deemed to be relevant and supporting documentation (e.g. technical and promotional material).

1. General information (publishable)

Name of the practice

Please indicate or attribute a name for the selected practice.

Organisation/s carrying out the practice

Please indicate the name/s of the organisation/s that carry out the practice, possibly including links for further information, e.g. their web site.

Contact person/s

Please indicate also contact details, i.e. address, tel. and fax numbers, e-mail.

Classification according to the KREO TN2 priorities

How can the practice be classified according to KREO TN2 priorities? Please tick appropriate priorities, more than one tick is possible.

New approach in the creation of innovative firms
Research centres & university spin-off mechanisms
Real and virtual Networks for supporting innovative companies
Learning programme for entrepreneurs

Classification according to PAXIS Priority Action Lines

How can the practice be classified according to PAXIS Priority Action Lines? Please tick appropriate priorities, more than one tick is possible.

Incubation models
Academic spin-offs
Entrepreneurial training
Start-ups internationalisation
Start-up finance
Infrastructure support
Networks of actors
Awareness raising
Exploitation of research results
Regional innovative capacity
Political awareness

2. Brief description of the practice (publishable)

Problem/weakness tackled by the practice

What needs does the practice respond to? What problems does the practice enable to solve? Please indicate context information as appropriate.

Brief description of the practice

Please briefly describe the practice, bearing in mind that this description will be used for publication and therefore needs to be concise – 1 A4 page max – but should briefly include all relevant information. In particular, it needs to include the following information:

2.2.1. A general definition of the practice

2.2.2. Its time-span

What is the date of creation and time-life of the practice?

2.2.3. Its main objectives
2.2.4. Its achieved results

Please highlight results achieved by the practice, both qualitative and quantitative.

3. Detailed description of the practice (for internal use)

Partnership

Was the practice set up by a single organisation or by a group of partners?

If by a group of partners, please provide a list of the partners involved and for each partner please provide a brief description, including:

• 
  Legal status (public, private, mixed, association, foundation, etc.)
  
• 
  Main activities and sector of application
  
• 
  Contact details (e.g. web site)
  
• 
  Role in the practice
  

Formalisation of the partnership

If a formalisation of the partnership has been made, please indicate when it took place, what is its form (e.g. consortium agreement, association, company etc.), the legal status if appropriate and the reason for choosing this particular formalisation.

Target group

What is the target group/customers of the practice (tick as appropriate)?

Existing firms (not in early stage)
Early stage companies
Individuals:
Researchers
Students
Other individuals (specify) _____________________________________
Research centres
Universities and other higher education institutions
Others (specify) _____________________________________

Sectoral focus of the practice

Does the practice applies to a specific sector? If so, which one is it?

Process/phases of the practice

Please describe in detail the working mechanism of the practice with its different activities or steps.

Tools

Have specific tools been developed in the framework of the practice (i.e. guidebooks, lectures/seminars, websites, newsletters, software, etc)? If so, please describe:

Resources

3.7.1. Financial resources

What are the financial resources necessary for the realisation of the practice? As applicable, please specify:

• 
  Overall amount
  
• 
  Origin of the financing for each phase, including in particular the % of public and private funding and origin organisation/s
  
• 
  Whether (and how) the service is paid by customers
  
• 
  What resources (in terms of amount and origin) finance the different phases of the practice (e.g. constitution versus implementation)
  
• 
  Nature of resources: in cash (please indicate amounts) versus “in kind” (infrastructure or personnel put at disposal by one of the partner or thirds)
  

3.7.2. Human resources

Please provide information on number of persons working in the practice – considering a full time basis – and on their background (e.g. 5 employees with legal and economic background and 2 consultants experts in business administration in the biomed sector)

Has the practice been adapted/modified during its life-time? Why?

Is the practice unique at the regional level or are there other similar practices, in terms of objective and/or organisational structure? In case other similar practices exist, please list them and provide a short definition.

How does the practice fit in the regional system? Is it formally or informally linked to other practices existing in the region? If yes, please list the other practices, provide a short definition of each of them and a short description of the kind of link.

4. DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES ACCORDING TO SELECTED YARDSTICKS

Four different yardsticks have been identified in order to benchmark the selected practices, these being considered as the most relevant elements in the transfer process.

YARDSTICK 1: Interface

• 
  Does the practice favour the development of relations between research bodies, higher education institutions and enterprises?
  
• 
  How is the interface favoured?
  
• 
  In what way does the practice respond to the needs expressed by research and enterprises and how are these needs surveyed?
  
• 
  What are the most innovative aspects of the interface component of the practice?
  

4.2 YARDSTICK 2: Involvement of beneficiary companies

• 
  Are beneficiary companies involved and how?
  
• 
  How are the needs of beneficiaries of the practice (start-ups, potential entrepreneurs, etc.) revealed?
  
• 
  What is the method used to identify interested beneficiaries and to contact them?
  
• 
  How is customer satisfaction measured?
  
• 
  How many beneficiaries are involved in the practice?
  
• 
  What are the most innovative aspects in the involvement of beneficiaries?
  

4.3 YARDSTICK 3: Financial sustainability

• 
  At the moment, is the practice financially self-sustainable?
  
• 
  Is self-sustainability a priority
  
• 
  If self-sustainability is envisaged in the near future, what actions are to be undertaken?
  
• 
  What budget percentage is covered by income coming from beneficiaries, if any (e.g. sale of services to companies, universities etc.)?
  
• 
  Are there any particularly successful experience in fund raising that can be highlighted?
  

4.4 YARDSTICK 4: Repeatability

• 
  Is the practice repeatable in other geographic areas and socio-economic conditions?
  
• 
  What pre-existing conditions must be present to enable the practice to be developed in other contexts?
  
• 
  Is the practice repeatable in other sectors or fields?
  
• 
  Has the practice already been repeated? Please provide information.
  

5. Monitoring and evaluation

Ways of monitoring and evaluation

Are monitoring and evaluation achieved internally or externally? When is assessment realised?

Assessment methods and tools

What monitoring and assessment methods and tools are used?

Indicators

What are the quantitative and qualitative indicators that have been chosen to assess the practice?

Has the practice been adapted as a consequence of assessment results?

6. Success factors and problems encountered

Excellence of the practice

Why has this practice selected as a “best practices”? What makes it be so?

Success factors

What are the factors that have been critical for the success of the practice? If there are any, describe and quantify positive externalities (i.e. favourable effects on local community, not valuable as money revenues) since the practice has been developed ?

Major problems raised during the development of the practice

Were problems encountered during the development of the practice? How were they solved? Please refer to:

• 
  The starting phase of the practice
  

• 
  The development phase of the practice
  

Possible future development

Have further development to the practice been planned?

ANNEX 4

VISITING SCHEMES

With reference to the tools defined for carrying out the analysis-transfer-implementation activity foreseen by the project, visiting schemes resulted to be particularly relevant as for the analysis, but above all the transfer of good practices among the partner regions. In particular the specific methodology used for planning, implementing and following up the visiting schemes foresees the main steps described here-below.

a) identification of the thematic focus of the study visit

Each study visit has a specific thematic focus, that may include one or more topics of common interest for two or more KREO partners. This focus is defined before starting the organisational process and is based on needs and requests expressed by KREO partners and their local actors.

b) elaboration of the first draft of the programme and circulation to the partners

The hosting region elaborates a first draft programme of the study visit on the basis of the good practices and experiences existing at the regional/local level and of the availability of local actors in being involved in and contribute to KREO activities. The first draft is circulated to all partners who are asked to check the programme with local partners and provide a feedback on it.

c) promotion of the study visit at the local level and first involvement of local partners

Each visiting partner receives the first draft programme and proposes it to the local partners in order to verify their interest and their possible participation to the study visit. This activity foresees the establishment of direct contacts with local partners and possibly the organisation of visits to or meetings with potential participants. Supporting documents presenting the experiences included in the programme are extremely relevant in this phase. Typically good practices questionnaires, leaflets, information collected from the web and any other relevant information can be taken into consideration and proposed to local partners to be involved. Thanks to this pre-information, the potential participants can better take a decision and, in case of a positive one, they can prepare appropriately their participation and contribution to the study visit. A good knowledge, by the KREO partners, of both the local actors and the practices and experiences of the hosting region is particularly important and allows a better preparation of the visit, making it more fruitful for everybody.

d) feedback to the hosting partner on the first draft and retuning of the programme

On the basis of the feedback provided by each partner the final programme is elaborated by the hosting partner and circulated to the others.

e) circulation of the final programme to local partners and their involvement

Local partners are invited to participate to the study visit on the basis of the final programme and further details are provided upon request. The KREO partners offer also information and support to local partners as for logistic aspects and practical issues related to their participation.

g) organisation of the study visit

While the hosting partner take care of the organisation of the visit and of the meetings in its region, including the preparation of supporting documents to be distributed during the visit, the visiting partners support the participation of the local area partners, providing advices on all aspects related to the visit, including logistics.

h) realization of the study visit

Usually the study visit lasts from two to three days including travel, and foresees three to four meetings/visits per day. In addition to the presentations (of structures, schemes, practices and experiences) dialogue and exchange is stimulated and supported by KREO partners, who act as facilitators of the information and knowledge transfer among regions’ representatives. The role of KREO partners is very important as they contribute to highlight significant aspects that may be of interest of their local partners, help the discussion and get information on relevant issues that may be further discussed and focused at the local level. The active presence of KREO partners is also functional to the possible future development of implementation exercises, as further step foreseen by the KREO methodology. A de-briefing is usually carried out by KREO partners at the end of the study visit, in order to plan subsequent steps and follow up.

i) follow up

The follow up of the study visit is carried out at the local level in order to collect comments and expression of interests coming both from the local partners and at the network level. There may be the need to get further information and define future steps for facilitating transfer/implementation actions, and it can be necessary to verify the availability of relevant local partners to consider possible collaborations with interested foreign partners and to continue to participate and contribute to project activities. The success of the follow up actions is based on the quality and efficiency of previous activities that facilitate an active participation of local partners, and on the capacity of KREO partners to understand real interests and needs and provide quick and tailored answers.