Summary objectives The background 7

3.3Methodological aspects to be improved

In KREO TN1, a great effort was made for defining a methodological approach to transfer good innovation practices including the selection, analysis and exchange steps described above.

Even if this methodology has proven to be successful, in particular considering the limited application period, the process appears incomplete. As a matter of fact, the final aim of the project should be, depending on transferability aspects, to facilitate the implementation of practices in other KREO regions.

Therefore, in KREO TN2, the effort will consist in setting-up an integrated process which is completed with one step before and one step after the three transfer phases already set in KREO TN1. The process will go from an exploratory phase aimed at identifying policy priorities and initiatives in their very early stage (which includes the identification of regional needs, definition of priorities and monitoring of new initiatives in the KREO regions and also in other areas), to the implementation of analysed and transferred good practices.

Another important aspect that has been introduced is the “sectoral dimension”. A series of sectors has been identified with the aim of finding out synergies between the regions, sectors peculiarities of selected practices, etc.

4Methodological basic elements

4.1Definitions

KREO TN1 methodology was based on a series of definitions that are also valid in KREO TN2.

First of all, it was established a general definition for an “innovation practice” that is “a method and the solutions, useful to innovate, adopted by promoters and organisers of initiatives finalised to support the creation of innovative companies”.

A “good innovation practice” includes tools, organisations, services and supporting schemes to help innovating companies.

In particular good innovation practices will be identified within the following domains:

• 
  Intermediary organisations: these represent the main vehicle for regions and countries to promote the diffusion of technology and also the development of sectors with a high technological content either generally or via specific programmes. They may work at the pre-competitive stage of technological development (non-proprietary RTD) and/or as interface between industry and the research bodies. “Intermediary” organisations act as “producers”, “pioneer-users” and “carriers” of knowledge.
  
• 
  Schemes to favour the collaboration between the research base and industry. In the framework of relations between Universities & Research Institutions with industry the following scheme types can be distinguished and classified on the basis of knowledge flows:
  

1. 
   interactions between enterprises, universities and research institutes, including joint research, co-patenting, co-publications and more informal linkages (industrial research)
   
2. 
   other innovation-supporting institutional interactions, such as innovation funding, technical training, research and engineering facilities, market services (pre-competitive development and innovation services - suitable to validate, justify and define technology implementation plans, exploitation or business plans)
   
3. 
   personnel mobility to and from universities and industry and between firms
   

• 
  Schemes to favour the setting-up of new enterprises: In particular, those schemes should be considered aiming at favouring the setting-up of New Technology Based Firms and New Science Based Firms, including schemes to raise awareness as regards entrepreneurship, schemes to support potential entrepreneurs in the starting-up and in the early stage phases.
  
• 
  Services for innovative enterprises: Those services aim at promoting innovation and technology adoption. They are of different types and are normally supported by the local government mainly where market shows failures.
  

4.2Thematic Priorities

In KREO TN1, the methodology to transfer practices was based on a series of assumptions (see section 3.1 of this document) that are still valid. In KREO TN2, partners have gone beyond through the definition of four main thematic priorities, the starting point for this definition being those good practices already identified, analysed and exchanged in KREO TN1.

A thematic workpackage has been set for each of these priorities:

• 
  WP3 - New approaches in the creation of innovative firms: user’s acceptance concept
  

WP3 aims at defining/identifying a methodology for technology platforms through the integration of the various actors (R&D, industrials, public players) operating in a specific innovating sector. This new methodology will include the definition and a first identification of key technology policies and tools.

• 
  WP 4 - Spin off mechanisms from research centres/universities
  

This theme will be focused on mechanisms that enable to reduce the research-industry exchange cycle both in terms of collaborative and co-operative approaches, taking into consideration the local framework conditions and local experiences.

• 
  WP5 - Real and virtual networks for supporting innovative companies
  

This theme is focused on the development of network models both at local and trans-regional levels. Local key players, local characteristics and needs will be taken into consideration and internet based networks will be investigated and shared, together with the relation between innovative firms start-up and growth and the development of cross regional networks. A specific focus will be on the development and implementation of sustainable networking models.

• 
  WP6 - Learning programmes for entrepreneurs
  

This theme has been chosen starting from the necessity to develop the entrepreneurship spirit in research bodies and universities. This theme also concerns the creation of networks of partners and suppliers around new entrepreneurs to guarantee the appropriate starting and “survival” of enterprises and the establishment and development of a positive “enterprise concept” at the local level.

Those thematic priorities concentrate on different stages of the enterprise creation cycle. Figure 2 shows how the 4 WPs are positioned in this cycle.

Figure 2 – Thematic priorities in the enterprise creation process