Recommendations for the RIS3 assessment methodology

Based on the analysis, we have shown that, as a tool, the RIS3 Assessment Wheel needs to be adjusted to suit the specific situation of E&N countries. The RIS3 wheel was originally designed to assess the quality of S3 strategies in EU countries and regions. The context in E&N countries requires redefinition of the focuses that are critical for a viable S3 process. As this work is outside the scope of this report, we outline here only directions in which such revisions should go, but which stay within the existing RIS3 assessment framework.

Analysis of regional/national context should be much more focused on non-R&D drivers of growth and should be based on indicators that are more appropriate to E&N economies. The available local competence and perspective sectors need to be identified more systematically, and based on solid analysis. In addition to R&D indicators the analysis should be more firmly based on indicators that reflect potential and strengths, such as value added per sector, employment per sector, productivity, exports, etc. Together with scientific indicators, such as publication output and patent output, it is important to analyse production capability and indicators such as ISO certificates, trademarks,

different industry-specific certification indicators and industry-specific skills certificates. These should be supplemented by analysis of trade indicators such as export unit prices, changes in structure and sophistication of export and import products and services. For some major sectors of the economy, analysis should indicate upgrading pathways.

The outward dimension of the strategy should give a rough picture of the scale and modes of international trade, FDI and global value chain integration. Where possible, countries should utilise data on trade in value added.

The assessment of entrepreneurial dynamics over and above the typical analysis of the number of innovative firms per sector would need to address the obstacles to growth faced by small firms and the lack of the infrastructural preconditions needed for their growth (e.g. lack of incubators, start-up support, etc.). It should assess if there are links between large and small domestic firms and should assess the entrepreneurial dynamics of large firms (entry, exit, mergers and acquisitions, innovation and R&D activities, and export orientation).

The governance dimension should focus on assessment of policy capabilities and on the appropriateness of innovation policy governance structures. This refers to the existence or otherwise of coordinating bodies, platforms or forums and of innovation support agencies and measures. In the last decade some E&N countries have been exposed to political and military tensions that have had an impact on long-term policy commitments and reforms. The presence of a politically stable government is crucial for good governance and economic development.

In addition, the assessment of policy capabilities should go beyond innovation policy capabilities and governance but also assess linkages with other policies, such as SME support or promotion of FDI. For example, in the case of FDI policy it is important that investment promotion agencies are able to identify suitable inward investment projects addressing strategic needs and attract high value-added FDI. It is also important to evaluate whether investment, innovation or industrial policies are suitable to address the technological upgrading needed to attract foreign capital.

Assessment of the governance structures should extend beyond domestic innovation policy and assess which bodies and stakeholders are involved in FDI and activities promoting the global value chain. What opportunities are available for domestic firms and industrial or business associations to shape the promotion of linkages with international companies? How do domestic policies promote internationalisation of domestic firms? Do the existing governance structures support such an internationalisation?

The governance dimension should also assess whether industries and sectors are self-organised into clusters, association or networks and whether they are directed outwards or inwards.

Consequently, the beyond-R&D approach in the first two sections of the RIS3 Assessment Wheel should be followed in the next steps, which address the issue of shared vision, identification of priorities, policy mix and M&E.

Shared vision should focus on a view of innovation that covers a range of activities including productivity improvements, skills and training, user-oriented innovation, local problem-solving capabilities through social innovation and obstacles to the development of such capabilities in business and non-business sectors.

Identification of priorities should extend beyond R&D into prioritisation of all activities that drive growth, productivity and structural change. In prioritisation, E&N countries should also consider the revitalisation of traditional industries (e.g. agro-food, light industry, construction, etc.) with cross-sectoral innovation, ICTs or key enabling technologies (KETs) and technology-upgrading services.

Often high-tech sectors have not reached the critical mass required to bring about the desired structural change to the economy. Therefore, intersectoral and international partnerships in creating and applying knowledge, technologies and innovation can help to modernise traditional sectors with knowledge-driven potential. Priorities should be assessed from the perspective of their consistency or alignment with needs of specific sectors and industries as well as from the perspective of critical mass of entities.

Policy mix should go beyond the conventional portfolio of instruments focused around funding R&D or innovation projects and should extend to instruments that can help firms to identify needs and find appropriate technological solutions or identify and provide solutions through targeted assistance. The support package for priority sectors besides traditional support measures for R&I should consider including: technology extension services, such as assistance to firms to improve productivity and quality; compliance and metrology services, testing and quality control; support to domestic and ISO standards compliance; technical assistance supporting energy efficiency;

technology demonstration centres. The policy mix should include appropriate technology support services that underpin a country’s ability to innovate and export.

Finally, M&E should be more broadly considered and should go beyond M&E of S3-supported activities. Assessment and evaluations should address effectiveness of public support to (1) institutes and groups, including university and research departments, teams and laboratories; (2) institutions and operators, including public research organisations and universities; (3) teaching programmes and procedures; and (4) R&I systems as a whole, including technical infrastructure organisations (innovation, productivity centres, metrology and standardisation services organisations, etc.). The underlying rationale for this approach is that M&E should be considered a part of the public management modernisation agenda and should be introduced with the help of international organisations and other countries.