East Midlands Generic Innovation Study Meirion Thomas & Dylan Henderson Workshop Presentation 23rd March 2010

1. East Midlands Generic Innovation StudyMeirion Thomas & Dylan HendersonWorkshop Presentation 23rd March 2010

2. Outline • Introduction • Study objectives • Current sub-regional innovation assets • Comparative practices • Issues and key principles • Options for delivery considered • A potential way forward

3. Objectives of the study • Review sub-regional and local innovation centres and programmes • Categorise the support services on offer, review other innovation support models • Produce a range of options for regional support to coordinate a framework for delivering generic innovation support

4. Current provision features • There are a wide range of innovation physical assets spread across the region: • Innovation centres • Incubators • Science parks + Innovation programmes • Sub-regional innovation support is provided at varying intensity • The key focus is on accommodation, networking and signposting etc. • Levels of specialist innovation advice and guidance are variable and limited • Provision ranges from Solutions to Business compliant innovation advice to onsite general business advice • The coordinated approach to assets and innovation support is under developed • Largely developed on an hoc basis, with some emerging models (e.g. Innovation Lincolnshire)

5. Current provision mapping

6. Comparative practices • Regions typically establish generic and specific innovation supports • Including sector specific networks or innovation centres, through to sector neutral R&D grants • Business Link has an important role in delivering generic innovation advice across England • E.g. Solutions for Business ‘Innovation Advisory Services’ • Growing focus on sub regional support for innovation • South East Innovation and East of England have both sought to create local innovation networks around physical innovation infrastructure • Networking innovation centres / incubators • Incubator strategies have been used as a vehicle to target investment raise standards and encourage development of competencies

7. Issues to consider for a generic innovation service CONTENT DELIVERY QUALITY

8. Issues for a generic service: Content • Innovation advice • Good practices suggest a range of possible delivery models with varying specialisms, e.g. Solutions for Business Innovation Advice and Guidance provides one such model • Existing regional and sub-regional advice sources are an opportunity to build up a body of content e.g. Business Link, iNets, innovation programmes etc… • There is also a wealth of innovation advice materials and tools generally available – notably through open access web resources • Knowledge base links • Knowledge base links are typically a core area of innovation support – although often sectoral or technology focused • A range of intermediaries are active in supporting such links in the East Midlands, including HEIs • There are also existing ‘generic’ regional products in place such as KTPs • Innovation funding • This is the key to addressing market failure in R&D investment • A range of existing products operate in the East Midlands such as the Grant for R&D, Collaborative R&D etc that can provide a generic focus

9. Networks • ‘Companies learn best from each other’ - networks provide opportunities for companies to interact, exchange knowledge, and working in partnership to innovate • iNets are the core innovation networks alongside a range of university innovation networks, programmes; plus coordinating networks such as Innovation Lincolnshire • Incubators and managed workspace often have a programme of business / innovation events that have many features of innovation networks • Signposting • Signposting is a vital key feature of ‘no wrong door’ approaches and every piece of business and innovation infrastructure and programmes should have a generic signposting capability • East Midlands currently has different models in place with Business Link as the core, Innovation East Midlands Innovation portal, as well as other sources of sub-regional information / websites • Vital that common or compatible signposting routes or mechanisms are used

10. Issues for a generic service: Delivery routes • Physical nodes • A physical presence can give a prominent focus / beacon for innovation support across the region • There is already widespread provision across the East Midlands region … but only limited integration and variable standards / intensity of innovation support • Programmes • Programmes take the focus beyond physical nodes and can provide a coordinated response to innovation needs • There are prominent examples in the East Midlands such as Innovation Lincolnshire • Virtual nodes • Online portals can complement physical innovation assets, providing complementary signposting and access to support remotely, e.g. NW Innovation Matrix • Portals can also increase the range of innovation support tools and materials that companies can access • East Midlands Innovation is a well established brand in the region • Networks • Good practices point to UK regions seeking to build innovation networks around infrastructure investments (e.g. NE Innovation Connectors, EEDA Enterprise Hubs, SEEDA IGTs) • Examples are in place in the East Midlands…

11. Issues for a generic service: Quality • Materials • Access to appropriate materials will be a key underpinning feature of a generic service • Ensuring quality is the key issue here. - who defines? and who monitors? • Advisors • East Midlands companies have potential access to a wide and range of advisors, but these probably have variable levels of innovation expertise and specialism • Accrediting advisors is probably neither desirable nor feasible…therefore a competency framework approach is a potential development model • Competency must be supported by training and CPD that is accessible • Gatekeepers • Business Link is a crucial gateway, but has only limited innovation expertise while the iNets are also important gatekeepers but have a sectoral focus • Gatekeepers need to be ‘signed up’ to the overall model of delivery and the quality of the support • Awareness of the innovation support available within the system needs to be enhanced

12. A segmentation of innovation support services Available through a limited number of assets and programmes Low volume : High intensity Frequently “outsourced” Available where an asset or a programme is well embedded Potentially high volume but limited control over intensity or quality of support Typically available through all assets and via all programmes High volume : Low intensity

13. Key principles underpinning generic innovation supports SERVICE DELIVERY Information:Universal access and provision Signposting: “No wrong door” Networking: Well informed and high quality Maximising use of existing networks Advice: Direct delivery where possible SERVICE CONTENT Information:High quality, consistent and accessible Signposting:Consistent and accessible referral routes Networks: Networks that are “appropriate” to their members Allows “talking together” not “talked at” Advice: High quality interventions from high quality advisors Solutions for Business standard Offering practical routes to innovation funding

14. Delivery options considered • ‘Hands on’ emda funds and delivers an innovation advisory service either directly or through business link • ‘Hands off’ emda supports generic innovation through a portal (e.g. East Midlands Innovation) focusing on providing information, access to tools, signposting and promotion of innovation • ‘Hand to hand emda works with partners to create a strategic delivery framework and determine the best way to build content, quality and delivery

15. Options 1 – ‘Hand’s on’ Outline • emda establishes and manages an innovation support and guidance service • Delivered through Business Link or directly by employment of a team of innovation advisors • The generic service will be available to all companies / sectors outside priority sectors • emda sets the quality and delivery standards with partners and physical asset ‘owners’ to ensure delivery nodes throughout the region Pros A potential instant solution to front end advisory services and referrals Clear responsibility for content, quality and delivery Flexibility to respond to demand across the region Cons Probably beyond emda’s budgetary capabilities at present Effectively minimises the role and influence of regional and local partners Poor prospects for long term sustainability

16. Option 2 – ‘Hand’s off’ Outline • emda channels it efforts through a robust online portal • Built around the East Midlands Innovation portal with enhanced signposting • Provides access to a wide range of innovation materials and tools – from within region and outside • emda reacts to enquiries received by the portal and refers on to appropriate providers • No ‘on-the-ground’ resources employed Pros Builds on existing innovation portal / brand Responds to budget limitations Clear responsibility for content, quality and delivery Cons Of limited strategic focus and does not offer face-to-face advice Minimises the role and influence of regional and local partners Poor prospects for long term sustainability emda may lose control over liability issues and the ability to respond to complaints

17. Option 3 – ‘Hand to hand’ Outline • emda works with local authorities/partners to create a strategic delivery framework • A ‘delivery board’ established to ensure that content, quality and delivery routes meet required standards • Competency frameworks developed to allow advisors and innovation assets to develop greater capabilities, competencies and networking • Enable each county to identify the most appropriate delivery model and partners supported by a regional innovation portal Pros The opportunity to work together in an effective strategic partnership Builds on existing innovation portal / brand Shared responsibility for content, quality and delivery Maximises the use of existing investments, assets and budgets Cons Relies on the willingness of partners to work together at a strategic level Relies on partners being able to determine and ‘deliver’ effective local delivery routes

18. Example of a simple competency framework – innovation centres

19. A suggested way forward Option 3 – ‘Hand to Hand’ - is the suggested way forward A strategic delivery framework between emda and partners across the region But… The delivery models at a local or sub regional level will probably need to differ

20. To discuss • Do partners agree there is a need to find a coordinated offer for generic innovation support? • Do partners agree that this could be assimilated at a regional level? • Are the pros and cons of the options adequately and correctly described? • Hands On, Hands Off, Hand to Hand • How can a framework be developed, coordinated and inputs achieved? • How much should this involve virtual links? • Would a competency framework approach be acceptable / useful?