National Expert Interviews: Review of Changes for 2004 Propositions for 2005

1. National Expert Interviews: Review of Changes for 2004 Propositions for 2005 Erkko Autio HEC Lausanne & Helsinki University of Technology

2. Major Changes from 2004 • The factor structures continue to demonstrate astonishing stability and reliability • All changes made for 2004 turned out to be improvements • Significant improvement on KI04DSU2 • Significant improvement on KI04KSUM • Virtually all internal reliability coefficients either remained stable or improved

3. 2004 Scale Structures and Reliabilities

4. KI04ASUM Finance (0,81)

5. KI04BSU1 Government Policy (0,75)

6. KI04BSU2 Government Regulations (0,70)

7. KI04CSUM Government Programs (0,85)

8. KI04DSU1 Primary Education (0,80)

9. KIDSU2 Higher Education (0,77)

10. KI04ESUM Technology Transfer (0,81)

11. KI04FSUM Business Infrastructure (0,80)

12. KI04GSU1 Market Change (0,90)

13. KI04GSU2 Market Openness (0,72)

14. KI04HSUM Physical Infrastructure (0,82)

15. KI04ISUM Entrepreneurial Culture (0,89)

16. KI04KSUM Entrepreneurial Opportunity (0,77)

17. KI04LSUM Entrepreneurial Capacity (0,78)

18. KI04MSUM Respect for Entrepreneurs (0,78)

19. KI04NSUM IPR Protection (0,87)

20. KI04PSUM Women Entrepreneurship (0,76)

21. Changes and Improvements for 2005 • Radically modify B07 • Modify L01 • Tweak P05

22. Proposed Changes: B07

23. Proposed Changes: L01

24. Proposed Changes: P05

25. Other Considerations • Drop adult population survey attitude and activity questions? • Add 1 category? (e.g., specific emphasis on growth entrepreneurship) • Rotate categories?

26. Focus on High-Growth Entrepreneurship • In my country, there are many support initiatives that are specially tailored for high-growth entrepreneurial activity. • In my country, policy-makers are aware of the importance of high-growth entrepreneurial activity. • In my country, government programs have sufficient skills and competence to support high-growth firms. • In my country, high-growth potential is often used as a selection criterion in entrepreneurship support initiatives. • In my country, government programs are highly selective when choosing recipients of entrepreneurship support.

27. Plans for Key Informant Data • One person worked for 4 months on KI dataset consolidation and construct validation in 2004 • Compliments by Helsinki University of Technology • Multi-level analysis to validate factor structures • Consolidate dataset and put it on the GEM-internal domain with validation reports • Put the key informant dataset on the public domain?

28. Face-to-Face Interviews • New teams should do face-to-face interviews: they provide an excellent source of information on country-specific policy conditions • In addition, it might be valuable for established teams to interview a sample of policy-makers every two or three years • But, it is doubtful if it adds value to code interview discussion issues and categorize the data

29. How to Add Value with F2F Interviews • One idea: collect information on successful policy initiatives in selected policy domains (e.g., ”name the most successful initiative in your country”) • E.g., public initiatives to provide funding for high-growth entrepreneurs • E.g., initiatives to encourage women entrepreneurship • E.g., initiatives to encourage university-industry technology transfer • The successful initiatives are documented, using standard format, with emphasis on distinctive features • Would require 4-10 interviews per country per theme • A ”theme owner” would compile the reports and produce a report

30. Elaborating Policy Themes with F2Fs • Problem 1: after a while, teams start to view F2Fs as a waste of time, because of information saturation • Problem 2: no one ever uses the category data (Issue Summary Sheet data) that is collected in F2F interviews • Dilemma: F2Fs represent tremendous potential value • Promoting the team and GEM amongst key decision makers • Refreshing and updating one’s ’feel’ about current policy issues in one’s national context • Enhancing face and name recognition • F2Fs provide a source of rich data • GEM’s global network of national teams represents [potentially] uniquely valuable global interface with key policy deicsionmakers

31. What We Propose, Therefore, • An approach to re-invigorating F2Fs as an integral element of GEM • Leverage F2Fs globally to compile and process rich, policy-relevant data on selected themes (e.g., education, access to finance, etc) • Idea: • Several countries (at least 10, preferably 15-20) would carry 4-8 interviews on the given topic with selected experts • Focus on relevant policy issues on that theme, current trends, modes of thinking, examples of successful and innovative initiatives • Write a 5-10 –page summary report, complemented with documents, web links etc • Summary reports would be used to construct a broader framework and compile a global summary • Individual teams could then elaborate policy implications for their national contexts and publish their own report together with the compilation report

32. Benefits and Catches • Benefit: globally unique compilation report that would really resonate with policy-makers’ needs • Enable comparisons between low-medium-high income countries • Enable peer-to-peer comparisons • Benefit: the national team would establish for itself a reputation as a leading source of policy-relevant expertise in the domain • Catch: processing qualitative data is resource-consuming – dedicated champions are needed • Catch: national teams cannot be told to go out and do the interviews, they must see sufficient value-added for themselves

33. How Many Themes? • One proposition: 1 generic theme (e.g., access to finance) • Benefit: likely more countries per theme, more focus • Drawback: one theme per annum would mean long delays between themes • Another proposition: 2-3 themes, provided that champions and sufficient interest can be mobilized • Benefit: more themes for national teams to draw on, more rapid rotation of themes • Drawback: potential for confusion, loss of momentum