The NORDITE Conference 2011

NORDITE EVALUATION RESULTS

AGENDA

2

The content, target and evaluation activities A

Results B

Conclusions and recommendations C

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EVALUATION

• The evaluation of three Nordic programmes was part of an evaluation that included

two Finnish programmes as well. The main focus of the whole evaluation (70 percent

of the contribution) was on the two large Finnish programmes – Giga and Nets.

• The evaluation was carried out during 2010 and 2011 by Ramboll Management

Consulting (RMC), which was selected through a public tendering process.

• The evaluation team of RMC was supported by the evaluation steering group

appointed by Tekes throughout the evaluation work.

3

THE PROGRAMME

4

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Nordite

Exsite

Inwite

• The evaluation included three Nordic programmes: • Nordite (Finland, Sweden, Norway) • Excite (Finland, Sweden) • Inwite (Finland, Sweden)

Timelines of the three Nordic telecommunications programmes

5

Nordite, 2005–2010 Implemented through the collaboration of VINNOVA, the Norwegian Research Council and Tekes. The programme’s main purpose is to support Swedish, Norwegian and Finnish research institutes and universities in their efforts to develop research in the abovementioned fields. The programme was funded in two phases: 2005–2007 and 2008–2010. Projects were chosen and funded for three years at time. The combined funding for both phases was 7.5 million Euros

Inwite, Integrated Technologies for Wireless Telecommunication, 1997–1999 The key objective of the Inwite programme was to increase the long-term competitiveness of Swedish and Finnish companies, especially in the field of design, utilisation and manufacturing of wireless devices. A total of six projects were funded. The programme gave a framework to the pre-competitive research. The total volume of the programme in Finland was 12.7 million FIM, and in Sweden it was 13.2 Million SEK.

Exsite, Finnish-Swedish R&D programme, 2001–2004 The main goals of the programme were to improve the long-term competitiveness of the Finnish-Swedish telecommunications sector, form new research and development groups and deepen the Nordic cooperation. According to the Exsite programme’s evaluation report, the scientific and technical quality of the results ranged from good to excellent, and the results were certainly useful for the industry in Finland and Sweden, from the point of view of international competitiveness. The Exsite programme also improved the cooperation between Finnish and Swedish researchers. The programme’s overall funding for six projects was over 4.8 million Euros.

THE OBJECTIVES

The main objectives of the evaluation were:

1. To provide recommendations for the development of Finnish innovation policy and

the programme processes of Tekes.

2. To produce guidelines for strengthening the cooperation between the funding

organisations and for developing the strategic development of the research,

development and innovation activities.

6

EVALUATION ACTIVITES

The evaluation is conducted using a mixture of ex-post and final evaluation methods:

Changes in the operation environment are analysed using the classical PESTE model.

Interviews of the representatives of the funding organisations and other experts. (4

interviews in Sweden, 2 in Norway, 3 in Finland)

Data analysis

Survey for the participants of the programmes.

Case study (a total of 22 cases) of the projects participated in the programme. In the

selection of the Swedish and Norwegian projects, the local funding organisations had

the opportunity to propose possible candidates.

Workshop concerning the preliminary findings. The participants represented Tekes,

and Finnish research organisations and companies that had participated in at least

one of the programmes.

7

EVALUATION ACTIVITIES

8

Companies that participated in some programme activities but did not receive funding

NETSNORDITE EXSITE INWITE

GIGA

13. Project O

(Sweden)

15. Project M

16. Project N

17. Project P

18. Project Q

4. Project D

3. Project B

2. Company B

5. Project F

10. Project G

9. Project E

7. Company B

Services and business

Continuity

Continuity

8. Project C

1. Company A 6. Company A

11. Project H

Company 1 Company 2 Company 3 Company 4 Company 5 Company 6

12. Project L

Management and

organisation

14. Project K

(Norway)

12. Project I

12. Project J

The selection criteria of the case study.

AGENDA

9

The content, target and evaluation activities A

Results B

Conclusions and recommendations C

RELEVANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES

• According to the interviews, the targets of the three Nordic programmes were mostly

to foster Nordic cooperation, to strengthen the existing networks and to create new

ones.

• Even though all three programmes were purely research projects, were companies

tightly involved in the preparation phase of both Exsite and Inwite. In Nordite the

companies were present in the project management boards.

• While the cooperation was described well-functioning and significantly less

bureaucratic than in most international programmes the participants were not

convinced that the level of research was as high as it could have been. It was stated

to be rather “easy” funding mainly due to the set objectives.

10

THE NORDIC COOPERATION

• The overall opinion on Nordic cooperation stated that it has had several

positive impacts on the realisation of the projects. The networking

possibilities provided by the programmes were particularly appreciated.

• Most of the cooperation was based on existing connections, which were

only strengthened during the programmes, and the probability of creating

completely new connections was considered rather low.

• The Nordic cooperation was considered functional, since the operating

environments of the three countries are very similar. The operation

environment formed by the Nordic cooperation was described as a “safe

haven”, where the not yet internationally competitive research projects

were able to operate with their long-established research partners,

supported by the public funding.

11

OPERATIONAL MODEL

• The low level of bureaucracy was considered a strong point of the

international cooperation, especially compared to other EU-level projects.

Also, the Nordic cooperation enabled the participants to form new

partnerships with EU level actors, using the existing connections of the

consortium.

• Continuity and stability provide good conditions for executing long-term basic

research – also conditions for creating something truly innovative, risk-taking

and globally competitive?

• Were the optimal conditions, such as similar cultures and structures of the

three countries, utilised to their full potential in upgrading the level of

research?

12

THE IMPACT OF THE NORDIC COOPERATION

13

4,7 4,6 4,6

1

2

3

4

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nordic co-operation improved our

organization’s possibilities to

strengthen our Nordic networks.

Nordic co-operation improved our

organizations possibilities to create

new co-operation connections to

the EU projects.

Nordic co-operation contributed to

achieving our organization's goals.

Averag

e n

um

ber (

1=

No

t at

all/

5=

Very m

uch

)

Percen

t

The impact of Nordic cooperation

Very much To some extent Neutral Only little Not at all Average

PROGRAMME SERVICES

14

4,9

4,0

1

2

3

4

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Financing Seminars and workshops

Avarag

e n

um

ber (

1=

No

t at

all/

5=

Very

mu

ch

)

Percen

t

Very much To some extent Neutral Only little Not at all Can’t estimate Average

Importance of the programme services for the organisations

PROGRAMME SERVICES

15

4,9

3,8

1

2

3

4

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Financing Seminars and workshops Avarag

e n

um

ber (

1=

Not

at

all

/ 5

= V

ery

mu

ch

)

Percen

t

Very much To some extent Neutral Only little Not at all Can’t estimate Average

Usefulness of the programme services for the organisations

RESULTS AND EFFECTS

16

4,0

3,0

3,5

4,3

1

2

3

4

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Timing of the

programme and its

relation to the market

development

Global economic

development

Availability of skillful

labor

Building co-operation

networks in the branch

Avarag

e n

um

ber (

1=

Red

uced

very m

uch

ll/

5=

Im

pro

ved

very m

uch

)

Percen

t

Improved very much Improved to some extent No effect at all

Reduced to some extent Reduced very much Can’t estimate

Average

Factors that effected organisation’s abilities to achieve set goals

OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAMMES

17

Achieved objectives in the Nordite, Exsite, and Inwite programmes

2,38 2,58

1

2

3

4

0 %

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

Economical and commercial objectives Technological objectives

(1=

Only

part

of th

e o

bje

ctives w

ere

met

4=

Obje

ctives w

ere

exeeded)

Objectives were exceeded All objectives were met

Almost all objectives were met Only part of the objectives were met

Average

SOME ASPECTS TO THE PROGRAMMES - QUAOTAS FROM THE INTERVIEWS AND SURVEY

18

“There is nothing wrong with Nordic cooperation. However, we also need to have to look for complementary skills from, for example, India, China and Brazil, in

order to keep up with the big players.”

“Nordite provided us with the advantages of national programmes without the disadvantages of the European programmes.”

“Nordite enables the development of those companies that feel that competition on the EU

level is too high. It lets them operate in a familiar environment with simpler rules.”

“In my opinion, the management model, where each country has its own programme

manager, has served its purpose well.”

“The Nordic collaboration has, in our case, resulted in an EU project that led to our research network being expanded further. As a matter of fact, the

Nordic collaboration has also generated national collaboration.”

CONCLUSIONS

• Nordic cooperation was seen as well-functioning, reasonably

successful, and effortless.

• The low level of bureaucracy compared to other international and

EU-level programmes was appreciated.

• More focused objectives and contents of the programmes could

have promoted more efficient networking of actors.

• The effortless co-operation could provide a platform for more

ambitious research.

• The low level of the involvement of the companies in the projects

should be critically assessed. The unclear role of the companies

frustrated some of the actors.

19

Thank you!

20

For more information, please contact:

• Mia Toivanen (miat@r-m.com)

• Henrik Stener Pedersen (heks@r-m.com)