Effekter av organiserade kluster

(1)

Örjan Sölvell

Anna Löfmarck Mats Williams Håkan Wolgast

Effekter av organiserade kluster

SLIM III - 2013

(2)

$

Drömmen om dynamiska kluster…

(3)

$

… och verkligheten = många gap

(4)

Typ av politik Exempel

Sektor/teknik Fåtal gap Många gap

Övergripande

Specifik

Regionalpolitik Innovationspolitik

Näringspolitik

(5)

Övergripande

Teknikparker Holdingbolag

Innovationskontor

KK-stiftelsen Innovationsbron ALMI

Regionala riskkapitalbolag

Specifik

Inkubatorer

RISE Forsknings- institut

Klusterorganisationer

Brobyggare

(6)

Övergripande

Teknikparker Holdingbolag

Innovationskontor

KK-stiftelsen Innovationsbron ALMI

Regionala riskkapitalbolag

Specifik

Inkubatorer

RISE Forsknings- institut

Klusterorganisationer

Brobyggare

(7)

Resultat av utvärderingen 12 organiserade kluster

SLIM III

(8)

Region Red Region Green Region Blue

Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel India Juliett Kilo Lima

Region North Mid

Sweden Cluster

North Mid Sweden

SLIM III - Analysnivåer

(9)

SLIM III - Mätmetoder

SIMPLER Firm Financial

Performance

(10)

SLIM III - Mätmetoder

SIMPLER Firm Financial

Performance

Surveys Firm General Performance

Surveys

Innovation Gap

Performance

(11)

Utvärdering av organiserade klusters

långsiktiga effekter på medverkande företag

SIMPLER Firm Financial

Performance

1 Konkurrenskraft Förädlingsvärde Lönsamhet

Produktivitet

(12)

Utvärdering av organiserade klusters

långsiktiga effekter på medverkande företag

Innovationsförmåga Försäljning

Sysselsättning Jämställdhet Hållbarhet Mångfald

2

Surveys Firm General Performance

(13)

Utvärdering av organiserade klusters

långsiktiga effekter på de 7 innovationsgapen

$

3

Innovation Gap ^Surveys Performance

Företag-företag Företag-forskning Företag-utbildning Företag-kapital Företag-offentliga Företag-global Företag-kluster

(14)

Innovation Gaps

All clusters 3

(15)

Innovation Gaps All clusters

Sjunkande trend i firm-to-firm gapet Har det vänt efter krisen – ökar gapen?

Kapitalgapet störst

3

(16)

Innovation Gaps per Region Sum of 6 gaps

Blå och grön region: gapen stiger!

Röd region – klara förbättringar fom 2008

3

Average

(17)

Innovation Gaps per Cluster

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Firm-Firm

Firm-Research/Education

Firm-Capital

Firm-Government Firm-Cluster

Firm-Global

Alfa Charlie Golf Hotel Kilo

Average 11 clusters

Förmågan att överbrygga kluster

varierar stort – utrymme för lärande Hotel bäst i nästan alla grenar

Kilo stor förbättringspotential

3

(18)

General Firm Performance North Mid Sweden

2005 - 2012

2

(19)

General Firm Performance North Mid Sweden

2005 - 2012

2

(20)

General Firm Performance North Mid Sweden

2005 - 2012

Alla kluster förbättras (6 mätvariabler)

Störst effekt på försäljning och innovationsarbetet

2

(21)

General Performance per Region Equality

2007 - 2012

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2007 2008 2009 2010-11 2012

Increased Equality by region

Region Blue Region Red Region Green Total NUTS 2

Klar förbättring på 5 år för alla regioner Region röd stor upphämtning

Regionerna ligger ganska lika (region grön lite under)

2

Average

(22)

1

Region Red 2006 - 2010

Konkurrenskraft Förädlingsvärde Lönsamhet

Produktivitet

Performance

SIMPLER Analysis

(23)

SIMPLER Diagram

Konkurrenskraft

(24)

Region Red

Klustren (2006)

Hela näringslivet (2006)

(25)

Region Red

Konkurrenskraft

(26)

Region Red

Konkurrenskraft

(27)

Region Red

Konkurrenskraft

(28)

 2006 och 2007 var bra år för länet (ligger dolda bakom den mörkaste cirkeln), därefter svaga år 2008 och 2009 med en stor förbättring 2010 till god konkurrenskraft.

 Klusterföretagen

tillsammans fick också en påverkan 2009 men inte så negativ som

länet i sin helhet.

 Klustren kom 2010 tillbaka till en betydligt bättre position än länet.

Region Red

Konkurrenskraft

(29)

Företagens finansiella utveckling 2006 – 2010 alla kluster

SIMPLER

Comparison of 12 Clusters in North Mid Sweden 2006 - 2010 (unidentified names)

Value Added Growth Profitability % of Value Added Wages per employee

Total Rank Cluster Cluster Control Diff Rank Cluster Control Diff Rank Cluster Control Diff Rank SUM

1 Alpha 38% 21% 17% 3 5% -13% 18% 2 17% 7% 10% 1 6

2 Bravo 27% -1% 28% 2 12% 7% 5% 6 16% 8% 8% 2 10

3 Charlie 8% -6% 14% 4 12% -4% 16% 3 3% -2% 5% 4 11

4 Delta 67% 21% 46% 1 12% 7% 5% 6 13% 11% 2% 6 13

5 Echo -11% -8% -3% 12 10% -16% 26% 1 12% 9% 3% 5 18

6 Foxtrot 16% 4% 12% 6 -2% 1% -3% 11 17% 9% 8% 2 19

7 Golf 40% 28% 12% 6 3% -2% 5% 6 11% 10% 1% 8 20

8 Hotel 31% 18% 13% 5 5% 5% 0% 10 13% 11% 2% 6 21

9 India 18% 11% 7% 9 0% -15% 15% 4 11% 11% 0% 9 22

10 Juliett 29% 20% 9% 8 7% 1% 6% 5 8% 15% -7% 12 25

11 Kilo 33% 26% 7% 9 9% 8% 1% 9 13% 13% 0% 9 27

12 Lima 45% 38% 7% 9 -4% 12% -16% 12 10% 14% -4% 11 32

 11 av 12 kluster slår kontrollgruppen i två av tre effektvariabler

Förädlingsvärde Lönsamhet

Produktivitet

(30)

Många svagheter Firm-to-firm mest framgångsrikt

Stora förbättringar överlag Dock stora regionala skillnader

Stora skillnader i de olika resultatmåtten

(försäljning och nya/förbättrade produkter störst effekt) 11 av 12 kluster går bättre

än kontrollgruppen

Motståndskraft mot kriser

Performance

Surveys Innovation Gap

Performance

Resultaten

(31)

Framtiden?

(32)

Innovation

Brygga innovationsgapen

Konkreta innovationsprojekt - Nya produkter, processer, tjänster, affärsmodeller…

Affärsutveckling

Marknadsanalys

Kommersiellt samarbete Mässor

Exportsamarbeten Jämställdhet

Rekrytering av personal Kluster

Identitet

Vision och strategisk agenda Allmänt nätverkande Attraktivitet & varumärke

1. Övergripande mål och aktiviteter

(33)

2. Finansiering av klusterorganisationer

Privat

Offentligt

-ökad privat medfinansiering -privat projektfinansiering -medlemsavgifter

-konsultarvoden

-lokala/regionala/nationella medel

-EU-medel

-basmedel för kontor, kluster- ledare mm.

Projektfas Organisationsfas

(34)

Hållbart?

Privat

Offentligt

100-0

(35)

Privat

Offentligt

Framgångsmodell?

60-40

(36)

CO CO

vs

Klusterorganisationens roll?

(37)

The Cluster Observatory Evalua on Model Four Complementary Components

I

II

III IV

I

II

III IV

0.00#

0.20#

0.40#

0.60#

0.80#

1.00#

1.20#

0.00# 0.20# 0.40# 0.60# 0.80# 1.00# 1.20#

PK/FV#

KK/FV#

Cluster#development#vs#Control#group#

years#2006>2010#

1. Company Financial Performance (Collec on/Cluster defini on/Control groups) AValue added

B Wages C Prof itability 2. Sta s cal Analysis

1. Surveys of member firms/organiza ons in cluster 2. Surveys of cluster organisa ons 3. Surveys of social media (text analysis)

1. Interviews

(process tracing/conf irma on stats) A Member firms/organisa ons B Cluster Leader C Cluster Organisa on Board 2. Par cipatory observa on

1. Benchmarking with other...

A Regions B Clusters C Cluster organisa ons 2. Peer Evalua on Teams

!3,500,000&

!3,000,000&

!2,500,000&

!2,000,000&

!1,500,000&

!1,000,000&

!500,000&

0&

500,000&

1,000,000&

1,500,000&

2,000,000&

2006& 2007& 2008& 2009& 2010& SUMMA&

Average'

Cluster&

Control&group&

Financial&performance&2006!2010&

!Growth!

%"companies"with"issues"

Year""

Gaps"decrease"over"5me"6"by"gap"

TACK!

(38)

1. Bygger på en förståelse kring innovationsgapen i kluster 2. Fokuserar innovationsstrategin på broar och trafik

3. Stimulerar klusterorganisationer som verktyg 4. Startar processer med små medel

5. Länkar kluster till globala markanader och värdekedjor

Regional innovations- och klusterpolitik

$

P

(39)

Organizing Clusters

(40)

$

Dream of Dynamic Clusters…

(41)

$

… and reality = many gaps

(42)

Sector Few gaps Many gaps

Overall

Specific

Policy

(43)

Bridge Builders

Sector Few gaps Many gaps

Overall Science parks Regional public org.

Specific Incubators Cluster organizations

(44)

Evaluation

12 Organized Clusters

(45)

Region Red Region Green Region Blue

Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel India Juliett Kilo Lima

Region North Mid

Sweden Cluster

North Mid Sweden

SLIM III – Levels of Analysis

(46)

SLIM III - Methods

SIMPLER Firm Financial

Performance

(47)

SLIM III - Methods

SIMPLER Firm Financial

Performance

Surveys Firm General Performance

Surveys

Innovation Gap

Performance

(48)

Effects on Firms

Performance

1 Competitiveness Value Added

Profitability

Productivity

(49)

Innovation Sales

Employment Equality

Sustainability Diversity

2 Effects on Firms

(50)

Effects on Innovation Gaps

$

3

Innovation Gap ^Surveys Performance

Firm-firm

Firm_Research Firm- Education Firm-Capital Firm-Public Firm-Global Firm-Cluster

(51)

Innovation Gaps

All clusters 3

(52)

Innovation Gaps

All clusters 3

(53)

Innovation Gaps per Region

Sum of 6 gaps 3

Average

(54)

Innovation Gaps per Cluster

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Firm-Firm

Firm-Research/Education

Firm-Capital

Firm-Government Firm-Cluster

Firm-Global

Alfa Charlie Golf Hotel Kilo

Average 11 clusters

3

(55)

General Firm Performance North Mid Sweden

2005 - 2012

2

(56)

General Firm Performance North Mid Sweden

2005 - 2012

2

(57)

General Firm Performance North Mid Sweden

2005 - 2012

2

(58)

General Performance per Region Equality

2007 - 2012

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2007 2008 2009 2010-11 2012

Increased Equality by region

Region Blue Region Red Region Green Total NUTS 2

2

Average

(59)

1

Region Red 2006 - 2010 SIMPLER Firm Financial

Performance

SIMPLER Analysis

Competitiveness Value Added

Profitability

Productivity

(60)

SIMPLER

Competitiveness

(61)

Region Red

Cluster firms (2006)

All firms in region (2006)

(62)

Region Red

(63)

Region Red

(64)

Region Red

(65)

Region Red

(66)

SIMPLER Financial Evaluation 2006 – 2010 all clustes

SIMPLER

Comparison of 12 Clusters in North Mid Sweden 2006 - 2010 (unidentified names)

Value Added Growth Profitability % of Value Added Wages per employee

Total Rank Cluster Cluster Control Diff Rank Cluster Control Diff Rank Cluster Control Diff Rank SUM

1 Alpha 38% 21% 17% 3 5% -13% 18% 2 17% 7% 10% 1 6

2 Bravo 27% -1% 28% 2 12% 7% 5% 6 16% 8% 8% 2 10

3 Charlie 8% -6% 14% 4 12% -4% 16% 3 3% -2% 5% 4 11

4 Delta 67% 21% 46% 1 12% 7% 5% 6 13% 11% 2% 6 13

5 Echo -11% -8% -3% 12 10% -16% 26% 1 12% 9% 3% 5 18

6 Foxtrot 16% 4% 12% 6 -2% 1% -3% 11 17% 9% 8% 2 19

7 Golf 40% 28% 12% 6 3% -2% 5% 6 11% 10% 1% 8 20

8 Hotel 31% 18% 13% 5 5% 5% 0% 10 13% 11% 2% 6 21

9 India 18% 11% 7% 9 0% -15% 15% 4 11% 11% 0% 9 22

10 Juliett 29% 20% 9% 8 7% 1% 6% 5 8% 15% -7% 12 25

11 Kilo 33% 26% 7% 9 9% 8% 1% 9 13% 13% 0% 9 27

12 Lima 45% 38% 7% 9 -4% 12% -16% 12 10% 14% -4% 11 32

 11 of 12 clusters beat the control group in two out of three dimensions

Vale added Profitability Productivity

(67)

Many weaknesses Firm-to-firm gap most successful

General improvements

Large regional and clusters differences

Largest effect on enhanced sales and innovation 11 of 12 clusters beat

control group

Performance

Surveys Innovation Gap

Performance

Results

(68)

Future?

(69)

Innovation

Bridge innovation gaps Innovation projects

Business Development

Commercial cooperation Trade shows

Joint exporting Cluster

Identity

Vision and strategic agenda General networking

Attractiveness and regional brand

1. Objectives and Activities

(70)

2. Financing of Cluster Organizations

Private

Public

Project Organization

(71)

Sustainable?

100-0

Private

Public

(72)

Sustainable Model?

60-40

Private

Public

(73)

CO CO

vs

Cluster Organization Role?

CO works with firms CO = Cluster

(74)

The Cluster Observatory Evalua on Model Four Complementary Components

I

II

III IV

I

II

III IV

0.00#

0.20#

0.40#

0.60#

0.80#

1.00#

1.20#

0.00# 0.20# 0.40# 0.60# 0.80# 1.00# 1.20#

PK/FV#

KK/FV#

Cluster#development#vs#Control#group#

years#2006>2010#

1. Company Financial Performance (Collec on/Cluster defini on/Control groups) AValue added

B Wages C Prof itability 2. Sta s cal Analysis

1. Surveys of member firms/organiza ons in cluster 2. Surveys of cluster organisa ons 3. Surveys of social media (text analysis)

1. Interviews

(process tracing/conf irma on stats) A Member firms/organisa ons B Cluster Leader C Cluster Organisa on Board 2. Par cipatory observa on

1. Benchmarking with other...

A Regions B Clusters C Cluster organisa ons 2. Peer Evalua on Teams

!3,500,000&

!3,000,000&

!2,500,000&

!2,000,000&

!1,500,000&

!1,000,000&

!500,000&

0&

500,000&

1,000,000&

1,500,000&

2,000,000&

2006& 2007& 2008& 2009& 2010& SUMMA&

Average'

Cluster&

Control&group&

Financial&performance&2006!2010&

!Growth!

%"companies"with"issues"

Year""

Gaps"decrease"over"5me"6"by"gap"