Maltese-European Linkages for Internationalisation, Innovation and Technology Transfer 2 [Innovation services]

Project Information

MELIITA 2

Grant agreement ID: 743573

DOI

10.3030/743573

Project closed

EC signature date 21 April 2017

Start date 1 January 2017

End date 31 December 2018

Funded under

• INDUSTRIAL LEADERSHIP - Innovation In SMEs

Total cost

€ 33 312,50

EU contribution

€ 33 312,50

Coordinated by

MALTA ENTERPRISE
Malta

Periodic Reporting for period 1 - MELIITA 2 (Maltese-European Linkages for Internationalisation, Innovation and Technology Transfer 2 [Innovation services])

Reporting period: 2017-01-01 to 2018-12-31

Summary of the context and overall objectives of the project

The action consists of two WPs, one offering KAM services to local SME Instrument beneficiaries, and the other offering EIMC services to companies that would like to improve the way they handle innovation internally. The KPIs for the period in question were as follows: 6 clients taking up KAM services, and 6 clients to benefit from EIMC. Within the consortium, three EEN staff members are certified IMP3rove assessors and this was foreseen as suitable for the consortium to reach the set targets.

Work performed from the beginning of the project to the end of the period covered by the report and main results achieved so far

WP1 (KAM): This service depended entirely on external factors, since the service could only be offered to local SME Instrument beneficiaries. During 2017-8, there were two SMEI beneficiaries and both of them were assisted by a Network KAM accordingly. Contact was immediately made with the clients upon notification of their success. EEN staff provided background information on the scope of KAM services; a KAM was then appointed and the first meetings were set up within one week from first contact. A needs analysis was carried out for each of the clients, and suitable coaches appointed. Both coaching packages were completed by the end of the project period. Coaching progress was monitored closely by the assigned KAM to ensure that beneficiaries achieved maximum benefit from the activity.

WP2 (EIMC): The consortium promoted the EIMC services with the “star” clients being deemed most suitable to benefit from this action. The exercise kicked off rather slowly during the first half of the project period due to the lack of interest and commitment from the clients’ side. A lot of effort was dedicated by the three assessors in order to motivate clients and get them to commit to the full assessment as required by the IMP3rove methodology. Although clients would initially acknowledge the value of this action, their willingness to commit over time dwindles and hence makes it difficult to actually carry out the assessment.

Progress beyond the state of the art and expected potential impact (including the socio-economic impact and the wider societal implications of the project so far)

WP1 (KAM): Due to the situation where there was a very low number of local SME Instrument beneficiaries, local entities with innovative ideas were encouraged to submit proposals. Continuous promotion of the instrument was done through local events, and more specifically during one-to-one meetings with SMEs with appropriate potential. Results of SME Instrument were followed closely in order to retain an updated list of local SMEs that are submitting proposals, including those receiving a Seal of Excellence. An investigation of possible ways of supporting SoE holders has commenced, with direct communication with the relevant personnel from the European Commission and the SoE Community of Practice. This has borne the desired results and the Consortium is pleased to announce that national funds will be finally put aside to support Maltese SoE companies as of 2019.

WP2 (EIMC): Four clients were targeted to benefit from this action and enhance their innovation management capacity. The initial meetings were held wherein it was explained to them the benefits of, and purpose of assessing one’s company disposition to, utilizing innovation management techniques and whether improvement could be made in the future. Ultimately only one client effectively participated in the assessment of its extent of its innovation management techniques used in their daily operations, organisational structure, culture and policies. Following the improve assessment process a report was prepared and a discussion on the outcome ensued. A work programme was drafted to outline the way forward to introduce changes to enhance the use of the innovation management techniques and improve areas of operations. The recommendations to client were basically to define and document an innovation strategy, to communicate the defined strategy internally and to encourage vertical contributions/inputs thereto. The company welcomed these recommended actions and the consortium will re-visit the client in the near future to monitor the progress.