Periodic Reporting for period 1 - CLIP (Clusters Innovation Programme)
Reporting period: 2021-02-01 to 2022-01-31
Cluster policies and programmes are born as an effort to boost the competitiveness of a given territory. In the lifespan of a policy, it usually goes through different stages, its prominence fluctuates in the political agenda and ultimately it evolves.
Cluster policies have been present in Catalonia, Lower Austria and Denmark for a long time, and although the partners have known each other for more than a decade and meet regularly in cluster fora, there are not many opportunities to have a profound discussion on the respective experiences.
Thus, the CLIP project was conceived to have an organised and structured dialogue on cluster policy to share experiences, challenge the status quo to revamp policies that were born more than twenty years ago.
Like any other policy, cluster policy is made up of different components, it is complex and multifaceted. Given the project settings, a timeframe of 12 months and a very lean budget, the work required focus.
Therefore, it was decided to focus the attention on a limited number of elements that were common to all three partners.
Specifically, the three joint and specific challenges to be addressed during the lifespan of CLIP were:
1 - The pertinence of evolving from a single-level cluster programme towards a multilevel approach.
2 - Improving the governance model both from a cluster perspective and from the system.
3 - Exploring the role and relationship of cluster policy with other policies: reaching its full potential as the intersection of several policies.
The Design Options Paper (DOP) does not claim to be a comprehensive document on cluster policies, programmes and the challenges faced by the three partners but a limited selection of those challenges that feel more salient at the moment of writing.
Cluster policies have been present in Catalonia, Lower Austria and Denmark for a long time, and although the partners have known each other for more than a decade and meet regularly in cluster fora, there are not many opportunities to have a profound discussion on the respective experiences.
Thus, the CLIP project was conceived to have an organised and structured dialogue on cluster policy to share experiences, challenge the status quo to revamp policies that were born more than twenty years ago.
Like any other policy, cluster policy is made up of different components, it is complex and multifaceted. Given the project settings, a timeframe of 12 months and a very lean budget, the work required focus.
Therefore, it was decided to focus the attention on a limited number of elements that were common to all three partners.
Specifically, the three joint and specific challenges to be addressed during the lifespan of CLIP were:
1 - The pertinence of evolving from a single-level cluster programme towards a multilevel approach.
2 - Improving the governance model both from a cluster perspective and from the system.
3 - Exploring the role and relationship of cluster policy with other policies: reaching its full potential as the intersection of several policies.
The Design Options Paper (DOP) does not claim to be a comprehensive document on cluster policies, programmes and the challenges faced by the three partners but a limited selection of those challenges that feel more salient at the moment of writing.
Challenge driven meetings:
Initially, the work was planned to be structured in a sequential mode: there would be an initial session on setting the scene in which the policies and programmes would be shared in order to facilitate the dialogue. Afterwards, it was planned to tackle each single challenge for about four months, each time following the same structure: a prior individual desk research and analysis, the use of local focus groups when relevant and a face-to-face meeting (Peer Learning Committee) that would be devoted to the joint discussion of the given challenge while overlapping with summarising the learnings of previous work and setting the scene for the following one.
Once work on the first challenge was completed and the second was set out, the project partners realised the discussions could not be so compartmentalised as the challenges were deeply interrelated and questions frequently overlapped. As the importance laid on the content and the process had been designed to structure the work, after nine months, the process was changed. The challenges were still at the core of the endeavour, but the work was reorganised in the form of dilemmas, taking stock of what had been dealt with and in an effort to have more productive discussions while avoiding too much overlapping.
Working on the basis of dilemmas allowed for more focused questions and more polished dialogue. Moreover, it would facilitate readability and enhanced comprehension by the reader once these were translated to the Design Options Paper.
Methodology:
The reference methodology used in CLIP was the Twinning +, an extension of the original IPF twinning method which combines elements of traditional peer reviews and twinning in small learning groups of agencies responsible for the implementation of cluster programmes relevant for the scope of CLIP. The partners exchanged knowledge and experience and developed eight dilemmas that have been dealt with from a local point of view, as a test activity. The joint work of project partners together with the peer learning produced the present Design Options Paper to serve as inspiration input to regions and countries facing some of the shared dilemmas common in mature cluster policies.
The main result of the peer learning is the DOP and the individual commitments of the three partners, based on the findings of the exchange.
Initially, the work was planned to be structured in a sequential mode: there would be an initial session on setting the scene in which the policies and programmes would be shared in order to facilitate the dialogue. Afterwards, it was planned to tackle each single challenge for about four months, each time following the same structure: a prior individual desk research and analysis, the use of local focus groups when relevant and a face-to-face meeting (Peer Learning Committee) that would be devoted to the joint discussion of the given challenge while overlapping with summarising the learnings of previous work and setting the scene for the following one.
Once work on the first challenge was completed and the second was set out, the project partners realised the discussions could not be so compartmentalised as the challenges were deeply interrelated and questions frequently overlapped. As the importance laid on the content and the process had been designed to structure the work, after nine months, the process was changed. The challenges were still at the core of the endeavour, but the work was reorganised in the form of dilemmas, taking stock of what had been dealt with and in an effort to have more productive discussions while avoiding too much overlapping.
Working on the basis of dilemmas allowed for more focused questions and more polished dialogue. Moreover, it would facilitate readability and enhanced comprehension by the reader once these were translated to the Design Options Paper.
Methodology:
The reference methodology used in CLIP was the Twinning +, an extension of the original IPF twinning method which combines elements of traditional peer reviews and twinning in small learning groups of agencies responsible for the implementation of cluster programmes relevant for the scope of CLIP. The partners exchanged knowledge and experience and developed eight dilemmas that have been dealt with from a local point of view, as a test activity. The joint work of project partners together with the peer learning produced the present Design Options Paper to serve as inspiration input to regions and countries facing some of the shared dilemmas common in mature cluster policies.
The main result of the peer learning is the DOP and the individual commitments of the three partners, based on the findings of the exchange.
The cluster programmes of the three partners have been revised and upgraded during the project lifetime.
The project has served to refine the methodology and procedures of the three partners.
The project has served to refine the methodology and procedures of the three partners.