Technopolis 1

Tough Love: Evaluation of VS2010Bedriftstvikling gjennom bred medvirkning

Erik Arnold

Oslo

30 November 2005

Technopolis 2

Hvem?

• Første jobb: Avisbud, Bergens Arbeiderblad, 1968• AGB Research (EDB)• BA, MSc, PhD - Universitetet i Sussex • Research Fellow, Science Policy Research Unit, 1980-5• Prosjektleder, Booz.Allen & Hamilton, 1986-91• Technopolis 1991 -• Mest interessante evalueringsoppgaver: SND; Forskningsrådet;

FFF/FWF (Østerrike); det långsiktiga energiforskningsprogrammet (Sverige); VS2010

• Medlem i The Labour Party 1974 -

Technopolis 3

Evaluation

• Critical - in the scientific sense

• A contribution to the debate, not an authoritative judgement

• Mid-term and formative (‘mid-course correction’)

• ‘This is what you look like in the mirror’

•Conclusion: significant change in course needed

• Input to policy making

Technopolis 4

The complexity and diversity of VS2010 dictate the use of multiple methods, with a qualitative focus

Self-evaluation

Project leader interviews

Beneficiary survey

Document analysis

Stakeholder interviews

Discussion Report

Technopolis 5

Goals

• Contribute to increased value creation by involving the social partners in participative processes at the company and the network levels

• Support regional development strategies

• Strengthen the knowledge base in the field [of organisational innovation, networking and regional development] through scientific production and publication

• Three levels• Intra-firm organisational processes

• Inter-firm organisation and networking

• Intra-regional social and political processes

Technopolis 6

The taxpayer foots most of the bill. VS2010 Funding, 2001-5

KRD/SND17%

KUF/UFD15%

NHD

HF*

KRD

Technopolis 7

BU2000/VS2010 fit with the broader pattern of instrument development in innovation systems

Multiple

Single

MultipleSingle

Development measures

MAPs and network measures

Activity promotion or subsidy measures

Linkage or ‘bridging’ measures

Measures

ActorsMultipleSingle

Intra-organisational learning, capability development and

performance improvement

System strengthening

- Within actors

- Between actors

- Reducing bottlenecks

Point or step change in organisational

performance

Inter-organisational learning, network development and

strengthening

Measures

Actors

Technopolis 8

VS2010 uncomfortably straddles the SND and RCN approaches. Following their ‘peace treaty’, both support it

Multiple

Single

MultipleSingle

Measures

Actors

SND Trajectory:

from company

development to

social capital

RCN Trajectory:

from research-

industry

interaction to

network R&D

Technopolis 9

Implementation and governance

• VS2010 continues the non-competitive regional model of BU2000, and is an important revenue source for the research groups

• Strongly theory-driven: action-research; innovation systems; learning regions

• The social partners, especially LO, are the history-bearers and provide the continuity between BU2000 and VS2010

• Partly because of the political intervention, VS2010 was a ‘step-child’ in the Innovation Division

• But it also posed a needed challenge to the Division’s fixation with technological innovation, in the face of reintegration of technology and management in industry

• Lack of continuity in the Programme Board, programme officer and support staff undermine ‘programme value-added’ in VS2010

• An inconsistent line has been followed on the importance of union organisation and the meaning of ‘participation’

Technopolis 10

VS2010 has so far produced interesting knowledge outputs, extending the BU2000 work rather than moving into the third level

• Theoretical and methodological development in dialogue-based methods and industrial democracy theory

• Knowledge about regional development

• Knowledge about organisational development

• Process knowledge about organisational development using action research approaches

• Studies of regional development processes

• Strategic intelligence for network and regional development

• Large amounts of qualitative and quantitative data about participation-based organisational improvement projects in a range of contexts

• But few new tools

Technopolis 11

High-impact publication has been modest during the programme period, focused on AI & Society and on Concepts and Transformation

Project PhDs Local conference

International conference

Notes, Own Reports

Scand. Journal

International journal

Book chapters

Sogn & Fjordane 2 3 6

Innlandet 22 2 1 2

Nordlandet 5 1 11

Troms & Finnmark

1 2 8

Rogaland & Hordaland

1 2 8 8

Agder 2 3 1 9 3

Trøndelag (2002 onwards)

1 1 5 7

Møre & Romsdal 5 5

BTV 1 3 2 2 1 3 4

Østfold

Technopolis 12

Project leaders built from their strengths, mostly didn’t try to do everything at once and tuned their projects to local realities

BTV M&R Trønd-elag

Agder Rog, Hord

T & F Nord-land

Inn-landet

Oslo, A-hus

S&F Østfold

Coalition

Networks

Companies

Note: Read emphasis spheres vertically, not horizontally

BU2000 √ √ √ √ √ √

Technopolis 13

The industrial survey response was good - over a third - but the universe of firms was smaller than we would have liked

Respondents listed by project

managers

Questionnaires sent out

Questionnaires returned

Response rate (%)

Oslo (management)

114 59 22 37%

Rest of Norway (management)

63 52 16 31%

Rest of Norway (worker representatives)

36 36 11 31%

Totals 213 147 49 33%

Technopolis 14

Changes in last three years were not especially product-process focused, especially in the eyes of the tillitsvalgte

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

New products or services

New processes

Marketing or sales

Management, organisation

New supplier or customer relationships

New cooperation with competitors or other firms in yourbusiness

New business areas or major strategic change

% organisations

Company (Oslo region) Company Union

Technopolis 15

The most serious social capital problems may be on the doorstep …

Firms Belonging to a Trade Associatio n

Firm in a Formal Network

Organisation av. % av. % Management (Oslo) 56% 30% Management (Elsewhere) 73% 60% Worker Representatives 83% 100%

Technopolis 16

Expectations were on average modest. The tillitsvalgte were a bit disappointed (see Word document)

Technopolis 17

Everyone expected positive outcomes, however

-1.00 -0.50 - 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Has the project so far had anyeffect on profitability?

Do you expect the project toinfluence profitability in the

future?

Has the project influencedemployment so far?

Do you expect the project toinfluence employment in the

future?

score (-2 = very negative ~ +2 = very positive)

Company (Oslo region) Company Union

Technopolis 18

Conclusions and lessons

• VS2010 has too many goals to succeed in all of them

• It is very successful in the ‘classic 1960s’ situation (cp Odda). Where this does not exist, the researchers sometimes have to try to create it

• VS2010 suffers multiple lock-ins• Mature branches

• Not in the big cities

• Gender

• Working life focus, not technology

• No consultants (who are normally vectors of tools)

Technopolis 19

Conclusions and lessons

• Rising to the level of coalitions is not well grounded in the reality of the programme - partly because coalitions are not well conceptualised in the programme (cp RITTS/RIS )

• Researchers’ skills have been broadened, but

• In most cases, the coalition level is a step to far

•As organisational specialists, they are ‘technology blind’

• Publication and tool-building are squeezed out. This needs correction, otherwise the spillovers will be lost

Technopolis 20

Conclusions in sum

• Has generated useful research

• Has generated valuable benefits in a sub-set of the business community, and it is important to value these more traditional industries. Norway cannot live on microchips and services alone any more than it can live on traditional industry

• Involves many, dangerous lock-ins

• Is too broad to be practical. All these goals simply cannot be achieved at once in any project and, arguably, by the combination of projects

• Is unable to deal with new industries and to operate in regions where these are potentially key – and this includes both the southern cities and the far north

• Fails to tackle the important new questions about participation outside unionised structures and to consider what they mean for labour organisation and management in Norway today

Technopolis 21

Can we do the same thing better?

• Move beyond the formally organised - a major challenge for method and praxis• Move into the locked-out areas: cities; new branches; women’s employment• Integrate with a technical innovation diagnosis• Get RCN to admit there’s more to innovation than technology (!) and to learn to

love the programme• Empower beneficiaries by codifying tools and handing them over (cp PLP, RF)• Eliminate the Not Invented Here attitude to the global ‘soft technology’ tools and

start to make use of them• Network tools and experience across the implementation side of the programme• Reallocate resources so that work gets published

Technopolis 22

Should we be doing the same thing?

• Drop the coalitions and refocus on the bottom two levels

• Find a way to retain the engagement of LO/NHO but without their effective veto on policy. This should be a public good programme - it may be better to move the social partners’ funding contribution to the regional level

• Find a research question, such as “What will effective participation mean in Norway in 2010?”

Technopolis 23

Coda

VS2010 has huge symbolic value for the social partners, and their roles are important not only in a symbolic but also a practical way. The co-funding they provide the programme seems to have given them a level of influence over details of policy implementation that is not consistent with the role of a research or innovation funder. Their contribution might be better allocated at the level of regional co-funding or in-kind activity. In practice, their enthusiasm and hard work at the national level has provided an important impetus both to VS2010 and to BU2000. If VS2010 is to continue in some form, a participation from the social partners is needed that continues to be enthusiastic but that moves from defence to offence: encouraging the programme to move beyond the lock-ins we identify here, to innovate and to demonstrate the value of broad participation across the wider economy.