Presentation at the NORDITE Conference, June 2011

1. The NORDITE Conference 2011
NORDITE EVALUATION RESULTS

2. AGENDA
A The content, target and evaluation activities
B Results
C Conclusions and recommendations
2

3. 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

4. THE PROGRAMME
• The evaluation included three Nordic programmes:
• Nordite (Finland, Sweden, Norway)
• Excite (Finland, Sweden)
• Inwite (Finland, Sweden)
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Nordite
Exsite
Inwite
Timelines of the three Nordic telecommunications programmes
4

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
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.
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.
5

6. 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

7. 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

8. EVALUATION ACTIVITIES
The selection criteria of the case study.
GIGA NETS
NORDITE EXSITE INWITE
Continuity
1. Company A 6. Company A
12. Project I 15. Project M 17. Project P
2. Company B 7. Company B
12. Project J
Continuity
14. Project K
3. Project B 8. Project C
(Norway) 16. Project N 18. Project Q
Services and business
Management and
4. Project D 9. Project E organisation
13. Project O
(Sweden)
12. Project L
10. Project G
5. Project F
11. Project H
Companies that participated in some programme activities but did not receive funding
Company 1 Company 2 Company 3 Company 4 Company 5 Company 6
8

9. AGENDA
A The content, target and evaluation activities
B Results
C Conclusions and recommendations
9

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. THE IMPACT OF THE NORDIC COOPERATION
The impact of Nordic cooperation
100 5
Average number (1=Not at all/ 5= Very much)
90 4,7 4,6 4,6
80
4
70
60
Percent
50 3
40
30
2
20
10
0 1
Nordic co-operation improved our Nordic co-operation improved our Nordic co-operation contributed to
organization’s possibilities to organizations possibilities to create achieving our organization's goals.
strengthen our Nordic networks. new co-operation connections to
the EU projects.
Very much To some extent Neutral Only little Not at all Average
13

14. PROGRAMME SERVICES
Importance of the programme services for the organisations
100 5
4,9
Avarage number (1=Not at all/ 5= Very
90
80
4,0 4
70
60
Percent
much)
50 3
40
30
2
20
10
0 1
Financing Seminars and workshops
Very much To some extent Neutral Only little Not at all Can’t estimate Average
14

15. PROGRAMME SERVICES
Usefulness of the programme services for the organisations
100 4,9 5
Avarage number (1=Not at all/ 5= Very
90
80
4
70 3,8
60
Percent
much)
50 3
40
30
2
20
10
0 1
Financing Seminars and workshops
Very much To some extent Neutral Only little Not at all Can’t estimate Average
15

16. RESULTS AND EFFECTS
Factors that effected organisation’s abilities to achieve set goals
100 5
Avarage number (1=Reduced very muchll/
90
80 4,3
4,0 4
70
5=Improvedvery much)
Percent
60 3,5
50 3,0 3
40
30
2
20
10
0 1
Timing of the Global economic Availability of skillful Building co-operation
programme and its development labor networks in the branch
relation to the market
development
Improved very much Improved to some extent No effect at all
Reduced to some extent Reduced very much Can’t estimate
Average
16

17. OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAMMES
Achieved objectives in the Nordite, Exsite, and Inwite programmes
(1=Only part of the objectives were met
100 % 4
4= Objectives were exeeded)
80 %
3
60 %
2,58
2,38
40 %
2
20 %
0% 1
Economical and commercial objectives Technological objectives
Objectives were exceeded All objectives were met
Almost all objectives were met Only part of the objectives were met
Average
17

18. SOME ASPECTS TO THE PROGRAMMES -
QUAOTAS FROM THE INTERVIEWS AND
SURVEY
“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
“In my opinion, the management model,
companies that feel that competition on the EU
where each country has its own programme
level is too high. It lets them operate in a
manager, has served its purpose well.”
familiar environment with simpler rules.”
“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.”
18

19. 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

20. Thank you!
For more information, please contact:
• Mia Toivanen (miat@r-m.com)
• Henrik Stener Pedersen (heks@r-m.com)
20