ALSO Strand B Conference Szeged, Hungary 16-17 April 2007 The experience of the ALSO project

1. ALSO Strand B Conference Szeged, Hungary 16-17 April 2007 The experience of the ALSO project

2. Table of Contents • WHY: performance • WHAT: ALSO objectives, scope • WHO: the partners • WHEN and HOW MUCH • HOW: the workplan, the ALSO model, the software application • Conclusions

3. WHY • Need at Programme Management level for evaluation methods and set of indicators in order to evaluate INTERREG projects impacts • Lack of coordination between regional planners and INTERREG operators/project managers in order to better transpose into INTERREG the regional programming activities • Necessity to develop common tools of communication and better instruments in order to diffuse the INTERREG results at regional, national and European level • Strong necessity for training of regional planners and INTERREG operators/project managers

4. “Greater ownership… Lisbon needs the Regions as much as the Regions need Lisbon.” José Manuel Barroso IDEA

5. Questions to be answered • To what extent Interreg III projects can contribute to the achievements of the Lisbon and Gothenburg Strategy objectives from a regional point of view? • Did the Interreg III projects bring their relevant territorial systems nearer to the objectives indicated in the Lisbon and Gothenburg Strategy Agenda? WHY

6. While talking about assessment… Performance is a key word for both businesses and for not-for-profit activities. • It defines the level and the capacity of an organization to deliver the intended priorities and measures into the verifiable results. • It covers the critical factors that enable an organization or a project to be a high-performing. WHY

7. ALSO: An instrument for supporting regional operators, decision-makers and project managers in the efficient implementation of territorial cooperation for the realization of Lisbon Strategy Objectives at local and regional level. www.alsoproject.eu

8. ALSO project aims at: • increasing the inter-regional cooperation within the European Community in order to achieve the Lisbon and Gothenburg Strategy Objectives. • offering supporting tools for new projects to be developed under the 2007-2013 programming period. • promoting exchanges of best practices to be transferred from the Regional Administrations already involved in INTERREG projects and those of new Member States. Objectives

9. WHO: Partners • “STRAND A” – North Europe: Regional Council of South West Finland (FI); Ita-Usima Region (FI); Klaipeda Regional Development Agency (LT); Hiiu County Council (EE) • “STRAND B” - East Europe: Marche Region (IT), Sviluppo Marche RDA (IT), Ervet - RDA (IT), A Del-Alfoldi Regioert- Organizing Public Association (HU), C.E.I. – Sub regional co-operation Initiative in Central and Eastern Europe (16 Countries), Bulgarian Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works (BL) • “STRAND C” – South and West Europe: Région Lorraine (FR), Cambridgeshire County Council (UK), Arco Latino – network of second-tier local Administrations in the Western Mediterranean region (59 members) • Scientific Partners:E.I.P.A. (NL) and ULB (BE)

10. WHEN and HOW MUCH Timetable: The ALSO project lasts 24 months: June 2005 - June 2007 Extension till October 2007 TotalCosts and ERDF required: The ALSO project total budget is 1.376.047,79 Euros The ERDF required is 677.303,87 Euros

11. Designing and Delivering the Lisbon Strategy – What, Who and How STRATEGY WHAT – leading foresight EU-level The EU will be the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. ALSO Project Performance Model Inter-organizational Governance is about people, techonology, processes and structures for enabling effective and efficient strategy implementation HOW WHO – actors and institutions Intra-organizational National/ sub-national HOW – excellence in execution ACTION Source: Applied from Määttä Seppo (2005) Interpretative Horizons on Strategy and Strategic Information. Case Ministry of Finance”. (originally in Finnish). Turku School of Economics and Business Administration. PhD thesis.

12. Conceptual framework: Balanced Scorecard and project assessment Effectiveness • What are the critical factors to be focused on for providing the intended outputs and impacts? PROJECT CONTENT - WHAT Resources Processes and structures • PROJECT • Aim • Objectives • What are the processes and the structures that have a crucial role in delivering high-quality outputs and positive impacts? • What are the critical resources needed in delivering high-quality outputs and positive impacts? Competence and Improvement PROJECT GOVERNANCE - HOW • What are the capacities and skills needed from the people in • having well-functioning processes? • using resources effciently? • delivering value-added outputs with positive impacts?

13. Balanced View on Project Value-added Outputs/Impacts Critical Success Factors • Making Europe and its regions more attractive place to invest and to work • Improving knowledge and innovation for growth • More and better jobs • Sustaining the Macro-economic fundation Resources Cooperation Critical Success Factors • PROJECT • Aim • Objectives Critical Success Factors • Sound financial management • Coherence of the project consortium • Joint financing • Internal and External Communication • Joint Implementation • Joint staffing Project Management Critical Success Factors • Project management system and capacity • Project management experience • Joint Development

14. In-depth analysis of the selected pilot projects: objectives and procedure • The ALSO Evaluation Model is based on a set of indicators for evaluating the INTERREG Projects impact on the achievement of the Lisbon Strategy objectives. Theseindicatorsare to be retrieved directly from the projects. The following procedure has been followed in orderto find out the most useful indicatorsfrom the projects: • screeningof the collected projects in order to select the ones more directly linked to the Lisbon Strategy; • in-depth analysis of the projects in order to sort out the necessary information to build the indicators.

15. The ALSO Methodology Analyzing 6 pilot projects in-depth (written material, field visits) More than 100 projects received First screening and selection: 59 projects Second screening and final selection: 24 projects Process-based Model development and piloting ALSO Workshop I (March 2006) Analyzing other 18 (of 24) projects in- depth (written material, survey...) ALSO Workshop II (October 2006) Dissemination & Use for 2007-2013

16. Methodology • The eligibility criteria for Interreg III projects collection: • direct or indirect involvement of the partner in the projects according to the relevent STRAND • ½ of their planned duration • not below 200.000,00 Euro • More than 100 Interreg projects collected by the ALSO PPs

17. Methodology • Projects Screening: • 1st Phase: 59 projects were selected since they deal directly with the general framework of Lisbon 2 (EC Communication 141 of 12 April 2005) • 2nd Phase: 24 projects selected further to an in-depth analysis against the 24 Integreated Guidelines (endorsed by the European Council Conclusion in June 2005): Projects had to match a min. of 3 guidelines from pillars such as 1. A more attractive place to invest and work 2. Knowledge and innovation for growth 3. Creating more and better works 4. Sound macroeconomic foundations: good quality public finances

18. Example of the first screening Creating more and better works (17-24) Macro-economic foundation (1-6) Knowledge and innovation for growth (7-9) A more attractive place to invest and work (10-16) Strand A Cross- border • BRIDGES Marche: 5,8,16,23 • GALILEO: 8,9,15,16 • SIMOCA: 9,20,23 • EMBRACE: 8,9,15 • I-Log: 8,15,16 Strand B Trans-national • I-Log Hun: 8,15,16 • Smart Life: 8,11,16 • InCluD: 8, 9,14,15 • CAPTURE: 8,9,15 • INNODEC: 8,14,15 • STRATINC: 8,9,15 • ICN: 8,10,15 Strand C Inter-regional • e-Bird (RFO: 1+4 projects): 7,8,9,15 • STIMENT (RFO: 1+ 9 projects): 7,8,9,15,23 • E-TEAMS: 8,9,15

19. 24 projects selected for in-depth analysis IIIA: Cross-border Growth Triangle Galileo Bridges Marche Networks of expertise 3+3 Educational N. IIIB: Transnational SITMUN SmartLife InCluD I-Log SIMOCA EMBRACE Seagull-DevERB I-Log in Hungary ISA-MAP IIIC: Interregional Stratinc Stiment ICT Agents Tripel Helix T2MT PEROU EU.LO.GISTIC E.K.C. e-Learning EC SMEs ECOW Pilot projects

20. KEY PRINCIPLES • Lisbon Strategy based and related • Multidimensional • Provides balanced view on project performance (intended and realized) • Understandable Conceptual Framework for the ALSO project assessment Results ( outputs / impacts ) • Making Europe and its regions more attractive place to invest and to work • Improving knowledge and innovation for growth • More and better jobs Resources Cooperation Critical Success Factors PROJECT Critical Success Factors • Sound financial management • Coherence of the project consortium • Joint financing Objectives • Internal and External Communication • Joint Implementation • Joint staffing Project Management Critical Success Factors • Project management system and capacity • Project management experience • Joint Development

21. Results • Establishing a network of regional authorities around the Gulf of Finland:This was achieved although the future of this network is not clear. • Creating the Growth Triangle strategy : The strategy was created but not approved. Thus the commitment to deliver the stratgy is unclear. • Integrating the GT strategy into the operational activities in Fin, Est and Russia: The future of the GT strategy itself is unclear. In-depth analysis • Integrating the GT strategy into the EU’s Northern Dimension Policy: The GT strategy is mentioned in the policy papers, but the real impact is unclear. • GROWTH TRIANGLE (IIIA) • The Gulf of Finland Growth Triangle (GT)aims to promote public-private co-operation, trade and economic development between Southern Finland, Estonia, City of St. Petersbourg and Leningrad area. The core principles for the GT approach are: • complementarity • geographical cohesion • political commitment and coordination • business orientation and commitment Resources Cooperation • Finance structure: different sources for different partners created inflexibility and bureaucracy. • Joint staffing:No joint resources • Size of the budget:overall budget too small to create interest and commitment. Budget not in balance with the content and the political/business profile and expectations. • Political commitment: high level on the Finnish side, low level on the other partners. • Business orientation:mainly and only through the business associations (FIN, EST). The role of associations unclear • Partner coherence & commitment: high on low level, low on high level; imbalances on equity and capacity • Management structure; roles not clear (steering group in particular), secretatiat was active. Personnel changes in some partners damaged continiuity and coherence. • Project management: leading partner ”too active” => project personalised to the Finnish partner? • Project setting: RFO (Strand C) would have been better setting for this project but was not accessible Project Management

22. Results • Business & Training Centres: Building concrete buildings by the MMC methodology in Malmö, Hamburg and Cambridge. • Training and Education: Providing training for intended number of participants with the aim to strenghten the revenue based financing • Policy and practice planning & research: Conducting research and performance monitoring for getting fact-based evidence on MMC e.g. by key performance indicators. In-depth analysis • Contribution to local employment, SME growth, investments ??? Resources Cooperation SmartLife, IIIB Partners: UK/Cambridge, Swe/Malmö, Ger/Hamburg • Finance structure: more flexibility needed for re-allocations for unforeseen activities and priorities. Application form too static and detailed for the dynamics of the project life-cycle. • Joint financing: No, everyone has his own budget • Joint staffing:No joint staffing. Division of labor is based on WPs. • Post funding: Ideas and plans for self-financing.One funding applicatin to the UK DTI on waste mgt was nnt successful • Political commitment: Included into the joint UK-Sweden initiative on environmental construction (by the UK and Swedish PMs) SmartLife focuses on building innovations and construction training. The aim is to develop, implement and promote the concept of the Modern Method of Construction (MMC) by applying the supply chain approach (from policy-making to construction). • Business orientation: Mainly through training & education • Marketing & Communicating: Strong emphasis on promotion of new skills and MMC, opinion analyses etc., and involvement and facilitation of different focus groups (public, professionals). • Partner coherence & commitment: limited nr of partners enables coherent cooperation in a complex subtance (though lead partner – the UK - has many sub-partners) Project Management • Management structure: steering group; project mgt teams; WP-leaders, sub-partnerships • Project management: desentralised to the partners while the UK is the leading partner Strong SME focus: 98 % of the UK based construction companies employ less than 10 persons! • Joint development:Knowledge and information sharing on e.g. training materials and programmes.

23. Results - Information system elaborated: reliable, fast, easy, cheap - Beneficiaries: 160 municipalities (theoretically) - Problem of Intellectual Property Right In-depth analysis SITMUN (IIIB) Main partners: Diputació de Barcelona; Region of Cantabria; Consortium of local informatics of Mallorca, Consell Insular of Mallorca: Universitat Autonòma de Barcelona; Universitat Illes Balears; Associação de municípios da terra quente trasmontana. The aim is to develop a centralized municipal system of territorial information managed by supra-municipal entities. This will allow the little municipalities to get System of Geographic Information tools reducing its costs. Resources - Difficulties to finance the project for some PPs who withdrew = need to change PPs - EU reduced 50% of the budget, removing the implementation phase - Complex structure for invoicing process: PPs not used Cooperation - Good technical contribution from PPs (clear tasks and objectives since the very beginning) - High cohesion and dynamic participation thanks to LP guide - Communication plan fulfilled: high interest of many municipalities outside the consortium Project Management - No experience in European projects - PPs project management not so good as their technical contribution - Bottom-up approach of project development: technical scientific partner conciliated the different needs of the PPs.

24. Results - Regions direct affected by the LS - In alignment with IG on a more attractive place to invest and work and on knowledge and innovation for growth - One subproject resulted in a company - Willingness to develop another RFO with the same partners In-depth analysis Cooperation - Three years of preparation before the application - High political involvement through the Monitoring Committee. - Equally distribution of tasks and resources to all partners - No sleeping partners - Three thematic components with 3 subprojects for each field - Web-application cleverly used for both internal and external communication (average 700 visitors per month) • STIMENT (IIIC) • Partners: Ovre Norrland (SE); Hame (FI); Lorraine (FR); Wielkopolska (PL) and Brescia (IT). • The projectaims to improve and provide new and innovative approaches to entrepreneurship. Stiment concentrates on three priority themes: • Economic Intelligence • eLearning • Logistics and locations Resources - Major difficulties for first level control in one partner region - Possible private funds availability exceeded 17% - 30% of personnel time allocated to financial issues Project Management - Strong political commitment (1-2 meetings a year) - Previous experience from each region on European projects and bilateral cooperation prior to the RFO - One partner opted for a private consultancy for project implementation

25. Methodology/Progress steps • Involvement of the Project Partners in the assessment. • Preparation of questionnaire. • Field visits. • Introduction of regional indicators. • Scoring of indicators. • Selection of best practices. • Testing of the Targetor“Cube”software application.

26. Criteria and Indicators How to determine the indicators? • Analysis of existing indicators • Relevance of the indicators • Availability of the information/data • Information from project partners • Field visits • In-depth analysis

27. Criteria and Indicators • How to determine the indicators? • Lisbon strategy indicators • Regional indicators • Innovation indicators • Results indicators • Output indicators • Other indicators

28. Criteria and Indicators • Lisbon Strategy Indicators • Regional competitiveness • Indicators prepared by EUROSTAT, DG REGIO, STRINNOP, etc • EC evaluation criteria • efficient, effective, impact, sustainable projects

29. Indicators • Results indicators • Results dimension of the ALSO Model • Enablers Indicators • Cooperation • Project management • Resources dimensions of the ALSO Model

30. Scoring Indicators • 1st step: relevance and availability of data for the indicator • Due to irrelevance of indicator or lack of information (NR & NA) • 2nd step: level of impact or achievement of the indicator (0-4)

31. Scoring Indicators • Due to lack of indicator for Guidelines: 2, 4, 6, 12, 22 • Quantifying the indicators • e.g. “venture capital” or “private investment” lack of info => from amount to none-low-medium-high-very high

32. Scoring Formula • NR and NA scores • Indicators scored NR are not counted in the formula • Indicators scored NA are counted in the formula but with a different weight than the other scores • Show formula in the Excel Sheet

33. Scoring • Dimension scores for • Project management • Cooperation • Resources • Total score: 40% of results dimension + 20% of the sum of the other dimensions

34. CRITERIA and INDICATORS • Evaluation Framework, 4-dimensions • Results dimension • 20 indicators • Cooperation dimension • 20 indicators • Project management dimension • 10 indicators • Resources dimension • 10 indicators

35. CRITERIA and INDICATORS Results dimension • Increased level of private investment • Contribution to renewable energy resources • Contribution to domestic expenditure on R&D • Level of science and technology graduates • Increased participation in lifelong learning • Increased level of business expenditure on R&D • Level of EPO high-tech patent applications • Increased level of venture capital • Contribution to job creation • Impact on job-loss prevention • Impact on establishing new companies • Creating “innovation &entrepreneurship culture” • Facilitating access to technology & service providers • Contribution to the creation of new products • Impact on number of start-ups • Private initiative within regional cluster • Public initiatives for networks & clusters • International networks created • Increased coherence of regional policies • Increased contacts at inter-regional level

36. CRITERIA and INDICATORS Cooperation dimension • Percentage of partners with contacts before the project • Percentage of partners with experience of cooperation • Percentage of PPs previously working together • Number and quality of dissemination activities/outputs • Number of target group reached • Number of new cooperation agreements • Commitment to future cooperation • Number of policy-makers involved • Number of provisions for sustainability • Number of provisions for qualitative communication • Quality of internal communication tools • Level of commitment of all PPs • Clear and balanced responsibilities • Balanced involvement of all PPs • Degree of exchange of experience • Contribution to new methods/tools • Improving existing methods • N. of new policy instruments introduced • Acceptance of changes on regional level • Common approaches in regional policies

37. CRITERIA and INDICATORS Project management dimension • Percentage of reports submitted in due time • Percentage of progress reports approved instantly • Clear management and co-ordination • Flexibility and problem solving ability • Shared and effective administration • Percentage of partners with INTERREG experience • Quality of SWOT analysis • Quality of project evaluation • N. of future contacts among the PPs • New international networks created

38. CRITERIA and INDICATORS Resources dimension • Effective financial and accounting procedures • Number of seminars for financial management • Budget spent within agreed timetable • Absorption of the operation • Timely submission of financial claims • Co-financing from the regional authority • Participation of PPs in co-financing • Clearly defined resources • Costs for PPs clearly defined • Balanced N. of skilled staff

39. Shaping the Assessment Model: introducing indicators • Project level: cooperation dimension (examples) Coherence of the project consortium: % PPs with experience in the proposed topic for cooperation. Internal and external communication: Number and quality of dissemination activities/events/products/publications. Joint implementation: Clear and balanced distribution of tasks/responsibilities among PPs. • Project level: project management (examples) Project management system and capacity: % of reports submitted in due time to JTS. Project management experience: % of partners with experience from INTERREG initiative. Joint development: Quality of SWOT analysis.

40. Shaping the Assessment Model: introducing indicators • Project level: resources dimension (examples)indicators Sound financial management: % of budget spent within agreed timetable. Joint financing: Clear definition of resources to be used for carrying out common activities. Joint staffing: Balanced N. of skilled staff people in relation to activities to implement. • Project level: RESULTS Selection of regional indicators in relation to the Lisbon Pillars: -A more attractive place to invest and work-Knowledge & Innovation for growth -More and better jobs -Sustainable macro-economic foundation

41. Selection of the best Practices • Scoring of the indicators • Measurement and ranking according to a technical furmula A set of best practices (in relation both to the dimensions and for a global score per strand)

42. The best practices

43. ASSESSMENT - SCALES EX-ANTE MID-TERM/EX-POST Score Score No evidence or only anecdotal evidence of an approach 0 0 No results are measured Key results are measured and show negative trends 1 1 An approach is planned An approach is planned and the implementation is described 2 2 Results show modest progress An approach is planned the implementation is described and the monitoring system is set. 3 3 Results show substantial progress An approach is planned the implementation is described and the monitoring system, including verifiable targets are set. Excellent results are achieved and postitive comparisons to own targets are made 4 4 Adapted from the Common Assessment Framework (CAF). EIPA, Oct. 2002.

44. Regional Framework Operation STIMENT ALSO GOOD PRACTICE

45. STIMENT case • Interreg IIIC project (the first RFO North zone project) • Lead Partner • County Administrative Board of Västerbotten (Övre Norrland, SE). • Partnership with • Regional Council of Lorraine (Lorraine, FR) • Regional Council of Häme (Etelä-Suomi,FI) • Marshal Office of the Wielkopolska Voivodeship (Wielkopolskie, PL) • Province of Brescia (Lombardia, IT) Success factor The five regions had co-operated bilaterally since the 1990’s and had already experience in European programmes (e.g. RIS+, INTERREG, EQUAL, TACIS, PHARE )

46. STIMENT case • Duration • May 2003 – December 2006 (after three years of preparation). • Global budget: • 3,010,000€ including 1,660,000€ ERDF funding • Application costs (in euros) Success factor

47. STIMENT case • Problem description (SWOT Analysis). • Structural changes after the 70’s meant the decline of the traditional economic sectors. • A weakness of entrepreneurial tradition. • A serious lack of entrepreneurs. • Brescia is a leading entrepreneurial region. • The main need is to stimulate entrepreneurship in the four regions as well as to identify new and innovative approaches in the case of Brescia. Success factor The Consortium agreed to focus on three thematic components. Economic Intelligence e-Learning Logistics and Locations

48. STIMENT case Mission of STIMENT • Overall objectives: “Develop long-term and strategic co-operation between regions in order to: • For them to take an active part in the process of European Integration, including the enlargement of the EU. • Provide a multi-dimensional and stable framework for co-operation between the regions and their regional actors. • Enhance entrepreneurial knowledge and skills by exchanging experiences and transferring tools, methods and policies. • Increase the international cooperation of the regions and actors in regional partnerships. • Give impetus to new innovative ideas and develop new methods and processes for programming/ implementation of Structural Funds programmes, as well as in relation to other EU and MS policies (e.g. eEurope action plan). • Basing co-operation on strong and fully-inclusive regional partnerships.” Success factor

49. STIMENT case Operation of STIMENT Three priority components to stimulate entrepreneurship: • Economic Intelligence to develop the traditional economic sector enterprises. A rational managing of enterprises and a greater use of new technology in order to shorten costs. • eLearning to increase the possibilities for the life long learning enterprises. Can contribute to allow people improving their knowledge and professional skill through the newest information, thanks to the instruments offered by the Information Technologies. • Logistics and Location to create better pre-conditions for entrepreneurship. New spatial, cross-sectorial approaches related to logistics and location (e.g. better transport infrastructures).

50. STIMENT case Subprojects - Triple Helix - ECOW - ICT Agents - PEROU - E-Learning Education Centre for SME - EKC - T2MT - SRlog - EU.LO.GISTICS 9 running operations with 57 participants involved Economic Intelligence Success factor E-learning Logistics and Locations