DTI Business Support Cross-Product Monitoring Survey 7

Results Presentation March 2007 DTI Business Support Cross-Product Monitoring Survey 7

Presentation Structure • Background • Objectives, Methodology, Sampling, Response Rates, Outliers • Profile • Programme Participation • Additionality • Quality & Satisfaction • Impact & Outcomes • Costs & Benefits

Background

Background • This presentation outlines the findings of the 7th in the Business Support Cross-Product Monitoring Surveys (BSMS) series • This annual programme of research is now an established part of the monitoring arrangements for the Department’s key business support products • The surveys provide data on areas such as customer satisfaction and profiling as well as the impact and effectiveness of the products • With the surveys being designed in such a way as to provide data in a consistent and comparable form across products.

Objectives • It is the intention that the results of this research will be used in conjunction with other information sources for such purposes as… • informing policy development in the area of business support • Providing evidence for periodic in-depth impact evaluations of individual business support products • As well as for ongoing monitoring • To this end, it was required that this survey provide: • Evidence of the impact and effectiveness of the products on business beneficiaries, taking into account additionality • Data for a number of key survey-based measures, including customer satisfaction • Participant profile data • Comparisons with results from previous surveys

Coverage • This 7th wave of the Business Support Cross-Product Monitoring Surveys (BSMS) series covers beneficiaries of the following five business support products: • Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTP) – 200 interviews • Grant for Investigating an Innovative Idea (GIII) – 122 interviews • Grant for Research & Development (GRD) – 158 interviews • Business Performance Diagnostic (BPD) – 390 interviews • Selective Finance for Investment in England (SFIE) – 185 interviews • Please note that it was the intention that the Small Firms Loan Guarantee (SFLG) product would also be covered in this wave of the BSMS, but problems with sample availability have made this impossible

Methodology • The methodological approach essentially mirrors that taken in previous waves of the Business Support Cross-Product Monitoring Surveys, namely: • Telephone interviews, administered using CATI, conducted with beneficiaries of the various business support products between 4th January & 2nd March 2007 • Pre-contact letters sent to potential interviewees to explain the purpose of the research • Full quantitative and qualitative piloting conducted prior to live fieldwork • Series of measures in place in an attempt to achieve the target response rate of 70%, including: • Full review & piloting of the questionnaire • Pre-contact letters • Extended fieldwork period • Experienced, specialist interviewer team • Executive appointment setting • The key methodological change has been in terms of a streamlining of the questionnaire length, and hence a substantial reduction in overall interview length to 15-mins.

Sampling KTP Sample Frame: Successful applicants, where application made July 2005 – June 2006. Unsuccessful applicants, those awaiting a decision and successful applicants whose project had been ‘abandoned’ at time of interview. Manual look-up for 29 records without telephone numbers. Proportionate, stratified random sample with stratification by SIC, RDA, employees & pre/post Nov 2005. Exclusions: Sampling Approach: GIII Sample Frame: Successful applicants, where application made July 2005 – June 2006. Unsuccessful applicants, those awaiting a decision and successful applicants whose project had been ‘abandoned’at time of interview. Census. Exclusions: Sampling Approach:

Sampling GRD Sample Frame: Successful applicants, where application made July 2005 – June 2006. N.B. East of England & South West missing. Unsuccessful applicants, those awaiting a decision and successful applicants whose project had been ‘abandoned’at time of interview. Manual look-up for 14 records without telephone numbers. Proportionate, stratified random sample with stratification by SIC, RDA & employees. Exclusions: Sampling Approach: BPD Sample Frame: Recipients of a diagnostic report, where ‘diagnostic start date’ April – September 2006. Firms who had not received their diagnostic report at the time of interview. Proportionate, stratified random sample with stratification by SIC, RDA & employees. Exclusions: Sampling Approach:

Sampling SFIE Sample Frame: Successful applicants, where application made July 2005 – June 2006. Unsuccessful applicants, those awaiting a decision and successful applicants whose project had been ‘abandoned’at time of interview. Firms participating in recent economic impact study avoided where possible. Proportionate, stratified random sample with stratification by SIC, RDA & employees. Exclusions: Sampling Approach:

Sample Analysis

Outlier Analysis Profit & Turnover Investigated: All records where profit >= turnover 1 1 No action required Number of Records: Callbacks Required: Results: Turnover & Employees Investigated: All records where sales per employee <£10,000 or >£1million 26 10 7 amends, 3 confirmed Number of Records: Callbacks Required: Results:

Outlier Analysis £ Estimated Benefit Investigated: All records with £ Estimated Benefit £17million+ 9 9 8 confirmed, 1 amended Number of Records: Callbacks Required: Results:

Key Measures Service Quality & Satisfaction Competence & knowledge of mentor (B27) Quality rating (A09) Clear information rating (B09) Time to process application (C19) Transparency & efficiency rating (A32) Overall satisfaction (B10) Impact & Outcomes Improved productivity & competitiveness (A06) £ estimated benefit (A49) Improved Access to Finance (A91) Improved hard business performance (A68) Changed behaviour (A83) Increased skills (A81) Increased innovation (A04) New products, processes or man. practices (A57) Improved ability to access external expertise (A76)

Profile

Region Region Base: All respondents (Base) KTP (200); GIII (122); GRD (158); BPD (390); SFIE (185)

Age Of Business Over 20 years When Business Established 10-20 years 5-10 years 2-5 years Within last 2 years Not yet trading Source: 2005 SBS Annual Survey of Small Businesses KTP GIII GRD BPD SFIE Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused) BDP – West Mids (188, 1%); The rest (202, 0%) Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused) KTP (200, 0%); GIII (122, 0%); GRD (158, 0%); BPD (390, 1%); SFIE (185, 0%)

Industry Sector Sector (Based on SIC) Services Construction Production Primary Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused) BDP – West Mids (188, 0%); The rest (202, 0%) KTP GIII GRD BPD SFIE Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused) KTP (200, 0%); GIII (122, 0%); GRD (158, 0%); BPD (390, 0%); SFIE (185, 0%)

Company Status Company Status Other Subsidiary of another business A business with subsidiaries Independent business – no subsidiaries KTP GIII GRD BPD SFIE Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused) BDP – West Mids (188, 0%); The rest (202, 0%) Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused) KTP (200, 1%); GIII (122, 0%); GRD (158, 0%); BPD (390, 0%); SFIE (185, 0%)

Size Of Business 250+ Number Of Employees 100-249 50-99 10-49 1-9 0 KTP GIII GRD BPD SFIE Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused) BDP – West Mids (188, 1%); The rest (202, 1%) Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused) KTP (200, 0%); GIII (122, 0%); GRD (158, 0%); BPD (390, 1%); SFIE (185, 0%)

Size Of Business Number of Employees Base: All respondents/All successful applicants (Base – Wave 7, Wave 5) KTP (200, 350); GIII (122, 348); GRD (158, 419); BPD (390, 136); SFIE (185, 134)

Financial Profile - Turnover Current Annual Turnover More than £10million £2million-£10million £500,000-£2million £100,000-£500,000 Less than £100,000 KTP GIII GRD BPD SFIE Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused) BDP – West Mids (188, 3%); The rest (202, 3%) Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused) KTP (200, 5%); GIII (122, 4%); GRD (158, 3%); BPD (390, 3%); SFIE (185, 2%)

Financial Profile - Exports Proportion Of Turnover Accounted For By Exports More than 15% Up to 15% Zero KTP GIII GRD BPD SFIE Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused) BDP – West Mids (188, 3%); The rest (202, 3%) Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused) KTP (200, 7%); GIII (122, 5%); GRD (158, 4%); BPD (390, 3%); SFIE (185, 2%)

Export Activity – Further Analysis Business Type – By Export Activity Base: All respondents (Base) Zero (541); Up to 15% (223); More than 15% (249)

Financial Profile - Profitability Profit & Loss Breaking even Making a loss Profit Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused) BDP – West Mids (188, 2%); The rest (202, 2%) KTP GIII GRD BPD SFIE Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused) KTP (200, 5%); GIII (122, 8%); GRD (158, 6%); BPD (390, 2%); SFIE (185, 0%)

Programme Participation

Number of Times Participated Number of Times Company Has Participated In Scheme More than twice Twice Once KTP GIII GRD BPD SFIE Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused) BDP – West Mids (188, 0%); The rest (202, 0%) Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused) KTP (200, 0%); GIII (122, 0%); GRD (158, 0%); BPD (390, 0%); SFIE (185, 0%)

Progress Of Current Project Stage of Current Project Project complete Project in progress Project not yet started KTP GIII GRD BPD SFIE Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused) KTP (200, 0%); GIII (122, 0%); GRD (158, 0%); SFIE (185, 0%)

Receipt Of The Diagnostic Report – When?(BPD) When? Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know) BDP – West Mids (188, 4%); The rest (202, 1%) Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know) BPD (390, 3%)

Receipt Of The Diagnostic Report – How?(BPD) How? At a meeting with the BLA Remotely - with a follow-up meeting Remotely – no meeting Other Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know) BDP – West Mids (188, 2%); The rest (202, 1%) Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know) BPD (390, 2%)

Progress (BPD) Progress To Date Received diagnostic report Formulated a strategic action plan with BLA (but not begun work on it) Begun working on strategic action plan Put forward for financial assistance for a consultancy project Had financial assistance approved Base: All respondents (Base) BPD (390) Base: All respondents (Base) BDP – West Mids (188); The rest (202)

Influence Of Diagnostic Exercise (BPD) Influence Of Diagnostic Exercise On Decision About Which Aspect Of The Business To Focus On Identified issues previously unaware of Clarified which issues should be focussed on Confirmed the need to focus on particular issues Had no influence Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know, ‘None of these’) BPD (390, 1%, 1%) Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know, ‘None of these’) BDP – West Mids (188, 1%, 2%); The rest (202, 0%, 0%)

Influence Of Diagnostic Exercise – Further Analysis Influence Of Diagnostic Exercise – By Progress Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know, ‘None of these’) Begun working on strategic action plan (235, 0%, 0%); Had financial assistance approved (162, 1%, 2%)

Awareness of DTI Funding (GRD) When First Considered Grant Were You Aware That The DTI Was Helping To Fund GRD Scheme Yes No Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know) GRD (158, 1%)

Additionality

Additionality Additionality – Would Have Achieved Similar Results Anyway? Definitely wouldn’t Probably wouldn’t Some but not all Yes, but not as quickly Yes (non-additional) KTP GIII GRD BPD SFIE Base: All respondents (Base, None of these) BDP – West Mids (188, 3%); The rest (202, 2%) Base: All respondents (Base, ‘None of these’) KTP (200, 3%); GIII (122, 2%); GRD (158, 1%); BPD (390, 3%); SFIE (185, 3%)

Additionality – Further Analysis Additionality – By Number of Times Company Has Participated In Scheme Base: All respondents (Base, ‘None of these’) Once (863, 2%); Twice (133, 2%), More than twice (59, 0%)

Extent To Which Financial Benefits Attributable To Scheme Proportion Of Financial Benefit Would Expect To Realise Anyway & To The Same Timeframe – For Those Anticipating A Financial Benefit None of it (0%) 20% of it or less 21%-40% of it 41%-60% of it More than 60% of it All of it (100%) Zero benefits KTP GIII GRD BPD SFIE Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know (benefit), Don’t know (attribution)) KTP (200, 25%, 3%); GIII (122, 21%, 1%); GRD (158, 23%,2%); BPD (390, 16%, 1%); SFIE (185, 15%, 2%) Base: All resp’ (Base, Don’t know(benefit) Don’t know(attribution)) BDP – West Mids (188, 15%, 1%); The rest (202, 17%, 1%)

Quality & Satisfaction

Overall Satisfaction Overall Satisfaction 1 – Very dissatisfied 2 – Fairly dissatisfied 3 - Indifferent 4 – Fairly satisfied 5 – Very satisfied KTP GIII GRD BPD SFIE Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Can’t remember) KTP (200, 3%); GIII (122, 0%); GRD (158, 0%); BPD (390, 1%); SFIE (185, 1%) Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Can’t remember BDP – West Mids (188, 1%); The rest (202, 0%)

Overall Satisfaction – Survey Measure B10 • Proportion of firms scoring ‘4 – Fairly satisfied’ or ‘5 – Very satisfied’ on a 5-point scale for… • Thinking about your total experience of <scheme> how would you rate your satisfaction with the scheme overall?

Overall Satisfaction – Survey Measure B10 Overall Satisfaction - (B10) KTP GIII GRD BPD SFIE Proportion giving a rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’ 75% 79% 84% 61% 71% BPD West Mids The rest 60% 62% Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Can’t remember) KTP (200, 3%); GIII (122, 0%); GRD (158, 0%); BPD (390, 1%); SFIE (185, 1%) 95% Confidence Intervals ± 4% ± 4% ± 4% ± 4% ± 4%

Overall Satisfaction – Comparisons With Previous Research Overall Satisfaction - (B10) KTP GIII GRD BPD SFIE BSMS Wave 7 Proportion giving a rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’ 75% 79% 84% 61% 71% Base: 200 122 158 390 185 BSMS Wave 5 Proportion giving a rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’ 73% 81% 79% 54% 76% Base: 350 348 419 136 128 No statistically significant differences between Wave 7 and Wave 5 at the 95% confidence level

Reasons For Dissatisfaction Reasons For Dissatisfaction (Unprompted) KTP GIII GRD • (One-off mentions only) • Did not benefit business – 2 firms • Time consuming/slow process – 2 firms • Did not receive the full amount requested – 2 firms • Too much bureaucracy – 3 firms • Did not receive the full amount requested – 2 firms BPD SFIE • Did not benefit the business – 31% • Not relevant to the business – 18% • Benchmarks not suitable – 16% • Poor level of guidance – 16% • Too much bureaucracy – 11% • Received no funding – 10% • Time consuming/slow process – 5 firms • Too many restrictions – 5 firms • Process unclear – 4 firms • Did not received the full amount requested – 4 firms • Too much bureaucracy – 3 firms • Process too complex – 3 firms • Did not benefit the business – 3 firms Base: All respondents (Base) – Dissatisfaction: BPD - 10%+ mentions only; Others – 2+ firms mentioning only KTP (6); GIII (7); GRD (7); BPD (61); SFIE (19)

Quality Rating – Survey Measure A09 Quality Rating - (A09) KTP GIII GRD BPD SFIE Average proportion giving a rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’ 72% 74% 70% 72% 60% BPD West Mids The rest 73% 71% Base: All respondents (Base) KTP (200); GIII (122); GRD (158); BPD (390); SFIE (185) 95% Confidence Intervals ± 4% ± 5% ± 5% ± 4% ± 5%

Quality Rating – Comparisons With Previous Research Quality Rating - (A09) KTP GIII GRD BPD SFIE BSMS Wave 7 Average proportion giving a rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’ 72% 74% 70% 72% 60% Base: 200 122 158 390 185 BSMS Wave 5 Average proportion giving a rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’ 79% 78% 60% 62% 74% Base: 318 348 70 136 91 * Please note that there are differences in the construction of the A09 measure between Wave 5 and Wave 7 Denote statistically significant differences between Wave 7 and Wave 5 at the 95% level of confidence

Quality Rating – Survey Measure A09 • For KTP: • Average proportion of firms scoring ‘4’ or ‘5’ on a 5-point scale for… • Competence & knowledge of Associate (B1g2) in progress/completed projects only • Competence & knowledge of HEI supervisor (B1g3) in progress/completed projects only • Written information to assist in preparing application (B1b) • Verbal advice to assist in preparing application (B1b5) • Transparency of application process (B1b7) • Professionalism & impartiality of scheme staff (B1c) in progress/completedprojects only • Communications between firm and scheme staff (B1h) in progress/completed projects only • Efficiency of whole process (B1f)

Quality Ratings– KTP Quality Ratings Good ‘4’ or ‘5’ BSMS Wave 5 Average Or Poor ‘1’, ‘2’ or ‘3’ Application process Scheme staff Competence & knowledge Associate HEI supervisor Written information Verbal advice Transparency Professional & impartial Commun-ications Efficiency of process In progress/completed projects only In progress/completed projects only Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know) KTP (175-200, 4%, 5%, 9%, 9%, 3%, 2%, 1%, 2%)

Quality Rating – Survey Measure A09 • For GIII: • Average proportion of firms scoring ‘4’ or ‘5’ on a 5-point scale for… • Competence & knowledge of mentor (B1ga) in progress/completed projects only • Service provided by mentor (B1g4) in progress/completed projects only • Written information from DTI & mentor to assist in preparing application (B1b) • Verbal advice from DTI & mentor to assist in preparing application (B1b5) • Time to process application (B1g5) in progress/completed projects only • Competence & knowledge of scheme staff (B1g) in progress/completed projects only • Communications between firm and scheme staff (B1h) in progress/completed projects only

DTI Business Support Cross-Product Monitoring Survey 7