260 likes | 263 Vues
Sharing experiences and practices across transnational regions. results questionnaire template 1. Objectives of questionnaire. Facilitation of transfer of knowledge, ideas, good practice and examples (WP1) Sharing and dissemination of good practice (WP2)
E N D
Sharing experiences and practices across transnational regions results questionnaire template 1
Objectives of questionnaire • Facilitation of transfer of knowledge, ideas, good practice and examples (WP1) • Sharing and dissemination of good practice (WP2) • Sharing marketing & promotion techniques (WP3) • Evidence of research and transnational working
3 themes • Benchmarking • Cluster organisation and development • Cluster promotion and marketing
Method • See document
BenchmarkingImpact of clusters forruraleconomy Cluster working is important: • Existance of • Strategic documents • Data collection
BenchmarkingImpact of clusters forruraleconomy • Data collection • All regions have one or more systems • One partner: 5 different systems • Quality is rather low Possibilitiesforimprovement (data collection)
BenchmarkingTypology of cluster groups • 40 cluster groups in total • Between 2 and 10 clusters per region • Cluster working is a rather young phenomenon • 700 entrepreneurs are member of a cluster • 23 of the 40 groups = a result of Collabor8 • 4 of the 8 partners started with clusters within Collabor8
BenchmarkingTypology of cluster groups • Collabor8 clusters (new clusters): • Country sector is new • Succes of ‘localfood’ sector in clusters is decreasing
BenchmarkingTypology of cluster groups • Theme or locality based:
BenchmarkingStandards & awards Quality and eco-labelling: • About 50% of the entrepreneurs have a standard or award
Cluster organisation & developmentResults Motivation of entrepreneurs to participate: • Sharing experiences, knowledge, practices • Sharing ideas on ‘sence of place’ • Influence, lobbying strenght • Reducing costs, increasing income • Networking • Increasing visitors in the region
Cluster organisation & developmentMonitoring • Monitoring of cluster-working is basic or absent • Only Merthyr Tydfil is working on qualitative issues • Monitoring economical value is totally absent • Someregionsrequestgoodexamples
Cluster organisation & developmentDifficulties • Trust in organising government • Trust in the other entrepreneurs • Time available of entrepreneurs • Talking vs. direct action
Cluster organisation & developmentHow does itwork? • A good Code of Practice is not yet very established
Cluster organisation & developmentHow does itwork? Capacity of self-management: • Involvement of official organisations is important • Problem: trust in government is rather low
Cluster promotion & marketingStrategicorganisation Availability of a central policy: • Strategic documents: only 3 regions have one, 3 under development • Strategic support on attraction of visitors: most of the regions have it, but only 43% is considered to be sufficient • Only 3 regions give/have strategic support on cluster promotion
Cluster promotion & marketingIn practice • Promotion & marketing of the region is important (vs. poor strategic organisation) • Adoption of a brand is less common (5 of 8) • Use of the brand is connected to the use of ‘sence of place’
Cluster promotion & marketingMarketsegmentation/newtechnologies • 6 of 8 regions consider market segmentation important • 6 of 8 regions use new technologies
Conclusions Methodology: • 3 questionnaires: interesting to see how Collabor8 evolves
Conclusions Cluster-working: • Working with clusters is important, but young • Impact of Collabor8 on cluster-working is high: 23 of 40 clusters • Availability of quality- and eco-awards is low, but under development • Hospitality is the most prolific sector, followed by Local food and Recreation. Importance of Local food is decreasing
Conclusions Results and difficulties of cluster working: • Lack of good monitoring • Lack of quantitative or qualitative figures • Lack of confidence between entrepreneurs and government • Collabor8-partners are all governmental • Only 14% of clusters = self managed
Thanks to: • Sirka Lüdtke, Ghent University, for elaborating the template • Jan Van den Berghe, SPK, for handling the data and making the report • Andrew & Claire Gray, ERA 21, for feed-back • You, for giving the data