3.3.1 A little over half of the award winners were from four sectors (Table 3.5) including metals and mechanical engineering, R&D, instruments, and computing, and almost three-quarters were from just seven sectors. The table suggests that there were only minor variations in the sectoral distribution according to type of award, size of company and scheme.
Table 3.5 Company Sector
Type of grant Size of company Scheme Total Micro Feas/
resch Devel/
excep
1-9 10-49 50+ Smart GRD
Metals & mechanical engineering 15 17 12 20 14 21 14 14 18 R&D 13 8 15 11 14 7 12 12 14 Man: instruments (medical & other) 12 9 14 12 13 13 3 13 12 Computing 11 15 9 11 13 6 0 8 16 Chemical manufacture 9 3 10 10 7 11 17 9 9 Man: electrical machinery 8 10 6 10 6 13 19 10 5 Business services 6 12 4 5 6 3 13 6 4
Health, care 5 3 5 5 5 4 0 3 8
Man: food, drink, tobacco 3 7 1 4 2 3 11 2 4
Man: transport 3 2 4 1 3 3 0 4 1
Construction 3 1 5 1 4 1 0 4 1
Farming, Forestry, Fishing 2 0 3 1 2 1 0 2 1 Man: office machinery 2 1 2 1 2 1 0 2 1 Man: comms equip (radio, TV) 2 3 1 3 2 0 8 2 1 Personal services 2 2 1 2 2 3 0 2 0 Man: textiles, leather, shoes, clothing 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 Man: Other (furniture, games, recycle) 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 Electricity, gas, water, waste 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 Wholesale & Retail 1 3 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 Transport, storage, comms 1 2 1 1 2 2 0 2 1 Extraction (Oil, Gas) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Man: wood, paper; Publishing 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Property, renting 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Public admin, defence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
awards. Small companies were evenly divided between applying for feasibility and development awards. Projects in the era of Smart were dominated by applications for feasibility awards, whereas projects in the GRD era were more evenly divided between micro, feasibility and development projects.
Table 3.6 Type of award applied for
Type of grant Size of company Scheme Total Micro Feas/
resch Devel/
excep
1-9 10-49 50+ Smart GRD
Feasibility / research 55 0 100 0 58 51 18 64 36 Development 27 0 0 97 19 47 79 22 38
Micro 17 100 0 0 23 0 0 14 25
Exceptional 1 0 0 3 0 2 3 0 2
Effective Sample Size 462 78 235 155 327 94 20 273 211 A number is shown in bold where, taking into account the margin of error due to sampling, we are 95%
certain that it is different from the number in the left hand total column (using a Chi-Squared statistical test) Source: PACEC Survey (Q9)
3.3.3 Table 3.7 indicates that award winners were drawn from all regions of England, but it reveals no remarkable variations in the regional distribution according to type of award, size of company or scheme.
Table 3.7 Region of award winners
Type of grant Size of company Scheme Total Micro Feas/
resch Devel/
excep
1-9 10-49 50+ Smart GRD
South East 13 14 12 14 16 7 5 10 18 Eastern 14 8 15 15 13 20 15 13 16 Greater London 8 11 8 7 9 6 5 7 10
South West 7 14 6 7 8 4 11 8 6
West Midlands 10 5 12 7 10 10 15 11 7 East Midlands 16 12 20 12 16 18 11 18 12 Yorkshire / Humberside 14 15 12 15 11 24 19 14 13 North West 13 16 10 16 13 8 16 13 11
North East 5 5 5 6 5 5 3 4 7
Effective Sample Size 462 78 235 155 327 94 20 273 208 A number is shown in bold where, taking into account the margin of error due to sampling, we are 95%
certain that it is different from the number in the left hand total column (using a Chi-Squared statistical test) Source: PACEC Survey (Q10)
3.3.4 Table 3.8 shows that three-quarters of all award winners had fewer than ten employees at the time they started their projects. Companies of this size dominated
Table 3.8 Company size at start of project
Type of grant Size of company Scheme Total Micro Feas/
resch Devel/
excep
1-9 10-49 50+ Smart GRD
0 to 4 59 82 64 36 79 0 0 58 62 5 to 9 16 18 15 16 21 0 0 15 16 10 to 24 14 1 14 21 0 67 0 14 14
25 to 49 7 0 5 15 0 33 0 7 6
50 to 249 4 0 1 13 0 0 100 6 2 Effective Sample Size 441 72 224 151 327 94 20 264 194 A number is shown in bold where, taking into account the margin of error due to sampling, we are 95%
certain that it is different from the number in the left hand total column (using a Chi-Squared statistical test) Source: PACEC Survey (Q11)
3.3.5 Together, Table 3.9 and Table 3.10 suggest that a small proportion of companies migrated from the ‘independent business with no subsidiaries’ category to either the
‘not trading’ or ‘independent business with subsidiaries’ category (i.e. a few failed and a few spawned offshoots). Companies undertaking micro projects, those in the 1-9 employee size band and Smart award winners appear to have been the most likely to cease trading. Companies in the 10-49 and 50+ employee size bands appear most likely to have spawned subsidiaries.
Table 3.9 Which of the following best describes the status of your business at the time the project started?
Type of grant Size of company Scheme Total Micro Feas/
resch Devel/
excep
1-9 10-49 50+ Smart GRD
An independent business with no
subsidiaries 91 95 91 90 91 91 94 91 92 not trading / not yet a business 5 4 6 2 6 1 0 5 3 An independent business with
subsidiaries 3 1 1 6 1 6 5 2 4
a subsidiary of a UK owned business 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1
joint venture 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
associated company 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Effective Sample Size 441 72 224 151 327 94 20 264 194 A number is shown in bold where, taking into account the margin of error due to sampling, we are 95%
certain that it is different from the number in the left hand total column (using a Chi-Squared statistical test) Source: PACEC Survey (Q12A1)
Table 3.10 Which of the following best describes the status of your business now?
Type of grant Size of company Scheme Total Micro Feas/
resch Devel/
excep
1-9 10-49 50+ Smart GRD
An independent business with no
subsidiaries 83 79 85 81 83 82 79 80 89 not trading / not yet a business 9 17 10 3 12 0 0 12 3 An independent business with
subsidiaries 5 4 3 8 3 9 11 4 6 a subsidiary of a UK owned business 2 0 1 4 1 3 0 2 1 a subsidiary of an overseas owned
business 1 0 1 2 0 3 9 1 1
associated company 1 1 0 2 1 2 0 1 1 Effective Sample Size 441 72 224 151 327 94 20 264 194 A number is shown in bold where, taking into account the margin of error due to sampling, we are 95%
certain that it is different from the number in the left hand total column (using a Chi-Squared statistical test) Source: PACEC Survey (Q12A2)
3.3.6 Unsurprisingly, Table 3.11 indicates that, generally, the older the company, the larger it was. More significantly, it also indicates that Smart award winners tended to be older than GRD award winners, although this is presumably partly a function of the fact that the Smart scheme preceded the GRD scheme.
Table 3.11 (if a business) When did your business start trading?
Type of grant Size of company Scheme Total Micro Feas/
resch Devel/
excep
1-9 10-49 50+ Smart GRD
before 1980 11 3 10 18 4 26 39 13 6 1980 to 1989 13 15 12 14 10 23 35 18 5 1990 to 1999 34 29 37 30 35 36 18 42 18 2000 to 2003 26 32 29 17 32 9 3 24 32 2004 or later 15 20 11 20 19 6 5 4 39 Effective Sample Size 427 68 214 148 297 93 19 253 190 A number is shown in bold where, taking into account the margin of error due to sampling, we are 95%
certain that it is different from the number in the left hand total column (using a Chi-Squared statistical test) Source: PACEC Survey (Q12cbnd)
3.3.7 Table 3.12 and Table 3.13 describe the growth ambitions of the award winners at the time their project started and now, respectively. The two tables have a number of interesting features, individually and in combination.
3.3.8 Table 3.12 indicates that the majority of award winners (61%) wanted to grow
3.3.9 Compared to Table 3.12, Table 3.13 (showing growth ambitions now) suggests a decline in the proportion of award winners in the ‘grow moderately’ category and an increase in the ‘grow smaller’ and ‘not applicable’ (i.e. not trading) categories. These changes might be explained by the relatively harsh business environment currently.
But there seem to be other factors at play. The two tables indicate a substantial migration of micro award winners and very small companies into the ‘grow smaller’
and ‘not applicable’ (not trading) categories. Conversely they indicate a slight movement of development award winners into the ‘grow rapidly’ category. GRD award winners also appear to be more likely than Smart award winners to have become more ambitious to grow rapidly and, conversely less likely to have migrated to the ‘grow smaller’ and ‘not applicable’ (not trading) categories.
Table 3.12 How would you describe the overall growth objectives of your business at the time the project started
Type of grant Size of company Scheme Total Micro Feas/
reschDevel/
excep 1-9 10-49 50+ Smart GRD
Become smaller 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Stay same size 18 27 19 9 23 6 0 17 20 Grow moderately 61 49 61 69 54 80 83 63 56 Grow rapidly 17 19 14 20 17 14 16 16 19
Not applicable 4 5 6 2 6 0 0 4 5
Effective Sample Size 462 78 235 155 326 94 20 272 209 A number is shown in bold where, taking into account the margin of error due to sampling, we are 95%
certain that it is different from the number in the left hand total column (using a Chi-Squared statistical test) Source: PACEC Survey (Q13A1)
Table 3.13 How would you describe the overall growth objectives of your business now
Type of grant Size of company Scheme Total Micro Feas/
resch Devel/
excep
1-9 10-49 50+ Smart GRD
Become smaller 5 7 5 3 5 4 4 5 4
Stay same size 16 11 21 9 18 10 10 17 15 Grow moderately 53 45 53 58 48 67 67 53 53 Grow rapidly 17 19 12 25 17 19 18 14 23 Not applicable 9 19 9 5 13 0 0 11 6 Effective Sample Size 462 78 235 155 326 94 20 272 209
winners - had introduced innovative products and services. Almost a quarter overall had introduced innovative processes, again with relatively little variation according to type of award, size of company or scheme. The table also suggests that just over a fifth of the companies (i.e. those saying ‘none of the above’) were not innovating just before undertaking their Smart/GRD projects.
Table 3.14 Which of the following happened in the 12 months before the project started?
Type of grant Size of company Scheme Total Micro Feas/
reschDevel/
excep 1-9 10-49 50+ Smart GRD Undertake R&D 68 62 66 76 65 79 77 67 71 Introduce innovative products and
services 39 40 31 53 34 52 38 32 51 Introduce innovative processes 24 25 20 33 24 25 26 21 32 Provide R&D services / contract
research to 3rd parties 14 17 14 13 15 14 0 14 14 None of the above 21 24 25 12 23 15 15 22 19 Effective Sample Size 443 74 229 146 318 90 19 264 197 Respondents could select more than one option; so percentages in any column may sum to more than 100 A number is shown in bold where, taking into account the margin of error due to sampling, we are 95%
certain that it is different from the number in the left hand total column (using a Chi-Squared statistical test) Source: PACEC Survey (Q14A)