Changing trends in the Cluster resources area in 2010-2014

The third edition of the cluster benchmarking study allows to point out certain changes which have occurred over the last four years in individual areas, sub-areas and in indicators characterising the said areas and sub-areas in more detail.

In the Human resources and cluster know-how sub-area the situation of the clusters involved in the study has undergone a substantial diversification in the discussed period, especially when compared to 2012. This finds its confirmation in the value of a synthetic factor for the entire sub-area which in 2014 amounted to 2.00. To compare, the value of a synthetic indicator in 2012 amounted to 2.63 whilst in 2010 – to 2.33. As it has been indicated above the lower value of the synthetic indicator does not necessarily mean an absolute decrease in human resources and know-how of the clusters involved in the study, but most probably it is a manifestation of changes in the structure and of uneven pace of individual clusters' development.

Such an assessment results first of all from a drop of the benchmark related to the number of people employed in the R&D field in the core of a cluster. The average for the group of clusters studied in 2014 was only 0.88 whilst it was 1.76 in 2012 and 1.35 in 2010 (Chart 44). Lowering of benchmarking indicators observed in many clusters can be explained by an intense increase in the case of the leader, as reported above. The ensuing situation indicates, however, that cluster development is in this respect uneven and in many cases the shortage of human resources in the R&D field may create an important barrier to the growth of cluster innovation in the nearest future.

Chart 44. Comparison of cluster scores in the Human resources and cluster know-how sub-area in the years 2010-2014

Source: Own analysis based on the results of the research carried out among cluster coordinators in 2010, 2012 and 2014.

Similarly, a tendency towards deepening of cluster stratification can be noticed in the case of the Total employment in the entities operating in the cluster core indicator. In the years 2010-2014 the average for this sub-area fell from 1.56 in 2010 to 0.86 in 2014 after undergoing an increase in 2012 up to the level of 1.81.

0,86 2,63 3,43 0,88 1,81 2,69 4,46 1,76 1,56 1,21 3,02 1,35 0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00

Total employment in the entities operating in the

cluster core Number of cluster leaders – cluster administration services (in a full-time equivalent) Number of entities involved in the cluster

(enterprises, R&D sector, support

institutions)

Number of employees in the R&D field in the

cluster core

Average in 2014 Average in 2012 Average in 2010

Tendencies towards a growing diversification of clusters are also confirmed by the changes in benchmarking indicators related to the number of entities. The average benchmark of the Total number of entities involved in clusters fell in the last two years from 4.46 to 3.43.

In the case of the Number of cluster leaders indicator the average, after the increase in 2012, stabilised in 2012 and 2014 at the level of approx. 2.65. This proves a relatively stable situation in cluster management. It also confirms the conclusion presented earlier that the increase in part of the clusters involved in the study does not carry with it a proportionate increase of involvement of cluster leaders.

Comparative analysis of the Financial resources in the period of 2010-2014 shows rather negative trends in clusters. Although the synthetic indicator in the area being discussed grew from 1.06 in 2010 to 2.08 in 2012, in 2014 it decreased to the level of 1.25 (Chart 45). The fact that the value of the synthetic indicator did not fall to or below the level of 2012 was determined by a relatively minor decline of the average value of the indicator for the Share of own funds from self-financing in the total budget of the cluster from 3.70 in 2012 to 2.97 in 2014. New clusters, on the other hand, achieved radically lower results in this edition of the benchmarking study, both in respect of the value of external public funds obtained for cluster projects and in respect of cluster budget per one member actively participating in its financing. In this case, in the light of the data presented above and relating to the financial standing of clusters, lowering of benchmarking indicators is caused not only by a change of the structure of entities or a considerable improvement of leaders' situation, but by an objective decrease of available external public funds and, as a result, also the value of budgets. The share of self-financing in cluster budgets is maintained on a relatively high level but it is insufficient to ensure functioning of clusters on the earlier level of activity from the perspective of budget value.

Chart 45. Comparison of cluster results in the Financial resources sub-area in the years

2010, 2012 and 2014

Source: Own analysis based on the results of the research carried out among cluster coordinators in 2010, 2012 and 2014.

What should be noticed is a deteriorating financial standing of clusters, which has been observed in particular over the last two years. To a large extent this deterioration is caused by a decreased effectiveness in obtaining external public funds for implementation of cluster projects as well as by a slightly lower tendency for members to participate in the financing of cluster operation. 2,97 0,50 _0,29 3,70 1,47 _1,38 0,83 1,11 1,28 0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00

Share of own funds from self- financing (e.g. membership fees)

in the total budget of a cluster

External funds obtained for cluster projects over the last 2

years

Cluster budget per member participating in financing of the

cluster

Average in 2014 Average in 2012 Average in 2010

In response to the ensuing trends in the Financial resources sub-area, management processes in clusters should be reinforced in order to increase the effectiveness of looking for external sources of financing and of obtaining them. Furthermore, a conviction about a necessity for increasing financial participation of members in pro-development projects should be strengthened among cluster members.

Chart 46 shows a comparison of cluster results in the Infrastructure resources sub-area in the years 2010-2014. Analysis of this sub-area demonstrate that regressive trends among clusters involved in the study are much less worrying than in the case of the Human resources and know-how and the Financial resources. After a violent increase in the assessment of the level of cluster infrastructure resources in the years 2010-2012, in 2014 a minor decrease in the said level occurred with respect to 2012. The values of the synthetic indicator in individual editions of the benchmarking study in this sub-area were the following: 6.05 in 2014, 7.11 in 2012 and 1.38 in 2010. Such results were determined in the first place by the qualitative assessment made by coordinators who evaluated cluster infrastructure on the basis of just a couple of standardised suggestions. Such a method of analysing this sub-area eliminated the impact of an intense improvement in leaders' situation on the results of other clusters.

The greatest progress in the last four years has been reported in the level at which clusters are equipped with places used for establishing business relations and cooperation. The average in respect of Availability of offices and conference halls for cluster needs in 2012 increased to the level of 9.06 from as little as 1.26 in 2010. Eventually, after a minor drop in 2014 it established at the level of 8.34.

Chart 46. Comparison of cluster results in the Infrastructure resources sub-area in the years 2010-2014

Source: Own analysis based on the results of the research carried out among cluster coordinators in 2010, 2012 and 2014.

Changes in the Availability of laboratories to cluster members had a similar character but they were less far-reaching. In fact, in the years 2012-2014 the said availability remained on a similar level (value of the average in 2012 – 5.75, in 2014 – 5.43). In the period 2010-2012 the improvement was considerable (the average in 2010 was 1.26).

8,34 5,43 4,2 9,06 5,75 6,51 1,26 1,26 1,64 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Availability of offices and conference halls for cluster

needs

Availability of laboratories to cluster members

Level of use of ITC technologies in internal

communication in the cluster (e.g. intranet)

Average in 2014 Average in 2012

Average in 2010 Synthetic indicator in 2014 Synthetic indicator in 2012 Synthetic indicator in 2010

Negative trends, on the other hand, can be observed in the case of the last indicator, i.e. the Level of use of ITC technologies in internal communication in the cluster. After increasing in 2012 to the level of 6.51 from 1.64 in 2010, in this edition of the benchmarking study the value of the average dropped to 4.20. There are no doubts that such a trend is negative and requires improvement. The use of ICT technologies for internal communication will not only facilitate information flow and improve the quality of management but it also provides an important plane for horizontal relations of cooperation within a cluster.

Undoubtedly, emphasis must be placed on the necessity to improve clusters' equipment with modern communication solutions both inside and outside of the cluster which will facilitate management processes and increase their effectiveness. Furthermore, availability of cluster laboratories is still insufficient which will significantly limit the growth of innovation of clusters and its individual members. The necessity to maintain and strengthen clusters' basic infrastructure used for business relations inside and outside of the cluster should not be forgotten.