Creation of knowledge and innovation

The sub-area Creation of knowledge and innovation performs badly within the scope of the Cooperation for innovation in organisation and marketing. Although the benchmark's maximum value reached 10, the average value for the clusters in general amounted only to 3.40.

In contrast, the analysed clusters achieve slightly better results within the scope of the Cooperation for innovation in products and technologies – the benchmark's value was calculated at the maximum level of 10.0 while the average value for the analysed clusters reached 5.0

The relatively best situation can be observed in the detailed index of the Common trainings, conferences and study visits, within which the benchmark amounted to 9.0. However, the average value in this case remains the highest among other analysed aspects since it amounted to 5.63 (Chart 69).

Chart 69. Average and benchmark values in the Creation of knowledge and innovation sub-area

Source: Own work based on the results of a survey conducted among coordinators of 35 clusters.

The most considerable stratification in the analysed group of clusters is observable within the scope of the Cooperation for innovation in products and technologies, while the least considerable one within the aspect of the Common trainings, conferences and study visits. The situation in the Creating knowledge and innovation subfield is alarming if the average benchmarking results for the totality of analysed clusters are considered, in particular with the inclusion of the innovation's importance in the contemporary economy. The fact that there are

5,00 3,40 5,63 10,00 10,00 9,00 0,00 2,00 4,00 6,00 8,00 10,00 Cooperation for innovation in products and technologies Cooperation for innovation in organisation and marketing Common trainings, workshops, conferences and study

visits (education of employees)

also high-potential and benchmark-reaching clusters within these aspects of innovation continues to drive optimism. Nevertheless, the concurrently conducted analysis showed particularly large stratification of clusters in terms of activities undertaken for the purpose of creating innovation in technology and even a larger one in case of innovation in organisation and marketing.

The analysis of the data included in Chart 70 reveals that the situation of clusters within the scope of the Cooperation for innovation in products and technologies in 2014 is slightly worse than in 2012. This means that in the analysed period of the last 24 months there have been (on average) less projects focused on the creation of innovation in products and technologies and/or such projects gathered smaller groups of participants.

Chart 70. Assessment of the cooperation for the Creating new products and technologies – comparison of the 2012 and 2014 results

Source: Own work based on the results of a survey conducted among the cluster coordinators un 2012 and 2014.

Only one cluster reached the maximum benchmark value, meaning that it completed at least five projects focused on the creation of new products or processes and that these projects attracted the involvement of at least 80% of cluster members. Such a result was achieved by seven clusters in 2012. Most of the currently analysed clusters completed 3–4 projects that engaged 40–79% of cluster members (grades 6–7). The identified issues concerning the number of measures being undertaken to develop new products and technologies should encourage the clusters to intensify their efforts within this aspect. The innovation audits, as in the best practice of the Bydgoszcz Industrial Cluster, might be a good starting point for the identification of the innovation needs.

1 3 5 2 8 6 1 3 1 2 2 4 2 2 2 3 5 3 7 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Cooperation for innovation in products and technologies 2012 Cooperation for innovation in products and technologies 2014

Good Practice 13. Identification and resolution of companies' issues through the

cooperation with the science industry

Bydgoszcz Industrial Cluster Aim: Identification and resolution of companies' issues through the cooperation with the science industry

The cluster undertakes measures that are focused on improving the level of innovation of its members and, in addition, contribute to the tightening of cooperation between the cluster and its science industry members. Such measures are exemplified by the innovation audits as well as theory and practical trainings carried out among the cluster members. These services are provided by the research workers from the entire country who are specialised in fields that correspond to the line of business of the given cluster member. Thanks to the audits and trainings, the cluster members improve their knowledge of the implementation of innovative solutions. What is important, the companies have the possibilities of implementing innovative solutions that have been identified. In the future, the cluster intends to obtain funds for the implementation of the changes recommended in audit reports.

Result: Intensification of the cooperation between the companies from the cluster and the scientific industry, identification of issues/potential improvements to be implemented in the companies within the cluster.

In the period between 2012 and 2014, a significantly larger regression of clusters was observed within the Cooperation for innovation in organisation and marketing. In 2014, only several clusters were assessed with grades between 7 and 10 – 4 clusters against the total of 12 clusters in 2012 (Chart 71).

Chart 71. Cooperation for the Innovation in organisation and marketing – comparison of the 2012 and 2014 results

Source: Own work based on the results of a survey conducted among the cluster coordinators in 2012 and 2014.

Thus, it can be interpreted as a decrease in the number of common projects, focused on developing innovative solutions in organisation and marketing, realised by the top rated

1 3 3 6 3 5 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 3 3 4 3 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Cooperation for innovation in organisation and marketing in 2012 Cooperation for innovation in organisation and marketing in 2014

clusters within the discussed scope and/or a decrease in the number of cluster members involved in these processes. An interesting example of combining the innovation in organisation and marketing is a good practice of the Lower Silesian Renewable Energy Cluster.

Good Practice 14. Measures/implementation of a good practice: Increase in sales of high-

quality products offered by the entities in the cluster

Lower Silesian Renewable Energy Cluster

Aim of the measure/implementation of a good practice: Increase in sales of high-quality products offered by the entities in the cluster.

Within the framework of the Lower Silesian Renewable Energy Cluster, a certification system for the products of the companies within the cluster was launched in 2014. It serves a purpose of increasing the sales of high-quality products. These certificates were developed chiefly to the benefit of cluster members but other non-member entities can also apply for the certification in order to obtain such a recommendation or take advantage of the cluster's brand. Rather than entire companies, single products are certified (e.g. a system of pre- isolated piping for solar energy collectors).

The benefits reaped by the entrepreneurs mostly include the ability to promote their products, e.g. through advertising in the Internet, during various meetings and trade fairs as well as many other events organised or co-organised by the cluster. Another direct benefit is the increase of sales through the internal product recommendation within the cluster. The certification is also beneficial to the brand of the Lower Silesian Renewable Energy Cluster. The principles of certification as well as the quality criteria are defined in the rulebook. The product submitted for the certification must be recommended by at least one cluster member in order to guarantee its high quality.

The certification system is enormously popular, validating its effectiveness and indicating the opportunity to apply this practice in other clusters.

Result: Building the brand and common offer of the cluster.

Chart 72 presents the assessment of the Common trainings, workshops, conferences and study visits of the clusters in 2012 and 2014. The benchmark value of one cluster in 2014 amounted to 9 points, while the benchmark value was achieved by 6 clusters in 2012. It depicts a significant decrease in educational activity of the leaders of the analysed group of clusters against the increase within this field in the clusters in general.

Chart 72. Assessment of the Common trainings, workshops, conferences and study visits – comparison of 2012 and 2014 results.

Source: Own work based on the results of a survey conducted among the cluster coordinators in 2012 and 2014.

However, some clusters increased their activity within the discussed scope in comparison to the results of the previous survey. The number of activities undertaken by the clusters and/or the number of cluster members involved in these projects increased. Most of the clusters were graded between 4 and 8 points. It can be observed that activity of the clusters within the scope of the Common trainings, workshops, conferences and study visits remains relatively high. Moreover, the tendency of the cluster leaders to reduce such activity is noticeable, while the number of clusters within the group that are usually involved in those activities is simultaneously increasing. This trend might result from the optimisation of the educational activity of the clusters which should be perceived as a positive sign of the clusters becoming mature. Such an interpretation is supported by the fact that the aspect of the Common trainings, workshops, conferences and study visits achieves the best results within the subfield of Creating knowledge and innovation.

The importance of measures related to the clusters' promotion of innovativeness requires the inclusion of opinions of the cluster members themselves. During the survey, they were asked whether they had participated or were participating at that moment in a common project, realised by the cluster members, aimed at developing new or heavily modified products or services. 37% of the cluster members (228 out of 618) responded positively (Chart 73 / Question 10). Thus on average, one cluster member out of three was engaged in the cooperative development of new or heavily modified products or services. Such a result slightly exceeds the estimates produced by the coordinators that have been presented above.

1 1 1 5 6 7 6 6 1 1 2 3 5 3 5 5 4 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Common trainings, workshops, conferences and study visits (education of employees) 2012 Common trainings, workshops, conferences and study visits (education of employees) 2014

On the other hand, having taken into consideration the fact that the analysis within the field of Cluster resources indicated the significantly impeded access to the modern infrastructure, e.g. laboratories, the involvement of a one third should be regarded as a good beginning in the process of stimulating the cluster members to become engaged in the development of innovation in products and technologies. This index should be unquestionably increasing, particularly with reference to the industrial clusters.

Chart 73. Participation in common projects, realised by the cluster members, aimed at developing new or heavily modified products or services

Source: Own work based on CAWI/CATI surveys carried out among the members of 35 clusters; N=618.

The cluster members that responded positively to the previous question (228 members) were additionally asked whether that common project was related to research & development (the R&D encompasses chiefly the development of the prototypes of potential commercial viability, the experimental production and testing new products, processes and services). 65.4% (149) of the surveyed 228 cluster members responded positively (Question 11). The entities that were involved in the common R&D amount to 23.9% of the total number of the cluster members. Even if the fact that some cluster members are not interested in R&D due to their line of business is considered, the current index of participation in such undertakings can still be perceived as insufficient8. A significant increase in the frequency of participation in the R&D measures should be pursued. Apart from creating innovation and knowledge, the processes that improve knowledge and competence of the cluster members are equally crucial. Therefore, for the purpose of the confrontation of coordinators' statements regarding the Common trainings, workshops, conferences and study visits, the cluster members were asked whether they participated in any measures undertaken by the cluster (e.g. trainings) in order to improve competence of its members. Nearly 37% of the surveyed members (228 out of 618) declared they had taken part in measures aimed at ameliorating competence of the cluster members (Question 14). In this case, such a result still cannot be regarded as optimistic since, in most organisations, the vast majority of development processes, including the innovative ones, remains initially dependent on the competence of people who are responsible for the decision making and, probably even to a larger extent, the competence of those who are responsible for the implementation of strategic plans developed by the coordinators. An attempt can be made to explain the observed discrepancy between the conclusions drawn from

8

More than half (57%) of medium-sized and large enterprises in Poland proclaim they undertake or commission the R&D projects. Such measures are clearly undertaken more frequently by industrial companies than those specialised in trade and services. 65% of industrial enterprises and every second company specialised in trade or services declare they undertake or commission the R&D projects. See e.g. Raport Działalność badawczo-rozwojowa przedsiębiorstw w Polsce. Perspektywa

2020, KPMG; https://www.kpmg.com/PL/pl/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/2013/Dzia%C5%82alnosc- BR-przedsi%C4%99biorstw-w-Polsce.pdf 37% 55% 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

the benchmarking and the opinions of the surveyed on the educational measures of clusters. It can be hypothesised that an adequate activity in terms of education, along with networking and building the internal communication, has been provided, while the clusters tend to notice and realise projects of comprehensive competence improvement of their members' employees (chiefly companies) to an insufficient extent. The amelioration of competence of employees, particularly special competence regarding the leading industries within the cluster, can and should become one of the key tasks of the clusters. Numerous surveys and analyses concerning the satisfaction of the employers' needs in terms of competence of their current and future employees spotlight serious deficiencies in this field9. Clusters make a suitable environment for solving such issues, while the creation of conditions conducive to the advancement of the personnel may be one of the most important aspects of the development of the clusters themselves as institutional structures, including the source of self-financing. The provision of specialised services in terms of education and trainings to the benefit of the cluster members should be included in the development strategies of the clusters.

The importance of the subfield of the Creating knowledge and innovation requires the analysis of the factors that influence the achievement of better results in various cross-sections of the clusters. Chart 74 depicts the average values for the respective indices of the subfield in the cross-section of clusters of various sizes. The analysis of detailed data indicates a significant superiority of the large clusters over the medium-sized and small ones within the scope of all aspects of the discussed subfield. The large clusters demonstrate superiority in the Cooperation for innovation in organisation and marketing. Their result of 5.15 doubles the result of the medium-sized clusters (2.53) and, even to a larger degree, small clusters (2.0). In the context of Common trainings, workshops, conferences and study visits, the superiority of the large clusters is also significant since their benchmark value amounts to 6.69, while the numbers for the medium-sized and small clusters are 5.53 and 3.83, respectively. A similar tendency is observable in the Cooperation for innovation in products and technologies. However, the superiority of the large clusters is slightly less prominent in this case. They achieve the benchmark value of 5.77, while the medium-sized and small clusters reach the value of 4.67 and 4.29, respectively. This situation is quite interesting since the economic potential of larger clusters would rather suggest their superiority in terms of innovative products and technologies, which usually require considerable expenditures. Still, it is not the case. It can be concluded that the larger clusters, having considered their potential, do not get involved in the development of new products and technologies to the sufficient degree. The above-mentioned remark does not cross out the conclusion that large clusters provide better conditions for undertaking the measures aimed at creating knowledge and innovation. In order to intensify the pro-innovative measures undertaken by the clusters, the size of clusters should be increased, as have already been mentioned in this report in the chapter that contains the analysis of resources.

9

See e.g. conclusions in: B. Plawgo, Badanie Rozwoju Struktur Klastrowych w województwie podlaskim, BFKK, Białystok 2014; www.bfkk.pl/przedsiebiorczosc/klastry.htm

Chart 74. Average values achieved by the clusters in the field of Creation of knowledge

and innovation with the dependence on the cluster's size

Source: Own work based on the results of a survey conducted among the coordinators of 35 clusters.

The analysis of measures undertaken within the field of Creating knowledge and innovation from the perspective of cluster groups that realise various numbers of project proved interesting but not very optimistic. Chart 75 presents the data gathered within this scope. It turns out that a positive dependence can be observed within this aspect only in the Common trainings, workshops, conferences and study visits, within which the benchmark value for the most active clusters draws level with the value achieved by those of average activity (6.0) and exceeds the results of the clusters that show small interest in projects (4.82). A different structure of results is noticeable in the Cooperation for innovation in organisation and marketing, within which the clusters that realise up to 3 projects achieve higher results (3.64) than those that realise an average number of projects (3.33) or even a high number of projects (3.25). Similarly, in the subfield of Cooperation for innovation in products and technologies, the best results are achieved by the clusters that realise small numbers of projects (5.55), while the most active (within this field) clusters come in second (5.17) and those of average activity occupy the last position (4.33).

The conclusions that follow this analysis unambiguously indicate that a significant part of the projects realised by the clusters was entirely or partly educational. Such a profile of the projects is well substantiated, particularly in the initial stages of development of the clusters. Simultaneously, the analysis revealed that the realisation of a larger number of projects does not translate into better results in terms of both technological and organisational innovations. It seems that the realised projects were focused on the improvement of innovation of the member companies to an insufficient extent, thus depriving them of the foundation of the