Human resources and know-how

When analysing the benchmark values of all four indicators for the human resources and know-how sub-area it must be said that the best clusters were able to achieve maximum values in the case of all indicators. The benchmark value was 10 (Chart 23).

Chart 23. Average values and benchmark values in the Human resources and cluster

know-how sub-area

Source: Own analysis based on the results of the research carried out among coordinators of 35 clusters.

Mean values, on the other hand, which, as it has been assumed, represent the situation of average clusters, indicate significant differences in the situation of clusters in Poland in

0,86 2,63 3,43 0,88 10 10 10 10 0,00 2,00 4,00 6,00 8,00 10,00

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

respect of individual indicators included in the analysed sub-area. The average value for the number of entities involved in a cluster indicator amounted to 3.43, whereas for the number of cluster leaders indicator – 2.63. The level of values achieved in the case of the remaining two indicators turned out to be significantly lower. Average value of the total employment in the entities operating in the cluster core indicator amounted to 0.86, whereas in the case of the number of employees in the R&D field in the cluster core – 0.88.

In the Human resources and cluster know-how sub-area in the analysed population of clusters there are very large disproportions between the leader and its resources and the average values reached by clusters. This applies in particular to the Total employment in the entities operating in the cluster core and to the Number of employees in the R&D field in the cluster core. In both cases an average cluster has more than ten times poorer resources than the leader. The smallest variance in the analysed population can be observed in the case of the Number of entities involved in the cluster indicator.

It is a good idea to take a closer look at detailed values of the indicators defining the analysed sub-area. The average value of Total employment in the entities operating in the cluster core is low (Chart 245.) Only one cluster scored more than 5 on the 10 point scale of scores, thus taking the leader position with the 10 score. The situation was similar in 2012. The average result in 2014 decreased a little since as many as twenty four clusters scored 0. Five clusters got a very low score – 1. The scores of the next four clusters were below the mean value, that is from 2 to 4. Only one cluster reached the average level of the indicator, that is 5.

Chart 24. Evaluation of the indicator for Total employment in the entities operating in

clusters – comparison of the results of 2012 and 2014

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

Decrease of mean values of the indicator may be attributed, to a large extent, to increased employment at the leader's. It is worth mentioning that the highest level of total employment in the entities operating in the cluster core was 23,782 people (benchmark). The average level of employment in the entire population was 2,840 people, whereas the lowest total employment in the entities operating in the cluster core declared by the coordinator was 36 people. The above-mentioned number of twenty four clusters with 0 score means that the total

5

The vertical axis indicates the score value whilst the horizontal one – the number of clusters which got the given score 5 2 2 1 1 21 4 3 2 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Total employment in the entities operating in the cluster 2012 Total employment in the entities operating in the cluster 2012

number of employees in the said number of people employed in cluster's entities does not exceed 2,378. There are enormous differences among clusters as regards their economic potential measured on the basis of the number of people employed in the cluster core.

Due to the fact that disproportions in employment in clusters are so great, a very low result of the benchmarking analysis for most clusters whose employment in the core is a long distance away from the leader is not surprising. Analysis of this key indicator from the point of view of evaluation of clusters' importance for economy should take into account not only benchmarking results but also the relation of the general share of employment in clusters to the total level of employment in Poland. The total number of people employed in analysed clusters was 96,540.

Taking into account the fact that according to CSO6 data approx. 8.5 million people are employed in the national economy in the enterprise sector, the analysed clusters employ slightly more than 1% of those employed in the national economy. On the one hand this rough estimate shows that the group of clusters involved in the study has begun to play noticeable role in the entire Polish economy. On the other hand it indicates that there is still a lot of room for cluster development in Poland, even despite the fact that the study involved only a small, from the point of view of its number (though significant from the point of view of the stage of development), representation of clusters.

The Number of cluster leaders indicator has undergone minor but positive changes with respect to 2012. Just as in the previous edition of the study only one cluster got the highest score, that is 10. The next cluster scored 8 (Chart 25). Further four clusters got 5 and 6 (in 2012 there were three such clusters). In 2014 the score below the average value but above 0 was achieved by twenty six clusters (in 2012 thirty two clusters achieved such a result). In this year's edition of benchmarking three out of 35 clusters declared that they did not have any people responsible for coordination of the operations pursued within the cluster.

The highest number of employees responsible for cluster operations coordination was 9 and the lowest – 0. The average for the analysed clusters amounted to 2.63 of full-time equivalent. It is worth noting that in absolute dimension the total number of coordinators/full- time employees engaged in the clusters involved in the study amounted to 93.4. It might be assumed that it is an already significant number of personnel experienced in stimulating cluster cooperation. On the one hand the experience gained in managing clusters in Poland should be used for developing competence in less developed cluster structures, especially those in embryonic form. On the other hand, the approximately 100 people involved in coordination of leading clusters in Poland should be treated as a target group of educational activities oriented at raising their abilities to stimulate clusters' development up to the world- class level with the use of international cooperation (trainings, study tours, etc.).

6

The Central Statistical Office: Pracujący w gospodarce narodowej ogółem 8561,3 tys. II quarter 2014 http://stat.gov.pl/wskazniki-makroekonomiczne

Chart 25. Evaluation of the Number of cluster leaders indicator – comparison of the

results of 2012 and 2014

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

When analysing the indicators related to the changes in the number of cluster leaders a gradual institutionalisation of cluster structures can be noticed. A slightly higher number of leaders may suggest a higher level of coordination of cooperation among structure members. Such an interpretation is particularly justified from the point of view of a reduction of the external source of cluster financing in 2014 when compared to 2012. From this perspective the increase in the number of coordinators may be seen as something positive since it is financed, to a large extent, from private funds which are undoubtedly spent only after the effectiveness of such expenditures has been weighted. Therefore the increase in the number of cluster leaders may be interpreted also as a certain measure of increase in cluster activity.

Similarly as with the indicators discussed above, also in the case of the number of entities involved in a cluster only 1 out of 35 clusters got the highest possible score – 10. To compare, in 2012 this level was achieved by two clusters (Chart 26). The value above the average, that is between 9 and 6 points, was scored by 7 clusters, whilst in 2012 by 4.

Just as in the previous edition of the study average values of the said indicator have been reached by 4 clusters. The values below the average but above zero were recorded in the case of 23 clusters (22 clusters in 2012). It should be noted here than in 2014 the indicator of the number of entities involved in a cluster as at the lowest level (score 1 and 2) in the case of a much greater number of clusters.

Drops in the scores for many clusters, similarly as in the case of the indicator related to the number of employees, may result from a relative strengthening of leaders' position and the related diversification of the group of analysed clusters and they do not necessarily mean an absolute reduction of the number of entities. The results may also be affected, as it has been already suggested above, by a certain change of the group of the analysed clusters. What proves their high diversity as regards the number of entities belonging to analysed clusters is the fact that the smallest number of entities was 15 whereas the largest number was more than ten times higher, that is 154 entities (benchmark result). In total, the analysed clusters consist of 1,917 entities. These data are confirmed by the conclusions presented above and referring

10 6 9 1 3 1 1 1 9 10 8 4 3 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number of cluster leaders 2012

Number of cluster leaders 2014

to a high diversity of economic potential of the analysed group of clusters on the one hand and their relatively great economic power, in this case measured on the basis of the number of members, on the other one.

Chart 26. Evaluation of the Number of entities involved in the cluster indicator – comparison of the results of 2012 and 2014

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

It is a good idea, however, to look at the potential of analysed clusters also from the perspective of their role in economy in general. The number of entities belonging to analysed clusters indicates, just as earlier the number of employees, that the clusters representing specific industries do not cover and do not represent a large part of such industries both on the national level and on the level of individual regions. If clusters were to play o role of an organiser of cooperation on the level of leading industries or of a representative of those industries, the scale of these industries, measured also on the basis of the number of employees, should substantially increase. In this context, however, a dilemma arises whether the model of cluster development in Poland should determine such industry tasks for clusters or whether individual clusters should focus on organising cooperation within the group its entities without taking responsibility for the functioning, at least on the regional level, of particular industries. It seems that this dilemma should be resolved by individual clusters and their strategies should include such a resolution. At the same time, however, from the point of view of cluster development policy or even more so from the point of view of regional development policy, the clusters with a large number of members which indeed represent a given industry should be treated differently than those representing only a certain part of specific industries. In the latter case an intervention whose task is to support a specific cluster might disrupt the market conditions for the companies not belonging to such a cluster.

Now, moving forward to the benchmark-based analysis of the Number of employees in the R&D field in the cluster core indicator you can notice a significant regression of clusters with respect to 2012. The benchmark value was higher than 0 in the case of only 6 out of 35 clusters and in as few as 2 cases the indicator was higher than the average: 10 – scored by the leader in the group and another cluster which scored 8 (Chart 27). The remaining scores of individual clusters are 5, 3, 2 and 1. In the study conducted in 2012 the total number of

7 12 2 3 4 3 1 2 1 8 8 6 4 1 2 2 1 2 0 5 10 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number of entities involved in the cluster 2012

Number of entities involved in the cluster 2014

clusters with a score above 0 was 23, whilst the score of three of those clusters was on the level of the average or higher.

Chart 27. Evaluation of the Number of employees in the R&D field in the cluster core indicator – comparison of the results of 2012 and 2014

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

The indicators presented above must be analysed with due caution since their values are influenced both by the absolute number of employees and by the relation of the number of R&D employees in individual clusters to the leader. In the case of the Number of employees in the R&D field in the cluster core indicator the leader of 2014 employed 7,221 people (actual benchmark value), whereas the total number of people employed in R&D in analysed clusters amounted to 25,937. These results suggest that the data related to the number of people employed in the R&D field in the cluster core require an extended comment. The category of R&D employees included both the employees dealing with R&D in companies as well as the employees of that sector's entities belonging to the given cluster. These entities were most usually higher education institutions in which it is difficult to single out a group of employees involved in activities contributing to a given cluster. Due to this interpretation difficulty in most cases it was assumed that all employees of the department/institute which directly cooperates with a cluster should be included. Such a simplification not only inflates the number of R&D employees in the cluster core but also, due to the possibility of different interpretation in different clusters and in successive stages of the study, makes objective comparison of data more difficult.

It is important, however, to state that in this study 29 clusters scored 0 in the case of this indicator, whereas on the basis of the data obtained during interviews it can be concluded that six clusters had no R&D employees at all. The study of 2012 identified fewer, that is twelve clusters with a 0 score. The 0 score achieved in other instances means that all core entities in a single cluster employ fewer than 722 people in the R&D field.

It might be interpreted as resulting not only from a reduced number of employees but also from a more conservative attempt to establish whether R&D units are the core of the cluster or rather people employed in such units provide their contribution to the cluster. Perhaps the actual experience of cooperation with R&D sector units has not turned out positive enough to treat a considerable number of their employees as real resources for specific clusters. There are no doubts, however, there is no confirmation of development in the R&D activity in

1 1 1 1 1 1 14 4 1 1 1 1 0 5 10 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number of employees in the R&D field in the cluster core 2012

analysed clusters with respect to the study carried out in 2012. The lack of people employed in the R&D field or their very low number in majority of clusters shows that clusters assemble R&D sector entities and enterprises with R&D potential only to a limited extent.

The size-based analysis of clusters in the Human resources and know-how sub-area shows large differences in mean values of individual indicators between large, medium-sized and small clusters (Chart 28). In all categories large clusters are the dominant ones. it is worth noting that the indicator for the number of cluster leaders is in the case of large clusters only slightly higher than in the case of small ones which, on the other hand, exceeds just a little the result of medium-sized clusters. It should therefore be inferred that quantitative development of clusters does not bring about an increased involvement of coordinators. In this context it may be assumed that the expenditures for coordination display some scale effect which means that the costs of such operations grow slower than the scale of coordinated clusters.

Chart 28. Mean values achieved by clusters in the Human resources and cluster know-

how sub-area depending on the cluster size

Source: Own analysis based on the results of the research carried out among coordinators of 35 clusters.

Insofar as with respect to the total employment or the number of participating entities predominance of large clusters is obvious, the question of their predominance in the case of the Number of employees in the R&D field in the cluster core indicator is worth taking a closer look since it should be borne in mind that this indicator shows not the absolute number of the employed but the relation of the number of R&D employees to the total number of employees. Therefore, formally the structure of this indicator does not favour large clusters. Their predominance might rather be explained with the fact that large clusters more often include R&D sector units, and in particular higher education institutions. Furthermore,

0,00 2,57 1,00 0,00 0,47 _2,13 2,27 0,14 1,77 3,23 6,08 2,25 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 7,00

Total employment in the entities operating in the

cluster core

Number of cluster leaders