Deliverable 4.1 First Crossover Value Chain and Spill-over … · 2020-07-24 · Editors: Edit...

PROJECT Nº H2020 - 731391 Cross4Health

1

Deliverable 4.1

First Crossover Value Chain and Spill-over Achievements Report

* Dissemination Level: PU ** Deliverable Type: R

Date: 31 05 2019 Distribution: WP4

Editors: Edit Sebestyen, Joanna Lane Contributors: HCN + Consortium partners

* Dissemination Level: PU= Public, CO= Confidential, only for members of the Consortium (including the Commission services), EU-RES= Classified information: RESTRAINT UE (Commission Decision 2005/444/EC), EU-CON= Classified Information: CONFIDENTIEL UE (Commission Decision 2005/444/EC), EU-SEC= Classified Information: SECRET UE (Commission Decision 2005/444/EC)

** Deliverable Type: R= Document, DEM= Demonstrator, pilot, prototype, DEC= Website, patent filling, videos, etc., OTHER, ETHICS= Ethics requirement


2

DISCLAIMER

The work associated with this report has been carried out in accordance with the highest technical

standards and CROSS4HEALTH partners have endeavoured to achieve the degree of accuracy and

reliability appropriate to the work in question. However, since the partners have no control over the

use to which the information contained within the report is to be put by any other party, any other

such party shall be deemed to have satisfied itself as to the suitability and reliability of the

information in relation to any particular use, purpose or application.

Under no circumstances will any of the partners, their servants, employees or agents accept any

liability whatsoever arising out of any error or inaccuracy contained in this report (or any further

consolidation, summary, publication or dissemination of the information contained within this

report) and/or the connected work and disclaim all liability for any loss, damage, expenses, claims or

infringement of third party rights.

3

Executive Summary

The Cross4Health project seeks to move beyond the state-of-the-art practice for regional clusters by

unlocking the collaborative potential of SMEs from Aerospace, Creative Industries and Energy sectors

working with those from the Biotechnology, ICT and Medical Devices sectors. This composite market

segment (ACEBIM) is nurtured by generating innovative solutions, business models and workflows

that enhance patient-centred personalised care for societal challenges in health, delivered through

collaborative crossover value chains/networks.

The purpose of this report is to identify and understand better the barriers, indicators and potential

actuators for SMEs taking part in crossover collaboration for ACEBIM in Europe. It also summarizes

the results achieved and benefits realised by SMEs taking part in the 1st Acceleration cycle run by

Cross4Health.

We used an adapted ‘lite’ version of the Enterprise Ireland Innovation Health Check tool to baseline

innovation practice and performance of the companies taking part in the 1st Acceleration Cycle. This

adapted tool was a better fit to the maturity of our start-ups and young SMEs. The following table is

a simple summary of how our companies scored when compared against a benchmarking database.

IHC segment Position

1. Innovative Culture

Little better than average

2. Understanding the business

Average

3. Strategy

Better than average

4. Structure

Better than average

5. Capability & Resources

Better than average

6. Processes

Better than average

This was complemented by asking the companies to assess their innovation ecosystem using a set of

indicators approved by our S3 contacts.

The Innovation Health Checks informed targeted service innovation support provided by

Cross4Health partners and accredited third-party experts during the 1st Acceleration cycle. Results

from the ecosystem assessments are provided to cluster partners to review against current policies

and practices to support crossover collaboration between sectors/borders and by start-ups and

young SMEs.


4

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS 4

LIST OF FIGURES 7

LIST OF TABLES 7

1 INTRODUCTION 9

1.1 BACKGROUND 9

2 HOW WE ASSESS THE EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL OPERATING ENVIRONMENTS OF SMES 11

2.1 MEASURING THE EXTERNAL OPERATING ENVIRONMENT 11

2.1.1 THE CROSS-OVER VALUE CHAIN INDICATOR PACKAGE 11

2.2 MEASURING THE INTERNAL OPERATING ENVIRONMENT 12

2.2.1 THE INNOVATION HEALTH CHECK ANALYSIS AND BENCHMARKING TOOL 13

2.3 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 15

2.4 HOW THE DATA WAS COLLECTED 15

3 PROFILE OF COMPANIES & CROSSOVER COLLABORATIONS SUPPORTED 16

3.1 HOME COUNTRY, SIZE, YEAR OF ESTABLISHMENT, AND TURNOVER OF THE COMPANIES 16

3.2 THE OFFERINGS AND ANNUAL SALES 17

3.3 CROSSOVER COLLABORATIONS 17

4 RESULTS 18

4.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF HOW THE EXTERNAL OPERATING ENVIRONMENT IS ASSESSED 18

4.1.1 CROSSOVER VALUE CHAIN INDICATORS RANKING 22

4.2 RESULTS FROM INNOVATION HEALTH CHECK OF THE INTERNAL OPERATING ENVIRONMENT 31

4.2.1 GENERAL INNOVATION CAPACITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE SMES 31

4.3.2 MAIN STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE SMES IN THE ACCELERATION PROCESS 33

4.2.3 SPECIFIC NEED AND SUPPORT OF SMES 35

4.3 WEBINARS TO STIMULATE AND INFORM CROSSOVER COLLABORATION 36

5 DISCUSSION 36

6 LIMITATIONS 38

7 CONCLUSIONS AND EXPECTATIONS 39


5


6

List of Authors

Partner Authors

HCN Joanna Lane

HCN Edit Sebestyén

Document History Date Version Editors Status

02 April 2019

0.1 Edit Sebestyén, Joanna Lane

Draft

27 April 2019

0.2 Joanna Lane, Edit Sebestyén

Draft

31 May 0.3

Joanna Lane, Edit Sebestyen

Final


7

List of Figures

Figure 1: Average ratings of cross over value chain indicators Figure 2 a: Ratings of cross over value chain indicators by SMEs/countries (Group1) Figure 2 b: Ratings of cross over value chain indicators by SMEs/countries (Group 2) Figure 3: Overview of the ratings of indicators across countries for the 12 indicators Figure 4: Overall position against the benchmarking database Figure 5: Innovative Business Practices and Innovative Environment Practices against the Innovative Performance Figure 6: Most frequently identified strengths and weaknesses

List of Tables

Table 1: Cross-over value chain indicators and statements

Table 2: Themes and items in the full IHC questionnaire (52 items) Table 3: Themes and items in the lite version of the IHC questionnaire (18 items) Table 4: An IHC question example Table 5: Size and year of establishment of the companies Table 6: Annual turnover of the companies Table 7: Assessment of push or pull technology development across countries (CVC 6) Table 8: Assessment of new business model experimentation across countries (CVC 1) Table 9: Assessment of open innovation networks across countries (CVC 8) Table 10: Assessment of using living labs across countries (CVC 9) Table 11: Public procurement practice supporting crossover innovation across countries (CVC 7) Table 12: Assessment of social capital for networked value creation across countries (CVC 11) Table 13: Collaboration between younger SMEs and R&D and other knowledge institutions across countries (CVC12) Table 14: Assessment of SME absorption capacity across countries (CVC 10) Table 15: Assessment of support for accessing public funds across countries (CVC 3) Table 16: Assessment of favourable regulations across countries (CVC 2) Table 17: Assessment of collaborative business across countries (CVC 5) Table 18: Assessment of support for accessing private capital across countries (CVC 4) Table 19: Position of innovation segments and components against the benchmarking database Table 20: Summary of webinars delivered in the 1st Acceleration cycle


8

Glossary Acronym Meaning

C4H Cross4Health

CVC Crossover value chain

SME Small and Medium Enterprise

Consortium ACRONYM FULL NAME

AV Aerospace Valley

BIOTECYL Cluster de Salud de Castilla y Leon

EUROB EUROB Creative

(S)HCN Health ClusterNET until 31/01/19 and then Stichting Health ClusterNET

IS Innovation Skåne

NHT Norway Health Tech (Coordinator)

ZENIT ZENIT GmbH


9

1 Introduction

The purpose of this report is to identify and understand better the barriers, indicators and potential

actuators for SMEs taking part in crossover collaboration for ACEBIM in Europe. It also summarizes

the results achieved and benefits realised by SMEs taking part in the 1st Acceleration cycle run by

Cross4Health.

The acceleration cycles are reported elsewhere but include innovation support services provided by

consortium members and a validated voucher list of external experts. They also include a series of

interactive webinars for each acceleration cycle, the results of which are included in this report.

In its final iteration (D4.3) the report will also have a dedicated section reporting on the significant

spill-over results (e.g. other funds leveraged as a result of Cross4Health support), new collaborations,

impacts beyond the Cross4Health project, and forecasts of the longer-term effects of Cross4Health

on the start-ups and new SME collaborations initiated.

1.1 Background

In May 2018, the results of a survey with cluster partners identified barriers to and current practice

to enable crossover value chains in partner regions (D4.3). That report covers: cluster focus and

crossover innovation characteristics, barriers and solutions to crossover value chains, and indicators

for assessing crossover collaboration. Critically, a range of factors that affect crossover collaborations

were identified:

DRIVERS (the leading ones identified by partners are: digital transformation, service

innovation)

BARRIERS (the 3 priorities identified by partners are: regulatory, development dynamics and

business models)


10

ACTIONS (the three actions rated most important by partners are: industry-end user

dialogue, clinic-industry-investor collaboration and innovative financial support).

Importantly, this exploratory work helped to identify potential indicators for crossover collaboration

that can be used to inform assessment of project impacts in the two acceleration cycles of the

Cross4Health project. Specifically, to help SMEs identify issues in their operating environment that

could affect their own innovation practice and performance in getting a new product closer to

market; and so would need attention from intermediary organisations in their ecosystem.

To complement the information we gathered on the external operating environment in which the

SMEs are working, the internal innovation processes of the SMEs were also examined. We looked at

how to improve innovation performance by being more competitive, more strategic, and more

innovative at the SME level. For this, a baseline Innovation Health Check was carried out among the

supported SMEs of the 1st acceleration programme.

In summary, three groups of indicators have been measured to inform how the crossover

collaborations supported by Cross4Health can demonstrate the cost-effectiveness and synergies that

are being achieved by the emerging ACEBIM industry and its less-linear value chains:

Ecosystem indicators for assessing operating environment and ecosystem practice and

performance for crossover collaboration (Cross over value chain indicators - CVC) (2.1 and

4.1 below)

Innovation Health Check tool with 18 indicators previously piloted elsewhere and focusing

on internal SME innovation capacity, practice and performance (2.2 and 4.2 below)

Key Performance Indicators on the competitiveness of supported SMEs; these indicators

were set in the Cross4health application (2.3 and 3 below).


11

2 How we assess the external and

internal operating environments of SMEs

2.1 Measuring the external operating environment

The innovation ecosystem is defined as a complex network of people, organisations, institutions,

government policy and regulations that support and promote innovation. It includes the interactions

between people in order to take an idea and turn it into a marketable process, product or service.

In order to assess this external operating environment in EU countries and regions, and to

understand how this environment supports or hinders crossover collaboration from the SMEs’

perspective, a set of indicators were identified and measured to monitor and improve factors that

might affect crossover practice and performance. The objective was to address differing

circumstances for the Cross4Health accelerator programme in partner regions while generating

evidence that is comparable and provides a basis for identifying appropriate assessment options

(strategic and operational).

Altogether 12 ecosystem indicators have been identified based on the findings of the baseline survey

among the partner clusters and subsequent discussion with S3 contacts. Specifically, they are driven

by findings in D4.3 Section 3 ‘Cluster focus and characteristics in partner regions’, Section 4

‘Crossover innovation characteristics’, and Section 5 ‘Barriers and solutions to CVC’. The reason for

offering these indicators was to monitor and improve factors that might affect crossover practice and

performance by Cross4Health funded SMEs in partner regions. It does this in ways that address

differing circumstances for the Cross4Health accelerator programme in partner regions while

generating evidence that is comparable and provides a basis for identifying appropriate assessment

options (strategic and operational).

2.1.1 The Cross-over value chain indicator package

The indicator package contains 12 indicators (see Table 1) shared with our S3 contacts to review and

validate it. The measurement of each indicator was done by using a 1-5 point Likert scale in the

format of a short questionnaire discussed as part of an online meeting moderated by the KAM.


12

Table 1: Cross-over value chain indicators and statements CVC INDICATOR CVC STATEMENTs Scale 1-5

(From Strongly disagree to Strongly agree)

Is this indicator active or inactive in the region?

Important points of the discussion

CVC 1 NEW BUSINESS MODEL EXPERIMENTATION

Collaborative value chains work best where the business models embrace collaboration, a modular approach to technology and build new business processes around both

CVC 2 FAVOURABLE REGULATIONS Current regulations in our region/country make it easier to set-up and run a new business based on crossover collaboration

CVC 3 SUPPORT FOR ACCESSING PUBLIC FUNDS

Fast-track procedures are in place to support applications by SMEs to available public funding

CVC 4 SUPPORT FOR ACCESSING PRIVATE CAPITAL

Private investors understand the needs of crossover collaborations and offer a range of funding options

CVC 5 COLLABORATIVE BUSINESS Stakeholders (industry, end users, investors, regulatory bodies) work well together to help get crossover products to market faster

CVC 6 PUSH OR PULL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

Talking with end-users is essential in understanding market-pull factors for our product/service

CVC 7 PUBLIC PROCUREMENT PRACTICE SUPPORTING CROSSOVER INNOVATION

Public procurement practice disincentivises access to a potentially lucrative market

CVC 8 OPEN INNOVATION NETWORKS Open innovation networks are a useful way of promoting collaboration across sectors

CVC 9 USING LIVING LABS A living lab is a resource efficient way of testing our product/service

CVC 10 SME ABSORPTION CAPACITY We have enough capacity to absorb new ideas, technologies and processes from other sectors and outside of our region

CVC 11 SOCIAL CAPITAL FOR NETWORKED VALUE CREATION

We are working in a knowledge-rich location characterised by network spill-overs.

CVC12 COLLABORATION BETWEEN YOUNGER SMES AND R&D AND OTHER KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS

Local universities and other R&D institutions provide a collaboration pipeline that younger SMEs can use to access resources (researchers with new ideas/tech, access equipment for a small fee etc.) to grow the business

The package also contains a discussion guide for the KAMs including (i) cross-reference of each

indicator to earlier findings in the D4.3 report, (ii) validation questions to facilitate deeper discussion

of the indicator with the SME and/or within the relevant Cross4Health partner cluster/intermediary,

and (iii) the indicator rationale providing a brief theoretical background for the indicator.

2.2 Measuring the Internal operating environment

In order to get an insight into the internal operating environment of the SMEs supported in the Cross4Health 1st acceleration cycle, the Innovation Health Check Tool was used to collect baseline


13

data. The objective was to assess the innovation potential of the SMEs complementing the data and information gathered with the help of the ecosystem indicator package.

2.2.1 The Innovation Health Check analysis and benchmarking tool

The Innovation Health Check is a Needs Analysis & Benchmarking Tool for the Innovation Process that helps establish how ‘Innovation’ oriented a company is as it is designed to evaluate the innovation process. The complete IHC Tool contains 6 segments and 52 questions/themes (See Table 2). The questionnaire structure is broken down into 2 sections with 3-3 fields:

Innovation Business: (i) Innovation Culture, (ii) Understanding the Business, and (iii) Strategy. Innovation Environment: (i) Structure, (ii) Capability & Resources, and (iii) Processes.

Each section has both ‘Practice questions’ and ’Performance questions’. ‘Practice’ refers to the processes that an organisation has in place to design, manufacture, deliver, and measure its products and services. ‘Performance’ refers to what is achieved, with emphasis on operational aspects including product/service quality, cost, delivery, innovation and sustainability.1

Table 2: Themes and items in the full IHC questionnaire (52 items)

Practice & Performance questions


1.01 Innovative Environment & Motivation

1.02 Ambition to Grow

1.03 Leadership

1.04 Management Style

1.05 Openness & Attitude to Change

1.06 Learning from Successes & Mistakes

1.07 Risk Tolerance

1.08 Reward and Recognition

2. Understanding

the business

2.01 Understanding the Customer

2.02 Customer Information

2.03 Capturing Customer Feedback

2.04 New Technologies / Developments in the Market

2.05 Segmenting the Market

2.06 How Does the Company Market its Products & Services?

2.07 Customer Potential

2.08 Competitor Information

2.09 Analysing Competitive Advantage

2.10 Service Innovation

3. Strategy

3.01 Company Objectives and Goals

3.02 Future Market Focus

3.03 Defined Business Model

3.04 Strategic Planning

3.05 Innovation Strategy in Business Plan

3.06 Use of Strategic Tools in Innovation

3.07 Commitment to Ideas Generation

3.08 Project Outcome vs Targeted Gain

1 Source: https://www.leanbusinessireland.ie/about-us/are-you-an-enterprise-ireland-client/innovation-health-check/

https://www.leanbusinessireland.ie/about-us/are-you-an-enterprise-ireland-client/innovation-health-check/

https://www.leanbusinessireland.ie/about-us/are-you-an-enterprise-ireland-client/innovation-health-check/


14

4. Structure

4.01 Cross-Functional Teams

4.02 Ownership / Empowerment

4.03 Organisation of Resources

4.04 R&D Structure

4.05 Knowledge Capture and Sharing

4.06 Effective Communication & Use of Tools

4.07 Intellectual Property (IP) Management


5.01 Staff Innovation Skills

5.02 Managing the Capability Gaps

5.03 Discipline

5.04 Fire Fighting

5.05 Innovation Budget

5.06 Devolved Responsibility for Small Projects

5.07 Projects - on Time and Within Budget

6. Processes

6.01 New Idea Generation

6.02 Project Screening & Selection

6.03 Implementation & Commercialisation

6.04 Measurement Innov. Success

6.05 “Time to Market” Performance

6.06 Continuous Improvement

6.07 Balance - Projects & Resources

6.08 R&D Linkages

6.09 Use of Business Tools in Innovation

6.10 Idea Management System

6.11 Effective Project Management

6.12 Post Project Review

Previous experience with the IHC tool shows that start-ups and younger SMEs are not yet mature enough to answer all of the 52 questions. So, a ‘lite’ version of the tool was created with only 18 indicators (See Table 3). This included revisions to those indicators being used as performance indicators to make them more appropriate for start-ups and younger SMEs.

Table 3: Themes and items in the lite version of IHC questionnaire (18 items)

The way Enterprise Ireland (the Tool developer) presents the Tool is that each IHC question displays 3 statements that portray ‘best practice' (in the right column) and something not as good as ‘best practice' (in the middle and left columns) (See Table 4). SMEs needed to choose the statement which is the closest to their current situation in their business. After discussion, the most appropriate score was recorded from 1 to 5. There is no ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ – the intention is to help the business to identify strengths and opportunities for improvement.


15

Table 4: An IHC question example

2.3 Key performance indicators The third group of indicators that are being measured focuses on the impact of the project on

changes in the competitiveness of supported SMEs as presented in the original C4H application: the

number of employees; the number of products, services, processes; the number of sales, annual

turnover, and international collaborations of the SMEs. This supplements the set of project

performance indicators being measured by WPs 2/3/5/6/7 and reported elsewhere (e.g. periodic

report).

2.4 How the data was collected

Data was collected as part of an online meeting between the KAM and SME representatives from the

supported teams of the 1st Cross4Health Acceleration programme, in autumn 2018. During an

approximately 2 hours discussion moderated by the KAM data and information was gathered with the help of the ecosystem indicator/KPI questionnaire and the Innovation health Check questionnaire to assess the external and internal operating environments of the SMEs and to examine their impact on innovation.

The online calls were organised with a team of 3-4 people representing the SMEs. The objective was to have an appropriate mix of staff & the value of having a broad opinion base as possible. The selected team members should have covered all the business areas and levels of responsibility. We tried to avoid having only 2 people in the teams unless the company was very small to avoid bias.

The SMEs got the questionnaires in advance to make some preparations; however, the point was to generate an exploratory discussion with the team members instead of providing ready-made answers to the KAMs.


16

3 Profile of companies & crossover

collaborations supported

Five project teams are supported in the 1st acceleration programme. The 5 teams comprise 2 to 4 SMEs, altogether 16 SMEs. Out of the 16 companies, 10 provided data on the ecosystem and 13 carried out the Innovation Health Check at the time of this report. One company decided not to take part in IHC as they went through a similar assessment in the recent past, so they considered another IHC as a sort of duplication. They shared their earlier report with their KAM. Two SMEs decided not to participate in the data collection at all. They are part of a 4-member team. The KPIs were collected for 10 companies as well.

3.1 Home country, size, year of establishment, and turnover of the companies

The countries from which the participating SMEs are from are Portugal, Austria, Spain, Italy, France, and Norway. The engaged SMEs were established 9,6 years ago on average. However, one of them is only working a year ago, while the oldest one was established 21 years ago.

Table 5 shows the size of the companies and when they were established.

Most of the companies are micro size companies. The average number of full-time employees in the SMEs is 9,5. The biggest SME employs 46 people full time. The majority of the SMEs have less than 10 employees. Eight of them have been operating for 10 years or even more.

Table 5: Size and year of establishment of the companies

Company size

Established N=13

1-6 years

10-11 years

15=< years

Micro (staff headcount < 10) 5 3 1 Small (staff headcount < 50) 0 2 2 Medium sized (staff headcount < 250) 0 0 0

The SMEs in Cross4Health are not only small in size, but the majority also has an annual turnover that clarifies them also as micro size companies (between 255 and 550k). Only 1 SME had an annual turnover little above 2 million (2,2 m) euros. (Table 6)


17

Table 6: Annual turnover of the companies N=10

Turnover

No

Medium-sized ≤ € 50 m 0

Small ≤ € 10 m

1

Micro ≤ € 2 m 9

3.2 The offerings and annual sales

The supported SMEs are providing various products, services or processes on the market (on average

2-4 products/services/SME). The highest number of product is 8 provided by one single company.

The most services (10 and 11 services) are offered by two SMEs. Provided processes are rare, only 2

are offered by one company. Examples of products are Cirsa-Routing: optimization of more than

4,000 visits to customers; Mentor: operational management platform for handling operators; RENFE

interconnection-UAB bus shuttle: warns the bus driver when the next train will arrive thanks to the

information provided by the users of their position; BusosUAB: information on arrival times in real

time of geopositioning buses. It is used in the UAB; BiciUAB: management of parking spaces and

lockers for bicycle users. It is used in the UAB; ITV-UAB management: time reservation for the mobile

ITV service provided at the UAB; Espai4you: development for anaesthetists of Otraforma (R + D + i of

Hypnos) to reserve spaces and equipment for surgeons to carry out interventions in private hospitals;

cliniK; Kover; iWalkU.

Examples of services are optimization service for land fleets physiotherapy; preoperative assessment;

intraoperative anaesthesia; pregnant analgesia; diagnosis aid; scans anaesthesia; training of

anaesthesia specialists; and access to information system.

The number of sales is obviously very much depends on the type of product, service, process, so the

average numbers of sales cannot be meaningfully compared. Data was available for 8 SMEs. The

numbers of sales vary between 5 and 145000.

International collaborations are also present in the everyday work of the Cross4Health SMEs. On

average they are involved in 7 international projects (min. 1, max. 20).

3.3 Crossover collaborations

In the 1st Acceleration programme 5 projects are supported. Their cross-country and cross-sectoral

teams are representing 8 countries: Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Finland, Norway, Austria, Belgium,

and 6 main sectors: aerospace, energy, biotechnology, biomedics, ICT, design in cooperation with

medicine and health care.


18

3,6

4,5

4,2 4,1

3,9 3,9 3,8

3,7 3,6

3,3

3,0

2,8 2,8

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5 1-12 Indicator rating - average

Push or pull technology development(CVC6)

New business model experimentation(CVC1)

Open innovation networks (CVC8)

Using living labs (CVC9)

Public procurement practice supportingcrossover innovation (CVC7)

Social capital for networked valuecreation (CVC11)

Collaboration between younger SMEs andR&D and other knowledge institutions(CVC12)SME absorption capacity (CVC10)

Support for accessing public funds (CVC3)

Favourable regulations (CVC2)

Collaborative business (CVC5)

Support for accessing private capital(CVC4)

4 Results

4.1 General overview of how the external operating environment is assessed

As described in the D4.3 report, the review and assessment of the external innovation environment

with the help of the 12 ecosystem indicators provides a baseline of SME perceptions of barriers to

crossover innovation in a SMEs local operating environment.

The assessment done by 10 SMEs is shown in Figure 1. Overall, the average of the rating is 3,6 across

the 12 indicators which suggests that there are several segments in the innovation ecosystem that

need improvement and development.

Figure 1: Average ratings of cross over value chain indicators N=10 SMEs

The strongest area is Push and Pull Technology Development. Most of the SMEs who responded

agree that talking with end-users is essential in understanding market-pull factors for their product/

service. However, we don’t know if this really happens or is acknowledged as something that should

happen. There are 4 factors identified which seem to be the weakest ones. The SMEs are uncertain

that private investors understand well the needs of crossover collaborations and they believe they

don’t really offer a range of funding options. Besides, SMEs are also uncertain that current

regulations in their region/countries make it easier to set up and run a new business based on a


19

crossover collaboration. SMEs tend to think that stakeholders don’t work well together to help get

crossover products to market and don’t think that enough fast track procedures are in place to

support project applications. (See in detail in chapter 4.1.2)

The overall rating of the 12 indicators is 3,6 showing that the general picture about the innovation

ecosystem is not really positive.

If we look at the responses at the country/SME level, quite differing circumstances can be detected.

The characteristics of the innovation ecosystem seem to vary not only across countries but also SMEs

from the same country2 can judge the same factors very differently being perceived more favourable

or less favourable for supporting or promoting innovation. (See Table 7 a & b) The spider graphs

show clearly the weakest and strongest segments of the innovation ecosystem and at the same time

the divergent views of the respondent SMEs.

For example, the 3 Italian SMEs rated very differently several indicators. (Figure 2 a) There was no

agreement for any of the factors among the three of them. The fields of Push and pull technology

development, New business model development, and the SME absorption capacity statements were

rated the highest by 2 Italian SMEs, but the 3rd Italian company had a different opinion in each case

and rated these indicators much lower. The situation is a bit better for Portugal and Spain. (Figure

2b)

The Portuguese and the Italian SMEs had similar ratings for at least a few fields. The 2 Portuguese

SMEs had similar opinions about the field of Support for accessing private capital and agreed that

private investors understand the needs of crossover collaborations and that they offer a range of

funding options (4 on the 1-5 scale). They also agreed that the Collaborative business field is weak

where stakeholder cooperation in order to get crossover products to market faster doesn’t really

work (2 on the 1-5 scale).

The 3 Spanish SMEs also had a common understanding in 3 fields out of the 12. (Figure 2 b) They

think the regulations are not really favourable to set-up and run a new business based on crossover

collaboration (2 on the 1-5 scale), and all of them completely agreed that Using living labs is a

resource efficient way of testing products and services (5 on the 1-5 scale). There were also two

more areas where the opinions of the Spanish companies were quite similar: Support for accessing

private capital is lacking as well as talking with end-users is essential in understanding market-pull

factors for their product/service as part of the Push or pull technology development field.

2 Portugal, Italy, and Spain were represented by 2 and 3 SMEs in the sample.

20

Figure 2 a: Ratings of cross over value chain indicators by SMEs/countries (Group1)

1

2

3

4

5Push or pull technology development (CVC8)


New business model experimentation (CVC1)


Collaboration between younger SMEs and R&D and otherknowledge institutions (CVC12)

Public procurement practice supporting crossoverinnovation (CVC7)

SME absorption capacity (CVC10)

Social capital for networked value creation (CVC11)

Support for assessing public funds (CVC3)



Support for assessing private capital (CVC4)

Austria- SME3

Italy - SME7

Italy - SME8

Italy - SME9

France - SME10


21

Figure 2 b: Ratings of cross over value chain indicators by SMEs/countries (Group2)

1

2

3

4

5Push or pull technology development (CVC8)




Collaboration between younger SMEs and R&D and otherknowledge institutions (CVC12)

Public procurement practice supporting crossoverinnovation (CVC7)


Social capital for networked value creation (CVC11)





Portugal - SME1

Portugal - SME2

Spain - SME4

Spain - SME5

Spain - SME6

22

Figure 3 provides an overview of the ratings of all indicators across countries. The figure shows well

that several fields were rated very low for each country. This suggests that some dimensions of the

innovation ecosystem are far from supporting and act as barriers and strong actions to support

innovations are also lacking or are not efficient enough. (See each indicator in detail in 4.1.2)

Figure 3: Overview of the ratings of indicators across countries for the 12 indicators

4.1.1 Crossover value chain indicators ranking

In this sub-section the 12 CVC indicators are presented in the order by which they were ranked –

from high to low ranking.

R1 PUSH OR PULL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT (CVC 6)

Statement: Talking with end-users is essential in understanding market-pull factors for our

product/service.

This indicator is examining (i) the factors that influence the development of crossover ideas through

new products/services, (ii) how the SMEs engage with end-users in the development of

new/products services, (iii) how efficient is the SMEs' management of field testing/trialling/

prototyping if they follow a user-centred design process to achieve efficiency, and that (iv) what

SMEs do to manage product launches for new crossover products.

This was the highest rated indicator (4,5 on a 1-5 scale) out of the 12. The SMEs strongly agree with

the importance of engaging with end-users when developing a new product or service to be able to

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

Portugal Austria Spain Italy France






push of pull technology development acrosscountries (CVC6)

Public procurement practice supportingcrossover innovation (CVC7)




Social capital for networked value creation(CVC11)

Collaboration between younger SMEs and R&Dand other knowledge institutions (CVC12)


23

understand the factors influencing the market for their own product or service. However, we know

little about how this is happening in practice.

If we look at the country differences in ratings in Table 7, we can see that the indicator was rated the

highest in Austria, and the lowest in France, although the difference is small.

Table 7: Assessment of push or pull technology development across countries (CVC 6)

R2 NEW BUSINESS MODEL EXPERIMENTATION (CVC 1)

Statement: Collaborative value chains work best where the business models embrace collaboration, a

modular approach to technology and build new business processes around both

This indicator examined (i) if traditional value chains are obsolete and if yes, why is that, (ii) to what

extent collaboration combined with new technologies (Internet of Things, smart mobile wearable

devices, social networks, virtual augmented reality, 3D printing, robotics etc.) that builds new paths

to value creation are helping the crossover collaboration of the SMEs, (iii) if health care providers in

the SME’s region are open to business model experimentation, and if yes, what has helped this to

happen, and (iv) how different will be the market pull in urban and rural areas, and what are the

implications of this for business modelling if we look to the future.

The SMEs rated this indicator as the second highest (4,2 on a 1-5 scale). With the exception of 2

SMEs, they agree or even strongly agree that crossover value chains need new business models

and a modular approach to technology development also as a response to our differing and

changing societies. Yet, it was also underlined that the necessary know-how is often lacking.


highest in Italy and Spain, and the lowest in Austria, where the SME seemed uncertain in this

question, and neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement.

1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0

Portugal

Austria

Spain

Italy

France


24

Table 8: Assessment of new business model experimentation across countries (CVC 1)

R3 OPEN INNOVATION NETWORKS (CVC 8)

Statement: Open innovation networks are a useful way of promoting collaboration across sectors

This indicator examined (i) the main characteristics of any open health innovation networks

operating in the SMEs’ region, e.g. networking, collaboration between key stakeholders, business

entrepreneurship, proactive IP management that creates markets for crossover technology, (ii) how

confident are the SMEs or other SMEs in their region in using external and internal knowledge/ideas,

(iii) possible case example where key stakeholders worked together to solve a problem by developing

and testing a new innovation product, and (iv) changes made in the management and use of IP

locally to maximise innovation opportunities.

The SMEs rated the third highest this indicator (4,1 on a 1-5 scale) out of the 12. They think that

open innovation networks can be a useful way of promoting collaboration across sectors. The

majority of the SMEs may have positive experiences with innovation networks with challenges to

tackle.


highest in Portugal, and the lowest in France. The French SME seemed uncertain, neither agreed nor

disagreed with the statement, which may mean negative or no experience with open innovation

networks yet.

Table 9: Assessment of open Innovation networks across countries (CVC 8)

1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0

Portugal

Austria

Spain

Italy

France

1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0

Portugal

Austria

Spain

Italy

France


25

R4 USING LIVING LABS (CVC 9)

Statement: A living lab is a resource efficient way of testing our product/service.

This indicator examined (i) if there are any Living Labs operating in the SME’s regions, (ii) how novel

innovation activities in those Living Lab(s) are coordinated, (iii) if the SMEs in the region continue to

use the traditional project model, (iv) the benefits and/or problems that the SMEs or others have

experienced in setting-up, joining or running a Living Lab, and (v) the SMEs’ plans for using a living lab

to service crossover innovations that can benefit the health sector from.

The SMEs rated this indicator close to 4 (3,9 on a 1-5 scale). Most of the SMEs had a positive

opinion about the living labs; however, 2 SMEs disagreed as they see the implementation as

problematic due to various factors.

If we look at the country differences in ratings in Table 10, we can see that the indicator was rated

the highest in Spain with a strong agreement, and the lowest in Italy, with score 3, again similar to

earlier lowest ratings, being neutral in the question.

Table 10: Assessment of using living labs across countries (CVC 9)

R5 PUBLIC PROCUREMENT PRACTICE SUPPORTING CROSSOVER INNOVATION (CVC 7)

Statement: Local public procurement practice does not make working with health care providers very

appealing.

This indicator examined (i) the processes in place to improve local SME access to public procurement

opportunities, (ii) how public procurement in the SME’s region/country help to develop and maintain

open health innovation ecosystems; (iii) pre-commercial public procurement in place for procuring

R&D services and how that works, and (iv) methods in place to overcome risk aversion in the use of

public procurement budgets by health care supply chain managers in the region.

The SMEs rated this indicator also close to 4 (3,9 on a 1-5 scale). With a few exceptions, the SMEs

did see the local public procurement practice as a barrier to work with health care providers, and

bureaucracy is highlighted as an obstacle when the public sector is involved in a process.

1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0

Portugal

Austria

Spain

Italy

France


26

Table 11: Public procurement practice supporting crossover innovation across countries (CVC 7)


the highest in Italy and Portugal, and the lowest in France and Spain, where the responses were

neutral. This may suggest different country practices which not necessarily hinder innovation

procurement.

R6 SOCIAL CAPITAL FOR NETWORKED VALUE CREATION (CVC 11)

Statement: We are working in a knowledge-rich location characterised by network spill-overs.

This indicator examined (i) how the SMEs build productive social ties with health care providers,

patients, suppliers, other industry in their sector plus other sectors, (ii) the external connections that

open innovation relies on (the ability to make and manage relationships with other firms, health care

providers who might buy their products, patients and end-users as co-producers) and how they are

built and maintained, (iii) the plans SMEs have for expanding and/or improving external connections

in the next 3 years, (iv) the working location e.g. characterised by network spill-overs, or a

knowledge-rich or poor location, and (v) if crossover value chains and/or networks in which the SMEs

are engaged is based on sufficient levels of trust and flexibility that allows members working

together to be responsive and adaptable to new opportunities.

The SMEs rated this indicator a bit lower than 4 (3,8 on a 1-5 scale) suggesting that their working

location is not necessarily knowledge rich or the crossover value chains or networks are not

flexible enough, or simply for micro size companies it is difficult to build the necessary social

capital which could be a strong resource to work effectively with the key actors in the health care

field.


the highest in Italy, and the lowest in Spain.

1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0

Portugal

Austria

Spain

Italy

France


27

Table 12: Assessment of social capital for networked value creation across countries (CVC 11)

R7 COLLABORATION BETWEEN YOUNGER SMES, R&D & OTHER KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS (CVC 12)

Statement: Local universities and other R&D institutions provide a collaboration pipeline that younger

SMEs can work with and access resources (researchers with new ideas/tech, access equipment for a

small fee etc.) to grow the business.

This indicator examined (i) any collaboration of the SMEs with universities and other R&D

organisations that can improve business model makeover process, (ii) if local innovation clusters act

as matchmakers between researchers and younger SMEs whose field of work matches that of the

researcher, (iii) if governments (or local universities) run a ‘Knowledge Transfer Partnership’ scheme

to place a skilled academic inside the SMEs’ business to help with a specific project, (iv) if SMEs took

part in a university placement scheme providing internships and projects for students.

The SMEs rated this indicator also less than 4 (3,7 on a 1-5 scale). The SMEs may agree with the

idea and the importance of looking for collaborations with universities and R&D institutions,

however, there can be obstacles, e.g. bureaucratic ones that can hinder innovation processes.

Though, a positive example was also given where the SME was created as a result of a successful

project at a university.

If we look at the country differences in ratings in Table 13, we can see that ratings are very close to

each other for each country.

Table 13: Collaboration between younger SMEs and R&D and other knowledge institutions

across countries (CVC12)

1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0

Portugal

Austria

Spain

Italy

France

1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0

Portugal

Austria

Spain

Italy

France


28

R8 SME ABSORPTION CAPACITY (CVC 10)

Statement: We have enough capacity to absorb new ideas, technologies and processes from other

sectors and outside of our region.

This indicator examined (i) the SMEs’ capacity to absorb new technologies, processes and

innovations that can help improve their competitiveness, (ii) if SMEs regularly monitor trends within

and outside their region to identify new opportunities for exploitation e.g. using technology

surveillance, (iii) the SMEs’ practices to keep up with the market and competitors and to what extent

they can control and manage the operating environment to their own advantage, (iv) what

improvements in ITC have SMEs and other potential crossover innovation stakeholders made in the

last 3 years in order to improve the flow of information externally and internally, and (v) the ability to

innovate to improve competitiveness e.g. by expanding the portfolio of new products and services.

The SMEs rated this indicator well below 4 (3,6 on a 1-5 scale). Except for a few SMEs, most of the

companies rated this indicator lower which shows the difficulties with the absorption capacity.

Although there are good case examples, like e.g. a newly built start-up with a team with specific

skills and knowledge, there can be problems with the absorption capacity at certain fields, and for

very small size companies.


the highest in Spain, and the lowest in France, Italy, and Austria.

Table 14: Assessment of SME absorption capacity across countries (CVC 10)

R9 SUPPORT FOR ACCESSING PUBLIC FUNDS (CVC 3)

Statement: Fast-track procedures are in place to support applications by SMEs to available public

funding

This indicator examined (i) fast track procedures in place regionally or nationally to facilitate

applications by SMEs in crossover collaborations to relevant national and EU Funding instruments,

(ii) if SMEs are able to get access to funding in their region/country to support preparation of

national and EU (Horizon 2020 and ESIF) funding applications, (iii) what prevents or stimulates local

SMEs to become involved in partnerships with SMEs or third parties in other sectors (e.g.

universities, public research centres or health care providers) in order to access national and EU

1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0

Portugal

Austria

Spain

Italy

France


29

Funds, (iv) what have National Contact Points for national and EU Funding instruments put in place to

promote awareness of these instruments and access to advice on how to secure funds, (v) the

experience of use of EU Funds in the SMEs’ region/country e.g. examples of wasteful use on projects

driven by lobbies without accountability for economic growth and employment.

The SMEs rated this indicator quite low, close to 3 (3,3 on a 1-5 scale). Despite positive examples,

half of the SMEs think that not enough support is in place to help to get public funding while they

are experiencing difficulties in seeking and obtaining financing.


the highest in Italy and Austria, and the lowest in Spain.

Table 15: Assessment of support for accessing public funds across countries (CVC 3)

R10 FAVOURABLE REGULATIONS (CVC 2)

Statement: Current regulations in our region/country make it easier to set-up and run a new business

based on crossover collaboration.

This indicator examined (i) the current regulations in the SMEs’ region/country that can make it more

or less easy to set-up and run a new businesses based on crossover (sector and/or border)

collaboration, (ii) how regulations stimulate entrepreneurship and create space for experimentation

in crossover collaboration, (iii) the specific law/regulation/policy on technology transfer between

sectors active in the SMEs’ region, (iv) if current regulations act as a barrier or enabler to clinic-

industry collaborations in the SMEs’ region.

The SMEs rated this indicator 3 on average (3,0 on a 1-5 scale). This suggests that the majority of

the SMEs think regulations are less favourable to set-up and run a new business based on

crossover collaboration and do little to help stimulating entrepreneurship and creating space for

experimentation.


the highest in France, and the lowest in Spain and Austria.

1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0

Portugal

Austria

Spain

Italy

France


30

Table 16: Assessment of favourable regulations across countries (CVC 2)

R11 COLLABORATIVE BUSINESS (CVC 5)

Statement: Stakeholders (industry, end users, investors, regulatory bodies) work well together to help

get crossover products to market faster

This indicator examined (i) if national governments or regional authorities actively work on policies

that support cross-border and cross-sectoral value chains, (ii) the possible fragmentation between

regulatory work and research investment in the SMEs’ region/country that breaks crossover value

chains by creating obstacles to getting access for new innovation products to markets, (iii) possible

future plans (in the next 3-5 years) to further improve the interaction between stakeholders

(researchers, complementary innovators, industry, health care providers, clinicians and patients) in

these and other crossover value chains.

The SMEs rated this indicator as one of the lowest (2,8 on a 1-5 scale) out of the 12. The SMEs

believe the collaboration between stakeholders (industry, end users, investors, and regulatory

bodies) is not strong enough to help get crossover products to market faster. The difficulties to

work with the public sector were highlighted.


the highest in Italy, and the lowest in France and Portugal.

Table 17: Assessment of collaborative business across countries (CVC 5)

1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0

Portugal

Austria

Spain

Italy

France

1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0

Portugal

Austria

Spain

Italy

France


31

R12 SUPPORT FOR ACCESSING PRIVATE CAPITAL (CVC 4)

Statement: Private investors understand the needs of crossover collaborations and offer a range of

funding options

This indicator examined (i) what stringent requirements, including personal guarantees, do SMEs in

the region report having to provide in order to obtain financing from credit institutions, (ii) what

actions have been taken at national level to regulate the financial industry in ways that explicitly

protect and stimulate effective lending to the real economy, in particular to SMEs, (iii) what

partnerships are in place between banks and other operators involved in SME financing (accountancy

professionals, business or SME associations or chambers of commerce), (iv) what specific

programmes are available e.g. equity (such as business angels, crowdfunding and multilateral trading

facilities), quasi-equity (such as mezzanine finance) or debt instruments (such as small-ticket

company bonds, guarantee facilities and platforms).

The SMEs rated this indicator as the second lowest (2,8 on a 1-5 scale). With a few exceptions, the

SMEs think private investors don’t understand far enough the needs of crossover collaborations

and do not offer enough funding options.


the highest in Italy and Portugal, and the lowest in Spain.

Table 18: Assessment of support for accessing private capital across countries (CVC 4)

4.2 Results from innovation health check of the Internal operating environment

The information gathered on the innovation ecosystem was complemented by the use of the short

version of the Innovation Health Check tool to identify and track the SMEs in-house innovation

capacity and performance.

4.2.1 General innovation capacity and performance of the SMEs

Figure 4 shows the overall average Innovation Position of 13 Cross4Health SMEs against the IHC

benchmarking database. The spider graph shows how the SMEs are performing relative to the

1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0

Portugal

Austria

Spain

Italy

France


32

database comparison group in each of the six innovation segments. The SMEs position is represented

by the 'blue' line, the database strong' position is green, the 'average' is orange and the 'weak' is red.

The outcome of the innovation benchmark indicates for the 13 Cross4Health SMEs an overall

position only a little bit below the database strong which is very positive. A significant area of

strength for the Cross4Health SMEs is Capability and resources which helps to achieve the

companies’ goals, to identify gaps and establish appropriate skills. The other strong field is the

Innovative culture which is important to implement and sustain a proactive innovative approach to

company growth.

Figure 4: Overall position against the benchmarking database N=13

The weakest segment is Structure which, if it is appropriate, helps to achieve strategic goals.

However, even if this is the weakest segment, the position on this area is still slightly better than the

database average. The other 3 areas are also better than average: (1) Strategy, which is crucial in

order to have a clear view of how the company will grow and focus its resources to maximise its

return, (2) Processes which give structure to the innovation process and to evaluate outcomes in a

timely manner, and (3) Understanding the business which is about clear understanding of all aspects

of the business and how they impact on performance. Table 19 summarises these results together

with listing each component of the segments.

Table 19: Position of innovation segments and components against the benchmarking database

Components Position



Little better than average 1.03 Leadership



2.01 Understanding the Customer Average



0,0%

20,0%

40,0%

60,0%

80,0%

100,0%



3. Strategy

4. Structure


6. Processes

Overall Position

DatabaseWeak

DatabaseAverage

DatabaseStrong

CompanyScore


33

3. Strategy

3.01 Company Objectives and Goals Better than average 3.03 Defined Business Model


4. Structure

4.03 Organisation of Resources Better than average




5.01 Staff Innovation Skills Better than average



6. Processes

6.01 New Idea Generation Better than average



The IHC Tool furthermore highlights that in order to improve a company's performance, it is necessary to focus on strengthening the weaker practice segments as holding a good average and balance in all segments is better than being very strong in one or two segments.

Figure 5 shows the Cross4Health SMEs’ Innovative Business Practices against their Innovative Business Performance and their Innovative Environment Practices against their Innovative Environment Performance. Above we saw that in all segments, both in the business area and in the environment area the SMEs are better or even much better than average. This balanced achievement leads to a performance that is also better than average for the 13 SMEs, which is a very positive finding.

Figure 5: Innovative Business Practices and Innovative Environment Practices against the Innovative Performance N=13

4.3.2 Main strengths and weaknesses of the SMEs in the acceleration process

One of the key steps in IHC data analysis is to select the strengths and weaknesses of a company by studying the company scores on each item and examine (i) their position against the IHC benchmarking database strong, average, and weak positions and (ii) their deviation from the database average and strong position.

Below in Figure 6 these identified strengths and weaknesses are summarized for the 13 SMEs.


34

Figure 6: Most frequently identified strengths and weaknesses N=14

The most frequently identified STRENGTHS are 1.01 Innovative environment & Motivation (7),

2.01 Understanding the customer (6), 3.01 Company objectives and goals (7), and 5.01 Staff

innovation skills (8). These strong fields are about to develop an environment for innovation

including motivation and ambition to grow, where staff and management can actively exploit new

ideas, where these ideas are encouraged, supported and funded. It is also about ensuring that formal

and informal mechanisms are used to identify customer issues, where customers' views and ideas

are actively sought throughout the business and acted on. These also support that a company

strategy is developed with clearly defined objectives and goals, which are communicated,

understood and acted upon by all employees, as well as is regularly reviewed and modified to match

the changing environment. Last but not least the company harnesses existing staff innovation skills,

and invests in staff learning & development and innovation management structures are in place

The most frequently identified WEAKNESSES were 1.06 Learning from successes & mistakes,

2.08 Competitor information, as well as 5.07 Projects on time and within the budget. These

weaknesses prevent the companies to learn from past projects and their problems to help avoid

similar problems in the future. In positive cases, companies' learning outcomes are incorporated into

innovation management procedures and a database of previous problems and solutions is

maintained. These weaknesses also suggest that the companies do not necessarily know well their

main competitors meanwhile it is recommended that competitor information is gathered and

analysed in a structured manner. Finally, if projects are not managed in time and within the budget,

the costs can escalate significantly instead of terminating unviable projects early on with good

project management.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14


1.03 Leadership


2.01 Understanding the Customer



3.01 Company Objectives and Goals

3.03 Defined Business Model


4.03 Organisation of Resources



5.01 Staff Innovation Skills



6.01 New Idea Generation



Strengths

Weaknesses


35

4.2.3 Specific need and support of SMEs

With the help of the IHC tool which puts innovation into a wider context and looks at how the

innovation process operates from the outset, the SMEs had the opportunity to examine their

everyday practice and performance very closely in small steps i.e. capturing customer needs (stated

and unstated), idea generation, concept development, product/service development up to the

commercial realization stage and all steps in between.

The Tool identified the weaker points within these big areas helping the KAMs and the SMEs to work

together to specify the main points for future development and to set the direction of support from

Cross4Health and third-party services, which was summarized together with the data in an individual

IHC report.

In these reports, the themes ‘Structure’, ’Strategy’, and ‘Understanding the business’ came up as

main overarching themes when discussing the necessary developments to be put on the future

agenda of the SMEs. The recommended fields where specific support or assistance could be useful

were the following:

Company (structure/objectives & goals)

Leadership & culture

New ideas (generating & implementing)

Management (staff, projects & finances)

Resource (management & planning)

Processes (evaluation of services)

Business modelling/business plan development

Competitor information (e.g. managing & gathering competitor information)

Intellectual Property management

Communication (developing formal communication strategy across the organisation)

Networking & partnering.

It also worth to examine in Figure 6 that except 5.01 Staff innovation skills and 6.01 New idea

generation, all fields are identified both as weaknesses and strengths. Fields which are weaknesses

for some of the SMEs at the same time can be strengths for the others. Sixteen out 18 themes of the

questionnaire appear at least in a few cases either in a positive or a negative manner proving that

SMEs have considerably diverse backgrounds as far as their knowledge, practice and performance is

concerned in relation to innovation. This suggests that any kind of support for the SMEs need to be

specific and personalised. The engaged SMEs differ from one another considerably having different

starting points in terms of their innovation orientation level and innovation potential, i.e. the level of

their innovative processes that are in place which supports and underlines the importance of

providing needs-led innovative support for the SMEs.


36

4.3 Webinars to stimulate and inform crossover collaboration

Table 20: Summary of webinars delivered in the 1st Acceleration cycle

A webinar series to stimulate and inform crossover value chains (T4.2) were put together to help the

start-ups and younger SMEs in the 1st Acceleration cycle to reflect on how better to develop and

bring their product/service/process closer to market.

As with the IHC exercise, this series complemented the consortium services and voucher list services

provided as part of WP5. Webinars lasted between 1.5 and 2.5 hours with the most positive

evaluations for those that were highly interactive. (See Table 20)

5 Discussion

The innovation ecosystem assessments and the Innovation Health Checks informed targeted service

innovation support provided by Cross4Health partners and accredited third-party experts during the

1st Acceleration cycle. They also inform the review of policies and practices relevant to weaknesses in

the operating environment identified by SMEs and if needed, actions to remove or better manage

those weaknesses. With the help of this activity, we have an overview of how SMEs perceive their

working environment, which is also valuable feedback for the regional clusters to act upon at

regional and at SME level.

Examining the innovation ecosystem in which the participating SMEs are working we can conclude

that the characteristics of the external innovation environment seem to vary not only across

countries but also SMEs from the same country judge the same factors very differently. Only two

SME assessed its own environment very positively (4,5 on average); the others were more critical.

The highest rated area is ‘Push and Pull technology development’ meaning that most of the SMEs

highly agree that talking with end-users is essential in understanding market-pull factors for their

product/service, although we don’t know if this really happens or how is achieved. The weakest fields

are related to support for accessing public funds, regulations, collaborative business and support for


37

accessing private capital. There is uncertainty if private investors understand really the needs of

crossover collaborations, and it is perceived that there are not many funding options available from

this sector. Besides, current regulations in the region/countries are criticised as they don’t help much

to set up and run a new business based on a crossover collaboration. SMEs were also critical about

the stakeholders who should work together to help get crossover products to market and it was also

highlighted that not enough fast track procedures are in place to support project applications.

Comparing the assessments of each country:

Spain - 5 indicators were rated as the lowest among the 5 countries: Public procurement

practice supporting crossover innovation, Social capital for networked value creation, Support

for accessing public funds, Favourable regulations, and Support for accessing private capital.

France - also 5 indicators got the lowest ratings: Push or pull technology development, Open

innovation networks, Public procurement practice supporting crossover innovation, SME

absorption capacity, and Collaborative business.

Austria - three fields were rated very low: New business model experimentation, SME

absorption capacity, and SME absorption capacity.

Italy and Portugal both had only two low rated fields: Using living labs and SME absorption

capacity, as well as Collaboration between younger SMEs and R&D and other knowledge

institutions and Collaborative business.

The ‘lite’ version of the Innovation Health Check was developed to help start-ups and younger SMEs

to improve (i) competitiveness or competitive advantage, (ii) own products / services, (iii) processes

manufacturing & or service processes, (iv) to develop new appropriate products / services, (v) to get

quicker to the market, (vi) to create new markets or new channels to market, and (vii) to add value to

all activities across the entire business spectrum.

Despite specific concerns, those start-ups and SMEs in the 1st Acceleration cycle meet the necessary

expectations exceptionally well. They were strong performers in several innovation segments and

have an achievement above average in quite a few fields. Doing relatively well on IHC is a very

positive learning about the supported SME group showing that even if a small group of SME teams

was funded in the 1st open call, most of them are at a higher level as far as their internal innovation

capacity is concerned. This is a very good base to build on. Good outcomes and valuable learning are

expected with regards to the crossover collaborations in the ACBEIM sectors. We also believe that

the results of this baseline IHC assessment act as a marker to help guide further development and

eventual commercialisation of their product/service/process.

The presence of weaknesses i.e. the fields in which these SMEs were weaker than the database

average is natural despite the positive overall picture. The companies need to manage many

elements of the whole spectrum of the internal innovation capacity which is very challenging. For


38

start-ups and the younger SMEs this is a big challenge. Meanwhile, older, well-established companies

may be too rigid, and too large to be responsive to these new challenges.

This process with the IHC and ecosystem tools also prove that SMEs need informed personalized

support to develop and this is the main idea behind the acceleration cycle. However, beyond

identifying where the companies need future help, the further benefit of IHC was that it allowed the

companies to continue a discussion on structural issues regarding where the company is at the

moment and where it wants or need to grow. It may have stimulated processes and helped to reflect

in broader terms on what and how to do, and to what direction to proceed. This discussion

generated by IHC seemed to be exceptionally useful.

The Tool will also be used at the end of the acceleration period for a follow-up to identify any change

is practice and progress/performance.

6 Limitations

The developed 12 ecosystem indicators try to encompass the whole spectrum of factors affecting the

innovation ecosystem. To be able to make careful judgement and assessment of the innovation

ecosystem in a country or a region with the help of these indicators requires a comprehensive

knowledge from the field. In some cases, the discussions with the SME representatives were very

informative providing examples illuminating the specific regional circumstances. However, in other

cases, the discussions were less intense which may be due to the lack of enough practical experience

or knowledge of the various segments of the innovation ecosystem, or the lack of understanding of

some examined aspects. Becoming involved in an innovation process for a small start-up or young

company doesn’t mean automatically becoming knowledgeable in regulations, funding

opportunities, business models and so on. This is why the gathered information should be

interpreted cautiously and somewhat reservedly even if the perceptions of the SMEs based on own

experiences, provide valuable learning and very important evidence, and points for reference for the

partnership and the clusters themselves to act upon. We managed to understand more about how

innovation ecosystem is working in the partners’ countries, how it affects the work and efforts of the

SMEs, however, we can hardly generalize to the European context. The small sample size also gives

this warning.

Using the IHC questionnaire was also challenging. The Innovation Health Check Tool mostly works

well with well-established companies. Even the lite version, where the indicator number is reduced

to a minimum can be overwhelming to small, young companies. For the very young, small SMEs,

start-ups being in an early developmental stage it was a challenge to answer some of the questions.

Using the lite version of the IHC questionnaire and selecting only 18 questions out of the 52 also

makes the summary and interpretation of data a bit distorted, but still, it has generated a lot of

important information, learning, and value.


39

KAMs had various experiences during the data collection. Some of the SMEs tended either overrating

or underrating themselves when scoring certain questions which may have resulted in that the

dataset of these companies is biased a bit. The reason behind this can be numerous, like for example

trying to comply with the – actual or imaginary — standards or expectations for showing success at

the innovation field or cultural factors like being very critical with own performance which, for the

long run, may positively affect business performance.

7 Conclusions and expectations

This small scale data collection was carried out as part of Work Package 4 which is focussing on

practical actions to support ACEBIM crossover value chains to (re)combine in generating innovative

solutions that help improve patient-centered care. Earlier work for the Cross4Health baseline

analysis done in the first months of the project explored the potential barriers to crossover

collaboration and value chains, as well as current and future solutions that can be supportive to

start-ups and younger SMEs. Our 2nd data collection, involving SMEs in the 1st Acceleration cycle,

reinforced that these factors very much affect crossover collaborations and either help or hinder

processes, interact with each other, and most of all, differ across regions and countries. Certain

drivers can become barriers and vice versa if they are not favourable for attracting and retaining

business but instead, they prevent the smooth running of innovative processes.

One of the main aims of the project is to overcome the barriers affecting SMEs’ everyday work and

wider working environment, as well as support drivers for crossover collaboration and supporting

actions. The Open Innovation Spaces organised by the cluster organisations and their ecosystem

partners show that they enable dialogue between stakeholders (SMEs, Clusters, Investors) to identify

these barriers and seek solutions. The Webinars sharing leading-edge knowledge at the innovation

field applicable to create new crossover ideas and projects are also organised to stimulate and

inform crossover value chains. The knowledge acquired from the acceleration programme in general

by the working personnel of the SMEs in the joint projects funded by Cross4Health should

successfully make its way back to the host organizations or become pillars in a newly created entity.

Practical support for start-ups and younger SMEs engaged in crossover collaborations focused on

their own internal innovation capacities as well as the innovation ecosystem that surrounds them.

The support actions themselves via WPs 2/3/5 will ensure that funded crossover teams can

demonstrate the cost-effectiveness and synergies achievable by the emerging ACEBIM industry and

its crossover value chains. Case studies will be collected on newly learnt techniques, synergies with

potential entities aligned to the teams, and identify how new funding is leveraged for the project

beyond Cross4Health support to sustain and develop further the products and services in the market.

Deliverable 4.1 First Crossover Value Chain and Spill-over … · 2020-07-24 · Editors: Edit...

Documents

Transcript of Deliverable 4.1 First Crossover Value Chain and Spill-over … · 2020-07-24 · Editors: Edit...