SQW Limited

MAPPING BUSINESS SUPPORTIN OBJECTIVE 2 AREAS

Report to the East of England Development Agency

MAPPING BUSINESS SUPPORT IN OBJECTIVE 2 AREAS

Report to the East of England Development Agency

SQW Limited

Enterprise HouseVision Park, HistonCambridge CB4 9ZR

Tel: 01223 209400Fax: 01223 209401 Email: [email protected]

JC1929 June 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

Executive Summary i

1 Introduction and overview 1

2 The Objective 2 core and transitional areas: survey findings 6

3 Area report: Rural areas 17

4 Area report: Luton 27

5 Area report: Great Yarmouth & Waveney 35

6. Area report: Southend-on-Sea 44

ANNEXES

1: Survey questionnaire

2: List of survey respondents

3 Example of workshop presentations

4: List of workshop participants

Mapping business supportin Objective 2 areas

Executive Summary

Introduction

In December 2000, the East of England Development Agency commissioned SQW Limited to carry

out a mapping study of business support services in the Objective 2 areas of the east of England. The

purpose of the study was to map the supply side of business support and identify any gaps, in order to

help target effectively resources available for firms in the Objective 2 areas.

The study was undertaken over five months to May 2001 and comprised a survey of 243 business

support providers in the region, which was supplemented by consultations with Objective 2

facilitators and key business support providers, and five workshops each with a local provider

audience. A review of draft versions of the Local Frameworks, the regional Single Programming

Document and draft Small Business Service (SBS) business plans was also undertaken, from which

comparisons with the survey data were drawn, forming part of a gap analysis of business support

services in the Objective 2 areas.

Analysis of needs

The mapping and gap analysis was intended to present a picture of existing business support activity

in the Objective 2 areas, relative to the areas’ specific needs. The initial needs analysis, drawn from

the review of key local documents, highlighted several needs relevant to most or all of the Objective 2

areas:

support for mature and declining traditional industries, such as offshore oil/gas and ports,

food processing and agriculture, tourism, and manufacturing, including diversification into

new markets, for example ICT and electronics

support to start-ups to improve survival rates and develop entrepreneurial skills. This

included the need for financial support mechanisms such as loan funds for SMEs and access

to venture capital to finance funding gaps

environmental management systems

special provision for deprived and excluded communities and businesses, particularly in the

rural economy and peripheral areas, which are not served well by local infrastructure

networks

inward investment.

i


The examination of the existing documentation also highlighted the need for further demand-side

research as, on the whole, little information was available about needs and information was

particularly weak in terms of business support. The Objective 2 areas are particularly affected by

problems of transport networks and declining industries, but other issues raised in the local documents

were fairly general and could often be applied to the region as a whole.

The survey: main findings

Section 2 of the report discusses the overall findings from the survey and workshop discussions, and

further detail about each of the Objective 2 areas can be found in sections 3 - 6. There were several

important generic issues arising from the main findings:

1. Sectoral specialisms: when asked to identify business support products or services designed for

specific sectors or needs groups, the majority of providers claimed that their services were not

focused. There were some specialised services, such as retraining in Southend for an emerging

telemarketing sector, and support for women entrepreneurs in Norfolk. However, the workshop

discussions suggested that providers employed a generalist approach, but that where there was a

demand for specialist services they would customise the provision, either internally or by

subcontracting to external agencies or consultants. This may be helpful in some cases, but is

probably not optimal, particularly if there are disincentives (such as pressures of self-financing)

for providers to subcontract work or recommend external experts.

2. Cost of service to remote areas: survey respondents, particularly in the rural areas, claimed the

cost burden of delivering support to remote areas is high. This was confirmed in the workshops as

being a significant problem in some rural areas, where firms were suspicious of external providers

and did not openly embrace formal business support networks. In these cases providers had to

work more proactively to provide a personal service in order to engage firms in support activity.

This has worked well in some areas, but is nonetheless very expensive to execute due to the time

involved and the distances to be travelled in order to service remotely-based clients. In addition,

the need for providers to have a local presence in these areas in order to engage the local business

community was identified as a barrier, or at least a disincentive, to delivery.

3. Lack of entrepreneurship: across the board, this was identified through the survey and in the

workshops as an historic problem facing the Objective 2 areas, and one that is perhaps endemic in

the culture and in the dependence on traditional industries. The situation is exacerbated by the

geographically peripheral location and the loss of qualified young people to other areas of the

country, partly as a result of few career opportunities and also a lack – it was suggested - of local

entrepreneurial role models. Although this falls in part outside the scope of ‘business support’

and is more relevant to the educational sphere, the need for stimulating and enhancing an

ii


entrepreneurial culture was strongly emphasised in all the workshops. Specifically, there exist

clear gaps in initiatives designed to retain graduates and young people and in management and

entrepreneurial skills training. The promotion and marketing of entrepreneurial activity in the area

through the media could also help foster more positive attitudes towards entrepreneurship.

4. Partnerships and networks: when asked to make assessments about the supply of business

support in their area compared to elsewhere in the east of England, many respondents

demonstrated a lack of knowledge about the ‘players’ and services in the market and activity in

other parts of the Region (an example of this is that the new Techlink initiative was not once

referred to in the survey or workshops). Whilst it was suggested that providers are likely to be

knowledgeable about the specific sectors in which they operate, they are less likely to be familiar

with all aspects of business support. Nonetheless, the high level of respondents apparently unable

to comment on provision suggests the networks and partnerships may be fragmented, which

would prevent optimal dissemination of information, perhaps exclude potential partners from

delivering services, and restrict the pool of providers to which businesses could be signposted for

specialist support.

5. Dealing with strategic issues: The existence of gaps and overlaps, revealed in the survey and

supported in the workshops, indicates that provision and allocation of resources targeted to

business support is not optimal. This could be a symptom of strong competition and weak

partnership and collaboration between local organisations, preventing broader strategic issues

from being addressed. There was some feeling in the workshops that stronger leadership at a

local and/or regional level could be useful in providing a guiding framework for further

discussion and collaboration. The relatively sparse representation of business support issues in

the Local Frameworks is also central to this, and needs to be addressed by the Objective 2

partnerships. The apparent concentration on infrastructure projects does not address the real

issues surrounding business support needs. A diagnosis of business support needs from a

demand-side perspective would enhance detailed understanding of the needs and gaps

experienced by businesses, and their current level of satisfaction with the business support

provision.

iii


1. Introduction and overview

Context

1.1 This document is the report for a study to map business support in Objective 2 areas in the

East of England. SQW Limited were commissioned by EEDA to carry out the study, the

results of which are intended to enhance the understanding of the provision of business

support available to firms located within the nine areas in the East of England1 designated for

assistance through the 2000-2006 Objective 2 Programme.

1.2 As noted in the brief for the project, SQW was responsible for an extensive review of

business support throughout the region in 2000, which included a survey of 1,000 firms

together with interviews and workshops with key business support providers in the whole of

the East of England. The brief for this current assignment was exclusively on Objective 2

Core and Transitional areas in the East of England, with the principal emphasis on mapping

the supply side (i.e. understanding what support providers are providing to firms in the

Objective 2 areas, and identifying gaps in provision) rather than investigating the use of

support amongst businesses. The findings are intended to help effectively target resources

available for the Objective 2 areas.

Methodology

1.3 The main vehicle for carrying out the study was an e-mail survey of suppliers that deliver

services into Objective 2 areas. The draft survey findings were then presented in five local

workshops delivered in locations convenient to one or more of the Objective 2 areas, in order

that the output could be tested and refined, and additional input gathered. The report presents

the combined results of the survey and workshop outputs.

Initial research

1.4 At the start of the study, a number of documents were made available to SQW. These

included the Local Frameworks for Objective 2 areas (various drafts) and the Small Business

Service (SBS) draft business plans, plus the East of England Objective 2 Single Programming

Document (final draft). These documents all contained, to varying degrees, intelligence about

existing and planned business support, either specifically targeted at the Objective 2 areas, or

more broadly in the East of England. SQW reviewed the documents and extracted

1 The Objective 2 Core and Transitional areas include: Breckland, Great Yarmouth, Waveney, Southend-on-Sea, Luton, North Norfolk Coast, Fenland (transitional), Rural East Suffolk (transitional), and Central Rural Norfolk (transitional).

1


information, as far as it existed, about needs of the Objective 2 areas, and gaps in current

provision, as a basis for designing the survey.

1.5 It should be noted that the timing of the project was such that it coincided with changes in

institutional responsibility for provision of business support in some regions, which

complicated the process of mapping current business support provision.

The e-mail survey

1.6 The project started with no recognised list of business support providers delivering into

Objective 2 areas. The initial task for SQW was therefore to compile a mailing list. A

number of sources were drawn upon to develop a list, including:

■ existing lists from SQW’s Review of Business Support

■ EEDA

■ Objective 2 Facilitators

■ Business Links and local authorities.

1.7 The list was then supplemented by information from the County Web Directory

(www.countyweb.co.uk), which yielded contacts mainly for professionals, education

institutions and training organisations. The list was built up to over 850 organisations, which

was then de-duplicated and some selection made to reduce the large number of professional

organisations. E-mail addresses and named contacts then had to be obtained for a significant

proportion of the organisations on the list.

1.8 In parallel, a questionnaire was designed, piloted and reviewed by EEDA. A copy of the

questionnaire is contained in Annex 1.

1.9 Following de-duplication and cleaning of the draft database, a total of 243 questionnaires

were sent out and 89 responses received (55 completed questionnaires, 6 qualitative

responses, and 28 refusals due to lack of time or no contact with Objective 2 areas). In

addition, over 30 telephone discussions were held, some of which provided qualitative input

into the study. During these discussions, in some cases requests were made for access to

evaluations of individual initiatives in order to include some demand-side feedback about the

business support provision. Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, there was little success in

accessing documentation.

2

http://www.countyweb.co.uk/


Figure 1.1: the e-mail survey - summary statistics

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Questionnaires sent: 243Of which:

questionnaires sent to ‘core’ providers(excluding ‘professionals’ and ‘other’ categories):

150

Total responses received: 89Of which:

completed questionnaires returned 55qualitative responses (letter or telephone discussion) 6

refusals due to lack of time or inappropriate 28

Responses as a percentage of total sent: 37%Responses as a percentage of total sent

(excluding professionals etc.) 59%

1.10 The majority of responses were from core2 business support organisations, educational

institutions and local government, i.e. the main providers of public sector business support. A

list of survey respondents is contained in Annex 2. Since there are no established lists or

directories of business support providers working in Objective 2 areas, we started off the

survey with no accurate idea of the scale of the provider population. Indeed, many of the

providers are not actually located in an Objective 2 area, and are active across several areas.

We were confident that the survey mailing list contained the majority of key providers, and

this was confirmed in the workshops, which also augmented the list by signposting us to a

few additional providers who were subsequently contacted.

1.11 Of the estimated total provider population across all the Objective 2 areas, the survey

coverage was approximately as follows:

Figure 1.2: survey coverage

CATEGORY OF ORGANISATION NUMBER OF QUESTIONNAIRES SENT

NUMBER OF RESPONSES RECEIVED (including questionnaires, plus

qualitative and negative responses)

Core business support 36 25 (69%)Local government 19 15 (79%)Education 17 11 (65%)Trade/sectoral 23 8 (35%)Training 55 10 (18%)Professional 62 10 (16%)Other 31 10 (32%)

Total 243 89 (37%)

1.12 For the purpose of the analysis, the nine Objective 2 areas have been grouped. The

2 Public sector organisations which exist primarily to provide support services to business (including Business Link, Enterprise Agencies, Chambers of Commerce and Industry, etc.)

3


segmentation was informed by the organisation of the five workshops, and this approach was

agreed since it was considered that response numbers would be more meaningful when

aggregated. For all the providers contacted for the survey, we can only guess at which is their

key focus area. For the 55 completed questionnaires received, we were able to categorise

them according to their stated primary delivery focus. The following table presents the

grouped Objective 2 areas, together with the questionnaires sent and responses received for

each aggregated area.

Figure 1.3: grouped areas – response details

LUTON SOUTHEN

D

RURAL OBJECTIVE 2

YARMOUTH & WAVENEY

OTHER** TOTAL

Questionnaires sent (presumed category) 33 43 57 64 46 243Responses received* 15 10 29 17 19 89Responses as a percent of total sent

45% 23% 51% 27% 41% 37%

* grouped according to the Objective 2 area in which the provider was most active** ‘Other’ includes national or regional providers which cannot be categorised to one of the groupings

1.13 The 55 completed questionnaires received provide the data for the survey analysis, augmented

by the qualitative information received in some responses and the input, subsequently, from

the workshop participants (some of whom also submitted completed questionnaires).

The workshops

1.14 Five workshops were run, in March 2001, to present the emerging findings from the survey.

The workshop locations were selected to accommodate one or more Objective 2 areas, and

this grouping dictated the presentation of the data in this report. Invitations to the workshop

were issued by EEDA. The figure below presents details on each of the workshops.

Figure 1.4: workshop details

DATE LOCATION OBJECTIVE 2 AREAS NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS

20 March Dereham BrecklandNorth Norfolk CoastCentral Rural Norfolk

5

21 March Luton Luton 1022 March Lowestoft Great Yarmouth

WaveneyRural East Suffolk

18

29 March Outwell Fenland 1230 March Southend-on-Sea Southend-on-Sea 12

4


1.15 The workshop presentation for the Lowestoft workshop is contained in Annex 3 as an

example of the presentation format, and a list of the workshop participants is presented in

Annex 4.

1.16 The remainder of this document is divided into five further sections. Section two presents an

overview of the findings from the aggregate data for all nine Objective 2 areas. Sections

three, four, five and six each contain an area report, respectively for the ‘rural areas, including

Fenland’, ‘Luton’, ‘Great Yarmouth & Waveney’, and ‘Southend-on-Sea’. The report

concludes with a series of annexes containing relevant supporting material.

1.17 Finally, SQW would like to acknowledge the help received from a number of individuals and

organisations in the process of the project. In particular we would like to thank Kevin Horne

for making available two reports: ‘Business Support in Norfolk – A Mapping Exercise’, and

‘An evaluation of the BEST Start Programme’.

5


2. The Objective 2 areas: survey findings

Supply of business support

2.1 This section presents an overview based on the aggregate data for all nine Objective 2 areas,

derived from the 55 completed questionnaires received from the e-mail survey. The nine

areas have been reduced to four groupings, and the data organised on that basis for the area

reports which follow. Here, the total data are presented, together with generic observations

and issues which have emanated from both the survey and the subsequent workshops.

Scale of support

2.2 The survey respondents report that they have assisted a total of 55,000 businesses over the

last year, and have generated over £34 million of revenue through the delivery of business

support.

2.3 Two observations need to be made here. First, that the activity reported by the respondents

will have extended, in practically all cases, beyond the Objective 2 boundaries, and the

volume and value of support delivered into Objective 2 areas will only be a proportion of the

total reported activity. Second, the total stock of businesses in the Objective 2 areas is around

28,0003, which suggests that the figure of 55,000 businesses assisted could actually mean

55,000 interventions delivered, many of the businesses receiving multiple inputs of support.

And these will be for firms located throughout most of the East of England since few of the

respondents operate exclusively in Objective 2 areas. There were also gaps in the data

provided on this subject, where – not untypically – respondents were cautious about revealing

information relating to finance.

Mapping business support

2.4 The questionnaire contained three matrices on which respondents were asked to indicate their

activity, using three different categories:

■ the stage of business development for which the support was designed

■ support for specific sectors

3 Source: Regional Trends, No. 35, 2000 edition (data for 1998)

6


■ Support for particular segments of the business population that might have specific

needs.

2.5 The ‘maps’ in this and the following sections are presented showing actual numbers of

responses, together with shading to indicate the concentrations of, and gaps in provision, and

to highlight any patterns which exist. The numbers can be compared across all four groups;

but the shading for the maps in the four area reports reflects the percentage of the total

responses for the particular ‘group’ which the number represents. The depth of shading

therefore varies between the different area reports, and is for illustrative, but not comparative,

purposes.

2.6 It should also be noted that this overview presents the data from all 55 respondents, which

includes some that do not fit into any of the four area groupings because although they are

working in one or more Objective 2 areas, they have a national or regional focus, rather than

primarily a local focus, and therefore could not be categorised according to a specific

Objective 2 area.

Map 2.1: Objective 2 Core and Transitional Areas: support by stage of development

STAGE OF

DEVELOPMENT TYPE OF SUPPORT

PRE-START START-UP EARLY

DEVELOPMENT HIGH GROWTH MAINSTREAM MATURE/

DECLINING

General Management

15

17 18 19 21 17

Business Planning

22 21 21 20 20 19

Finance

19 18 22 17 19 14

Skills/HR

15 16 19 16 16 15

Production/operations

9 11 13 12 12 11

ICT

14 14 16 12 14 13

Other technology

12 12 11 10 12 9

Marketing

17 18 20 14 15 13

Property/location

14 15 16 14 12 10

Legislation

17 17 17 13 16 11

Environmental issues

13 14 13 11 13 13

7


2.7 Across all four groups of areas, a fairly consistent pattern of supply has been reported with

respect to support for businesses at different stages of development. As might be expected,

the main concentration is in provision of core management skills such as business planning,

finance, HR and marketing. However, all ‘types of support’ are covered, although because

this study has looked solely at the supply-side, it is not possible to tell whether the volume of

supply is sufficient to meet demand.

2.8 There is also a relatively even pattern of delivery to firms at different stages of development,

with a comparatively strong showing for ‘mainstream’ firms, and those which are categorised

as ‘mature’ or ‘declining’, as well as the provision for start-up and early stage development,

which tends to be standard provision through Enterprise Agencies and Business Link. The

targeting of declining businesses is presumably a response to the problems faced by several of

the Objective 2 areas where the main industries are traditional and in decline.

Map 2.2: Objective 2 Core and Transitional Areas: sectoral focus of support

SECTORAL FOCUS

TYPE OF SUPPORT

NONE FAST GROWTH

SECTORS DECLINING

SECTORS OTHER

SECTORS

General Management

20 4 5 4

Business Planning

27 4 4 3

Finance

24 3 1 1

Skills/HR

21 3 1 2


16 2 1 2

ICT

20 2 2 1

Other technology

15 2 1 1

Marketing

21 3 1 2

Property/location

18 3 0 0

Legislation

19 2 2 0


17 1 1 0

2.9 This map illustrates the sectoral-based activity, and raises some questions about the support

which is being delivered in the Objective 2 areas. The map implies that the great majority of

8


providers do not make available any sectorally-specific support. This issue was explored in

further depth in the workshops, to identify whether in fact there were programmes and

support designed specifically for a particular sector which the survey had failed to pick up.

2.10 The workshops did indeed reveal some sector-specific activity, and some providers that work

exclusively with a particular sector (for example, the East of England Tourist Board, and

EEEGR), but the strong message was that the map is a fairly accurate picture and most

providers will work with any type of business, and tailor their support according to the

specific needs of that business. They therefore do not classify the support as sector-specific,

even though they may be customising it to the needs of, for example, a tourism or an

engineering firm.

2.11 This explains the strong concentration of respondents which claim to have no sectoral focus.

However, it also suggests that really specialised help, from sector experts, is perhaps not

being provided to businesses when they need it, and they are being offered help by providers

who have generic, rather than sector-specific skills and knowledge.

Map 2.3: Objective 2 Core and Transitional areas: support for specific needs

SPECIFIC NEED

TYPE OF SUPPORT

NO SPECIFIC

FOCUS DISABLED YOUNG ETHNIC WOMEN OTHER

General Management

26 2 3 2 3 0

Business Planning

27 4 8 5 5 0

Finance

24 4 4 4 4 0

Skills/HR

21 4 4 4 4 0


20 2 2 2 2 0

ICT

25 3 3 4 3 0

Other technology

20 2 2 2 2

Marketing

26 4 4 3 3

Property/location

17 2 2 2 2

Legislation

21 3 3 2 2


17 1 1 1 1

9


2.12 The support for groups which may have specific needs is again rather sparse in most cases,

the exception being that for young people, where provision of business planning support is

particularly strong, and other provision slightly outweighs that for the other groups. This can

probably be explained in part by the activities of the Prince’s Trust.

2.13 The main group which was highlighted in the workshops as having needs which it is believed

are not being met is the ethnic businesses. In several Objective 2 areas the providers are

aware that there are businesses which are not accessing mainstream support, for a variety of

reasons, and although in some cases they are drawing on help from other sources (their own

community for example), it was felt that this provision could and should be improved. Steps

are being taken in some areas to address this, with research either being carried out or planned

to be commissioned to understand better both the type of support which would be welcomed,

and how to set up effective communication which will lead to the support being accessed.

2.14 The other groups – women, the disabled and young people – were not highlighted consistently

in any of the workshops as having unmet needs, and some activity, particularly with farmers’

wives in the rural areas, is already underway to help them consider developing

additional/alternative sources of income and diversification.

Range and quality of providers

2.15 We sought opinions as to how the range of provision delivered into Objective 2 areas

compared to the East of England in general, and also whether the quality was similar, better

or poorer.

Figure 2.1: the range and quality of providers – Objective 2 core and transitional areas

RANGE TOTAL SAMPLE QUALITY TOTAL SAMPLE

Similar 20 Similar 19Fewer 9 Better 3More 3 Poorer 8Lack knowledge 19 Lack Knowledge 21Missing 4 Missing 4Total 55 Total 55

2.16 A number of points need to be raised in relation to these data. First, many participants in the

workshops made the valid point that an objective picture could only be obtained through

eliciting views from the demand-side, i.e. the ‘customers’ for the support, and that providers

themselves are unlikely to be negative. Second, many providers noted that they found it

difficult to offer any assessment outside the boundaries in which they work, so, for example,

those providing start-up support may feel unable to comment about the range and quality of

10


specialist sector-specific marketing provision. That said, it could be argued that providers

should have a broad awareness of activity within the ‘industry’, since one of their key roles

will be to ensure that businesses receive appropriate support, and that does not always, or

indeed often, come from just one provider. Partnerships and strong linkages, between

different types of providers, are key to an effective support network, and the number of

respondents that indicated they lacked the knowledge to respond to this question is of some

concern.

2.17 Overall, just over a third of survey respondents believe the range of provision to be similar to

that elsewhere in the East of England, and provided that provision is acceptable, then there

should be no expectation that provision for Objective 2 areas should exceed it. Of more

concern is the fact that 16% believe there to be a smaller range of provision available, and

only 5% suggest that the range in Objective 2 areas exceeds that elsewhere. It could be that

Objective 2 areas have a narrower range of needs than the rest of the East of England, but

point was not corroborated in the workshops.

2.18 The responses were very similar with respect to quality of support, with around a third, again,

believing the quality of provision to be similar to elsewhere in the East of England, 14%

suggesting it is poorer, and only 5% thinking it is better. In both cases, over a third lacked

knowledge to comment.

2.19 We looked at the data to see whether it was possible to identify any geographic patterns to

these responses. No particular Objective 2 area stood out where respondents believe the

quality and range to be similar, but the majority of those respondents who believe there to be

either a smaller range of provision of a poorer quality of provision were working in the rural

Objective 2 areas. This matches the feedback received from both the survey and the

workshops about problems accessing remotely located businesses (either because of the cost

of travelling to them, and/or the businesses’ reluctance to travel to access support) and

difficulties of providing support into remote locations, which is what the local businesses

want.

Difficulties and incentives

2.20 Half the respondents reported no difficulties in servicing businesses located in the Objective 2

areas; but just under half apparently do experience difficulties, and the majority of those are

the providers dealing with the rural areas. The main barriers to operating in the Objective 2

areas include:

11


■ issues related to remote location, in particular:

suppliers facing problems of access to remote areas, and the additional cost

implicit for this work

reluctance of remotely-located businesses to travel to the service delivery point

difficulties engaging businesses without a dedicated local presence

■ poor take-up of services

■ difficulties of recruiting and retaining appropriate staff to deliver support services,

and

■ a shortage of suitable development land which, in some cases, is preventing suitable

incubator and small business premises being provided.

2.21 Predictably, the most commonly cited incentive which would help providers deliver more

support services in Objective 2 areas was funding. However, providers did not just suggest

more funding would help, but made some constructive proposals for the nature of the funding

structures which would enhance their ability to deliver services. In particular, the existing,

and additional, funding could be:

■ more flexible, to enable local needs to be addressed

■ more flexible, to enable innovative and novel forms of support to be developed

■ committed over a longer term, to enable the provision of commitment to clients, and

the delivery of in-depth sustained support, rather than ‘quick hits’

■ less reliant on matched funding, which is increasingly difficult to access, particularly

from the private sector

■ part of a strategy which focused less on ‘picking winners’ and more on businesses

struggling to survive, which is the perceived greater need in some of the Objective 2

areas

12


2.22 And additional funding was required to:

■ enable expansion of services to meet demand (although this conflicted with the

problems identified because take-up of services is poor)

■ enable increased depth of service (for example, the provision of a face-to-face

intervention where at the moment support is provided by telephone).

2.23 The other key issue which would ease the problems faced in working in these areas is the

development of strengthened partnerships. Although in some areas, it was suggested that

partnerships are not a problem, an opposing view was presented by some workshop

participants, and there does seem to be a case for improved cooperation and coordination of

services.

2.24 Some of these points are elaborated, and additional area-specific detail is provided in the area

reports which follow.

Overlaps and gaps

2.25 Approximately half those surveyed believe that overlaps in provision of business support do

exist, the majority of which work in the rural areas and Southend. Nearly as many, however,

believe there are no overlaps, but here there is less of a geographical pattern. Varying

opinions were expressed as to whether the existence of overlaps in service provision is a

problem or a benefit. In general, the view is that there are bound to be overlaps, and that the

market can stand, and will likely benefit by, more than one provider working in a similar

field, not least because it is likely to reduce the danger of poor quality and complacency. In

addition, given the relatively low penetration of the business population generally (not just in

Objective 2 areas) achieved by service providers, there is a large tranche of the business

population which is yet to be tapped and the market is clearly not yet saturated with providers

of business support.

2.26 The overlaps were explained primarily by:

■ the fact that provision is often funding driven. Two main points were raised here:

first, the diagnostic processes used to identify needs and inform the use of

funding are often not optimal

13


second, the aims of different sources of funding sometimes overlap, and there is

often little coordination of the different funding streams, which results in

duplication – enhanced communication and partnership might help to achieve

greater coherence here

■ the similar service provided by professional firms and banks, which have not

differentiated themselves from their local competitors

■ overlaps between training organisations and private-sector providers, but whilst in

these cases there are apparent overlaps, the detail of the provision tends to differ (for

example, a training programme can cover the same subject matter, but a wide range

of flexibility be offered in the structure of the training – ranging from intensive short

courses to longer-term part-time developmental courses; or from formal classroom

based training to participative, experiential and applied approaches).

2.27 Gaps are more critical, and obviously an optimal use of funding to avoid unnecessary

overlaps is desirable, and may also free up some funding to address the gaps faced by the

Objective 2 areas. Close to half the survey respondents felt there are gaps in provision, with

only a few believing no gaps exist. Again, almost half were unable to express a view, which

suggests a less than desirable understanding of the needs of the supply-side, or of the business

support being supplied outside the respondents’ own specific field.

2.28 The nature of the gaps varied between the different areas, and the specific local gaps are

presented in each of the area reports. Some general themes can, however be identified which

are common to most, if not all, the Objective 2 areas.

Level of enterprise

2.29 The first theme is the lack of entrepreneurial culture which exists in the Objective 2 areas, and

the surrounds. Most of the workshops, as well as some of the consultations we carried out,

picked up this theme as a fundamental problem faced in these areas, caused by an historical

dependence culture on traditional industries; loss of qualified young people due to the lack of

educational infrastructure at further and higher levels, the geographically peripheral location

(which has resulted in a fragile business infrastructure with relatively few career

opportunities), few entrepreneurial role models, and the ‘call of the big city’. This issue is

something which cannot be tackled merely by the business support network, but the one

noticeable absence of provision was in the area of retention. There does not appear to be

much activity designed to retain young people, graduates and skilled management in the area.

There are examples of successful activity in other parts of the country which may be

interesting models for the Objective 2 areas (for example, in the North East of England and

Wales, which have both been active in this area).

14


Rural gaps

2.30 A host of issues relate to businesses located in rural and remote areas, which have already

been alluded to earlier in this section. To reiterate, there appear to be gaps in the provision of

advice and training for remotely-based businesses, due to problems of access and cost, and

also of locally delivered support, and the local presence of providers.

Management skills

2.31 Whilst the maps indicate considerable activity in at least the main management skill areas, it

is not clear how targeted this is to specific sub-groups (e.g. basic or advanced provision;

provision for middle and senior managers and directors; differentiated provision for key

managers and directors at different stages of a business’s development, etc.). The feedback

from both the survey and the workshops suggest that the range of provision in this field, at

different levels of sophistication and for different types of businesses could be enhanced,

although by and large little clear direction was provided as to exactly what is needed, apart

from lists of basic training in financial, accounting and IT skills. In one case there was an

exception, where one of the respondents/workshop participants had clearly identified the need

for ‘strategic IT’ support, and the same organisation had also already developed a programme

for Chief Executives in response to the gap they had identified.

Finance

2.32 Venture capital was mentioned several times as required to address a gap, and steps are being

taken in various areas to address this. The question was also raised as to how interesting this

form of support in fact is for businesses, and especially SMEs, who tend to be fiercely

independent and reluctant to give up any control over their business. A need for funding was

also identified to fill the gap between the ceiling which banks are willing to lend, and the

bottom level of the venture capital market (which tends to be quite high due to the associated

administrative and monitoring costs). Grants were also identified as a gap, but this was not

widespread. The one type of grant which would be appreciated is grant aid for ‘medium-

sized’ businesses with over thirty employees. Unfortunately, no further information was

provided as to why this is currently a problem, and it may merit more investigation to

determine the true nature of the gap.

Innovation and e-commerce

2.33 New technologies and ways of doing business were identified as important for the region, and

some feeling expressed that more could be done in these areas. In particular, there is

apparently a lack of available land, or land with appropriate planning permission to develop

15


incubator units, and small business premises which would help Objective 2 areas retain

growth businesses as they develop and expand.

2.34 A second aspect related to this is the proximity of Cambridge to some of the Objective 2

areas, and in particular the Fens, and the possibility therefore of attracting high-tech firms out

of Cambridge into Objective 2 areas due to the lower costs of operation. However, to do this,

it will be necessary to have a support infrastructure appropriate to their needs, and this is not

currently in place.

2.35 Finally, due to the peripheral location of many of the Objective 2 areas, the existing

businesses could benefit from the application and utilisation of e-commerce business

practices. Support in this field, as with the more sophisticated IT techniques and applications,

could be enhanced for existing businesses. Due to the peripherality of the areas, the view was

also widely expressed that they are ideal locations to encourage the establishment of e-

businesses which do not rely on a particular geographic location.

2.36 The above are the main generic gaps which were identified. Other gaps, specific to one or

more of the Objective 2 areas, together with some information about what is planned to

address these gaps, are presented in the area reports which follow.

16


3. Area report: Rural areas4


3.1 For the purposes of the survey analysis, a number of Objective 2 and transitional areas, with

broadly similar rural characteristics, were grouped together since individually they would not

have yielded sufficient responses and therefore material to provide useful insight or

commentary. The Fenland area, rural east Suffolk, Breckland District, Central rural Norfolk

and the north Norfolk coast Objective 2 area are all therefore included in this section of the

report.

3.2 Of 81 organisations contacted for the survey that are likely to be active in the rural Objective

2 areas and the Fens, twenty responded which have a focus primarily in one of the above

Objective 2 areas, and a further 12 are active in one of the rural areas although it is not their

primary focus. This breaks down as follows:

Figure 3.1: breakdown of responses for the Rural areas

Objective 2 Core or Transitional Area Number of responses

Breckland 7North Norfolk 1The Fens 6Central Rural Norfolk 0Rural East Suffolk 5General rural focus 1Total: 20

Responses from organisations which provide some services to one or more Objective 2 Rural Area, but where it is not their primary focus: 12

3.3 The data provided on the scale of delivery was sporadic from the respondents for the rural

areas, with some information provided on the numbers of businesses supported and the

number of courses/sessions delivered, but large gaps because some respondents did not

provide any information. The best information this survey can therefore provide is that

respondents supported 700 firms in the past year, and delivered over 1,000 training and

counselling/advisory sessions. We are inclined to believe that the scale of activity is

considerably greater than that presented here, but cannot confirm this.

4 The Rural Areas grouping includes: the Fenland area, Rural East Suffolk, Breckland District, Central Rural Norfolk and the North Norfolk Coast

17


Map 3.1: Rural Areas: support by Stage of Development

STAGE OF



DEVELOPMENT HIGH GROWTH MAINSTREAM MATURE/DECLI

NING

General Management

7 8 9 9 10 7

Business Planning

7 8 9 9 9 7

Finance

5 6 8 7 8 5

Skills/HR

4 5 7 6 6 5


1 2 4 4 5 3

ICT

2 3 4 3 5 3

Other technology

1 2 3 4 5 2

Marketing

4 5 8 6 8 5

Property/location

3 3 5 5 5 3

Legislation

4 5 7 6 9 6


4 4 5 4 6 6

3.4 The pattern of support shows a similar concentration of support across most stages of

development, with possibly slightly less focus on pre-start and mature/declining firms, and a

slight emphasis on those firms defined as ‘mainstream’. The main functional management

skill areas are served well (general management, business planning finance, skills/HR and

marketing), which reflects the normal pattern exhibited elsewhere in this study.

3.5 The workshops provided some additional information on specific services available. In

Thetford, a large legal practice has been instrumental in the development of a website

providing an online resource for small businesses (advice and information on a broad range of

legal matters). This practice also provides consultancy to assist and develop small businesses.

The Fenland area is benefiting from a new programme just introduced across the region

entitled ‘Super Start’ (run by St John’s Innovation Centre and included in the mapping), and

IT support designed specifically for delivery in rural areas (Fenland Telematics). Finally, a

Norfolk-based business network, NR Squared, has been set up (with support from EEDA),

and provides discussion groups, guest speakers and a programme of workshops to support

‘goal-focused’ businesses.

18


Map 3.2: Rural Areas: sectoral focus of support

SECTORAL FOCUS

TYPE OF SUPPORT

NONE FAST GROWTH DECLINING

SECTORS OTHER

General Management

9 2 3 1

Business Planning

11 1 2 1 support for

alternative uses of derelict land

Finance

8 1 1 0

Skills/HR

8 0 0 0


5 0 0 0

ICT

7 0 0 0

Other technology

4 1 0 0

Marketing

8 1 0 0

Property/location

7 1 0 0

Legislation

9 0 1 0


7 0 0 0

3.6 Little activity has been registered with either ‘fast growth’ or ‘declining’ sectors, although

some small amount of general management and business planning aimed at businesses in

declining sectors was noted. However, the information provided about specific initiatives

being run by respondents revealed programmes aimed specifically at innovative firms

(general business support mentoring), and initiatives designed to support firms operating in

the food industry (cluster development), but which has apparently had little impact over five

years.

3.7 Work is also being carried out with ‘aspirational businesses’ (St Johns Innovation Centre in

Cambridge), where specialist expertise is applied to identify the businesses and direct them to

appropriate sources of support.

19


Map 3.3: Rural Areas: support for specific needs

SPECIFIC NEEDS

TYPE OF SUPPORT

NO SPECIFIC


General Management

12 1 1 0 1

Business Planning

11 1 2 0 1

Finance

10 1 1 0 0

Skills/HR

10 1 1 0 0


7 0 0 0 0

ICT

10 0 0 0 0

Other technology

7 0 0 0 0

Marketing

11 1 1 0 0

Property/location

7 0 0 0 0

Legislation

10 1 1 0 0


8 0 0 0 0

3.8 Again, little activity specifically designed for a particular group with shared needs is in

evidence. Some support has been logged in the main functional areas for ‘disabled’ and

‘young’ entrepreneurs/companies, and one provider delivers targeted support for ‘women’.

Discussions in the workshops, both in Dereham (Rural Areas) and Outwell (the Fens) did not

reveal many gaps in these data, and feedback appears to confirm that the support is made

available to firms across the board, on a generic basis, and any specialist targeting of support

is done in response to the specific needs of the client. This indicates that providers are

adopting a flexible approach, but on the other hand it also suggests that where real specialist

help is needed, which requires an ‘expert’ in the field to deliver it, those needs of businesses

are possibly not being satisfied.

20


The range and quality of providers

3.9 The assessment of the range and quality of business support in the rural areas is less positive

than in other parts of the region. Nearly a third of the providers with a principal focus in the

rural areas felt that the quality was poorer, and a comparable proportion believe it to be

similar. The range of support was assessed slightly more positively, with one respondent

even describing the range as wider than elsewhere in the region.

Figure 3.2: the range and quality of providers – Rural areas

RANGE TOTAL SAMPLE

RURAL OBJECTIVE 2

QUALITY TOTAL SAMPLE

RURAL OBJECTIVE 2

Similar 20 7 Similar 19 6Fewer 9 4 Better 3 0More 3 1 Poorer 8 6Lack knowledge

19 7 Lack Knowledge

21 7

Missing 4 1 Missing 4 1Total 55 20 Total 55 20

3.10 The response from the two relevant workshops confirms the above picture. There was a

strong view that anywhere located outside the main urban areas suffer in terms of provision.

A number of factors contribute to this:

■ it is more expensive to provide a service to businesses in rural areas, both in terms of

marketing and capturing the ‘business’ in the first place, and then the travel time is

such that it becomes too expensive for providers to deliver on an acceptable basis.

Businesses either cannot afford to pay the – higher – costs of accessing provision in

rural areas; or the subsidy is insufficient to support provision

■ difficulties in gaining access to businesses in rural areas also means that the limited

resources of providers (for example, Business Link PBAs) are often deployed more

effectively (in terms of time used) in relatively urban areas. Private provision,

however, is considered to be reasonable in the market towns, which have solicitors,

accountants etc. located locally. Banks, although in some cases moving out of small

towns, have business advisors which are in some cases willing to travel (e.g. HSBC in

Thetford)

■ small towns and villages often do not have appropriate venues to run training courses

locally – the setting up of the BEST Agency should improve this situation

■ there is a perceived (or actual?) resistance from firms to taking up support unless it is

seen to be delivered locally and by locally-based providers. This message was

repeated several times, and several providers believe it is just not possible to deliver

effectively, or gather a critical mass of clients to make it cost-effective to deliver

21


unless they have established a local office. This is happening in some cases (for

example, in Thetford where a Chamber has been set up, and the BEST agency office

is being established.

3.11 These issues are revisited in the next section.


Access

3.12 As already discussed, a key problem with providing support in rural areas is difficulty of

access. Businesses are very dispersed, which makes it time-consuming to provide support on

a face-to-face basis compared with those firms located in urban areas; and second, awareness

of services is low, probably because the providers have a low profile compared to that they

can maintain in urban areas, and group activities such as training are less likely to be located

near to these dispersed businesses.

3.13 The workshop mirrored the view that barriers to providing support in rural areas exist and it is

likely that there are considerable proportions of the rural business population which are not

accessing optimal support, through lack of provision locally, or lack of engagement by the

firm due to a low level of awareness or inability to pay for the services.

Local presence

3.14 Business support providers tend to be located in the larger urban areas. Without a dedicated

presence in the rural areas, there is apparently a disinclination to engage in the business

support network. A strong message was delivered, both via the survey and in the workshops,

that there is a high level of distrust of providers which are not rooted in the very local

environs of the businesses to which they are providing support.

Funding

3.15 As with the other Objective 2 areas, there was a call for additional funding to be made

available; specifically to widen the range of services provided to meet local and specific

needs; to build and retain relevant experienced counsellors to deliver services (retention is

apparently a particular problem in rural areas); and longer term funding to build relationships

with clients and deliver support on a more protracted basis.

22


Evidence of interest

3.16 A further difficulty noted is the lack of demand for support from businesses in rural areas,

although providers believe these businesses need help. Providers working in rural areas

would be more willing and able to provide additional levels of service into Objective 2 areas

if there was stronger evidence of interest or demand for services. It is not clear whether this is

based on concrete evidence that there is a lack of demand (i.e. a demand-side survey), or

whether it is a marketing issue. Where firms have been convinced of the benefits of support,

providers have had a good response, and firms have apparently demonstrated a willingness to

travel. The message here is that ‘recruiting’ businesses for support activity requires a

proactive, specific and personal approach.

Fenland

3.17 The difficulties outlined by the providers working in the Fenland area seem particularly acute.

As well as problems arising from access and remote location of businesses (one agency’s staff

travel an average of 77 miles per day), there appears also to be a lack of awareness about

available services, and take-up of services has been poor (particularly, again, where there has

not been a local presence or proactive marketing campaign). The extent of penetration is low,

so the same firms tend to participate in events and training, with the result that new ideas are

not regularly injected.

3.18 In the Fens, provision comes in some cases from the Cambridge area, and prices then have to

be differentiated from those charged in Cambridge, due to the large number of smaller,

farming-related businesses that simply cannot afford, or are unwilling to invest in support

services.

Gaps and overlaps

3.19 Over half the respondents in the rural areas believe there are gaps in provision, but nearly half

felt that their services overlapped with other organisations.

23


Figure 3.3

Providers' Assessment of the Overlap and Gaps in Support Services

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Yes No Don't know

Answ er

% r

espo

nden

tsAny Overlap?

Any Gaps?

3.20 Some services, particularly those delivered by the Enterprise Agency and the Business Link

will be provided within agreed boundaries and should be unlikely to overlap. Nonetheless,

there were overlaps still reported by these organisations (in particular support to start-ups) –

as with funding-driven services elsewhere in the region, some duplication occurs due to

competition for different funding streams for similar activities. ICT was an area which was

particularly highlighted as having a number of providers offering similar provision.

3.21 The responses also provide an indication that more coordination of services is required and

perhaps a more coherent process between identifying needs and the provision of services, as it

was suggested that there is currently an incentive for providers to deliver ‘popular’ services

rather than those which are really needed. However, if services are popular it would suggest

there is a need for them, so the conclusion perhaps should be that there is, in some cases, a

duplication of services, but overall demand is not yet satisfied and the market can bear more

than one provider delivering similar services.

3.22 Whilst the above coordination of services was called for in order to avoid duplication and use

resources effectively, the lack of a diagnostic process to identify needs which will inform the

services to be delivered was also pinpointed as a reason for gaps in provision.

3.23 The survey identified the following issues which need to be addressed and gaps in current

provision:

■ the level of entrepreneurship is low in rural areas, and there is a need to address and

build entrepreneurial attitudes early on – within the business community and also

prior to entry, within the education system (a similar issue to that raised both in

Yarmouth & Waveney and Southend). Coupled with this the need was raised for

local entrepreneurial role models

24


■ venture capital and loans at an appropriate scale and cost for SMEs. A finance gap

was identified between the ceiling that banks will lend, and the smallest amount

available from the venture capital market. That said, the point was also made that

venture capital has already been promoted, but there has been a low take up due to the

businesses’ concern about losing control

■ the level of risk a lender is prepared to take varies between, for example, Cambridge

and Fenland – the example was quoted of banks which have been good at servicing

technology-based firms in Cambridge, but are poor at doing so in Fenland. However,

the response did not make it clear whether they were comparing ‘like with like’; or

whether this was a locally-determined policy or one embedded in the bank’s

corporate ethos. Whatever the case, the point was made that SBS/Business Link

services will play an important role in addressing gaps where the market is failing

■ basic skills and management training and generic advisory services for rural

businesses are considered to be a gap, and the need was reiterated for more locally

delivered general support services

■ there is a need, identified particularly in the Fens, for support to women, especially

farmers’ wives, as they can no longer rely on farming for a sufficient income

■ the need to attract and support growth businesses to the rural areas, and in particular

to the Fens, was suggested as a means to breaking the cycle of deprivation in the

Fens. Provision of support to businesses with growth potential is weak at present.

Linked to this is the fact that the Fens loses well qualified people through migration

to other areas, and growth businesses may be a vehicle to retain these high quality

resources

■ access for disabled workers was identified as a big issue in Objective 2 areas where

firms do not have resources to fund appropriate measures

■ again, the need for a local presence, highlighted by the difficulties that some

providers have experienced in serving the rural market from a distance, was identified

as a gap which needs addressing.

3.24 The workshops in Dereham and Outwell identified a few initiatives which are being

introduced in response to the gaps identified:

■ the BEST Agency has just been established in Breckland and should address the need

for a ‘local presence’ – it will support firms in Norfolk including part of the Fens

■ the new Cambridgeshire Business Service will have a remit which includes the

Fenland area.

25


3.25 Finally, an analysis of gaps in Norfolk provision has recently been carried out by the Norfolk

Enterprise Network, and was due to be released towards the end of February 2001 – this

should provide enhanced information to suppliers of business support and help them to refine

their provision to fit with the needs of the businesses located in the rural areas.

26


4. Area report: Luton


4.1 Nine organisations in the survey stated that their main focus of delivery was the Luton area

and have been categorised as ‘principal providers’; a further four respondents deliver some

services into the area, but it is not their main focus. The nine respondents represent most of

the core business support organisations in the area, but at least one is missing - having

undertaken to submit a questionnaire, nothing has been received despite follow-up.

4.2 The survey requested information on the scale and scope of the key services and programmes

delivered. Nearly six hundred sessions, including training events, seminars and counselling

and advisory sessions, have been delivered in the last year, and over 1,400 businesses and

nearly 3,500 individuals/delegates from firms have been helped by the providers. It must be

recognised, however, that many of these businesses and individuals may be ‘multiple users’,

and therefore the actual numbers supported may be lower.

4.3 The three maps illustrated below are based on the responses of the nine principal providers

which responded. Commentary on each of them is provided following the map.

27


Map 4.1: Luton: support by Stage of Development

STAGE OF




DECLINING

General Management

4 4 4 4 4 4

Business Planning

5 5 4 3 3 3

Finance

5 5 6 4 4 3

Skills/HR

5 5 5 4 4 4


4 4 4 4 4 4

ICT

5 5 6 5 5 5

Other technology

4 4 4 4 4 4

Marketing

5 5 5 3 3 3

Property/location

4 4 4 3 3 3

Legislation

4 4 4 3 3 3


4 4 4 4 4 4

4.4 The pattern of Luton’s supply shows a relatively equal distribution of provision across the

different stages of business development, with a slight concentration on pre-start, start-up and

early stage development, but insufficient difference to identify discernable patterns other than

a relative consistency across the different functional types of support, and across the stages of

development.

4.5 There is a slightly higher number of suppliers providing ICT support, across the board to

businesses at all stages of development, which suggests there may be one or more specialist

ICT providers in the area, although none of the respondents were specialists in this field. The

other interpretation could be that the generalist support organisations are providing ICT

support in response to demand in the area; indeed, the SBS draft business plan identified the

need to address the ICT requirements of businesses, and the Local Framework document

identified ICT as a key sector.

28


Map 4.2: Luton: sectoral focus of support

4.6 The majority of the respondents reported no specific sectoral focus, and where sectorally-

specific activity was ‘mapped’, it is primarily designed for fast growth sectors, but no detail

was provided except to highlight a Best Practice programme for the construction sector.

There appears to be little activity specifically designed for declining sectors, although where

the respondents reported sector-specific programmes they offer, these are mainly designed for

those with structural problems, such as automotive and manufacturing. The needs of Luton’s

key sectors identified in the Local Framework – ICT, transport, media and cultural industries

and high-tech manufacture – appear not, yet, to have been addressed by the business support

providers. Comments in the workshop, however, suggest that support traditionally provided

to the manufacturing base is now being redirected to growth sectors such as finance,

construction and business services, and support for exporting was specifically highlighted as

an erstwhile gap which has now been addressed.

29


Map 4.3: Luton: support for specific needs

SPECIFIC NEED

TYPE OF SUPPORT

NO SPECIFIC


General Management

5 0 1 1 0 0

Business Planning

4 1 3 2 1 0

Finance

5 1 1 1 1 0

Skills/HR

5 1 1 1 1 0


5 0 0 0 0 0

ICT

6 1 1 1 1 0

Other technology

4 0 0 0 0 0

Marketing

5 1 1 1 0 0

Property/location

4 0 0 0 0 0

Legislation

4 0 0 0 0 0


4 0 0 0 0 0

4.7 Again, most respondents presented themselves as generalist providers, with little information

mapped about services designed for specific needs groups. There is some provision,

particularly around the main business functions, for young, ethnic, disabled, and women-

driven businesses, and again some support for all these groups in the area of ICT. The

workshop provided further insight and comment on activity – or lack of it - for these groups.

Specifically, comment was made that women are under-represented in Luton in terms of

business start-up, but the workshop participants could not shed light on whether this is

because there is insufficient support for them, or whether they face other non-related barriers.

Luton’s Asian population includes female entrepreneurs, and comment was made at the

workshop that this group is aware that support exists from the mainstream providers, but it is

not appropriate for their needs. More widely in relation to ethnic businesses, the existence of

a mismatch between the needs of ethnic entrepreneurs and the services provided was noted –

a problem not peculiar to Luton, but where specifically-designed provision, or provision

delivered by the ethnic group itself, may be required.

30



Figure 4.1: the range and quality of providers - Luton

RANGE TOTAL SAMPLE

LUTON QUALITY TOTAL SAMPLE

LUTON


19 3 Lack Knowledge

21 3


4.8 Issues of range and quality of provision were explored in the survey. The results, illustrated

in Figure 4.1 above, report the responses from those providers of business support delivering

services primarily in Luton.

4.9 Nearly half the providers felt that the range of business support services in Luton was similar

to the situation more widely in the East of England, whilst nearly a quarter believe the range

to be smaller. No-one suggested that the range of support is greater than that elsewhere, and

on the basis that support is sufficient for Luton’s needs, there is no reason to expect that the

range of provision should exceed that delivered elsewhere. The slightly alarming result is that

a third of respondents, albeit of a small sample, feel they lack the knowledge to comment –

which implies that they may be operating in a market which they do not clearly understand.

However, the workshop participants suggested that most respondents will know the sector of

the market in which they are operating, but would not have a broad overview of all aspects of

business support, which may have precluded them from responding.

4.10 In terms of quality of support, nearly a third thought the quality was similar to elsewhere in

the East of England, and nearly a quarter believed it to be poorer. A third of the respondents

lacked the knowledge to make a judgement. No disagreement was expressed in the workshop

with these findings, but the observation was – justifiably – made that this question should be

asked of the recipients, i.e. the demand-side, rather than the supply-side who are being asked

to judge themselves.


4.11 Over half the respondents cited difficulties in servicing businesses located in Luton. The

nature of the difficulties included insufficient funding to provide the services required, or to

sustain the staff needed to deliver the services; difficulty in engaging ethnic minority

businesses within the formal network of support, a lack of demand from the business

population in general, and the smaller providers experience barriers to becoming involved in

31


local partnerships and funding regimes. In addition, the general issue of SMEs having the

greatest need, but the least resources to allocate for participating in business support activities

was cited, although this is not specific to the Luton area. A particular problem, raised in the

workshop, is the lack of premises suitable for progression from the start-up workspace and

incubators in Luton. The result of this is that Luton may be losing newly established growing

businesses, incubated in the Luton area, because they are relocating elsewhere (Milton

Keynes was given as an example) which can offer appropriate premises to support their

growth.

4.12 Funding was the most often-cited incentive which would encourage providers to deliver more

services in Luton. However, it is not just more funding which is required, but more flexible

funding to respond to local needs, and better information about the wide range of funding

available. Funding is required both for providers, but indirectly to SMEs to remove the

barrier to accessing support and render it more affordable. Some actions already in process

will act as incentives, or at least reduce the difficulties of operating in the Luton area;

specifically, the development of a new locally located centre for delivering business services

planned by one of the private-sector providers, and business premises to provide continuity

with the incubation and start-up units, to avoid losing businesses to other locations outside the

area.

4.13 The workshop provided additional insight into the difficulties experienced in working in

Objective 2 areas. In particular, considerable frustration was expressed about the difficulties

in matching novel ideas against eligibility criteria, militating against delivery of innovative

services. Contrary to the survey, partnerships were considered by workshop participants to be

strong, but there was a recognition that they are likely to fragment at times when competing

for funds.

Overlaps and gaps

4.14 The majority of respondents believe there are no overlaps between providers, which indicates

that perhaps the market is not yet saturated, or even fully populated. Providers state that they

are in fact still developing services to fill gaps in provision (the example was quoted of the

programme ‘Outstanding Managers and Leaders’, which was designed specifically to address

a gap at Chief Executive level). Due to the funding-driven nature of most providers’ activity,

again there are likely to be few overlaps as funding should be used to respond to needs and

gaps which have been identified on a regional or local level.

4.15 Nearly a quarter believe there are overlaps, but where these were cited, the services were still

differentiated in terms of the perceptions of quality assigned to different providers, or the

32


design of the service. Some overlap may exist between the training organisations, but the

majority of organisations claimed to have developed relatively specialist services, for

example, where the same subject is taught but with a range of flexibility in the delivery. This

result may therefore suggest a greater degree of specialisation and also collaboration between

providers, reducing the likelihood of duplication.

4.16 The workshop participants confirmed that some overlaps do exist, but that in general

geographical and delivery remits are respected, and the ethos of working together in Luton is

strong. An example was given where Luton University generally takes the lead in working

with large firms, and the Business Link deals with the smaller end of the population.

Figure 4.2

Assessment of Gaps and Ovelap of Business Support Provision in Luton

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Yes No Don't know

Answ ers

% r

espo

nden

ts

Any Overlap?

Any Gaps?

4.17 Gaps identified include:

■ strategic IT: a lot of basic packages are being delivered, but there is a need for IT

support at a strategic level in firms

■ business incubation provision: in order to encourage the formation of, and attraction

of new technology based industry to replace traditional industries in decline, existing

incubation provision needs to be expanded and high quality technology park sites

provided

■ support for technology-based industry

■ understanding the needs of ethnic businesses, and programmes to respond to those

needs

■ start-up training, for a general audience, and training for a range of functional areas of

management and management competences

■ insufficient providers and range of provision

33


■ the need for a critical mass of clients: gaps are caused due to small numbers of

clients for a particular service, which restricts provision

■ a lack of focus on issues relating to social exclusion.

4.18 The workshop confirmed the need for suitable provision necessary to attract and retain high-

tech firms in Luton, which will require an increase in investment in workspace in order to

provide a ‘suite’ of locations for firms as they grow. The two existing incubator sites are full

and firms are ‘pushed out’ of the incubators and Luton as others start-up. Some steps are

being taken to address this with the planned development of the ‘Butterfield’ site, but this is a

slow and uncertain process.

34


5. Area report: Great Yarmouth & Waveney

5.1 For Great Yarmouth & Waveney there were survey responses from seven organisations who

described themselves as having a primary focus in Yarmouth and Waveney, from a total of 36

organisations contacted. A further 15 organisations which deliver some services into Great

Yarmouth and ten in Waveney submitted responses. The principal providers are less focused

than those working in Southend and Luton, since there are other Objective 2 areas in

relatively close proximity and most providers deliver across a number of areas. This reflects

the county-based provision of some services, and those serving only the local market have a

specific geographic focus which has developed historically, or as a result of availability of

funding or local demand and needs in those areas.

5.2 The survey asked for information on the scale of support provided by respondents for their

main programmes, and also the type of delivery (training sessions, visits, counselling sessions

etc.). Unfortunately, few of the respondents from Great Yarmouth & Waveney provided this

information and the data available is therefore not useful in identifying the nature of the

activity actually taking place in the area. The best information we have elicited from the

survey is that approximately 200 start-ups and early stage firms have been supported in the

past year, and 600 visits carried out. However, this is unlikely to be indicative of the true

situation and consequently it has not been possible to provide a feel for the scale and scope of

current activity in the area.


5.3 The maps produced from the survey for the Great Yarmouth & Waveney areas include those

providers which work primarily in these two areas, but not others which are operating

primarily in the rural areas of Norfolk, represented in the section on Rural Areas, but clearly

to some extent also working in Great Yarmouth & Waveney.

35


Map 5.1: Great Yarmouth & Waveney: support by Stage of Development

STAGE OF




DECLINING

General Management

2 2 3 3 3 3

Business Planning

4 3 2 2 2 2

Finance

4 2 3 3 4 3

Skills/HR

3 2 3 3 3 3


2 3 2 2 2 2

ICT

3 3 3 3 3 3

Other technology

3 3 1 1 1 1

Marketing

4 3 2 2 2 2

Property/location

3 3 3 2 2 2

Legislation

5 3 2 1 1 1


2 3 2 2 2 2

5.4 The map of support by stage of business development (Map 5.1) presents a pattern which

shows some concentration on pre-start and start-up provision, but with a relatively strong

provision in some types of support amongst the respondents across all stages of development

from pre-start on the one hand, to mature/declining businesses at the other end of the

spectrum. In particular, provision appears to be relatively well covered in the areas of general

management and business planning, finance, skills and human resources, but less so in the

area of marketing for operating businesses (as opposed to those in the start-up phases). There

is also a consistent provision in the area of ICT across the board.

5.5 The feedback from the workshop provided some additional insight into the patterns

represented in the map. In particular, the map illustrates numbers of providers operating in a

particular field, but it was pointed out that Business Link covers ‘early start’ businesses, so

although there is only one provider, it is a very significant provider. However, there is a

question raised here in that although Business Link may be a significant provider, with only

one supplier, choice may not be optimal, and that can have an impact on the quality of the

support delivered.

36


5.6 The map also identifies a strong provision in the area of legislation, particularly for pre-start

and start-ups, and the workshop suggested that the Chamber is active in its support in this

area.

5.7 The main message to come out of the workshop, however, is that a great deal of change is

taking place in the support network in the Great Yarmouth & Waveney areas at present;

specifically, responsibility for Waveney is transferring from Norfolk to Suffolk Business

Link. It was suggested that any ‘light’ areas, which imply paucity of provision may be

addressed in the new plans, which have not yet been finalised.

Map 5.2: Great Yarmouth & Waveney: sectoral focus of support

SECTORAL FOCUS

TYPE OF SUPPORT

NONE FAST GROWTH

SECTORS DECLINING

SECTORS OTHER

SECTORS

General Management

3 0 0 0

Business Planning

5 0 0 0

Finance

5 0 0 0

Skills/HR

3 0 0 0


3 0 0 0

ICT

3 0 0 0

Other technology

3 0 0 0

Marketing

5 0 0 0

Property/location

3 0 0 0

Legislation

5 0 0 0


3 0 0 0

5.8 The survey identified no sectoral specialisms (Map 5.2) or services for specific groups (Map

5.3). The workshop did identify that some specialisms have been developed, including

services to the offshore and maritime sector. We are aware, in addition, that the East of

England Tourist Board is located in this area and provides specialist services for tourism.

5.9 The workshop also shed some light on activities for specific segments of the business

population and why they had not registered in the survey. The explanation offered was that a

number of providers do offer specific initiatives for sectors (for example agriculture and

37


fisheries were identified as receiving support through a specific initiative). However, the

providers deliver to all sectors across the board, in response to demand, and therefore do not

classify themselves as specialist providers. The specific initiatives are delivered as tailored

provision by individual specialist advisors with support delivered on an ad-hoc/needs basis,

and as such apparently were not recorded in the survey. A further explanation was offered by

one organisation which signposts businesses to specific services designed for the energy

sector, but these services are delivered by providers operating nationally, perhaps but not

necessarily located in the East of England, and located outside the Objective 2 areas. Since

they are delivered on a one-to-one basis with individual firms, the fact a particular firm is

located in an Objective 2 area will likely not influence them to consider themselves providers

working in that area, and they consequently will not have been captured by the survey.

5.10 There is, however, also one provider (East of England Energy Group – EEEGR) which is

delivering a suite of projects specifically designed to support the offshore sector.

5.11 The workshop also identified that there are a number of providers which work with the

Disabled, plus the Prince’s Trust providing support to young businesses, and WEETU who

work with women entrepreneurs. Some of the gaps highlighted in Map 5.3 appear therefore

to be covered.

Map 5.3: Great Yarmouth & Waveney: support for specific needs

SPECIFIC NEEDS

TYPE OF SUPPORT

NO SPECIFIC


General Management

4 0 0 0 0 0

Business Planning

4 0 0 0 0 0

Finance

3 0 0 0 0 0

Skills/HR

2 0 0 0 0 0


3 0 0 0 0 0

ICT

4 0 0 0 0 0

Other technology

4 0 0 0 0 0

Marketing

4 0 0 0 0 0

Property/location

1 0 0 0 0 0

Legislation

2 0 0 0 0 0


1 0 0 0 0 0

38



5.12 Over half the respondents believe the range of provision to be similar to that elsewhere in the

East of England, and a small number thought there is a smaller range of provision. No-one

believes there to be a comparatively wider range of provision. In itself, as with the other

Objective 2 areas, the fact that there is similar provision, or perhaps a narrower range is not a

problem, providing that the needs of the local businesses are met, since that should inform the

activities and provision from the supply-side.

Figure 5.1: the range and quality of providers – Great Yarmouth & Waveney

RANGE TOTAL SAMPLE

YARMOUTH & WAVENEY


YARMOUTH & WAVENEY


19 1 Lack Knowledge

21 3


5.13 Quality again was judged to be similar, or in one case better. Although no-one felt the quality

of support was poorer than in East of England generally, as with other Objective 2 areas, a

large percentage (of the admittedly small sample) lack knowledge about the quality of

provision, which raises the question as to whether partnerships and networks are operating

effectively in the region if providers lack knowledge about potential collaborators and

competitors.

5.14 The views expressed about the range and quality of provision in this area are taken from a

small sample. However, none of the workshop participants refuted the general message

coming from the survey, but the main comment was that it would be more appropriate and

objective to gather views from the demand-side rather than the supply-side.


5.15 The majority of respondents have not encountered difficulties in servicing businesses located

in the Great Yarmouth & Waveney areas; probably due to the relatively clearly defined and

compact nature of the region in comparison to, for example, the rural areas of Norfolk. Some

difficulties, however, were identified in the survey and the workshop, mainly relating to

availability of funding. In particular, delivering support to rural areas is a problem, especially

where there is a lack of space for training (Bungay and North Walsham were identified in

particular as having few appropriate venues). Other problems associated with funding

include:

39


■ the timescale involved in accessing funding is too long; needs are usually relatively

urgent and delays prevent firms benefiting from support

■ insufficient flexibility in how the funds can be used: the particular point made was

that some funds are directed to ‘high growth’ companies or ‘winners’ where in

Objective 2 areas there are a lot of companies struggling to survive which need help,

and the funding is not necessarily available to provide this

■ Great Yarmouth experiences difficulties because some areas are classified as

Objective 2 and others are not which results in a mismatch of funding for businesses

facing essentially the same problems in the same economic environment

■ matched funding is a problem since it is apparently not easy to find private sector

matched funding in declining sectors. Less reliance on matched funding would make

it easier for providers to deliver more into Objective 2 areas.

5.16 From the responses both in the survey and the workshop, whilst there was a call for additional

funding, it appears that it is not so much the scale of funding available which needs to be

increased as an inducement to work in the target areas, but increased flexibility of how that

funding can be used. Specifically, calls were made to allow funding to be used for ‘survival’

businesses rather than ‘high growth’ ones; for funding to enable the range of services to be

widened to meet perceived needs and actual demand, in particular in declining sectors where

there are difficulties in accessing private sector funding.

5.17 Some providers have also struggled to attract SMEs, in particular, to take up their services.

This is not necessarily a problem specific to Objective 2 areas, and could be a result of a

number of factors: the independent nature of SMEs which are often reluctant to engage with

the support network; the lack of funding available to subsidise SMEs, in particular early start

businesses which are short of funds; and perhaps the provision of support which is perceived

as being not sufficiently customised to SMEs’ individual needs. However, where a proactive

approach has been taken to marketing to this segment of the population, apparently the

participation rates have been better.

5.18 Finally, in contrast, one key provider suggested that non-assisted areas suffer because the

resources are directed to assisted areas, presumably because the funding drives their focus.

Consequently, the Objective 2 areas are benefiting from a greater amount of support.

40


Overlaps and gaps

5.19 The large majority of survey respondents believe there are gaps in provision in Yarmouth &

Waveney. That said, half of them also believe there to be overlaps. The maps indicate that

the majority of the providers are working with the early stage businesses and providing core

functional and management advice and support, with fewer providers working with the more

mature businesses and those with growth potential, and very few addressing particular

sectoral needs or those of specific segments of the business population. The main overlaps

identified are in ICT services, start-up advice, and financial and accounting services.

Figure 5.2

Providers' Assessment of Overlaps and Gaps in Support Supply

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Yes No Don't know

Answ er

% r

espo

nden

ts

Any Overlap?

Any Gaps?

5.20 The nature of the gaps identified in the survey includes:

■ of primary importance, both to the survey respondents and workshop participants, is

the lack of an entrepreneurial culture in the region and lack of encouragement and

support to young people. The view was expressed that work needs to start long

before the business support network ‘kicks in’, with enterprise stimulation built into

the education system. There is already some work being carried out in this area, for

example a project exists to send business advisers into schools to raise awareness of

entrepreneurship amongst young people. However, the initiative is apparently

vulnerable due to over-stretched resources. There is also a Shell Masterclass

initiative run locally for young people, but this was not identified in the survey, only

in the workshop. In relation to this issue is the need for local entrepreneurial role

models. Some participants suggested these already exist (Bernard Matthews, Yvonne

Mason), but there is clearly a need to form linkages between the local industry leaders

and the education system

41


■ the loss of young people/students due to lack of prospects in the area is recognised to

be a problem, and at present there are no programmes designed to encourage graduate

retention.

■ another gap identified related to the structure of the provision, rather than the content.

Specifically, the funding available only supports ‘quick hits’ of support, when the real

need is for in-depth, sustained support over a considerable period of time

■ the need for support in e-commerce was identified – both to the general population of

businesses located in the area, which is relatively remote so would benefit from being

able to enhance their operations through electronic systems; and also the area is

considered suitable for encouraging an e-business sector, since it is not a sector which

is geographically rooted or requires physical proximity to central geographic

locations.

5.21 The Local Framework and SBS Business Plans identified, in addition, the following needs

and gaps in Yarmouth & Waveney:

■ venture capital and loan funds for SMEs

■ provision of start-up and development schemes to encourage an increase of start-up

businesses and improve survival rates

■ development of new markets, and diversification and market expansion in rural areas

■ environmental management systems

■ thematic/geographic networks

■ special provision for deprived and excluded communities in the rural economy

■ inward investment

■ improved business skills, entrepreneurship

■ sectoral support for:

offshore oil/gas and ports

tourism, heritage and culture

food processing

manufacturing

42


engineering and electronics

arts and crafts

ICT.

5.22 Some response to the gaps is already planned by Suffolk Business Link (which is taking over

responsibility for Waveney), and by some other workshop participants. Provisional plans

include:

■ support for ‘disadvantaged’ businesses

■ a New Start programme

■ corporate venturing package

■ corporate entrepreneurship package

■ R&D and Capital Equipment grants (£1M+ for 60 companies)

■ a rural project manager to coordinate the geographic area

■ a virtual incubation centre

■ support and promotion of the energy industry; building links between traditional

offshore companies and those involved in renewable energy projects.

5.23 Finally, the workshop provided information on activity which is underway to address some of

the gaps identified above. In particular, venture capital is being addressed by the SBS; start-

ups are already served by the enterprise agency (although if there is perceived to be a gap,

then perhaps the scale and/or scope of their provision is not sufficient for the entire

population); environment management systems are being set up; the fishing and agriculture

sectors will have specific initiatives (although these are not eligible under Objective 2); and

an innovation centre and business park is being developed in South Gorleston which will

provide high-tech sector development support.

43


6. Area report: Southend-on-Sea


6.1 Seven organisations whose main activity is in Southend responded to the survey, and a further

six respondents are also active in the area, although it is not their primary focus of delivery,

out of a possible total of 42 approached to participate in the survey which were located in or

near Southend. An additional five organisations made an input to the workshop.

6.2 The survey did not yield any data which provides an insight into the scale of activity in the

Southend area. The reasons given for the lack of data were either that information is not

collected on a systematic basis, and/or it is therefore not reliable, or that provision is ‘on

demand’, which again appears to infer that no specific records are kept. Unfortunately, a

quantitative picture of supply in this area cannot be drawn from the survey feedback.

6.3 The type of support, and the segments of the business population served can, however, be

reported, and the three maps below provide some insight into provision in Southend.

Map 6.1: Southend: support by stage of development

STAGE OF




DECLINING

General Management

1 2 1 2 1 2

Business Planning

2 3 4 5 3 4

Finance

2 3 3 2 1 1

Skills/HR

1 4 4 4 2 4


0 1 2 2 1 2

ICT

2 3 3 2 1 2

Other technology

2 3 3 2 1 2

Marketing

1 3 3 2 1 2

Property/location

3 4 3 3 1 1

Legislation

2 3 2 2 1 0


1 2 1 1 0 1

6.4 Southend’s pattern of provision is interestingly different to the other Objective 2 areas, and

44


shows an emphasis on firms at start-up and early development stages, and again for

mature/declining firms. This reflects the high level of start-up and small business activity

(particularly family businesses and those operating in the service sector) in Southend, and the

higher failure rates, which makes the need for support to businesses struggling to survive

extremely important in this area. However, the workshop participants contrastingly believed

there to be a gap in support for firms in their first year of trading due to peculiarities of

funding, which used to be provided by the TEC. The current situation is that firms apparently

have to have been trading for 12 months before they qualify for funding, but it was expected

that after April 2001 this would be addressed by the SBS.

6.5 The workshop also revealed that the Enterprise Agency in Southend is active in supporting

firms with growth potential through their ‘high growth start up programme’ which is well

recruited, which indicates the large percentage of potentially wealthy firms (the aspiration for

this programme is for a participating firm to reach £1M turnover in five years).

6.6 Across all stages of development there exists some provision, in particular in the main

functional management subjects, with a particularly strong focus on skills/HR, which may

well be linked to the reskilling and training needed for the local workforce in face of the

decline in traditional manufacturing sectors and consequent closure of firms, and demand

from telemarketing companies in the area. Essex County Council’s AMT Centre, which

focuses purely on manufacturing, appears to be particularly active, although it does not work

exclusively in Southend.. Engineering companies in particular were singled out as lacking

appropriately skilled labour, which will have a significant effect on the local economy as one

of the most important sectors.

6.7 Support in the area of legislation was also flagged up at the workshop, with one organisation

(SEAL) providing specialist advice on various aspects for mature businesses in particular, in

response to the owner/directors’ desire to exit the traditional sectors and/or the business itself.

45


Map 6.2: Southend: sectoral focus of support

SECTORAL FOCUS

TYPE OF SUPPORT

NONE FAST GROWTH

SECTORS DECLINING

SECTORS OTHER

SECTORS

General Management

1 0 1 1 e-commerce

Business Planning

2 1 1 1 e-commerce

Finance

1 0 0 1 e-commerce

Skills/HR

2 1 1 1 e-commerce


1 0 1 1 e-commerce

ICT

1 0 1 1 e-commerce

Other technology

1 0 1 1 e-commerce

Marketing

1 0 1 2 e-commerce

Property/location

3 0 0 0

Legislation

2 0 1 0


0 0 1 0

6.8 Southend’s provision of support for specific sectors is greater than other Objective 2 areas,

even with the relatively small sample. Specifically, support for declining sectors is identified

in the map, and this was confirmed by the workshop participants, who identified support

provided in Southend for the large number of family and small firms in traditional declining

industries. The view in the workshop was that this local need appears to be being addressed

to a certain extent, with a number of other providers also active with traditional

manufacturing firms.

6.9 The other sector-specific support identified in the survey is that for e-commerce businesses.

This provision was acknowledged in the workshop, but the importance of e-commerce to the

local economy was questioned, and it was suggested that there may be too many support

programmes focusing on this area, given the limited impact for the type of firms typical to the

Southend Objective 2 area.

46


Map 6.3: Southend: support for specific needs

SPECIFIC NEEDS

TYPE OF SUPPORT

NO SPECIFIC


General Management

2 0 0 0 1

Business Planning

3 1 1 1 2

Finance

1 1 1 2 2

Skills/HR

3 1 1 2 2


3 1 1 1 2

ICT

2 1 1 2 2

Other technology

2 1 1 1 2

Marketing

3 1 1 1 2

Property/location

3 1 1 1 1

Legislation

3 1 1 1 1


1 0 0 0 0

6.10 Again, Southend’s pattern differs from those of the other Objective 2 areas. Here, some form

of support services have been mapped for all identified special needs groups, and across

virtually all aspects of business. The ethnic focus was explained in part, by the workshop

participants, as a response to the large group of Eastern Europeans who are relatively newly

resident in Southend.

6.11 The workshop participants confirmed the picture presented by the survey.


6.12 There was a general agreement amongst the workshop participants that the range and quality

of provision is broadly similar in Southend to elsewhere in the East of England. The number

of survey responses is probably too small to draw any conclusions. However, interestingly,

no-one believed the quality of provision to be better than elsewhere in the region. As with

other Objective 2 areas, the observation can be made that there is no reason for quality to be

higher than elsewhere, providing it is sufficient to meet local needs, and local businesses are

not suffering through inferior business support, which does not seem to be the case from

feedback received in the workshop.

47


Figure 6.1: the range and quality of providers – Southend-on-Sea

RANGE TOTAL SAMPLE

SOUTHEND-ON-SEA


SOUTHEND-ON-SEA


19 2 Lack Knowledge

21 3



6.13 Two thirds of the principal providers in Southend, and 50% of all providers operating in

Southend identified difficulties in supplying into Objective 2 areas. The difficulties were

mainly a result of access issues because of the peripheral nature of Southend’s transport links

(the ‘end of the line’ syndrome). In one case, this was blamed for restricting entrepreneurial

spirit and ambition.

6.14 Another difficulty identified relates to lack of funding. Problems include poor coordination

of bids, and bids being rejected (the Phoenix Fund was cited). External providers supplying

into Southend had also experienced difficulties in the past in drawing down funds, due

apparently to Southend’s unitary status. This should change, however, as the Objective 2

funding becomes available.

6.15 The other major difficulty faced is the lack of awareness amongst firms about the type of

support available; and where aware, many firms are not receptive to the support offered to

them. Take up of services was said to be poorer than the rest of Essex, which could perhaps

be addressed by more specialised and personal marketing; and care must be taken with the

language and terminology: for example, it was suggested that SMEs prefer the term

‘development’ to ‘training’. Another solution was cited, whereby in some European countries

start-ups are automatically advised by a selected institution, who provides help and

information about starting a business. Germany and Spain were quoted as examples.

6.16 Conversely, the Business Link in Essex did not identify any difficulties and views Southend

as a relatively easy area to service because of the number of PBAs who live in the town and

can therefore reach the large concentration of businesses in the locality.

6.17 Funding was again identified as a key incentive to deliver more to the Southend Objective 2

area, although the responses were non-specific and did not provide constructive suggestions

as to how additional funding might improve provision of business support, other than to

subsidise private sector providers who would be seeking high fees for their services.

48


Overlaps and gaps

6.18 The majority of providers believe that the services they provide are duplicated by other

organisations in the area, but also that there are gaps in support provision in Southend,

suggesting that the distribution of resources for business support may not be particularly

efficient. This view is true for both the providers principally working in Southend and the

‘secondary’ providers.

Figure 6.2

Providers' Assessment of the Range and Quality of Supply

0 10 20 30 40

50 60

Fewer/Poorer More/Better Similar

Lack Knowledge

assessment

% respondents

Range of providers quality of support

6.19 Overlaps were reported between the two enterprise agencies, the employment agencies and

banks, which is to be expected due to the general lack of differentiation between professional

organisations, and also the funding-driven nature of enterprise agency services. The

incidence of overlap is possibly minimised by a reasonable degree of collaboration between

organisations in Southend, but this could be improved to optimise allocation of resources

further, particularly with services delivered by the two enterprise agencies.

6.20 The nature of the gaps identified were primarily in the provision of structured support to new

firms (over the first year of operation), where public sector funding no longer covers firms

until they have been trading for 12 months. However, the SBS plans should cover this gap in

the future.

6.21 Another key issue raised was the chronic shortage of experienced and skilled staff appropriate

for the large service sector in Southend. In particular customer service, telemarketing and call

centre staff are required, and the business support, and in particular the training available,

does not match the needs of this employment market. The transient, casual and cyclical

nature of parts of the service sector (tourism, catering, etc.) make it particularly difficult to

develop a pool of relevantly skilled resources.

49


6.22 More broadly, the lack of managerial skills in the area was identified as a contributing factor

to the high proportion of failures in young businesses. This was attributed, in part, to the

large number of family businesses in Southend, who employ family members rather than

appropriately skilled employees.

6.23 As with other Objective 2 areas, the more fundamental issue of educating for enterprise, and

retaining well qualified and trained young people in the area was raised. Retention is a key

problem which needs to be addressed, and one consultee spoke passionately about the need to

develop an entrepreneurial culture in the area which equips the indigenous population with

the necessary attitudes and know-how to succeed in business, and ensures the support systems

are providing the ‘right type’ of support. By ‘right type’ was meant hands-on mentoring,

tailored support to specific industry needs (e.g. the tourism industry requires seminars and

consultations to be delivered at unusual hours), support from those who have ‘been there

before’ rather than from independent advisors, sharing of resources and know-how, and high-

tech role models to demonstrate non-traditional routes to solutions and inspire others.

50

SQW Limited

Documents

Transcript of SQW Limited