fact that applicants have more experience with the criteria for obtaining R&D funding. The
producer networks did well in the implementation stage when the network was
overwhelmingly comprised of companies that performed well, had experience in innovation
and worked together. Otherwise, some problems resulted in networks’ being able to finance
their own contributions and putting up financial security. Service networks, on the other hand,
only progressed slowly. Here it seems to be important whether “socially-orientated services”
are involved, or a business field that has been practically rebuilt from scratch, as it is difficult
to prove the viability of such projects.
Table 3 | |||||
Types of networks | |||||
Research |
Poducer |
Service |
Networks without well- |
Total | |
networks starting implementation ... | |||||
very fast |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
fast |
0 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
6 |
slowly |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
9 |
Total |
5 |
4 |
3 |
7 |
19 |
Source: Survey by DIW Berlin + Partner in |
he InnoRegio ne |
works, summer 2001. |
DIW |
Network size
Differences in the size of networks appear to have a not insignificant influence on the
implementation of concepts and projects, judging from the fact that small networks make little
progress when compared to medium-sized and large networks - measured by the number of
projects already approved (Table 4). At first glance, this is surprising as the size of small
networks is an advantage when fixing priorities and aims and running processes that require
cooperation. It seems, however, that the fact that small networks suffer from a limited pool of
actors and abilities has a greater influence.
Table 4 | ||||
Size of networks and | ||||
large |
medium |
small |
Total | |
networks starting implementation ... | ||||
very fast |
2 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
fast |
0 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
slowly |
1 |
5 |
3 |
9 |
Total |
3 |
11 |
5 |
19 |
Source: Survey by DIW Berlin + Partner in |
he InnoRegio networks, summer 2001. |
DIW Berlin 2002 |
16