Enterprise performance
The performance level of the network partners is a central factor in network success.
Indicators for the performance of enterprises active in a particular network were compiled
from figures on their internal R&D, innovation activities of the last two years, share of
personnel involved in R&D (Figure 1) and assessment of current market position (Figure 2).
Comparing these results of the questionnaire with results of the new federal states overall, it
appears that according to R&D-capacities, innovative activities and competitiveness the
enterprises involved in InnoRegio have obviously a performance above-average.
Nevertheless, these results are probably not unrealistic, as the enterprises were a selection
that have already demonstrated their readiness to innovate by taking part in InnoRegio.
According to the criteria “above-average innovation activities” (20% and more of personnel
assigned to R&D) and “better performance than the competition”, around one-fifth of the
participating enterprises can be categorized as high-performing in all networks. Seven have
a significantly higher share of high-performing enterprises (30% and more), another seven
have an average share, and nine a significantly smaller share (10% and less).
Figure 1
Research and development
of the companies in 2001
Figure 2
Rating of the current market position
of the companies 2001
Companies with share of ...
of personnel involved in R&D from
total number of employees
Source: DIW Berlin and partners, questionnaire
rom summer 2001.
DIW Berlin 2002
Companies rate themselves as ...
when compared to their competitors
Source: DIW Berlin and partners, questionnaire
from summer 2001.
DIW Berlin 2002
Along with the share of high-performing enterprises, the degree of homogeneity probably
influence enterprises’ performance. Uniformly high performance of participating enterprises -
which is currently the case for 12 networks - tends to be advantageous; whereas a more
heterogeneous structure - which is the case for the other nine networks - could potentially
cause problems for network cohesiveness.
More intriguing information
1. New urban settlements in Belarus: some trends and changes2. Name Strategy: Its Existence and Implications
3. Infrastructure Investment in Network Industries: The Role of Incentive Regulation and Regulatory Independence
4. The Veblen-Gerschenkron Effect of FDI in Mezzogiorno and East Germany
5. Learning and Endogenous Business Cycles in a Standard Growth Model
6. The name is absent
7. Empirically Analyzing the Impacts of U.S. Export Credit Programs on U.S. Agricultural Export Competitiveness
8. Commitment devices, opportunity windows, and institution building in Central Asia
9. Bird’s Eye View to Indonesian Mass Conflict Revisiting the Fact of Self-Organized Criticality
10. Keystone sector methodology:network analysis comparative study