Page 1

Designing Cluster Evaluation How design can support creative collaboration



Foreword Timeline and other notes The first workshop The second workshop Designing new ways to engage Hot topics: targets Reflections and next steps Appendix A: FAQs

2 4 6

12 20 24 26 28


1 Foreword: Sharing new approaches in cluster evaluation

As interest in clusters has grown amongst companies, practitioners and policy makers, the need for effective evaluation has also risen, not least to be able to show the return on investment from such initiatives. However, cluster measurement and evaluation has long been a source of frustration: how to properly capture the impact of the investment in clusters. Evaluation of clusters is thus a complex area, involving different levels and diverse audiences. Cluster evaluation frameworks need to not only focus on measuring the final outcome (the effect), but also the softer, more qualitative elements, including the benefits of greater trust and collaboration, as well as the process of change. In order to explore this further the Cluster Evaluation Working Group was formed in 2013 to share experience, capture joint learning, and work together to develop new and better approaches to show the value of collaboration and demonstrate return on investment. The Institute of Design Innovation (InDI) took a lead role in driving forward this working group because of our interest and involvement in cluster development. InDI uses design to build complex


collaborations and help organisations deliver things together that they cannot do alone, but we also explore how to better evidence the more intangible effects of clustering - the ‘how’ as well as the ‘why’as there are parallels with evidencing the value of design. In addition, we have been exploring the role of design in helping diverse expertise be effectively shared on a complex subject through the working group activities. This booklet summarises the first two years of the working group, during which time over 50 people from more than 25 nations and regions have participated in sessions. We hope this helps capture our collective knowledge and work so far, and informs future strands of work. True to the nature of clusters, by sharing and collaborating we can do more than by working alone. Madeline Smith, Head of Strategy, Institute of Design Innovation, Member of the Board of Directors, TCI


2 Timeline and other notes

Cluster evaluation fundamentals Evaluation of clusters is a complex area, involving different levels and diverse audiences. Evaluation is a learning process, the outputs of which should feedback into future policy and interventions. It is not just audit.

At a glance: Clusters evaluation learnings As cluster evaluation approaches have become more sophisticated they have expanded to include: Looking at activity (numbers involved and engaged with the cluster) Capturing the difference that this activity is making, both to the companies and to

June 2013

September 2013

Forres, Scotland

Presentation, Conference

First meeting


the region

TCI conference – Plenary

exhibition, subgroup meeting

Understanding the processes that help build a successful cluster, and how the social capital and trust generated in clusters can be maximised Cluster evaluation frameworks therefore need to not only focus on measuring the final outcome (the effect), but also the softer, more qualitative elements, including the benefits of greater trust and collaboration, and also the process of change (how this happened)

April 2014

Working group meeting Belfast NI

November 2014 TCI conference

presentation session



3 The first workshop Forres, 2013

Cluster evaluation enthusiasts from nine different countries gathered in the beautiful north of Scotland for the first meeting of the TCI working group. Key themes for discussion included the fundamental role of evaluation: What has been achieved by the cluster? (Effectiveness) How well have they done this? (Efficiency) Were these the right things to be doing? (relevance: different circumstances) How was this achieved? (Understanding process)


To design an evaluation there needs to be an

‘This was one of the

understanding of:

best organised European workshop experiences ... I found

The cluster actors: who is involved, participants, partners, stakeholders

it very interesting to

The cluster organisation: how is this organised

see how different kinds

The conditions in which the cluster operates

of methods are used... I hope we can catch up

(external context ) The behaviours, including trust (internal context)

with this group further to come up with... a unique evaluation system for European clusters.’


Overall evaluations should consider capturing: The Why: Ultimately the impact must be measured in sector growth and the change in the regional economic structure. The What: Cluster interventions focus on building a strong business environment and improving the competitiveness of the companies (the ‘what’ of a cluster programme: access to finance, skills and talent, infrastructure, knowledge and innovation, and market access and global positioning.) The How: Social capital is the core of the cluster approach building competitiveness by bringing partners together. Capturing the level of partnership and collaboration as a cluster develops can help show how these relationships have matured and deepened to give greater returns. The group had previously prepared “homework” looking at their experience of evaluation, as well as new approaches and key gaps or areas in need of development. The group discussed common themes and challenges and used these to isolate three key questions worthy of future focus:


Q1: How can we develop and share a TCI ‘fruit salad’ of current good practice and techniques in cluster evaluation? Q2: How do we factor in the ‘human element’ into cluster evaluations Q3: How do we evidence, back up and communicate the critical success factors in clusters?

Indicators and themes Regional


— Jobs


— GVA — Industrial Structure — Distribution of opportunity Business environment i.e.



— Innovation performance


— Physical assets — Finance and Funding — Skills — Talent attraction/retention — Internationalisation




and Global Capital

— Who is involved — Type of partnership — Depth of partnership — Behavioural change




Regional Benefit/Impact

Cluster Projects

10 – No of local/regional jobs indirectly dependent on the project – Degree of higher management being injected – Degree of R&D being injected – Innovative nature of the project

– Skills development – Knowledge transfers – Encouraging Foreign Direct Investment – Entrepreneurship

– Reduction of ‘Brain Drain’

– University linkages with industry

Cluster Actors


– Networking and co-operation

Services and activities to support:

Cluster Organisation

– Access to private and public financing

– Attractive environment

– Infrastructure

– Availability of qualified personnel

– Regulation, taxes

– Innovation-friendly environment

Framework Conditions

first workshop

Potential regional benefits included:



boards designed for the

Potential wider benefits included:

Partnership – Connectedness and Social Capital

Right: ‘homework’


Sharing of critical sectoral knowledge

Performance of individual firms

L4 Venture Attractivness Loop

Extent of collaborative initiatives

L2 Inter-Firm Co-operation Loop

Overall performance of all firms in zone

L1 Inter-Firm Rivalry Loop

Motivation for competitive innovation

Extent of shared response to common challenges

Intensity of differentiated competitive performance

Global competition and external market pressure

Group with common agenda but little formal or informal interaction

Giving and exchanging of information. Individual Programmes still totally separate

Joint activities and communications, giving general support and endorsement of each other’s programmes, services or objectives

Joint activities and communications, joint planning and synchronisation of schedules, activities, events and objectives

Individuals, groups, organisation relinquish some autonomy and share risk, for mutual gains. True collaboration results in changes to behaviour to support collective goals





(focused on their joint ‘strategic action plans’) –Continual ‘process support’

least helpful, what preferred ‘timing’ of different support, etc.) –Annual evaluation/coaching sessions with the five networks

–Additional questions in interviews with partners in the five transnational networks on the support (what’s been most/

–The cluster dynamics question set with an added ‘transnational’ level

Focus for BSR is Transnational Collaboration.

Cluster to Cluster Collaboration

L3 Collaborative Advantage Loop

Degree of enhancement of competitive innovation


Stimulation and Acquisition of relevant research and development

L5 Future Focus Loop

Competitive level of platform innovation

– Consider distributional issues such as Areas of Disadvantage and Equality.

Type of cultural context

Competitive power of cluster

Potential synergies– Potential benefits of collaboration resulting from external economies of scale and complementarity Collaboration processes– Internal and external linkages within the business environment

Target achievement – Innovation – Productivity – Internationalisation – Growth – Profitability

Conceptual model for the cluster programs

Cluster programs’ intervention in business environment

Relationship basis– The group’s ability and willingness to exploit synergies

In the longer term, structural characteristics and collaboration potential will be developed as a result of collaboration processes

Cluster Organisation

– Access to R&D partners

– PR

– Training and Coaching

– Internationalisation

Figure 1: The nutshell model of cluster intervention Source: VDI/VDE-IT 2010

4 The second workshop Belfast, 2014

The latest meeting of the Cluster Evaluation Working Group was hosted by TCI organisational members Invest NI. 25 participants from 11 different countries and regions participated in two days of sharing, developing and vigorous discussion. In previous meetings the working group had shared approaches around the ‘why’, ‘what’ and ‘how’ of cluster evaluation. Three key questions that tackle some of the biggest challenges in cluster evaluation had been identified:


Homework In order to maximise the time together participants

‘I think the value of

contributed ‘homework’ beforehand, to give some

coming together with

insight into current practices, and share some of the

colleagues from

remaining challenges. Across the three questions

different experiences

this pre-work explored:

has been quite worth while. I say that because I think I

How has your approach to cluster evaluation

helped address the key questions?

changed my mind on

What new approaches have worked well?

a few things through

What are still the gaps/difficulties?

the day... I have found some different

This was then collated into an exhibition format to


allow everyone to look across the different


responses and see common themes and further areas for development. The groups then divided into three, to look more closely at the three key questions, unpicking further: What does success look like? What do we already know? What gaps remain? The following day the group embarked on the Cluster Evaluation Game. It was developed by InDI for this meeting to try and garner as much collective knowledge as possible from such an experienced and practiced group. The outputs from this game are shown in appendix A. Finally, the group re-gathered for a final discussion. A few mini project ideas had been generated and those will now be taken forward by members of the group.



We are all undertaking evaluations using some broadly similar approaches (measuring activity, outputs, impacts). However, each cluster context is different (different local environments, sector structures, government support) and

How can we develop and share a TCI “Fruit Salad” of current good practice and techniques in cluster evaluation?


Diverse type of information – economic, trust level, motivation, time investment,

Baseline (where we started) and follow up (show progress and change/improvement)

Project reporting against specific strategic goals and review direction


The How Social capital i.e. how clusters grow, towards cooperative and collaborative behaviours.

The What Cluster interventions e.g. access to finance, skills, infrastructure, knowledge and innovation, and market access.

Cluster Organisation

Benchmarking – how we compare with competitors

Comprehensive framework – Mix of statistical data, surveys, interviews, workshops/focus groups, quantitative and qualitative

Cluster Actors

Conditions (External context) Behaviours (Internal context)

for the second workshop

The Why Sector growth and the change in the regional economic structure.

Capturing progress across against why, what and how

Why, What, How?

Right: boards designed


“ Gather the fruits to make it edible! Develop Case study examples.”

Different techniques are needed for different layers, audiences and different contexts. Ultimately evaluation is about learning and informing the next steps.


Planned work

Resources & Inputs


Intended deliverables



With indictors across all levels (e.g. # of companies, did it lead to company growth, exports and jobs etc, or other associated impacts e.g. funding, collaborations with universities)

Logic models

How to show benefit /impact on regional/national economy (innovation system)?

How to show relevance and effectiveness of cluster programme approach?

How to show value of cluster initiative/cluster organisation?

How to show benefit of companies’ involvement in cluster initiatives?

Can we develop a Knowledge repository/community of practice to provide content, examples and contact people for the fruit salad, structured around:

so evaluation needs to be flexible– hence the need for a “fruit salad” - allowing each cluster/region to pick and choose the best combination for their context and situation.

Sonja Kind

Developing a not too generic tool box from which one can choose the suitable method or to become inspired”

Measuring change in performance, capability and understanding – across individuals, group/cluster and regional levels

Parallel approach to understand the mechanisms – how this happened

Firm level performance (productivity, innovation, internationalisation, quality etc.)

Balancing delivery priorities with evaluation demands

Control groups – can be hard to find comparable groups

Understanding cluster maturity – things take time to happen

Setting appropriate goals and relevant indicators of progress and success?

In depth evaluation takes investment

Self assessment/reporting or independent review

Balancing quantitative and qualitative

Data collection


When is a good time to evaluate too soon - not enough results, too late attribution issues

Traps and difficulties

 International peer review

 Yearly visits and dialogue meetings

 Triangulating approaches

 Discriminant analysis, CGE model

 Interviews and participatory approaches encourage engagement

 Hard data on soft issues – e.g. increased engagement also measure #companies engaged; #SMEs; # research nodes engaged etc.

 Case studies and “stories of change”

What new approaches have worked well?

Cluster mapping, statistical and economic analysis

Measure benefits for each kind of stakeholder: companies, funders governments, academic institutions

Governance – how effective is the cluster organisation

satisfaction, image


The thing that makes a cluster different is the building of trust and relationships that means the group goes from just being a collection to building deeper levels of collaboration and doing things together that they could not do individually. “We can do new things together – we can only do these things together”

How do we factor in the Human Element into Cluster Evaluations?


 Understanding the importance of

What new approaches have worked well?

Email traffic between cluster organisations

Evidence of growth in partnerships (between companies, company to university; with companies in different sector/market etc)

Cluster dynamics model

The partnership journey – what is the evidence of change from collection to cluster




Tangible benefits of clustering e.g. Has the collaboration led to new/different services, attracted new customers, led to new partnerships etc.

Is there evidence of change in behaviour/attitudes

Social network analysis

Right: boards designed

for the second workshop


“ Rhône-Alpes

The ongoing evaluation already shows where the human factor is a weight on the cluster activity”

It’s quite difficult to measure trust, or evidence changing behaviours, but it has value alongside the economic benefit – it is quantifying it that is difficult.

Jan Messing

Understanding how best to do this is fundamental

Objective of cluster is to get interaction working, catalysing the actors to get things working

How do you capture building trust and social capital within a cluster?

It is a question about change – in understanding, mindset, in relations internal and external”

There is a general acceptance that social capital and trust is a critical element for effective cluster development. This is a very important part of clustering, but one that is very poorly captured in evaluation. Collaboration



Sharing indicators / visual is useful to show progress

Can we use leadership literature to understand the role of boundary spanners etc?

Balancing time spent capturing the data with the value of that data

Define description and levels of progress better – then self assessment – where are you on this scale? As trust develops, what would you expect to see?

Maintaining neutrality– engagement and understanding as an evaluator vs independence

Cluster dynamics (and other participatory methods) too “bulky” – develop further for quick easy self assessments

Traps and difficulties

 Time invested by cluster participants

 Connecting connectors – boundary spanners

 Capturing catalytic moments, unique stories, anecdotes and quotes

facilitation and investing in that role


How do we disseminate and evidence the value of clusters and communicate this eectively to our partners, potential cluster members and most importantly to our funders. If we can put across real arguments as to the value of clustering this can help support further investment.

How do we evidence and communicate the Critical Success Factors in Clusters?


for the second workshop

New strong R&I nodes engaged

New tools for collaboration

MNEs engaged through innovation nodes

SMEs engaged through innovation nodes

New products and services

Call for EU-tenders appiied

Call for EU-tenders won

Understanding and reporting impact and importance of

Target 100% of goal


Highlights from StarDust project results

Agreement on clarity / trajectory, direction of travel

Leadership and vision (compelling) and then showing progress

What new approaches have worked well?


Right: boards designed


Elizabeth Redman

The starting point of any cluster evaluation should be to understanding the audience....and what decisions or outcomes you are trying to influence”


Communicating results related to goals is effective. The difficult part is establishing relevant goals /expectations.”

Direct discussion and sharing with policy makers and cluster practitioner

Publishing and conferences to share approaches and results

Describing good practice and the process/decisions that gave the best results

Image and reputation – has the cluster helped?

Showcasing the clusters as an attraction to region – a hub, giving access to resources (money and talent) and with limited risk

Horses mouth is very powerful i.e. company to company

Combine anecdotal and hard evidence

Using concrete indicators to show progress against goals

How have you disseminated and communicated results to your key audiences?

Understanding the external context – a flat performance in a declining sector could be a success or smaller workforce but more highly skilled

Cluster policies only one element in an innovation landscape.

Policy makers want “an answer”, preferably an “impact figure” to justify spend and investment

Role of leadership and drive in a cluster is important – how do you assess properly?

Still difficult to explain the process and show how cluster organisation led to the results


Cluster policy is not a homogeneous block but includes a variety of dynamics”

Traps and difficulties

context and conditions (.e.g. in country/region) on the results achieved


5 Designing new ways to engage: the cluster evaluation board game

Developed by InDI researchers for the TCI working group meeting in Belfast in April 2014, this game was designed to extract high quality information from a diverse group of experts in a rapid and engaging way. The meeting in Belfast involved twenty-five participants from eleven different countries and regions across Europe bringing diverse and deep practical expertise on this topic. A key challenge was how to use limited time to garner that experience, in a way that could be easily sharable. 

The ‘rules’ The questions used in the game were informed by the initial discussion in the workshop, and the activity delivered a fun and energetic form of focused brainstorming. Broad rules were put in place. Three games ran in parallel, with two teams on each. The aim of the game was to ‘reach success’, and teams could Poland:

decide to move forward or move the other team

‘...it gives a bigger

back. On landing on a space the team had two

picture, a broader

minutes to answer the question. There were also

perspective, which is

a few wild card questions to keep participants on

very useful.’

their toes.


The use of this game proved hugely beneficial in quickly drawing out and capturing the joint expertise gathered in the meeting. The activity generated over forty flipchart pages of answers to specific questions. By using a blank game the questions could be made more specific and bespoke to the event underway. In evaluation afterwards, the game was rated very highly as an excellent tool to release and capture expertise in a fun and engaging way. It generated some very successful outputs for the design researchers because it was physical and tangible, but also because the playful nature helped energise the process. The collective expertise gathered through the game is captured as part of the FAQ section in this booklet.



6 Hot topics: targets A tale of indicators and owls

There is often a strong pressure, particularly from funders, to set targets for a cluster to achieve. The working group discussed this at length, and agreed that they can be useful to show tangible progress, and to give comfort to funders. However, targets must reflect overall goals and objectives therefore care must be taken to identify the right targets to drive the right behaviours. The owl example helped illustrate this. Imagine you are in charge of a forest, and your overall goal and objective is to create a strong ecosystem within that forest. A good indicator of the health of the ecosystem is the number of owls within the forest. Owls are at the top of the food chain. They eat the rodents, who eat the insects, who live within the fallen leaves and debris on the forest floor. So, if the owls are healthy, this indicates that all those elements are working well and the forest ecosystem is strong. However, if the number of owls becomes a target and that becomes the driver to success, it can encourage the wrong behaviours. For example, additional owls may be brought in externally. The debris might be cleared from the forest floor to make it easier for owls to catch their prey.


New food sources might be added. All of these in the short term may help owl numbers, but in the longer term will distort and weaken the ecosystem – the opposite of the overall objective and goal. Thus owls are a really good indicator, but a lousy target. We must be careful when setting our targets that we do not lose sight of our objectives.


7 Reflections and next steps

The first year of activity for the Cluster Evaluation Working Group has really made progress in sharing expertise and starting to develop new approaches. As well as the main group workshops, a few mini project ideas have been generated and those will be taken forward by members of the group, for example, how can we better capture the ‘human element’ of clustering? There is potential for further meetings, but the key focus is currently to collate the outputs from the working group and share that learning. An online area for the working group has been set up in new TCI website to share activity (including the banners produced during the Belfast workshop), and other ways to continue the discussion, for example, webinars on specific topics, are being explored.

The role of design At InDI we continue to be interested in researching the role of design in clusters, in building complex collaborations, and evaluating those intangible benefits. We have also successfully used design to help elicit the depth of knowledge and expertise across this TCI working group, helping to to bring knowledge


together to share with other cluster practitioners. This is a fertile area for further investigation.

Taking it forward As Christian Ketels, TCI President wrote recently, ‘Increasingly, we seem to be on the cusp of a real breakthrough in this area. TCI can and should play its role in facilitating this process.’ As ever, TCI is most successful when members take forward areas that are really important to them, so we look forward to many more projects and conversations, both as formal meetings of the working group, and as important activity driven by members priorities.

South Africa: ‘I think this is still the most important TCI nut to be cracked’ —Nigel Gwynn Evans


Appendix A FAQs

These questions were identified by the working group as important issues to consider when designing a cluster evaluation. Through the workshop this group of experts generated some informed answers, to help inform your evaluation planning.

Q1 – How can we develop and share a TCI ‘fruit

salad’ of current good practice and techniques in cluster evaluation?

1. What should you ask regional funders in an interview What are your three main expectations for the cluster? What are your expected deliverables, and any timescales for achieving these? How does the cluster fit with wider strategies and policies? 2. How would you benchmark clusters Use similar sectors or similar individual portfolios, at a similar development stage (although you can learn from those further ahead) Benchmark against best in class, and using

tools like cluster observatory, cluster collaboration platform


Benchmark against not just current stage but also aspirations (whilst remaining realistic) 3. How would you capture additionality (and why is it important) Use comparison/control groups counterfactual Use a baseline case – and then show what is different from business as usual Storytelling – what you’re getting in addition, e.g. enhanced capability by working together 4. Who should be included in a cluster survey All cluster members - companies, academia, relevant public sector associations Policy makers and funders Companies from the supply chain Stakeholders from committee Facilitator Other cluster organisations in the region Peer review similar clusters in similar sector 5. How would you capture firm level performance? Standard data on firm performance and softer data (through survey) from firms Hard data – on productivity, R&D, employment Export trends level and trend over time Examples of how they innovate What makes a good case study Open and honest and succinct


Shows steps on journey (start and progress from/to) and decision process Shows impact and critical success factors and Onward strategies Personal – pictures, videos, testimonials,

verbal quotes

Q2 – How do we factor in the human element

into cluster evaluations

1. What would you see in a cluster with very good social capital Joint projects and initiatives and investments Trust between stakeholders i.e. willing to rely on, take risk with, believe in A lot of communication – daily interaction, Good networking (informal as well as structured) Sharing problems and working together to solve Sharing resources e.g. human capital e.g. lobbying e.g. IP e.g. learning and skills Collaboration both between and beyond


the cluster

2. What would you expect to see in a good ‘boundary spanner’ Outgoing and proactive in engaging wide groups in different organisations/geographies Seeking out opportunities and open to new ideas and change Credibility and legitimacy and ability to

stay neutral Broad knowledge of different organisations and culturally aware Not just in it for themselves

3. How would you evidence regional leadership Consistent political support Co. financing and investment of time Participating in steering board Ambassador outside – e.g. communicate regional opportunities to national government Mentioned in strategic docs Consultation with clusters when making policy Help build new linkages


4. What are the good/ bad things about

self assessment Good: — Cost efficiency — Easy (sometimes only feasible approach) — Honest — Learning/involvement of most informed Stakeholders — Starting point for other techniques — Could visualise the internal discussion Bad: — Lack of objectivity (perceived bias) — Often more qualitative – (perceived lack of accuracy) — Influenced by own agenda — Pick out the things that show results in good light — Not challenged on perspective – internal view

5. How would you evidence an increase in ‘linkages’ (i.e more collaborative behaviour) People involved in meetings and who from an organisation Types of collaborative projects changing to more in depth Evidence of collaboration – behaviours (before and after) Collaboration space


Joint venture – partners involved Formal analysis e.g. SNA (social network analysis) 6. Outline the stages/ levels you might see to describe increasing (deeper) collaboration behaviour Start/emerging Deciding and investment Maturity – function well/collaborate well, strong social capital Reinvention – cluster can fund itself Exploring new fields and activities – cluster to cluster collaboration Developing new strategy – survive through crisis 7. Draw three ways you usually present progress Presenting progress (rockets/chart etc) Summarise key messages for regional stakeholders Show an example of success/possible future What needs to be done and responsibility for progress 8. Describe some critical ‘human element’ roles that might be important for a cluster Leadership (cluster manager or initiative leader) Management (cluster organization/process support team)


Regional backing Engagement (of companies, knowledge institutions and other relevant actors) (Internal) Collaboration and how this develops to deeper trust (External) Interaction/linkages, including transnational and cross sectoral linkages

Q3 - How do we evidence and communicate the

critical success factors in clusters?

1. What are the key messages for regional stakeholders What’s in it for them? New perspectives for development and new investment opportunities Renewal potential for the future - visionary/ future context messages Attraction for region to new companies and talent Access to people you want to influence Look at clusters as high performance innovation systems Cluster map – look at regions strengths/ weaknesses Communicate both success and failures – good/ bad reliable story


2. How would you factor in the external content in an evaluation Understanding current marketplace – look at sector context, locally, nationally, internationally Policy – mix/change (e.g. election) Benchmark within country/outside other regions Direct effects and indirect issues/challenges Compare with a control group Time series – multi method story with different controls Pestle analysis and other tools (political, economical, social, technology, legislation, environmental). 3. What are the key messages for companies The benefits of working in a cluster including Improve products Market place access and market intelligence New knowledge and abilities to innovate Improving firm performance, cost reduction and increased profit by working together Attraction – credibility, reputation and recognition of markets Influence policy Access to talent and skills and shared workforce Access to funding Ability to fill gaps in own capability New and enhanced skills New thinking and new perspectives (open eyes)


Value of collaboration and being many instead of one 4. How can company stories help Show good examples of benefits Provide real evidence and encouragement to others Good marketing and pride/recognition and testimonials Better understanding – feedback to cluster org and policy Outlines the expected journey – high/low/ emotions Shows what works well/doesn’t (learning) 5. How would you set cluster goals Understanding what cluster members deem to be successful Setting key objectives and a realistic workplan What are the critical success factors and the deal breakers Ensure shared vision, talk to stakeholders and align with policy goals Innovation goals – new products, new services, renewal of industry, new connections, start ups Understanding goals and interim goals, including timings/expectation Have a range of goals, finance, human etc and balance quantitative and qualitative goals


System Impact Clear, measurable, SMART (not just activities, also output, outcome, impact) Involves everyone who is key to success? Balance cluster needs and cluster demands 6. How can clusters help the image/ reputation of a region/ sector Show strength of a region Demonstrate evidence of collaboration and its value Examples of new joint products which are relevant globally Demonstrate diversity and long term thinking (and investment) Develop trademark to be respected locally and regionally Packaged and communicate success stories Promote/appoint best innovation award 7. Describe the role of a good facilitator in a cluster Encourages participation Manage conflict and achieves consensus Drives strategy process and managing project Commercial focus Fundraiser Opens doors / boundary spanner Good listener


Visionary / horizon scanning Energetic/energise Power plant on two legs 8. What is ‘unique’ about clusters (compared to other innovation/ sector interventions) Bringing together organisations that may have been competitors Draw together number of factors/functions on one/neutral platform Intersection – between region/sector policy Boundary spanning between sectors Bridge building between firms/research smallsmall, small-large Provide forced and un-bureaucratic money


seed funding





Profile for TCI  Network

Cluster Evaluation Booklet  

Findings of the TCI Cluster Evaluation Group, by mid-2014. Material may be used provided that source (© Institute of Design Innovation, Glas...

Cluster Evaluation Booklet  

Findings of the TCI Cluster Evaluation Group, by mid-2014. Material may be used provided that source (© Institute of Design Innovation, Glas...