results questionnaire template 1

1
results questionnaire template 1

• Sharing experiences and practices across
  transnational regions

2
Objectives of questionnaire

• Facilitation of transfer of knowledge, ideas,
  good practice and examples (WP1)
• Sharing and dissemination of good practice (WP2)
• Sharing marketing promotion techniques (WP3)
• Evidence of research and transnational working

3
3 themes

• Benchmarking
• Cluster organisation and development
• Cluster promotion and marketing

4
Method

• See document

5
Results
6
BenchmarkingImpact of clusters for rural economy

• Cluster working is important
• Existance of
• Strategic documents
• Data collection

7
BenchmarkingImpact of clusters for rural economy

• Data collection
• All regions have one or more systems
• One partner 5 different systems
• Quality is rather low

? Possibilities for improvement (data collection)
8
BenchmarkingTypology of cluster groups

• 40 cluster groups in total
• Between 2 and 10 clusters per region
• Cluster working is a rather young phenomenon
• 700 entrepreneurs are member of a cluster
• 23 of the 40 groups a result of Collabor8
• 4 of the 8 partners started with clusters within
  Collabor8

9
BenchmarkingTypology of cluster groups
10
BenchmarkingTypology of cluster groups

• Collabor8 clusters (new clusters)

• Country sector is new
• Succes of local food sector in clusters is
  decreasing

11
BenchmarkingTypology of cluster groups

• Theme or locality based

12
BenchmarkingStandards awards

• Quality and eco-labelling
• About 50 of the entrepreneurs have a standard or
  award

13
Cluster organisation developmentOrganisation
14
Cluster organisation developmentResults

• Motivation of entrepreneurs to participate
• Sharing experiences, knowledge, practices
• Sharing ideas on sence of place
• Influence, lobbying strenght
• Reducing costs, increasing income
• Networking
• Increasing visitors in the region

15
Cluster organisation developmentMonitoring

• Monitoring of cluster-working is basic or absent
• Only Merthyr Tydfil is working on qualitative
  issues
• Monitoring economical value is totally absent

• Some regions request good examples

16
Cluster organisation developmentDifficulties

• Trust in organising government
• Trust in the other entrepreneurs
• Time available of entrepreneurs
• Talking vs. direct action

17
Cluster organisation developmentHow does it
work?

• A good Code of Practice is not yet very
  established

18
Cluster organisation developmentHow does it
work?

• Capacity of self-management
• Involvement of official organisations is
  important

• Problem trust in government is rather low

19
Cluster promotion marketingStrategic
organisation

• Availability of a central policy
• Strategic documents only 3 regions have one, 3
  under development
• Strategic support on attraction of visitors most
  of the regions have it, but only 43 is
  considered to be sufficient
• Only 3 regions give/have strategic support on
  cluster promotion

20
Cluster promotion marketingIn practice

• Promotion marketing of the region is important
  (vs. poor strategic organisation)
• Adoption of a brand is less common (5 of 8)
• Use of the brand is connected to the use of
  sence of place

21
Cluster promotion marketingMarket
segmentation/new technologies

• 6 of 8 regions consider market segmentation
  important
• 6 of 8 regions use new technologies

22
Conclusions

• Methodology
• 3 questionnaires interesting to see how
  Collabor8 evolves

23
Conclusions

• Cluster-working
• Working with clusters is important, but young
• Impact of Collabor8 on cluster-working is high
  23 of 40 clusters
• Availability of quality- and eco-awards is low,
  but under development
• Hospitality is the most prolific sector, followed
  by Local food and Recreation. Importance of Local
  food is decreasing

24
Conclusions

• Results and difficulties of cluster working
• Lack of good monitoring
• Lack of quantitative or qualitative figures
• Lack of confidence between entrepreneurs and
  government
• Collabor8-partners are all governmental
• Only 14 of clusters self managed

25
Thanks to

• Sirka Lüdtke, Ghent University, for elaborating
  the template
• Jan Van den Berghe, SPK, for handling the data
  and making the report
• Andrew Claire Gray, ERA 21, for feed-back
• You, for giving the data