Inter-Cluster Initiative to target the future challenges for the European Polymer Converting Industry BARNAY Caroline - Project coordinator Region Rhône-Alpes / MANUFUTURE 2009 - Göteborg, Sweden Nov 30th - Dec 1st Presentation of the CLUSTERPLAST Project
Key Data Financing: FP7 Regions of knowledge Starting date 01.01.2009 Duration 18 Months Eligible project costs 887,098.58 EC contribution 749,599.82 Coordination Région Rhône-Alpes Call: FP7-REGIONS-2008-1 Publication: 30/11/2008 DL: 14/03/2008 75 proposals from all Europe 8 projects selected (2 in Rhone-Alpes) Partnership 15 partners from 6 Clusters in Europe and management support
Consortium 4 existing research-driven clusters Land Oberösterreich (Au) CLUSTERLAND Regione Piemonte (It) PROPLAST Rhône-Alpes (Fr) PLASTIPOLIS Marinha-Grande (Pt) ENGINEERING & TOOLING FROM PORTUGAL 2 clusters in the making Zlinsky Kraj (Cz) Communidad Valenciana (Sp)
Project Approach and potential impacts 3. International Benchmarking WP1: Critical analysis of the research agendas 1. Analysis of the Research Business Local/regional authorities triangle 2. SWOT charts and recommendations Structure EPCI Regional authorities, Research entities, Business communities COOPERATION + Mentoring & Mutual learning Materials & compound technologies Transformation processes Tooling and d machines Composites and nanocomposites Smart plastics (materials functionalization) Process integration & eco-conception conception WP2: Joint t Action o Plan a 1. Sharing of RTD infrastructures 2. Knowledge transfer 3. Mobility plan 4. Selection of research projects 5. Fostering of Entrepreneurship 6. Integrated and relevant education/training strategies 7. Mutual learning and mentoring 8. Consolidation of the JAP WP3: Dissemination and initiation of mentoring actions 1. Setting up the communication policy 2. Organisation of common events and initiatives 3. Dissemination i tools l WP4 4: Management Increased Industry (SMEs) identification and participation in RD projects Organize the use of funding tools at the European level (Regional Policy, CIP, FP7) -> more effective investments Enable the dissemination of knowledge, the development of competencies and Innovation capabilities, region s competitiveness. Major outcome Major outcome of the project
Critical analysis of the research agendas WP1: Critical analysis of the research agendas 1. Analysis of the Research Business Local/regional authorities triangle 2. SWOT charts and recommendations The collection of data was supported on a questionnaire specifically developed for these purposes and which was filled-in at cluster/region level entities collaborative projects collaborations with EU regions/ clusters existing Best Practices For each cluster, a review of business/research/regional entities has been performed according to several criteria: The review of business/research/regional entities has allowed a comparison of clusters on several criteria: number of employees, main activity, turn-over, markets, involvement in RTD projects, etc WP2: Joint Action Plan
SWOT charts and recommendations WP1: Critical analysis of the research agendas 1. Analysis of the Research Business Local/regional authorities triangle 2. SWOT charts and recommendations A common analysis tool ->perform in the same way an overall analysis for each cluster. Identification of important features an internal analysis -> internal factors of clusters ->Strenghts and Weaknesses an external analysis -> focus on the territory offer -> Opportunities and Treats SWOT Data gathered during previous tasks The establishment of SWOT charts has allowed: - an overall analysis of each cluster and the possibility to compare them - Identification of potential partners to get support from (mentoring) - To identify potential individual and common actions to be led (recommendations for the JAP). WP2: Joint Action Plan
Project Progress ACRONYM: CLUSTERPLAST 1st year 2009 2nd year 2010 LEADER M1 Jan M2 Fev M3 Mar M4 Avr M5 May M6 Jun M7 Jul M8 Aug M9 Sep M10 Oct Workpackage 1: Critical analysis of the cluster research agendas PLASTIPOLIS 9 months Task 1.1 Review of the research entities at local/regional scale IST Task 1.2 Review of the business entities at local/regional scale AVEP Task 1.3 Review of the local/regional entities and of their related policies IMPIVA Task 1.4 SWOT charts and recommendations PLASTIPOLIS Task 1.5 International Benchmarking PLASTIPOLIS Workpackage 2: Joint Action Plan (JAP) PROPLAST Task 2.1 Plan for the sharing of RTD infrastructures UA Task 2.2 Plan for the knowledge transfer CLUSTERLAND Task 2.3 Mobility Plan TICZLIN Task 2.4 List of research projects to be supported PLASTIPOLIS Task 2.5 Plan for the fostering of Entrepreneurship OPEN Task 2.6 Setting-up of integrated and relevant education strategies UA Task 2.7 Mutual learning and mentoring plan PROPLAST Task 2.8 Consolidation of the JAP RRA Workpackage 3: Dissemination and initiation of mentoring actions CLUSTERLAND 18 months Task 3.1 Setting-up of the communication policy CLUSTERLAND Task 3.2 Organisation of common events and initiatives CENTIMFE Task 3.3 Dissemination tools CLUSTERLAND Task 3.4 Critical review meetings/recommendations of the Sattellite Gp for the JAP PLASTIPOLIS Workpackage 4: Management RRA 18 months M11 Nov M12 Dec M13 Jan M14 Fev 9 months M15 Mar M16 Avr M17 May M18 Jun Deliverables Events CLUSTERPLAST Kick-off Meeting, 5 & 6 of February 2009, Lyon. CLUSTERPLAST - European tooling Forum Common Initiative, 24 & 25 September, Tortona, Milan. CLUSTERPLAST Final Dissemination event June 2010 Rhône-Alpes European Research connection, 7 & 8 May 2009, Prague. Stand CLUSTEPLAST 1st Satellite Group meeting 2nd Satellite Group meeting
Examples of results - Strengths - Weaknesses Cluster composition I1 (HIGH) Level of involvementofof research entities CzechRep Rep. (LOW) Level of involvementofof research entities 2/6 I1 2/6 within the cluster within the cluster I2 (HIGH) Level of involvement of business entities 1/6 I2 (LOW) Level of involvement of business entities 2/6 within the cluster within the cluster I3 (HIGH) Level of involvement of training centres 1/6 I3 Austria (LOW) Level of involvement of training centres within 2/6 within the cluster the cluster () Plastipolis works continuously on reinforcing links with RE in order to develop partnerships between BE and RE. In spite of its recent creation, July 2005, Plastipolis has managed to develop significantly its RE membership reaching 59% of RE located in its reference region. () Even if the number could appear small, the size of the RE implied in the cluster is really relevant. The RE turn over and the numbers of projects they develop could reveal that their presence in the cluster isn't a weakness point. Their involvement in several R&D axes and in several platforms corroborates their relevance within the cluster.
Examples of results - Strengths - Weaknesses I7 I8 I9 4/6 4/6 (WIDE) Level of multidisciplinarity of business entities in terms of markets (WIDE) Level of multidisciplinarity of business entities interms of activities Business entities I7 I8 1/6 (NARROW) Level of multidisciplinarity of business entities in terms of markets (NARROW) Level of multidisciplinarity of business entitiesinterms in terms of activities 3/6 (HIGH) Level of involvement of SMEs I9 (LOW) Level of involvement of SMEs () Even if a strength has not been identified, it should be noted that Plastipolis has an average proportion of SMEs that is very close to 90% and thus, reflect the high involvement of SMEs and the strong willingness of Plastipolis to support them. () In contrast to other clusters, the engineering tooling cluster is fundamentaly focused on tooling. The result is the reflax of such specialization
Examples of results - Strengths - Weaknesses Platform: RD activities Formation Technical support and expertise to business entities I4 Austria p Research entities 6/6 (WIDE) Level of diversity of R&D axes I4 (NARROW) Level of diversity of R&D axes I5 1/6 (HIGH) Level of specialization of research entities I5 I6 4/6 (HIGH) Level of involvement of platforms I6 Austria 2/6 (LOW) Level of specialization of research entities 2/6 (LOW) Level of involvement of platforms
Examples of results - Strengths - Weaknesses I10 I11 Austria I12 I13 Collaborative projects 2/6 (HIGH) Level of cooperation through projects I10 Austria 2/6 (LOW) Level of cooperation through projects 3/6 (HIGH) Level of involvement of business entities I11 1/6 (LOW) Level of involvement of business entities 2/6 (HIGH) Level of involvement of SMEs I12 1/6 (LOW) Level of involvement of SMEs (in collaborative projects) EU collaborations 2/6 (HIGH) Level of EU collaborations I13 1/6 (LOW) Level of EU collaborations (Austria) Most of the relevant companies are part of our cluster () Note that we don t consider projects the normal consultancy activity we develop for the companies that represent the most part of our technical activity
Local and regional authorities Examples of results Opportunities - Threats Support from local and regional entities E1 (STRONG) Presence of public authorities E1 (WEAK) Presence of public authorities (STRONG) Degree of support/action of public (WEAK) Degree of support/action of public authorities E2 4/6 E2 Austria authorities at regional and/or sub regional scale at regional and/or sub regional scale E3 3/6 (STRONG) Presence of development agencies E3 Austria 3/6 (WEAK) Presence of development agencies E4 E5 E6 Austria 4/6 (STRONG) Degree of support/action of development agencies at regional and/or sub regional scale E4 Austria 2/6 (WEAK) Degree of support/action of development agencies at regional and /or sub regional scale (WIDE) Level of diversity of developmentagencies in 2/6 E5 Austria (NARROW) Level of diversity of development 2/6 terms of typology agencies in terms of typology 3/6 (WIDE) Level of diversity of development agencies in terms of programs/policies E6 1/6 (NARROW) Level of diversity of development agencies in terms of programs/policies (Cz Rep.) Good range of services offered by agencies () If considering the development agency as a structure supporting or participating to the economical and/or technological development at local or regional scale it could be identify more than two agencies
Examples of results - Opportunities - Threats E7 E8 Austria Economic environment 4/6 (HIGH) Capability to grow with new business entities E7 (LOW) Capability to grow with new business entities (HIGH) Capability to enlarge the scope of markets of the cluster E8 E9 2/6 4/6 (LOW) Capability to enlarge the scope of markets of the cluster E9 (HIGH) Capability to enlarge the scope of activity of the cluster (LOW) Capability to enlarge the scope of activity of 2/6 the cluster E10 3/6 (HIGH) Capability to increase the proportion of SMEs E10 (LOW) Capability to increase the proportion of SMEs Academic and research environment E11 1/6 (HIGH) Capability to grow with new research entities E11 (LOW) Capability to grow with new research entities E12 1/6 (HIGH) Capability to grow with new platforms entities E12 1/6 (LOW) Capability to grow with new platforms entities National and European environments E13 Austria 6/6 (STRONG) Position of the cluster at national scale E13 (WEAK) Position of the cluster at national scale E14 1/6 (STRONG) Position of the cluster at European scale E14 (WEAK) Position of the cluster at European scale (Cz Rep.) PLASTR is just one plactic processing specialize cluster in Czech Republic () New markets opportunities are not absent. The cluster strategic plan and current actions are addressing to the exploration and exploitation of new strategic markets for the cluster
Example of SWOT chart -> JAP recommendations SWOT charts: Definition of potential actions to be led basis to establish recommendations for the JAP Objectives Jap goals Targets JAP Type of actions Actors Satellite Group Identify existing instruments to facilitate access to financial supports (public and private)
Contacts Coordinator Region Rhone-Alpes (FR) Caroline BARNAY 00 33 (0)4 27 86 63 24 cbarnay@rhonealpes.fr More information and PPT presentation on www.clusterplast.eu Thank you of your attention!