Towards a “Benchmarking Raster”: A selection of indicators to measure policies for culture and creative industries” CREA.RE – Mid-term conference Göteborg, 20-21 March 2011
Aims of the assignment • Create and test a “benchmarking raster” which will provide local policy-makers with a set of indicators to measure support policies. • Assist policy makers in setting up the ideal “creative ecology” in non-large urban centers. • Stimulate investment of Structural Funds into culture and creative industries (CCIs).
Commissioned by the CREA.RE network Common features Differences Partners represent small and medium-sized Partners represent a mix of local and urban and rural areas. regional authorities with different levels of expertise when dealing with CCIs. Focus is on economic development through The level of political awareness on CCIs CCIs. varies considerably within the consortium. Leverage EU funding for CCIs. Local “creative ecologies” across the consortium are extremely varied.
Benchmarking focus • Local economic development (vs. social and cultural development) • Usable in non large urban centres and throughout Europe • Adapted to the specifics of CCIs • User-friendly tool for policy makers
Methodology • Select a number of good practices (60-30-15) as practical examples of support measures and looked at the use of indicators in local contexts ( Literature review, peers’ recommendations ). • Classify policy support measures under different categories of support . • Compile the benchmarking raster in relation to the previously identified support measures and categories of policy support ( Literature review, Questionnaire & interview ). • Test indicators with CREA.RE partners ( Collection of qualitative and quantitative inputs – locally defined methodologies ). • Provide “The 5 key steps to implement economic impact assessment of local policies for CCIs”
Selected 15 good practices including 1 outside Europe (out of 30) based on preliminary assessment 1. Creative Tampere, Tampere (Finland) 16. Watershed Media Centre, Bristol (UK) 2. Creative Factory, Rotterdam 17. Design Connection Brainport, Eindhoven (Netherlands) (The Netherlands) 3. Zollverein World Heritage Site 18. Tartu Centre for Creative Industries (Germany) (Estonia) 4. Cornwall and structural funds (UK) 19. Krowji (Cornwall Creative Industries) – UK 5. Quartier de la Création, Nantes 20. South West Screen (SWS) (UK) Métropole (France) 21. Source - Developing Rural Creativity (EU 6. Aachen Founders’ Centre Culture project) Industries and Programme 22. Cultuur & Ruimte Vouchers 2007-2013 Kulturunternehmen! (Germany) (The Netherlands) 7. Abertay University (UK) 23. Wallimage, Wallonia (Belgium) 8. Musikpark, Mannheim (Germany) 24. Creative Credits, Manchester (UK) 9. Screen West Midlands (SWM) (UK) 25. Programme Broedplaatsen, Amsterdam 10. Film ï Vast, Trollhattan, Västra Götaland (The Netherlands) Region, (Sweden) 26. Microwave (UK) 11. Creative Advantage Fund, West- 27. Creative Berlin (Germany) Midlands (UK) 28. Design Forum Vorarlberg/IMPULSE 12. Romagna Creative District (RCD) – Italy (Austria) 13. Obidos Criativa (Portugal) 29. Creative Graz (Austria) 14. Tallin Creative Incubator, Tallin (Estonia) 30. Puglia Creativa (Italy) 15. Create Denver (USA)
Classification of policy support measures (I) The following classification is used to categorise support measures (SMs) and identify related indicators: 1.Infrastructure and clustering/networking 2.People, competences and entrepreneurship 3.Incubation – transversal to categories 1 and 2 4.Governance of CCIs’ policies – transversal/upstream
Classification of policy support measures (II) Policy Governance Infrastructure and People, competences and clustering/networking entrepreneurship Incubation Cultural and creative industries Transversal and upstream category of support
The benchmarking raster (I) Benchmarking Raster Categories of support Specific Indicators Common Indicators Key Overall Performance Indicators Foster • Ratio “Surface available” vs Infrastructure • N ° of beneficiaries “Occupation of surface” Infrastructure & • Access to broadband lines/ICT Networking • Ratio between infrastructures and services • Increase in the number • N ° of businesses established. accomplished vs. of jobs created in CCIs planned deliverables or in the city/region • N ° and quality of actions networks/clusters created. Networking & • N ° and quality of new B2B • Business/management Clustering partnerships/contracts plan developed • Initial mapping of CCIs’ • Growth in the turnover needs • N ° of new products/services People, Competences and/or profitability of developed/marketed Competences & & Skills • Stakeholders’ • Types of advice services CCIs in the city/region. Entrepreneurship provided (on ICT, law, involvement management, etc.) • Regular evaluations Access to • Increase of investments into CCIs Finance • Return On Investment for • Growth in the number investors of creative businesses in the city/region. Incubation • N ° of businesses able to move (transversal) from ‘incubation’ to ‘dis ‐ incubation’ • Institutional infrastructure for CCIs’ policies • N ° of new non ‐ CCIs policy documents having CCIs as a new priority • Budget for CCI in economic development and innovation Governance • Share of public procurement used by CCIs
The benchmarking raster (II) • 3 Key Overall Performance indicators 16 indicators for SMs (excluding ‘governance’): • 6 common indicators 5 specific indicators for ‘infrastructure and networking’ SMs 4 for ‘people, competences and entrepreneurship’ SMs 1 specific indicator related to the transversal support category for incubation schemes SMs • 4 specific indicators for governance SMs
Purpose & selection criteria • Monitor and assess CCIs’ policies and support measures through selected indicators. • Responding to 5 evaluation criteria (OECD, European Commission).
Evaluation questions • Is the measure relevant according to local CCIs’ needs and policy priorities? • Is it well managed? • Are resources used efficiently? • Are deliverables contributing to reach expected objectives? • Are the ‘governance’ measures producing the expected results? • Is the measure providing any impact on its beneficiaries and help to develop the local creative ecology? • Does it help entrepreneurs develop their businesses in the long term?
Evaluation criteria • Relevance : the extent to which the objectives of the support measure are consistent with beneficiaries’ requirement and local CCIs’ needs. • Efficiency: how inputs (i.e. resources: funds, expertise, timeframe, management model, appropriateness of infrastructures; etc.) are converted to results (outputs). • Effectiveness: the extent to which the initiative’s objectives are achieved, or are expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative importance. Impacts: global effects on the creative ecology. • Sustainability: whether the benefits produced by the support measure • continue after the latter ends.
Evaluation of support measures under the category ‘Infrastructure and clustering/networking’: a practical example Evalu atin g su p p o rt measu res u n d er th e su p p o rt categ o ry ‘In frastru ctu re an d clu sterin g /n etwo rkin g ’: a Evalu atio n p ractical examp le (co mmo n p lu s sp ecific in d icato rs) criteria Ratio b etween acco mp lish ed vs. p lan n ed d eliverab les o r actio n s Nu mb er o f b en eficiaries Effectiven ess Reg u lar evalu atio n s Bu sin ess/man ag emen t p lan Efficien cy In itial map p in g o f CCIs’ n eed s Stakeh o ld ers’ in vo lvemen t N ° an d q u ality o f co lab o rative n etwo rks/Nu mb er an d typ es o f clu ster s cre ated . Relevan ce Access to b ro ad b an d lin es/ICT in frastru ctu res an d services In crease in th e n u mb er o f jo b s created in CCIs in th e city/reg io n Gro wth in th e tu rn o ver an d /o r p ro fi tab ility o f CCIs in t h e city/reg io n Gro wth in th e n u mb er o f creative b u sin esses in th e city/reg io n Imp act an d Ratio b etween ‘Su rface availab le’ (e.g . sq u are meters) an d ‘Occu p atio n o f th e su rface b y b en eficiaries’ Su stain ab ility N ÷ an d q u ality o f co llab o rative n etwo rks/Nu mb er an d typ e s o f clu sters cr e ated • N ÷ an d q u ality o f n ew B2B p artn ersh ip s/co n tract s d ev elo p ed N ÷ o f b u sin esse s e stab lish ed th an ks to th e in itiative
The 5 key steps to implement economic impact assessment of local policies for CCIs” 1. Identify policy and evaluation goals 2. Assess evaluation readiness 3. Develop evaluation methodology and set up a targeted benchmarking raster 4. Implement the benchmarking raster 5. Disseminate the results
In practice (I): • Need to adapt indicators: Take into account the state of development of the sector: n. of start-ups? Increase % of turnover? and the specific objectives of the measures • Dependence on existing data and data collection tools/methods • Look at the evolution since the start of the initiative % Increase or Decrease = e.g. (( [2011 N. of beneficiaries] - [2008 N. of beneficiaries] ) / [2008 N. of beneficiaries] ) * 100
Recommend
More recommend
