Regional Knowledge Valorization Self-Assessment Tool

A dedicated framework or evaluating regional capacity to transform Widening projects' results into societal and economic value

Tool's Objectives

Wideradvance Knowledge Valorization Self-Assessment Tool empowers policymakers, regional development and innovation agencies,and stakeholders to systematically evaluate their region's capacity to disseminate and exploit Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe Widening projects' results.

  • Enable evidence-based policy design by providing a systematic diagnostic framework rooted in extensive literature analysis and stakeholder insights
  • Support strategic decision-making through comprehensive benchmarking that identifies regional strengths, challenges, and development opportunities
  • Facilitate tailored intervention strategies based on regional specific knowledge valorization profile and challengesy
  • Foster regional innovation ecosystem development by addressing identified barriers while leveraging proven success factors

How It Works

The assessment framework employs a balanced measurement approach that combines quantitative performance data with qualitative stakeholder insights across five critical dimensions of knowledge valorization capacity.

Assessment Structure:

  • Quantitative Indicators (40% weight): Systematically verified metrics from European databases including Regional Innovation Scoreboard, Eurostat, and TEDV
  • Qualitative Questions (60% weight): Evidence-based assessment criteria relying on respondents' expertise and insights

Scoring Methodology:

The tool employs a benchmarking system where all performance is measured against EU averages calculated from official European databases. Quantitative indicators are scored by comparing regional values to EU benchmarks, while qualitative questions use a 1-4 scale converted to percentage scores.

Data Sources:

  • Regional Innovation Scoreboard (RIS): European Commission's official regional innovation data
  • Eurostat: Official statistical office of the European Union
  • TEDV (Territorial Economic Data Viewer): JRC tool for territorial economic data

Assessment Framework Overview

Comprehensive evaluation across 5 critical dimensions using quantitative indicators and qualitative assessment questions.

Assessment Families

5

Quantitative Indicators

20

Qualitative Questions

88

Regional Types

6

Family 1: Knowledge Production & Absorption

Assessment of regional human capital, knowledge generation and absorptive capacity.

Score: 0/100

Family 2: Knowledge-Producing Organizations

Institutional frameworks and organizational capabilities for effective knowledge valorization.

Score: 0/100

Family 3: Dynamic Networks

Regional networks supporting proximity and knowledge valorization through collaboration.

Score: 0/100

Family 4: International Openness & EU Integration

Global connectivity and participation in the EU Framework Programmes.

Score: 0/100

Family 5: Facilitating Policies & Funding

Policy instruments supporting knowledge valorization.

Score: 0/100

Overall Assessment Score

Define regional type, challenges and pportunities.

Total Score: 0/100

Regional Profile

Please provide basic information about your region and key Regional Innovation Scoreboard indicators

Regional Information

Your Name:
Your Position/Role:
Region Name (NUTS2):
Regional Innovation Scoreboard Performance Group:
L
Innovation Leaders
Performance well above the EU average
S
Strong Innovators
Performance above or close to the EU average
M
Moderate Innovators
Performance below the EU average
E
Emerging Innovators
Performance well below the EU average

Regional Innovation Scoreboard Indicators

Population size (thousands)
Your Value
-
RIS
Population density (inhabitants per km²)
Your Value
-
RIS
GDP per capita (PPS)
Your Value
-
RIS
Degree of urbanization (%)
Your Value
-
RIS
Regional Innovation Index (0-100)
EU Avg: 50.0
-
RIS

Family 1: Regional Knowledge Production and Absorptive Capacities

This dimension examines your region's dual capacity to generate new knowledge through research activities and absorb external knowledge for practical application within your innovation ecosystem.

A. Quantitative Indicators

Human Capital

Population with tertiary education (25-64 years) (%)
EU Avg: 32.8%
-
Eurostat
Researchers in total employment (%)
EU Avg: 1.2%
-
Eurostat
Population employed in science and technology (%)
EU Avg: 38.5%
-
Eurostat

Knowledge Generation Capacities

R&D expenditure in the public sector (% of GDP)
EU Avg: 0.66%
-
RIS
PCT patent applications
EU Avg: 12.0
-
RIS
Scientific publications among the top 10% most cited
EU Avg: 10.8
-
RIS

Absorptive Capacity

R&D expenditure in the business sector (% of GDP)
EU Avg: 1.46%
-
RIS
Innovation expenditures per person employed
EU Avg: €2,500
-
RIS
Employment in innovative enterprises (% of total employment)
EU Avg: 35.2%
-
RIS

B. Perception-Based Questions

Human Capital

How would you rate the availability of highly educated workers and skilled professionals in your region?
4
Excellent Availability
Abundant resources with excellent accessibility
3
Good Availability
Sufficient resources with good accessibility
2
Limited Availability
Some resources with significant barriers
1
Poor Availability
Scarce resources with major barriers
How successful is your region at attracting and retaining research talent?
4
Excellent Performance
Outstanding talent attraction and retention
3
Good Performance
Solid talent retention with decent attraction
2
Fair Performance
Some success but significant challenges
1
Poor Performance
Significant brain drain issues
How severe is brain drain in your region?
4
No Brain Drain
Net talent attraction, minimal outflow
3
Minor Brain Drain
Balanced talent flows
2
Moderate Brain Drain
Notable talent outflow
1
Severe Brain Drain
Significant talent loss

Knowledge Generation Capacities

How would you rate the overall quantity of universities and research centers in your region?
4
Excellent Quantity
Abundant research institutions
3
Good Quantity
Sufficient research institutions
2
Limited Quantity
Some research institutions
1
Poor Quantity
Very few research institutions
How would you rate the overall quality of universities and research centers in your region?
4
Excellent Quality
World-class research institutions
3
Good Quality
High-quality research institutions
2
Fair Quality
Average quality institutions
1
Poor Quality
Below-average institutions
How adequate is your regional research infrastructure for supporting cutting-edge research?
4
Highly Adequate
State-of-the-art infrastructure
3
Adequate
Good research infrastructure
2
Somewhat Adequate
Basic infrastructure
1
Inadequate
Poor infrastructure
How distinctive is your regional knowledge base?
4
Highly Distinctive
Unique specialized knowledge domains
3
Distinctive
Some specialized knowledge areas
2
Somewhat Distinctive
Limited specialization
1
Not Distinctive
Generic knowledge base
How related is the knowledge produced in your region?
4
Highly Related
Strong knowledge complementarities
3
Well Related
Good knowledge connections
2
Somewhat Related
Limited knowledge connections
1
Not Related
Fragmented knowledge base

Absorptive Capacity

How would you rate the capacity of local SMEs to adopt and adapt new technologies?
4
Excellent Capacity
Highly adaptive SMEs
3
Good Capacity
Good technology adoption
2
Limited Capacity
Slow technology adoption
1
Poor Capacity
Minimal technology adoption
To what extent do larger companies invest in research and innovation?
4
Extensively
Major R&D investments
3
Well
Good R&D investments
2
Somewhat
Limited R&D investments
1
Minimally
Poor R&D investments
To what extent does your public administration present capacities in evidence-based policymaking?
4
Extensively
Strong evidence-based approach
3
Well
Good evidence-based practices
2
Somewhat
Limited evidence use
1
Minimally
Poor evidence-based practices
To what extent are citizen science and participatory research developed in your region?
4
Extensively Developed
Strong citizen science initiatives
3
Well Developed
Good participatory research
2
Somewhat Developed
Limited citizen science
1
Not Developed
Minimal participatory research

Family 2: Knowledge-Producing Organizations

This dimension explores higher education establishments and research centers'capacities and strategies to foster and support knowledge valorization.

Perception-Based Questions

Institutional Policies

How actively do universities and research centres in your region engage in regional development and community outreach?
4
Very Active
Systematic community engagement
3
Active
Regular community involvement
2
Somewhat Active
Limited community engagement
1
Not Active
Minimal community engagement
How clear and effective are institutional knowledge valorization strategies in knowledge-producing organizations?
4
Very Clear & Effective
Well-defined, implemented strategies
3
Clear & Effective
Good strategies with implementation
2
Somewhat Clear
Basic strategies, limited implementation
1
Unclear
No clear strategies
To what extent do institutional strategies encourage collaborations with third parties?
4
Extensively
Strong collaboration incentives
3
Well
Good collaboration support
2
Somewhat
Limited collaboration encouragement
1
Minimally
No collaboration incentives
How effectively do career progression and reward systems incentivize researchers to engage in knowledge transfer and valorization activities?
4
Very Effective
Strong knowledge transfer incentives
3
Effective
Good incentive systems
2
Somewhat Effective
Limited incentives
1
Not Effective
No valorization incentives
How well integrated is social impact recognition in researcher career advancement?
4
Very Well Integrated
Strong social impact recognition
3
Well Integrated
Good social impact consideration
2
Somewhat Integrated
Limited social impact recognition
1
Not Integrated
No social impact recognition

Knowledge / Technology Transfer Offices

How effective are knowledge transfer offices to detect potentially transferable research results?
4
Very Effective
Systematic detection mechanisms
3
Effective
Good detection capabilities
2
Somewhat Effective
Basic detection capabilities
1
Not Effective
Poor detection capabilities
How adequate are intellectual property management capabilities in research organizations?
4
Highly Adequate
Professional IP management
3
Adequate
Good IP management capabilities
2
Somewhat Adequate
Basic IP management
1
Inadequate
Poor IP management
How effective are KTOs to connect researchers with potential partners?
4
Very Effective
Excellent partnership facilitation
3
Effective
Good partnership connections
2
Somewhat Effective
Limited partnership facilitation
1
Not Effective
Poor partnership connections
How well do research organizations support market validation and business development of research assets?
4
Very Well
Comprehensive market validation support
3
Well
Good market validation support
2
Somewhat Well
Limited market validation
1
Not Well
Poor market validation support

Entrepreneurship Support

How effective are entrepreneurial training programs for researchers in your region?
4
Very Effective
Comprehensive training programs
3
Effective
Good training programs
2
Somewhat Effective
Basic training available
1
Not Effective
Poor or no training
How adequate is spin-off support and incubation services to transform research results into successful companies?
4
Highly Adequate
Comprehensive incubation support
3
Adequate
Good incubation services
2
Somewhat Adequate
Basic incubation support
1
Inadequate
Poor incubation support

Horizon Europe Results Valorization

To what extent do researchers benefit from support to design and implement Horizon Europe projects' communication, dissemination and exploitation strategies?
4
Extensive Support
Comprehensive CDE strategies support
3
Good Support
Regular CDE support available
2
Limited Support
Basic CDE support
1
No Support
Minimal or no CDE support
To what extent do researchers benefit from support to integrate potential end-users in the design and implementation of their projects?
4
Extensive Support
Strong end-user integration support
3
Good Support
Regular end-user integration
2
Limited Support
Basic end-user integration
1
No Support
No end-user integration support
To what extent do researchers benefit from support to design and implement open science activities in their Horizon Europe projects?
4
Extensive Support
Comprehensive open science support
3
Good Support
Regular open science support
2
Limited Support
Basic open science support
1
No Support
No open science support
To what extent do researchers benefit from support to detect and valorize interesting results and assets from Horizon Europe projects?
4
Extensive Support
Systematic valorization support
3
Good Support
Regular valorization support
2
Limited Support
Basic valorization support
1
No Support
No valorization support

Family 3: Dynamic Networks Supporting Proximity and Knowledge Valorization

This dimension assesses formal inter-organizational networks and informal interpersonal connections that facilitate knowledge exchange, collaborative innovation, and practical application of research results within the regional innovation system.

A. Quantitative Indicators

Public-private co-publications
EU Avg: 15
-
RIS
Innovative SMEs collaborating with others (%)
EU Avg: 8.9%
-
RIS

B. Perception-Based Questions

Level of Proximities

How would you rate trust levels and informal networks among innovation stakeholders?
4
Very High Trust
Strong informal networks with high trust
3
High Trust
Good networks with adequate trust
2
Moderate Trust
Some networks but limited trust
1
Low Trust
Weak networks with low trust
To what extent do different actors in your region share common knowledge bases?
4
Extensively
Strong shared knowledge bases
3
Well
Good knowledge sharing
2
Somewhat
Limited knowledge sharing
1
Minimally
Fragmented knowledge bases
To what extent does knowledge created in one sector systematically enhance innovation in other sectors within your region?
4
Extensively
Strong cross-sector knowledge flows
3
Well
Good cross-sector innovation
2
Somewhat
Limited cross-sector effects
1
Minimally
Isolated sectoral knowledge
To what extent can you observe knowledge spillovers between organizations in close geographic proximity within your region?
4
Extensively
Strong geographic knowledge spillovers
3
Well
Good proximity spillovers
2
Somewhat
Limited proximity effects
1
Minimally
No observable spillovers

Innovation Networks

How dense, diverse and effective are the informal interpersonal networks among innovation actors in your regions?
4
Very Dense & Effective
Rich interpersonal networks
3
Dense & Effective
Good interpersonal networks
2
Somewhat Dense
Limited interpersonal networks
1
Not Dense
Weak interpersonal networks
How dense and effective are the inter-organizational networks in your regional innovation system?
4
Very Dense & Effective
Strong organizational networks
3
Dense & Effective
Good organizational networks
2
Somewhat Dense
Limited organizational networks
1
Not Dense
Weak organizational networks
To what extent do companies and other organizations cooperate in your region?
4
Extensively
Strong inter-organizational cooperation
3
Well
Good cooperation levels
2
Somewhat
Limited cooperation
1
Minimally
Poor cooperation
To what extent do innovation actors engage in collaborative projects bringing together multiple type of stakeholders (academia, companies, policymakers, society) in your region?
4
Extensively
Strong multi-stakeholder projects
3
Well
Good collaborative projects
2
Somewhat
Limited collaborative projects
1
Minimally
Few collaborative projects
To what extent are staff exchange and mobility programs used by regional organizations?
4
Extensively
Active staff exchange programs
3
Well
Good mobility programs
2
Somewhat
Limited mobility programs
1
Minimally
No mobility programs
How effective are networking events in facilitating valuable connections and collaborations between stakeholders?
4
Very Effective
Excellent networking events
3
Effective
Good networking events
2
Somewhat Effective
Limited networking effectiveness
1
Not Effective
Poor networking events
How effective are quadruple helix partnerships, such as S3 communities, to facilitate collaborations?
4
Very Effective
Strong quadruple helix collaboration
3
Effective
Good collaboration across stakeholders
2
Somewhat Effective
Limited collaboration
1
Not Effective
Poor collaboration
How effective are regional clusters and their networking activities?
4
Very Effective
Dynamic clusters with strong networking
3
Effective
Good cluster activities
2
Somewhat Effective
Basic cluster activities
1
Not Effective
Weak or no clusters

Knowledge Valorization Channels

How effective are intermediary organizations (knowledge brokers, innovation agencies) in facilitating knowledge transfer?
4
Very Effective
Strong intermediary network
3
Effective
Good intermediary support
2
Somewhat Effective
Limited intermediary support
1
Not Effective
Weak intermediary support
How effective are collaborative innovation spaces (such as living labs) and platforms for knowledge exchange?
4
Very Effective
Active living labs and innovation spaces
3
Effective
Good collaborative spaces
2
Somewhat Effective
Limited collaborative spaces
1
Not Effective
No or poor collaborative spaces
How effectively do science and technology parks in your region foster networking and collaborations?
4
Very Effective
Dynamic science parks fostering collaboration
3
Effective
Good science park networking
2
Somewhat Effective
Limited science park effectiveness
1
Not Effective
Weak or no science parks
How adequate are consultancy services to SMEs for accessing research expertise?
4
Highly Adequate
Comprehensive consultancy services
3
Adequate
Good consultancy services
2
Somewhat Adequate
Basic consultancy services
1
Inadequate
Poor consultancy services
How effective is support for advancing technology or societal readiness levels of research results in your region?
4
Very Effective
Strong TRL/SRL advancement support
3
Effective
Good readiness level support
2
Somewhat Effective
Limited readiness level support
1
Not Effective
Poor readiness level support
To that extent do intermediary organizations and other valorization channels address the valorization of Horizon 2020 / Europe projects in your region?
4
Extensively
Strong Horizon project valorization focus
3
Well
Good Horizon project support
2
Somewhat
Limited Horizon project focus
1
Minimally
No Horizon project valorization

Community Integration

To what extent are community-based innovation spaces effectively implemented in your region?
4
Extensively
Strong community innovation spaces
3
Well
Good community spaces
2
Somewhat
Limited community spaces
1
Minimally
No community innovation spaces
How effectively do living labs and co-creation spaces involve end-users in innovation processes?
4
Very Effective
Strong end-user involvement
3
Effective
Good end-user involvement
2
Somewhat Effective
Limited end-user involvement
1
Not Effective
No end-user involvement
How effective are support programs for social innovation projects in your region?
4
Very Effective
Strong social innovation support
3
Effective
Good social innovation programs
2
Somewhat Effective
Limited social innovation support
1
Not Effective
Poor social innovation support

Public Innovation Infrastructure

To what extent are scientific advisory mechanisms integrated in public policies?
4
Extensively
Strong scientific advisory integration
3
Well
Good scientific advisory mechanisms
2
Somewhat
Limited scientific advisory integration
1
Minimally
No scientific advisory mechanisms
How adequate are public sector R&D and innovation procurement capabilities?
4
Highly Adequate
Strong innovation procurement
3
Adequate
Good procurement capabilities
2
Somewhat Adequate
Basic procurement capabilities
1
Inadequate
Poor procurement capabilities
To what extent does public procurement facilitate the development of innovations based on Horizon 2020 / Europe results?
4
Extensively
Strong procurement support for Horizon results
3
Well
Good procurement facilitation
2
Somewhat
Limited procurement facilitation
1
Minimally
No procurement facilitation
How effective is policy uptake of Horizon 2020/Europe research findings?
4
Very Effective
Strong policy uptake
3
Effective
Good policy uptake
2
Somewhat Effective
Limited policy uptake
1
Not Effective
Poor policy uptake

Family 4: International Openness and EU Integration

This dimension captures your region's capacity to connect with global knowledge networks, integrate the European Research Area and participate in collaborative initiatives.

A. Quantitative Indicators

Amount of structural funds dedicated to research and innovation during the 2014-2020 period (Million €)
Benchmark: €50M
-
TEDV
Amount of Horizon 2020 contribution during the 2014-2020 period (Million €)
Benchmark: €25M
-
TEDV
International scientific co-publications
EU Avg: 45.0
-
RIS
Exports of medium and high technology products (% of total exports)
EU Avg: 45.8%
-
RIS

B. Perception-Based Questions

Global Connectivity

To what extent has your region identified its competitive advantages and relevant knowledge networks?
4
Extensively
Clear competitive advantage identification
3
Well
Good advantage identification
2
Somewhat
Limited advantage identification
1
Minimally
Unclear competitive advantages
How dense and mobilizable are your region's connections to relevant knowledge networks?
4
Very Dense & Mobilizable
Strong global knowledge networks
3
Dense & Mobilizable
Good knowledge networks
2
Somewhat Dense
Limited knowledge networks
1
Not Dense
Weak knowledge networks
To what extent is your region involved in interregional collaborations?
4
Extensively Involved
Active interregional collaboration
3
Well Involved
Good interregional collaboration
2
Somewhat Involved
Limited interregional collaboration
1
Not Involved
Minimal interregional collaboration
To what extent do regional organizations detect, adapt and use relevant knowledge from external sources?
4
Extensively
Strong external knowledge absorption
3
Well
Good external knowledge use
2
Somewhat
Limited external knowledge use
1
Minimally
Poor external knowledge absorption

Knowledge Access and Talent Mobility

How successful is your region at attracting and retaining international research talent?
4
Very Successful
Strong international talent attraction
3
Successful
Good international talent attraction
2
Somewhat Successful
Limited international talent attraction
1
Not Successful
Poor international talent attraction
How well does your region support top researcher mobility using European projects (notably through ERC, MSCA and ERA-chair projects)?
4
Very Well
Strong mobility support
3
Well
Good mobility support
2
Somewhat Well
Limited mobility support
1
Not Well
Poor mobility support
To what extent does your region engage with its diaspora to facilitate knowledge flows and valorization?
4
Extensively
Strong diaspora engagement
3
Well
Good diaspora connections
2
Somewhat
Limited diaspora engagement
1
Minimally
No diaspora engagement

EU Research Infrastructure and Collaboration

How well does your region participate in European Research Infrastructure initiatives?
4
Very Well
Active participation in EU research infrastructure
3
Well
Good participation
2
Somewhat Well
Limited participation
1
Not Well
Poor participation
How well does your region contribute to EU Missions and their regional implementation?
4
Very Well
Strong EU Mission contribution
3
Well
Good Mission participation
2
Somewhat Well
Limited Mission involvement
1
Not Well
Poor Mission contribution
How active is your region in European Partnerships and Joint Programming Initiatives?
4
Very Active
Strong Partnership participation
3
Active
Good Partnership involvement
2
Somewhat Active
Limited Partnership participation
1
Not Active
Poor Partnership engagement

EU Framework Program Integration

How well does your region leverage Horizon Europe opportunities compared to its potential?
4
Very Well
Excellent Horizon Europe leverage
3
Well
Good Horizon Europe leverage
2
Somewhat Well
Limited Horizon Europe leverage
1
Not Well
Poor Horizon Europe leverage
To what extent does your region participate in Widening actions compared to its potential?
4
Extensively
Strong Widening participation
3
Well
Good Widening participation
2
Somewhat
Limited Widening participation
1
Minimally
Poor Widening participation
How effective are support services for Horizon Europe participation in your region?
4
Very Effective
Excellent support services
3
Effective
Good support services
2
Somewhat Effective
Limited support services
1
Not Effective
Poor support services
How adequate is support for EU project proposal preparation and management?
4
Highly Adequate
Excellent proposal support
3
Adequate
Good proposal support
2
Somewhat Adequate
Limited proposal support
1
Inadequate
Poor proposal support

Family 5: Facilitating Policies and Funding Synergies

This dimension examines policy environments and financial mechanisms that support knowledge valorization activities, particularly synergies between European structural funds and research programmes.

Perception-Based Questions

Knowledge Valorization Policies

To what extent does your Smart Specialisation Strategy address societal challenges?
4
Extensively Addresses
Comprehensive societal challenge integration
3
Well Addresses
Good societal challenge focus
2
Somewhat Addresses
Limited societal challenge integration
1
Does Not Address
No societal challenge focus
To what extent does your Smart Specialisation Strategy include specific objectives and measures to support knowledge valorization?
4
Extensively Includes
Comprehensive valorization measures
3
Well Includes
Good valorization objectives
2
Somewhat Includes
Limited valorization measures
1
Does Not Include
No valorization focus
To what extent does your Smart Specialisation Strategy include specific objectives and measures to support knowledge valorization for social and public innovations?
4
Extensively Includes
Strong social innovation focus
3
Well Includes
Good social innovation measures
2
Somewhat Includes
Limited social innovation focus
1
Does Not Include
No social innovation measures
How effective is support for innovation networks and intermediary organizations?
4
Very Effective
Strong network support
3
Effective
Good network support
2
Somewhat Effective
Limited network support
1
Not Effective
Poor network support
To what extent does your region provide funding resources to support collaborative R&D projects?
4
Extensively
Strong collaborative R&D funding
3
Well
Good collaborative funding
2
Somewhat
Limited collaborative funding
1
Minimally
Poor collaborative funding
How effective are support programs helping companies strengthen their R&D capabilities?
4
Very Effective
Excellent R&D support programs
3
Effective
Good R&D support programs
2
Somewhat Effective
Limited R&D support
1
Not Effective
Poor R&D support
How comprehensive and long-term is support ensuring spin-off sustainability and growth in your region?
4
Very Comprehensive
Excellent spin-off support
3
Comprehensive
Good spin-off support
2
Somewhat Comprehensive
Limited spin-off support
1
Not Comprehensive
Poor spin-off support
How accessible and effective are early-stage funding mechanisms supporting technological validation and proof-of-concept activities in your region?
4
Very Accessible & Effective
Excellent early-stage funding
3
Accessible & Effective
Good early-stage funding
2
Somewhat Accessible
Limited early-stage funding
1
Not Accessible
Poor early-stage funding
How well-developed and coordinated is your region's approach to strengthening venture capital access and risk financing?
4
Very Well-Developed
Strong venture capital ecosystem
3
Well-Developed
Good venture capital access
2
Somewhat Developed
Limited venture capital
1
Not Developed
Poor venture capital access

Integration in the European Research Area

To what extent does your region implement active participation strategies in European networks and partnerships?
4
Extensively
Strong European network participation
3
Well
Good European engagement
2
Somewhat
Limited European participation
1
Minimally
Poor European integration
How effective are peer learning networks and knowledge sharing initiatives with other EU regions?
4
Very Effective
Strong peer learning networks
3
Effective
Good peer learning initiatives
2
Somewhat Effective
Limited peer learning
1
Not Effective
Poor peer learning
To what extent do regional policies promote and support the participation in Horizon Europe?
4
Extensively
Strong Horizon Europe promotion
3
Well
Good Horizon Europe support
2
Somewhat
Limited Horizon Europe promotion
1
Minimally
Poor Horizon Europe support
To what extent do regional policies foster the detection, acquisition and absorption of external knowledge?
4
Extensively
Strong external knowledge policies
3
Well
Good external knowledge support
2
Somewhat
Limited external knowledge focus
1
Minimally
Poor external knowledge policies
To what extent does your Smart Specialisation Strategy include specific objectives and measures to support the valorization of Horizon Europe projects' results?
4
Extensively Includes
Strong Horizon valorization focus
3
Well Includes
Good Horizon valorization measures
2
Somewhat Includes
Limited Horizon valorization
1
Does Not Include
No Horizon valorization focus

Funding Synergies

To what extent are regional managing authorities aware of the concept of downstream synergies and their potential benefits for regional development and R&I valorization?
4
Fully Aware
Complete understanding of synergies
3
Well Aware
Good understanding of synergies
2
Somewhat Aware
Limited understanding
1
Not Aware
No understanding of synergies
To what extent do regional S3 governing body and managing authority cooperate together?
4
Extensively
Strong S3-MA cooperation
3
Well
Good S3-MA cooperation
2
Somewhat
Limited S3-MA cooperation
1
Minimally
Poor S3-MA cooperation
To what extent do regional managing authorities and Operational Programs explicitly commit to favour the valorization of Horizon Europe project results?
4
Fully Committed
Explicit valorization commitment
3
Well Committed
Good valorization commitment
2
Somewhat Committed
Limited commitment
1
Not Committed
No explicit commitment
To what extent does your region possess sufficient administrative capacities to effectively identify, plan and implement complex synergy mechanisms effectively?
4
Fully Sufficient
Strong administrative capacity
3
Sufficient
Good administrative capacity
2
Somewhat Sufficient
Limited administrative capacity
1
Insufficient
Poor administrative capacity
To what extent does the involvement of various authorities from different governance levels within the same Member State create complexity, inefficiencies, and overlapping roles for synergy implementation in the region?
4
No Complexity
Smooth multi-level governance
3
Minor Complexity
Well-managed governance levels
2
Moderate Complexity
Some governance challenges
1
High Complexity
Major governance inefficiencies
To what extent are beneficiaries of Horizon Europe projects, particularly researchers, aware that European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) can be used for the exploitation and further development of their project results?
4
Fully Aware
Complete ESIF awareness
3
Well Aware
Good ESIF awareness
2
Somewhat Aware
Limited ESIF awareness
1
Not Aware
No ESIF awareness
To what extent are potential beneficiaries discouraged by the administrative burden induced by ESIF funded activities?
4
Not Discouraged
Low administrative burden
3
Minimally Discouraged
Manageable administrative burden
2
Somewhat Discouraged
Moderate administrative burden
1
Highly Discouraged
High administrative burden
To what extent do timing mismatches in programming and call cycles between national/regional Operational Programmes (OPs) and EU R&I Work Programmes complicate strategic alignment and lead to funding delays for valorization efforts?
4
No Complications
Well-aligned timing
3
Minor Complications
Generally good alignment
2
Moderate Complications
Some timing mismatches
1
Major Complications
Significant timing mismatches

Assessment Results & Regional Type

Synthesis of your region's knowledge valorization profile, challenges and opportunities.

Assessment Results

Complete the assessment to see your results.

Overall Score

0
/100

Regional Type

-

Completed Indicators

0
/20

Completed Questions

0
/88

Family Scores Breakdown

Knowledge Production
0
Knowledge Organizations
0
Dynamic Networks
0
International Openness
0
Policy Synergies
0