ANNEX III: A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO RIS3 AND ITS

(SELF-) ASSESSMENT
May 2013 The following text replaces the previous Annex III to the RIS3 Guide "Regional
research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation: Guidance for expert assessment"

This annex to the RIS3 guide is intended to provide practical tools to policy-makers, experts and
practitioners working at both national and regional level on how to approach the process of
establishing research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation and to assess them.
The tools illustrated hereafter are the outcome of a work being carried out both by the services of
the European Commission (mainly DG REGIO and the S3 Platform). They have also been
inspired by the work carried out in the context of the project Drafting and Implementing Smart
Specialisation Strategies launched by the OECD Working Group on Innovation and Technology
Policy (TIP).
Kick-start your RIS3 process1
This section is meant to inspire the very first phase of the RIS3 process and its inclusive
character: how to launch it, what to do, whom to consult? It is mainly aimed at suggesting to the
regional / national policy-maker how to address the actors of the "quadruple helix" (business,
research, public sector, civil society/users) and get their views, opinions and input to the RIS3
development process and its steps. This mobilisation of the territorial actors aims to make them
share a sense of ownership of the process, i.e. let them fully be "on board" and contribute to
developing and possibly implementing the RIS3.
A wide consultation with stakeholders and actors can lead to detecting and listening to people
who could be driving forces in the entrepreneurial discovery process and eventually mobilising
them for an appropriate priority setting process. It is thus important that the selection of the
stakeholders and actors to be consulted is done in a way that minimises the risk that incumbents
and vested interests dominate the discovery process. Detecting potential boundary-spanners2

This section takes inspiration from the "RIS3 KEY for self-assessment", which has been developed by Joanneum
Research Graz, in co-operation with and funded by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science and Research (BMWF),
in the context of the project Drafting and Implementing Smart Specialisation Strategies (2011-2012) launched by
the OECD Working Group on Innovation and Technology Policy (TIP). It provides four sets of complementary
questions that are addressing all relevant dimensions of a region/country ready and willing to start its RIS3
development process: enterprises, science / knowledge & creative institutions, public administration and the
regional innovation system as a whole covering interactions between all those entities. The RIS3 KEY is available
at http://www.era.gv.at/space/11442/directory/27668/doc/27669.html.

Boundary spanners and their functions are particularly detailed in "Connecting Universities to Regional Growth:

between different stakeholder/interest groups, new innovative entrepreneurs, hidden champions,

or persons with a potential for this is one of the aims of this first step.
The kick-start phase could include a consultation based, for instance, on the following questions:
To business actors (include manufacturing and services, primary sectors, financial sector, creative
industries, social sector, large firms, established SMEs, young entrepreneurs, e.g. in incubators,
possibly students with business ideas, possibly cluster and business organisations, possibly multinationals that have expressed interest in investing in a region or country)
Which type of assets, skills, expertise and knowledge do you have that make your firm different
from competitors and can give you a competitive advantage?
What are the competitive advantages of your European or international rivals?
Which technologies, products, and global market opportunities do you conceive as very
promising for the upcoming decade (in general, not only for your firm)?
What upcoming threats and challenges do you see for your firm in the next decade?
Do you usually work with suppliers, cooperation partners or customers outside your region/
country? To which destinations do most of your exports go?
Has your firm developed an innovation in the last 3 years? (incl. based on research, technological
development, process, organisational or marketing innovation, new business models, new
combination of existing knowledge )
Where do you get your ideas for innovation from? (e.g. clients, competitors, regional universities
or from international R&D partners, if in-house staff: which department (sales, development,
production, purchase, marketing, design )
How do you assess the climate for entrepreneurship in your region/country? Is it easy in your
region/country to pursue innovative business ideas? Are people (incl. young people, university
graduates, etc.) keen to start up their own business or do they rather prefer jobs in established
enterprises or public sector? If not, what are the main barriers?
Does the research and innovation support offered in your region/country correspond to your
needs? What would be suitable incentives / conditions for you to decide to invest (more) into
research and innovation?
Do you know the research and education fields of the nearest universities? Do you cooperate with
them?
Do you easily find staff, in particular highly qualified personnel, in your region/country (e.g. the
local university) or do you need to look further afield?
To research actors (public and private research bodies, universities, science and technology parks,
etc.)
In which fields is your institution fit to put itself on the map as a recognised world-class place of
competence (research, infrastructure and teaching)?
Where are potential partners, where are the main competitors located?
Which emerging new scientific competences (other than mentioned above) do you have?
Which research issues and future technologies do you conceive as most promising (not only
technological / natural sciences, but also social sciences, arts, etc.)?
With which enterprises or research institutes in your region/country do you cooperate and in
which field? (both in terms of skills development /training and research related activities) Do you
get a part of your budget from private investors?
A Practical Guide", available at http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities/research-andinnovation/documents/connecting_universities2011_en.pdf.

Do enterprises in your region/country hire your graduates? If not, why do you think is this so? Do
you maintain contacts to graduates who left the region/country to find employment or business
opportunities elsewhere?
How much mobility is there between the public science and education and the private sector (i.e.
are graduates/engineers/professors moving between universities and firms and back; are
entrepreneurs/managers invited to lecture in universities)?
Do you train students and graduates to become entrepreneurs? Is there any cooperation between
the science/technology, business and arts faculties?
How much do you cooperate with international/European partners (e.g. via the Research
Framework Programme/Horizon 2020, Competitiveness and Innovation Programme/COSME,
EUREKA, EIT, COST, etc.)?
What important research infrastructure and creativity hotspots are established in your region/
country? Can you access infrastructure/hotspots in other regions/countries?
Are you content with the working conditions for researchers in your region/country?
How many permanent/temporary international research fellows, professors, and students are in
your institution?

To public sector actors (administrations if relevant at different government levels, agencies e.g. for
regional development, business advice, public procurement offices, incubators, etc.):
Do you know who are the main research and innovation actors in your region/country? Which are
their fields of competence? Do you know who in your region/country participated in the EU
Research Framework Programme or the competitiveness and Innovation Programme?
Do you know who registered in the past 2-3 years European Patents in your region/country?
In which sectors do you have most start-ups in your region/country? and which seem to
survive and grow after 5 years?
Which are the fastest growing firms or biggest exporters in your region/country? Do you know on
what they base their success and with whom they cooperate?
What are the main needs of innovative firms in your region/country to grow and invest in your
territory?
Besides science or technology driven innovation, which other forms of innovation/economic
transformation do you support in your region? Who are the private innovation support providers
(B2B) and what support do they offer? What support is on offer in neighbouring regions/
countries? are your support bodies cooperating beyond the boundaries of your region/country?
How is the funding for business support services allocated: to existing bodies or via a competition
among potential service providers?
What are the results of evaluations of innovation and business support in your region/country?
(research and development, testing, prototyping, technology transfer, counselling, incubators,
cluster / networking initiatives, science and technology parks, support for creative thinking /
design, technology audits, LivingLabs, proof of concept, etc.) What main lessons have been
learnt?
Which department(s) is/are in charge of innovation policies and budgets? How do you cooperate
with the different governance levels and departments in charge of research, innovation, business
development and skills?
What is the budget allocated to research and innovation by your region / country? Are the
schemes revolving or grant-based? Are they allocated on the basis of a competition based on
quality? Are the financial support schemes designed to generate synergies and cooperation with
private financing bodies and investors?
Where does the funding in R&D and innovation go to: rather to individual projects (research, or
to development, demonstration, technological validation, testing in system environments,

development of prototypes, support to set up production lines), to universities vs. enterprises, to

improving the innovation eco-system (innovation support services, networking / platforms,
incubation, training, mobility and access to human resources, etc.)?
Did your organisation carry out the procurement of innovative solutions (based not only on the
price, but on demanding performance specifications and with selection of the bids based on the
cost-benefit ratio, possibly in a life-cycle perspective)?
Which future procurement needs will require innovative solutions as existing products / services
are not satisfying or too expensive? Have you explored what is the state of the art regarding
performance levels, who could deliver them and whether you could regroup your purchase with
that of other procurers to attain scale effects?

To civil society / users (NGOs and citizens initiatives related to societal challenges for which
innovative solutions would be helpful, consumers associations, etc.),
How fit is your regional science/enterprise/creativity/skills potential to address societal challenges
(e.g. health and ageing, climate change, pollution, traffic, energy, social inclusion, etc.)?
Which were your favourite innovations over the past 10 years?
Which are the types of innovations that you would like to get in the future? (private and public
sphere, radical and incremental or based on a new combination of existing solutions)
What would be your vision/dream for innovation-driven transformations in your region / country?
As for the tackling of major societal challenges (in particular as regards environment and social
challenges) not only technical and other innovations are necessary, but also behavioural changes,
what would be necessary to make you change your behaviour?
And a common question for all:
What could you personally contribute to an innovation-driven economic transformation of the
region for higher added value and better living conditions? (contribution not so much in the
financial sense, but in terms of ideas, bringing different stakeholders together, drive cooperation
processes, etc.)

Such a shift towards a "quadruple helix" approach can further reduce the risks of incumbents
dominating the scene, and allow at the same time participation by a number of actors which are
usually neglected or marginalised in policy making processes.
As pointed out in the core text of the RIS3 guide, "in the Open Innovation era, where social
innovation and ecological innovation entail behavioural change at the individual and societal
levels if the challenges of health, poverty and climate change are to be addressed, the territorial
governance system should be opened to new stakeholder groups coming from the civil society
that can foster a culture of constructive challenge to regional status quo.
In particular, it is imperative that new demand-side perspectives, embodied in innovation-user or
interest groups of consumers, are represented along with intermediaries who offer a knowledgebased but market-facing perspective. This means that the traditional, joint-action management
model of the triple helix, based on the interaction among the academic world, public authorities,
and the business community, should be extended to include a fourth group of actors representing
a range of innovation users, obtaining what is called a quadruple helix."
An inclusive and "quadruple-helix" approach would subsequently pave the way to a
comprehensive entrepreneurial discovery process. This process could be reinforced through the

involvement of boundary spanners, who work on eliminating barriers and connecting people and
institutions which traditionally do not cooperate with each other. This work facilitates
considerably, inter alia, detecting rent-seekers and dealing with incumbents.
In the kick-start phase, it appears essential to set the most appropriate conditions for the
development of entrepreneurial discovery in the regional/national context.
One key issue is: how to manage the entrepreneurial discovery process? For instance, it is
essential to identify (e.g. in the framework of the analytical work carried out under step 1 of this
Guide) and discuss with the relevant partners: (i) which enterprises invest in offering next
generation of technology products/services/solutions (e.g. robotics, nano, bio, advanced ICT,
), (ii) which businesses enhance their competitiveness in traditional sectors (use of KETs,
outsourcing, near-shoring, ), (iii) which entities enhance productivity in non-tradable services,
accessing specialised professional services (seed capital, IPR, ), (iv) which SMEs reward
innovative staff members or purchase non-technology innovative support services3, (v) which
knowledge and research institutions have an impact on regional/national growth, (vi) which are
the anchorage firms in the region.
Finally, the kick-start process should not only be targeted to the regional/national innovation
system and its actors, but should include analysis and involvement of the actors of connecting the
region/country to the "rest of the world", in terms of business/trade/markets, knowledge
production and use, cultural and social linkages. The mutual learning and cross-feeding
dimensions should not be underestimated as important engines for the development of a sensible
process of priority setting (step 4 of this Guide).
In conclusion, one can conceive a five-phase approach to kick-start the RIS3 process for your
region/country4:
1. initiate the self-assessment process and identify the relevant stakeholders in the wider
perspective illustrated above;
2. prepare for the self-assessment: contact relevant stakeholders, distribute the guiding
questions and organise necessary steps and milestones;
3. perform the assessment of each dimension (enterprises, knowledge institutions,
government, civil society, boundary spanning, connections to the "rest of the world");
4. adopt a mutual outside view (cross-dimension assessment);
5. prepare a first analysis (as illustrated in step 1 of this Guide) as starting point for the RIS3
process. Use it for the development of a shared vision (step 3 of this Guide). Use the
experience gained in the kick-start process for the development of a sound governance
system (step 2 of this Guide).

3
4

This paragraph has been elaborated following an original idea by Christian Saublens, EURADA.
This five-phase approach is directly inspired by the mentioned RIS3 KEY.

Assess your strategy a questionnaire for RIS3 expert- and self-assessment5

As in any strategic process, the RIS3 is a mid- to long-term process with a number of
intermediate steps and checks.
The questionnaire for RIS3 expert and self-assessment is intended to provide a tool for policymakers, experts and practitioners to assess how far a country or region has gone towards the full
appropriation of the RIS3 process, i.e. whether its features have been acknowledged, dealt with
and incorporated into their own research and innovation strategy for smart specialisation.
Thanks to its comprehensive approach, the questionnaire allows tackling all the elements of the
RIS3 process and supports the most important novelties of the RIS3 approach notably:

the place-based approach of the strategy, both in terms of local

assets/strengths/weaknesses and in terms of connectivity;
the diagnosis of available capabilities for entrepreneurial discovery of future
specialisations;
the "collaborative leadership" governance approach;
the priority setting and its logic;
the coherence between priorities and policy mix (including financial resources);
the use and availability of indicators.

Therefore, the questionnaire helps to highlight both the strong and weak elements of the RIS3
process. It can thus facilitate an understanding of which elements need further analysis and work.
The questionnaire has been used throughout 2012 by the Commission services, namely by DG
Regional Policy and the S3 Platform, in their "test exercise" on informal expert assessment of
RIS3 for a limited number of regions to be treated as examples.
As a self-assessment tool, it can also be used to support focusing the negotiation and
implementation process of EU cohesion policy programmes in particular their links to national or
regional research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation.
Who should use the questionnaire?
The questionnaire is intended to serve for both expert- and self-assessment. This means that a
number of players in the RIS3 community would benefit from its use:

policy-makers at national and regional level, namely those dealing with the decisionmaking process on territorial research and innovation strategies and on funding
programmes (in particular EU Structural Funds);

The questionnaire has been originally drafted by the Commission services - DG Regional Policy with the cooperation of the JRC - S3 Platform.

experts co-operating with policy-makers (at any territorial level) in the preparation,
implementation, evaluation and further upgrade of national or regional research and
innovation strategies;
policy-makers involved in multi-level governance processes (for instance, national
policy-makers working on taking account of regional specificities and needs in the
process of preparing and implementing national strategies, or EU policy-makers
assessing national and regional strategies while negotiating and implementing EU-funded
programmes such as cohesion policy operational programmes.

The questions
1. Is the strategy based on an appropriate stakeholder involvement? How does it support the
entrepreneurial discovery process of testing possible new areas?
1.1 Has the strategy been developed through a broadly-based process of direct stakeholder
involvement, including mainly national/regional government and agencies, entrepreneurs,
knowledge providers but also other/new stakeholders with the potential for innovative
contributions (such as innovation users, or groups representing demand-side perspectives, and
also the civic society), through measures such as surveys, consultations, dedicated working
groups, workshops, etc.?
1.2 Has this process been adequately described or referred to in the submitted document?
1.3 Is there an identified leader or steering team of the RIS3 process? If yes, who is it? Does it
include managing authorities? Does the strategy identify the relevant regional entrepreneurs
involved in the process?
1.4 Have boundary spanners been identified?6 In order to ensure that all stakeholders own and
share the strategy, do governance schemes allow for collaborative leadership with no fixed
hierarchies and more flexible mechanisms? Has the risk of being captured by vested interests,
incumbents and interest groups that are not favourable to economic change been appropriately
managed?
1.5 Does the governance structure have a dedicated Steering Group/Knowledge Leadership
Group, a Management Team, Working groups, and flagship projects?
1.6 Is the priority-setting in the strategy based on an identification of market
opportunities/economic potential informed by an entrepreneurial search/discovery process, i.e.
by a process foreseen to identify and test specific entrepreneurial opportunities?7 Which tools
have been identified and used to "listen" to entrepreneurial actors?
6

Actors have to find their own way to collaborate and manage potential conflicts, and when actors are many and
varied this can be difficult. So-called boundary spanners are particularly needed boundary spanners are people
or organizations that have interdisciplinary knowledge or proved experience of interaction with different actors,
and that can help moderating the process.
In this context entrepreneurial search or discovery is to be understood broadly, as a combinatorial process that is
not confined to the private sector but a synthesis and integration of dispersed and fragmented global and local

2. Is the strategy evidence-based? How have areas of strength and future activity been identified?
2.1 Does the strategy include/build on a sound analysis of the country's/region's existing situation
with regard to scientific/technological and economic specialisations or refer to such an
analysis/related study? Does it include an analysis of the entrepreneurial environment?
2.2 Is it based on a sound assessment of the competitive assets of the country/region, including
an analysis of its strengths, weaknesses and bottlenecks and prospects for future development?
2.3 Is the adopted view of innovation wide enough to cover many fields at many levels not
just hard-core technologies, not just high-tech industries, but also social, ecological, and service
innovation?
2.4 Besides a SWOT analysis, what other quantitative and qualitative information/methods have
informed the strategy (e.g. cluster analysis, value chain analysis, peer review, foresight)?
2.5 Does the document propose a vision for the country/region? Is this vision clearly described,
credible and realistic?
3. Does the strategy set innovation and knowledge-based development priorities? How have
potential areas of future activity been identified? How does it support the upgrading of existing
activities?
3.1 Does the strategy outline a limited set of innovation and knowledge-based8 development
priorities?
3.2 Are these priorities sufficiently specific identifying existing/potential niches for smart
specialisation and related upgrading of existing activities or potential future activities? Are these
priorities linked to those activities where entrepreneurial actors might disclose economic
differentiation potential and competitive advantage?
3.3 Do the thematic priorities chosen in the strategy reflect the description and analysis of the
national/regional economic structure, competences and skills?
3.4 In addition to technological or sectoral priorities, does the strategy pay attention to
horizontal-type of priorities, e.g. the diffusion of Key Enabling Technologies, or social and
organizational innovations?

knowledge (technological, business and societal) to inform S3 choices and identify opportunities for the
country/region to expand/ into new domains. Thus entrepreneurial actors should be understood in a broad sense.
This category could and should include universities, research centres, technology transfer centres, and also public
authorities and bodies responsible for national/regional development - organizations that are all repositories of
some form of entrepreneurial knowledge.
8
Incl. non-technological and service-sector innovation

3.5 Does the strategy take into account considerations of achieving critical mass and/or critical
potential in the priority areas selected?
4. Does the strategy identify appropriate actions? How good is the policy mix?
4.1 Does the strategy include action lines and/or realistic roadmaps in line with the objectives?
Are these sufficient to reach the objectives?
4.2 Does the strategy indicate which bodies are responsible for the implementation of these
action lines/roadmaps?
4.3. How does the strategy support/facilitate:

cross-clustering and the identification of innovation opportunities at the interface between

different disciplines/industries/clusters?
entrepreneurship and the innovation capabilities of SMEs, for instance by facilitating the
diffusion and adaption of technologies, incl. key enabling technologies?9
the improvement of demand-side conditions and especially public procurement as a driver
for innovation?
Are there sector-specific support services/schemes foreseen?
4.4 Does the document outline measures to stimulate private R&D&I investments, for instance
through public private partnerships? Does it demonstrate/aim at financial commitment of the
private sector with the strategy?
4.5. Does the strategy identify budgetary sources, and does it present indicative budget
allocations?
4.6 Does it include a sufficiently balanced mix of soft innovation support services and financial
instruments? Does it foresee an appropriate mix of grants, loans and financial engineering
(venture capital)?
5. Is the strategy outward looking and how does it promote critical mass/potential?
5.1 Does the strategy take into account the competitive position of the country/region with regard
to other countries/regions in the EU and beyond, inflows and outflows of knowledge and skills,
as well as its positioning within global value chains?
5.2 Does it foster the internationalisation of SMEs and does it stimulate clusters/initiatives to
make connections within international/global value chains?
5.3. Does it foster strategic cooperation with other countries/regions (please note whether the
country/region foresees the allocation of mainstream Structural Funds within their Operational
Programmes and/or cooperation through INTERREG)?
9

The six KETs are: nanotechnology, micro-nanoelectronics, advanced materials, photonics, industrial biotechnology
and advanced manufacturing systems.

5.4 Are sufficient efforts being made with regard to avoiding imitation, duplication and
fragmentation, in particular with regard to what is happening in neighbouring countries and
regions?
6. Does the strategy produce synergies between different policies and funding sources? How
does it align/leverage EU/national/regional policies to support upgrading in the identified areas
of current and potential future strength?
6.1 Is the strategy and its priority-setting complementary to national-level priorities, e.g. is it in
line with the National Reform Programme, and is it in synergy with national research/education
policies?
6.2 Is the strategy based on inter-departmental/inter-ministerial/inter-agency coordination and
cooperation covering relevant policies, in particular between research/science policies and
economic development policies, but also with regard to other relevant policies such as for
instance education, employment and rural development policies? Does it assess/take into account
the existing level of policy coordination within the country/region?
6.3 Does the strategy include a framework outlining available budgetary resources for research
and innovation, including clear reflection/proposal on how to exploit synergies between different
European, national and regional funding sources, in particular between ERDF and Horizon 2020,
but also with other key programmes such as ESF, EAFRD and COSME? Does it consider both,
upstream and downstream actions to and from Horizon 2020 financed by Cohesion Policy?10
6.4. Has an indicative multi-annual plan for budgeting and prioritization of investments linked to
EU priorities, and, where appropriate ESFRI, been adopted? How does the strategy link to
relevant European research infrastructures (ESFRI) as well as to smaller national and regional
partnering facilities?
7. Does the strategy set achievable goals, measure progress? How does it support a process of
policy learning and adaptation? How is it to be communicated?
7.1 Does the document identify concrete, achievable goals? Does it identify output and result
indicators and a realistic timeline for these goals?
7.2 Does the country/region have a sound governance and monitoring system in place to
implement, monitor and evaluate the national/regional innovation strategy? Does this support a
process of continuous policy learning and adaptation? If not, are actions foreseen to build up
capabilities for that?
10

Upstream actions aim at preparing regional R&I players/teams to participate in Horizon 2020. This may involve
enhancing R&I infrastructures, the modernisation of universities and research organisations as well as developing
technology auditing, international partner search and information campaigns to stimulate and facilitate participation
in Horizon 2020. Downstream actions aim to diffuse R&I results from Horizon 2020 swiftly into the market. These
might include pilot plants and demonstration sites, proof of concept and early stage financing incubation facilities,
applied research, specific industrial and technology transfer capabilities and cluster support.

10

7.3 Has peer-review been taken into account, namely as a way of having a direct contact with
potential partners for cooperation or with people that might have already experienced some of
the problems the country/region is facing?
7.4 How is the strategy to be communicated to stakeholders and the general public? What are the
mechanisms for ensuring support for the strategy from critical groups and the active participation
of such groups in its implementation?
8. What are the conclusions and which advice can be given to improve the strategy?
8.1 In case the strategy is based on an earlier strategic exercise/innovation strategy, has it been
appropriately reviewed and updated? What is done/going to be done differently as a consequence
of the strategy and process compared to the previous/existing economic strategy?
8.2 Can the strategy be regarded as a national/regional research and innovation strategy for smart
specialization in the sense of the CPR? What are its strong aspects? What are its weaker parts?
8.3 What aspect needs to be changed/improved? Feel free to add any other comment you may
have that could help the country/region to improve its RIS3 process and strategy. Focus on a
limited number of key issues to put forward to the national/regional policy makers as elements to
discuss and cater for in the next future.
A synthetic tool to position yourselves and your RIS3 the "RIS3 assessment wheel"11
The development of a tool for the synthetic representation of the progress made in
drafting/designing a RIS3 allows condensing a huge amount of information in one visual
modality. Although limitations might play a significant role, namely those linked to making a
complex process appear simple, the assessment "wheel" can usefully support a number of
activities, e.g. self-assessments, peer-reviews, expert contributions, presentations at
dissemination, discussion and negotiation meetings, etc.
The "wheel" is built on the basis of the six steps described in this Guide and the identification of
three critical factors for each of the steps.
The scaling tool (from 0 to 5) estimates the seriousness of the evidence provided in the process
as far as each critical factor is concerned with the following meaning:
0 = no information available on the specific element
1 = poor
2 = to be improved
3 = fair
11

The final layout of the self-assessment "wheel" was elaborated by the S3 Platform on the basis of the original
contribution and proposal by Christian Saublens, Executive Manager of EURADA the European Association of
Development Agencies.

11

4 = strong
5 = excellent
Once the assessment complete, the final result would appear in a form of "spider graph" where
the strongest and weakest positioning would be easily highlighted. This immediate visual
recognition of strengths and weaknesses would allow focusing further activity such as:

completion / upgrade of the national or regional RIS3;

appropriate consideration of territorial features, priorities and needs in the multi-level
governance process at country level;
preparation and negotiation of funding programmes such as the EU cohesion policy
operational programmes;
reviews, comparisons and benchmarking;
reflection on training/coaching activity needed in a particular defined segment;
definition of co-operation activities and establishment of mutual learning / twinning tools.

12

The "wheel" is available on the S3 Platform website at http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ris3assessment-wheel . It can be downloaded or used on-line with interactive features which allow
uploading the grading referred to each critical factor and releasing your specific assessment
profile.
Below is a quick guide to use the "wheel".
Please note that the concise explanatory table below is just a quick reference tool to assist you
with the assessment of the regional/national RIS3 using the steps of the RIS3 Guide. Therefore, a
thorough evaluation exercise requires an assessment of the region/country according to the
detailed definitions/explanations available in the RIS3 Guide and Annexes.

RIS3 Guide
Steps

STEP 1
ANALYSIS OF
REGIONAL /
NATIONAL
CONTEXT

STEP 2
GOVERNANCE

STEP 3
SHARED VISION

STEP 4
IDENTIFICATION
OF PRIORITIES

Marks

RIS3 Guide
reference

Regional /
National Assets

0 to 5

Step 1 (page 18) +

Annex I (pages 2833)

Outward
Dimension

0 to 5

Step 1 (page 19) +

Annex I (pages 2833)

Entreprenurial
Dynamics

0 to 5

Step 1 (page 20) +

Annex I (pages 2833)

Governance
Structures

0 to 5

Broad
Participation

0 to 5

Management &
Communication

0 to 5

Broad View of
Innovation

0 to 5

Grand Challenges

0 to 5

Scenario
Analysis

0 to 5

Revision of Past
Priorities

0 to 5

Consistency

0 to 5

Sections

Step 2 (page 21) +

Annex I (pages 3444)

Step 3 (page 22) +

Annex I (pages 4550)

Step 4 (page 22) +

Annex I (pages 5152)

Short explanatory
- regional / national assets'
endowment
- SWOT
- innovation potential & skills for
knowledge based development
- connectivity - knowledge, trade &
skills flows
- positioning in trans-regional and
international value chains
- trans-regional/international
collaboration networks
- start-ups, clusters, entrepreneurial
networks
- FDI
- new forms of self-employment, etc.
- identification of specific bodies and
definition of their tasks, roles and
responsibilities
- interactive, consensus-based
application of collaborative leadership
principles
- quadruple helix actors (involvement
of boundary spanners)
- use of open forum discussion and
citizen dialogue
- e-governance
- are social, organisational, service
and market innovation considered
beside technological and science
based innovation?
- societal inclusive, environmental and
sustainable economic development
- risk assessment and contingency
plan for possible future changes
- critical revision of past experiences
(from RIS to RIS3)
- dynamic identification of actual or
potential areas with competitive
advantages
- alignment with context analysis and
harvesting of entrepreneurial
discoveries and DAE

13

RIS3 Guide
Steps

STEP 5
POLICY MIX

STEP 6
MONITORING &
EVALUATION

Sections

Marks

Critical Mass

0 to 5

Roadmap

0 to 5

Balance

0 to 5

Framework
Conditions

0 to 5

Output & Result

Indicators

0 to 5

Monitoring

0 to 5

RIS3 Update

0 to 5

RIS3 Guide
reference

Step 5 (page 23) +

Annex I (pages 5358)

Step 6 (pages 2425) + Annex I

(pages 59-64)

Short explanatory
- concentration of resources to the
limited number of priorities
- including action plan and pilot
projects
- appropriate mix of targeted and
horizontal measures
- e.g. allowing for support to
experimentation, etc.
- selection of a limited number of
output & result Indicators linked to
priorities with clearly identified
baselines and targets
- mechanisms, supported by
appropriate data collection, to verify
how the activities in the RIS3 are
delivering the output and result
targets
- revision of priorities and policy mix
as a result of the monitoring exercise

14