ICT and innovation study

[...] * Ensure long-term planning combined with open evaluation and acceptance of failure: ecosystems grow organically over time. 4/5 year is the minimum timespan needed to see results. Evaluation is necessary, but results can’t be expected before 4/5 years and key performance indicators should be designed at the strategic level. Failure should be “normal” at the project level, indeed a low rate of project failure could be seen not as a success but as a failure indicator of the programme, because it could reveal the lack of truly innovative projects. Funders should also be evaluated by the recipients, through a sort of “rateyourfunders.com” approach, where different criteria should be applied (speed of response, burocratic load, flexibility in the system, value added offered by the programme in terms of connection…).
Sum2, LLC
innovation incubators and KPI metrics are different from sme incubators... a shotgun goal to fund a number of ideas (start-ups) is not an efficient metric... return on capital employed, spin-offs or cluster formation around a funded project... creating value not immediately monetized is a critical pursuit... (Bell Labs/Xerox)but the innovation incubators had clearly defined monetization channels... sustainability different valuation metric than short term profitability... other KPIs environmental impact, social risk mitigation, positive macroeconomic benefits...
Sum2, LLC, 28/03/2014 15:04
StartUps.be
identifying cases of successful stepping up after failure is critical here to develop relevant role models => successful entrepreneurs and other societal role models that are willing to open up on the mistakes and failures they faced, entrepreneurs moving on from bankruptcy, etc - with good storytelling skills these could be inspirational cases! Cfr. Failing Forward conference: http://failingforward2013.word...
StartUps.be, 07/04/2014 08:08