Siep Littooij, Liaison partnering & Innovation, Saxion Research & Graduation School, Saxion UAS
Leon Cremonini, EU research strategy advisor, Saxion Research & Graduation School, Saxion UAS
As Europe prepares for the next Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (FP10), we have a timely opportunity to rethink how we promote regional competitiveness. Across the continent, universities of applied sciences are playing an increasingly visible role in driving innovation. But this can no longer remain a generic mission statement; it is a practical responsibility, contingent on how effectively we collaborate within a broader ecosystem in which industry, government, and society are all invested. What matters most is not simply building successful project consortia, but how collaboration in the ecosystem is governed, organised, and sustained. It is prime time to shift the focus, and to redefine what it means for collaborations to be fit for purpose.
This was the starting point of the discussion we led at EURASHE’s 34th Annual Conference, where we introduced the concept of “venues of collaboration”: real, structured environments where stakeholders work together toward regional innovation. These “venues of collaboration” go beyond project-based consortia. Centres of Expertise, Living Labs, and university-industry hubs such as TValley and E³UDRES²’s Applied Research Centres exemplify these dynamic spaces, where knowledge is generated, agendas are aligned, and regional development is fostered.
We argued that collaboration venues deserve proper recognition (and tailored support), over and beyond project consortia. That is why we started work on a Collaboration Continuum Framework – a practical tool to help identify how collaboration is governed: where are decisions are made? How does stakeholder influence evolve over time (both within and beyond project phases)? A framework like this can help design fit-for-purpose collaboration from the outset.
To be effective, collaboration requires fluid governance arrangements. Let us take, for example, the issue of ownership across project phases. Initial idea generation may rest with the knowledge institution, which – ipso facto – owns the “proposition.” Yet at the implementation and exploitation phases, ownership can (and should) shift to industry partners. This is exactly where traditional project consortia fall short. Their governance is defined in partnership agreements fixed for the project’s duration. Such arrangements are not designed to support the kind of multi-level, fluid decision-making that reflects how innovation actually matures into practice.
Fit-for-purpose collaboration requires venues that allow for multi-level, fluid governance and decision-making processes – including the option to end a collaboration or shift to new, more suitable forms, particularly as aspects such as intellectual property or product exploitation evolve. This key message resonated strongly with colleagues. How do we design collaboration spaces that truly drive inclusion, impact, and regional competitiveness? What kind of policy tools do we need to support this shift? And what features should this framework have to be operational?
The feedback was clear: there is strong demand for more nuanced, adaptable approaches that redefine governance structures in both existing and future collaborations. A co-created Collaboration Continuum Framework can support this shift – not only as an evaluation tool, but also as a guide for continuous learning and strategic development.
This contrast reveals a dissonance between reasonable ends and deficient means. EU innovation policy aims to foster meaningful collaboration, but evaluation frameworks still revolve around consortia, often designed to meet eligibility checklists. The assumption that forming a consortium automatically leads to effective collaboration is a false causality that puts into question the capacity of current policy to support truly impactful partnerships.
To move forward, we propose co-developing as a UAS community a concrete framework to support our collective influence on three key shifts in EU research and innovation policy:
1. Embed collaboration venues into FP10 and beyond
Future EU programmes should include dedicated instruments (including, inter alia, evaluation mechanisms) that recognise and support collaboration venues with demonstrable regional relevance and long-term potential.
2. Evaluate collaboration venues, not project consortia
Current EU evaluation criteria reward formal consortium structures. But what we need to measure is the fitness for purpose of the collaboration venue itself – especially how it is governed and how stakeholders contribute to, and take ownership of, outcomes along the innovation production line.
3. Adopt new evaluation criteria tailored to venues
Our proposed Collaboration Continuum Framework seeks to map venues on key dimensions such as stakeholder influence, governance balance, and societal readiness. We propose that societal readiness – a scale that supplements Technology Readiness Levels – should be further developed as a central criterion for assessing a collaboration’s added value and its capacity to promote regional competitiveness.
