the results of the aegis survey

Y. Caloghirou & A. Protogerou, AEGIS Survey

1

The results of the AEGIS survey

Yannis Caloghirou & Aimilia Protogerou, LIEE/ NTUA

AEGIS workshopBrussels, March 9, 2012

AEGIS BRUSSELS MEETING, 29/3/2012

A E G I SA E G I S


2

Outline of the Presentation

• The Survey: Why this survey is different from other established and regular surveys?

• The Survey: Design and Implementation.• Selected preliminary results• The comparative dimension (sectoral, group of countries..)• Combine survey results with case-study findings• Can we draw conclusions by combining findings from

different kinds of entrepreneurship surveys?• Policy Implications and (Business) Strategic Considerations



3

AEGIS Survey: a pilot for developing a new tool for Entrepreneurship Research in Europe

The AEGIS Research Consortium (FP 7 Very Large Integrated Project) is developing and testing a new tool for Studying and Monitoring Entrepreneurship in Europe in different contexts (sectoral, country and socioeconomic) with high research potential.



4

AEGIS Survey: Why is different? What is the value added? (1)

• AEGIS survey is different both from CIS and GEM surveys and any other ad-hoc surveys on entrepreneurship– CIS: measures innovative activity of all firms across sectors

in order to produce important R&D and innovation indicators

– GEM: a general population survey targeting individuals, which explores the behaviour and characteristics of nascent entrepreneurs, new entrepreneurs, and established business owners among population

– Other surveys e.g. the KfW-ZEW study which is a national study placing emphasis mainly on the firm’s competitive environment and financing/capital requirements, or the Kauffman survey in US



5

AEGIS Survey: Why is different? What is the value added? (2)

• Different focus: Knowledge Intensive Entrepreneurship (KIE)

• Wide geographical coverage (10 EU countries) Comparative Entrepreneurship

• The newly established firm is the unit of analysis, not the individual/ person (not person-centric)

• Context matters (National System of Innovation, Sectoral System of Innovation, Varieties of Capitalism/ different models, Networks,...)



6

AEGIS survey: A pilot for a Community Entrepreneurship Survey?

• AEGIS Survey: Could be considered as a pilot exercise for the design of a new instrument aiming at the identification and monitoring of Knowledge-Intensive Entrepreneurship in Europe on a regular basis.

• A Community Entrepreneurship Survey.



7

Survey Design: Who is in?• Newly established firms

– Established from 2001 to 2007 with a primary activity in pre-selected sectors (High Tech Low Tech, KIBs).

• Actually new firms but not new legal entities resulting from any type of legal transformation of already existing firms (screening questions)

• No subsidiaries of existing companies, or mergers acquisitions, or joint ventures (screening questions)



8

The survey arithmetic (numbers)• Initial population 338,000 firms based on Amadeus Database

(enriched with data from two other sources, i.e. D&B and Kompass).

• 10 countries (Sweden, Denmark, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Greece,

Portugal, Czech Republic, Croatia)• 22,000 contacts • Large questionnaire (around 300 variables). Average duration: 30

minutes.• 4,004 completed questionnaires • Field research executed by GDCC (Global Data Collection Company),

CATI type.



9

The country dimension: The 10 countries surveyed belong to 5 different models (VoC)



10

The sectoral dimension: Selected Sectors (OECD classification based on technological/ RTD

intensity)Selected Sectors NACE (rev. 1)

High-technology manufacturing sectors

Aerospace 35.3

Computers and office machinery 30

Radio-television and communication equipment 32

Manufacture of medical, precision & optical instruments (scientific instruments)

33

Pharmaceuticals 24.4

Medium to high technology manufacturing sectors

Manufacture of electrical machinery & apparatus 31

Manufacture of machinery and equipment 29

Chemical industry (excl pharma) 24 (excl. 24.4)



11

The sectoral dimension: Selected Sectors (OECD classification, EC for KIBS)

Selected Sectors NACE (rev. 1)Low-technology manufacturing sectors

Paper and printing 21,22Textile and clothing 17, 18, 19Food, beverages and tobacco 15+16Wood and furniture 20+36.1

Medium to low technology manufacturing sectors

Basic metals 27Fabricated metal products 28

KIBS*Telecommunications 64.2Computer and related activities 72Research and experimental development 73Selected business services activities 74.1-2-3-4-5-6, 74.8*

*Selection of most 4-digits sectors. Some of 74.87 (other activities) excluded AEGIS BRUSSELS MEETING, 29/3/2012


12

The size, sector and country dimension of the survey: Firm distribution per country and sector

Country Sector groups Total

High-tech Low-tech KIBS

Croatia 35 115 50 200Czech Republic 25 92 83 200Denmark 34 69 227 330France 68 196 306 570Germany 67 160 330 557Greece 22 184 125 331Italy 57 316 207 580Portugal 31 170 130 331Sweden 34 108 192 334United kingdom 47 192 332 571Total 420 1602 1982 4004AEGIS BRUSSELS MEETING, 29/3/2012


13

AEGIS SURVEY

Main findings



14

Knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship

Reminding the definition of KIE• Knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship (KIE): new firms that have a

significant knowledge intensity in their activity and develop and exploit innovative opportunities in diverse sectors

• For AEGIS knowledge-intensive entrepreneurs are:• involved in systematic, problem solving processes;• embedded in innovation systems;• affected by the institutional context;• open to innovative opportunities coming from (a) linking scientific or

technological knowledge with market needs and applications, (b) using internal to the firm and external factors and (c) accessing key knowledge and resources through networks



15

What are we looking at?• The size of the new firm.• The size of the founding team.• Ingredients of KIE: The cognitive foundations of the founding team, the educational

level of the human capital engaged in the venture, networking, sources of knowledge, innovative performance, exposure to competition, dynamic capabilities,

• The cognitive foundations of the founding group: Educational background, prior exposure to academic research, professional background, origin of ideas, sources of knowledge,

• Human Capital: educational level• Market and demand pull, technology push and underlying approaches to

entrepreneurship• The market and business environment• COMPARATIVE ENTREPRENEURSHIP: Compare specific aspects of entrepreneurship in

different groups of countries Socioeconomic regimes (VoC) Taxonomy• Knowledge and innovation based Taxonomies



16

What are we looking at? [continue]

• Reconciliation of survey results and case-study findings

• Can we draw some conclusions by combining different surveys or other sources: AEGIS, GEM, ZEW, Kaufman, OECD (?)



17

Firm size the majority of firms are micro enterprises

8.51%

63.60%

24.82%

2.79% 0.15% 0.13%

0 1-910-49 50-249250-499 (6 firms) >500 (5 firms)

• On average, 11 full-time employees ( trimmed mean 5%)

• There are 1630 firms (41%) with part-time employees.

• On average, 5.5 part-time employees (2.5 trimmed mean 5%)



18

The educational level of Human Capital

• High– 2 out of 3 of all new companies have employees

holding a University degree. – On average, these firms have 6 employees holding a

University degree. – Half of all the new companies employ people with a

postgraduate degree (PhDs included).• Higher Educational Level in Knowledge Intensive

Business Services (KIBs) compared to high and low-tech manufacturing.



19

Share of firms per sector and educational level

High

Low

KIBS

Total

64%

54%

74%

65%

40%

29%

52%

41%12%

7%14%

11%

UD

PD

PhD


The employees’ educational level is higher in knowledge-Intensive business services compared to high and low-tech manufacturing


20

Founding team size: small average size (2 persons) and male dominated (8 out of 10)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40% 37.3%34.9%

14.1%

7.6%

3.1%1.2% 0.6% 0.4% 0.8%


21

What is the Founders background?non university degree

(43%) or post-graduate degree holders incl.

PhDs (35%)

previous work experience in the

same industry

12 years professional experience

technical and engineering knowledge

15% have previous entrepreneurial

experience



22

323 firms ( 1 out of 100 )have at least one PhD founder: limited exposure to academic research

Sectoral group count %

High-tech manufacturing

43 13%

Low-techmanufacturing

61 19%

KIBS 219 68%

Total 323 100%



23

Most important drivers of firm formation

• Work experience, • Market and engineering knowledge,• Networks built during previous career, …and, New firm formation funding: Own

and family sources



24

Sources of funding for setting up a company on average 80% of funding came from the founders’ own

resources

Own financial resources

Funding from family member

Funding from previous employer

Venture capital

Funding from a bank

Public funding

EU funding

0% 50% 100%

92%

10%

28%

8%

90%

98%

95%

72%

93%

97%

Yes No




Venture capital

Funding from a bank

Public funding

EU funding

0% 50% 100%

79%

43%

44%

45%

52%

34%

34%



25

Knowledge Sources and Networking

• The most important knowledge sources are related to customers, suppliers and competitors.

• Networks are perceived as important facilitators of contacting customers.

• Formal types of agreements (e.g. strategic alliances) are relatively limited.



26

Knowledge sources: the most important one is external related to clients, suppliers and competitors


External-clients, suppliers and competitors

In-house R&D

External-Open sources

External-Public research and universities

Participation in collaborative R&D

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

3.67982017982018

3.3

2.91121378621378

2.08616383616384

1.88424075924076

Mean score


27

The importance of networking in different firm operations main facilitator to contact customers

Contacting customers/clients

Selecting suppliers

Recruiting skilled labor

Collecting information about competitors

Accessing distribution channels

Assistance in obtaining business loans/attracting funds

Advertising and promotion

Developing new products/services

Managing production and operations

Aranging taxation and other legal issues

Exploring export opportunities

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

4.1

3.4

3.3

3.2

2.9

2.4

2.8

3.3

3.0

2.8

2.4



28

Formal types of agreements (e.g. strategic alliances) are relatively limited.

Strategic alliances

R&D agreements

Technical cooperation agreements

Licensing agreements

Subcontracting

Marketing/export promotion

Research contract-out

Participated in other agreements

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

2.5

2.2

2.1

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.5

1.3



29

Firm dynamic capabilities related to market adaptation and new product development are more important than technical adaptation and participation in technology collaborations


Market adaptation

New product development capability

Networking capability

Technical adaptation

Participation in collaborations

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

3.8

3.7

2.9

2.5

1.9

Mean score


30

How innovative they are?

• 2 out of 3 firms have introduced or improved new goods/services into the market during the last three years.

• The majority of firms report that they have also introduced at least one of either process (production and delivery methods) or organizational innovation.



31

Type of product innovation


36.4%

27.6%

21.8%

14.2%

No Innovation (N=1456)

New-to-market (N=1104)

New-to-firm (N=874)

New-to-world (N=570)


32

Firms use mainly informal or semi-formal ways to protect intellectual property rights


Patents

Copyrights

Secrecy

Trademarks Trademarks

Complexity of design

Lead-time advantages on competitiors

Confidentiality agreements

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

16%

27%

40%

41%

46%

54%

55%

84%

73%

60%

59%

54%

46%

45%

Yes No


33

Market and Business Environment• In their majority, these firms have many

business competitors, while their most important customers are other business firms and organizations (mainly B2B).

• On average, 86% of their sales comes from the domestic market

• The most important obstacles of their growth are market risk/uncertainty and funding



34

Competition intensity and most important customer type the majority of firms has many business competitors

Competitors Count %Many business competitors 2349 58,7

Only a few business competitors 1374 34,3

No other business competitors 281 7,0

Total4004 100,0

Customers Count %Large firms employ >250 persons 1173 29,3

SMEs1767 44,1

Final consumers

499 12,5

Public sector363 9,1

Other202 5,0

Total4004 100,0



35

Most important type of customer per country the vast majority of customers are B2B

Croatia

Czech republic

Denmark

France

Germany

GreeceItaly

Portugal

Sweden

UK

Total

0%

50%

100%

Large firms SMEs Final consumers Public sector AEGIS BRUSSELS MEETING, 29/3/2012


36

Market and Business Environment(…cont..)

• Continuously changing taxation regulations and high tax rates are also important barriers for the firm operation and growth, but differences exist across countries

• The most important factor for achieving competitive advantage is related to addressing market and customer needs.


Performance in terms of sales: a rather mild effect of the crisis

Sales2007-2009

(avg) 2010

Decreaseover 50% 4.7% 3.3%25 to 49% 6.8% 5.6%11 to 24% 5.1% 5.4%up to 10% 3.5% 6.9%Total Decrease 20.1% 21.2%0 (neutral trend) 13.7% 19.4%Increaseup to 10% 16.5% 20.8%11 to 24% 16.2% 15.7%25 to 49% 15.3% 12.0%over 50% 18.2% 11.0%Total Increase 66.2% 59.5%


Y. Caloghirou & A. Protogerou, AEGIS Survey 37

% of firms

• Trimmed Average increase during 2007-2009: +22% •no significant differences across 3 sectoral groups, although high tech and KIBS outperform low tech• 2007-2009: better results in France, Greece, Portugal, Sweden•2010: worse results in Greece and Croatia

Performance in terms of employment: increase during 2007-2009, stability during the crisis

Employment 2007-2009 (avg) 2010

Decreaseover 50% 4.1% 2.5%15 to 49% 5.8% 4.8%up to 15% 2.8% 2.9%Total decrease 12.7% 10.2%0 (neutral trend) 44.5% 59.6%Increaseup to 10% 10.0% 10.4%11 to 49% 17.3% 13.0%over 50% 15.4% 6.7%Total increase 42.7% 30.1%



% firms

• 190 firms doubled their size during 2007-2009• Trimmed Average increase during 2007-2009: +15%• High tech firms outperform other sectors• Employment performance follows more or less the sales performance in most countries• Employment rates in high tech firms remained higher during the crisis, compared to the other 2 sectoral groups

Performance in terms of exports: those that export keep their pace in 2010

Exports 2007-2009 (avg) 2010

Decreaseover 50% 2.1% 1.1%11 to 49% 2.1% 1.7%up to 10% 1.0% 1.4%Total decrease 5.2% 4.2%0 (neutral trend) 74.0% 76.1%Increaseup to 10% 7.2% 8.3%11 to 49% 7.3% 6.8%over 50% 6.4% 4.7%Total increase 20.9% 19.8%



% of firms• Most firms do not export, but those that export kept their pace in 2010• Portuguese firms present significant exporting activity during 2007-2009, followed by Croatian firms• French and German firms underperform (due to the size of the internal market;)•High tech manufacturing firms perform better

Post crisis period• Liquidity problems in the value chain of the firms: the main characteristic

of the post crisis period, as some customers or suppliers may exit from the market.

• Increased borrowing costs after a long period of rather low interest rates will also emerge.

• On the other hand, 5 out of 9 firms agree on possible new opportunities, as restructuring could help in healthier economic conditions and maybe a new growth cycle in certain sectors

• Extent and consequences of the crisis vary in the various countries– Czech Republic, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Portugal, but also UK: major problem

are liquidity difficulties of customers and suppliers. – Italian and French firms: most pessimistic in terms of opportunities that could

be created, – Greek and Portuguese companies: concerned most with increasing borrowing

costs. • Low tech firms are anxious about increasing borrowing costs, and the

problems with suppliers and customers. Firms from KIBS sectors however, believe in opportunities that may arise in the post crisis era


41

Classification of KI ventures following the AEGIS theoretical framework (1)

KIE is associated with four basic characteristics: • it concerns new ventures,• new ventures that are innovative,• new ventures engaging in activities that are knowledge

intensive, • and finally, new ventures that are not to be found solely

in high-tech industries

The first and last conditions are satisfied a priori in our sample.AEGIS BRUSSELS MEETING, 29/3/2012


42

Classification of KI ventures following the AEGIS theoretical framework (2)

Variables used from the AEGIS survey to determine innovative ventures:• Introduction of new or developed goods/services (during the last 3 years)• Type of producr innovation (N2F, N2M, N2W)• Introduction of process and organizational innovation• Intellectual property protection methods

Variables used to determine the firm’s knowledge assets:• Knowledge-seeking activities (sources of knowledge)• Average educational attainment of the founding team• Percentage of funding coming from venture capital• Human capital (education background) & innovation input (R&D

intensity as a proxy)



43

Classification of firms in terms of KIE KIE variables “All-around

Innovators”“World-class

product Innovators”

“Followers” Total sample

Knowledge-intensive activities N=727 (23%) N=487 (15%) N=2012 (62%0 N=3226

Knowledge/External-Industry (0/1)

64% 28% 43%45%

Knowledge/External-Science (0/1)

19% 7% 6%9%

Knowledge/In-house R&D (0/1)

74% 71% 42%53%

Knowledge/External-Open sources (0/1)

42% 24% 18%24%

Knowledge/Participation in collaborative R&D (0/1)

24% 12% 7%12%



44

Classification of firms in terms of KIEKIE variables “All-around




“Initial conditions” N=727 (23%) N=487 (15%) N=2012 (62%) N=3226F-team avrg edu attainment (0/1)

20% 57% 25%29%

% capital from venture capital (0/1)

2% 7% 1%2%

Human capital & Innovation “input”

% ft employees: Graduate degree (0/1)

6% 25% 12%13%

% ft employees: PhD degree (0/1)

12% 25% 6%10%

Employee training (0/1) 60% 46% 36% 43%RD intensity (0/1) 47% 55% 17% 29%



Classification of firms in terms of KIEKIE variables “All-around




Innovation performance N=727 (23%) N=487 (15%) N=2012 (62%) N=3226Introduced new goods/services last 3 years

100% 100% 44%65%

New-to-firm (0/1) 28% 17% 21% 22%New-to-market (0/1) 48% 43% 18% 28%New-to-world (0/1) 24% 40% 6% 15%Introduced process innov. 82% 29% 35% 45%Introduced logistics innov. 80% 11% 28% 37%Introduced innovation in support activities

94% 33% 41%51%

Improved knowledge mngnt systems

87% 42% 41%52%

Changes in management structure

58% 23% 26%33%



46

Classification of firms in terms of KIE

KIE variables “All-around Innovators”

“World-class product

Innovators”


Innovation performance N=727 N=487 N=2012 N=3226

Patents 21% 30% 3% 11%

Trademarks 52% 54% 12% 27%

Copyrights 31% 41% 7% 18%

Confidentiality 64% 93% 13% 37%

Secrecy 51% 80% 6% 27%

Lead time 76% 69% 14% 36%

Complexity 61% 70% 9% 30%



47

Classification of KI ventures in the AEGIS sample of firms

• The first group, "all-around innovators”, shows a more balanced emphasis on different dimensions of innovation and relies basically in external knowledge seeking (clients, suppliers, competitors/ across the value chain)

• The second, labelled “world-class product innovators”, emphasizes new-to-world innovation drawing from in-house knowledge which in turn draws from high quality human capital (both in terms of founders and workforce).

• The third group (“followers”) clearly lags behind in all dimensions of knowledge-intensive activities and innovation; it represents what might be called “standard” entrepreneurship.



48

Comparative analysis of the two more KI groups against “followers”

• In the two more KI groups, entrepreneurial teams are more heterogeneous as regards their prior expertise and employment backgrounds than “followers”.

• When it comes to their internal management and strategic behaviour, KI ventures: – have built more strongly their R&D and product related capabilities, their dynamic

capabilities (i.e. their ability to exploit market and technical opportunities), they engage more strongly in networking and participate more heavily in various types of collaborative arrangements, and of course, spend significantly more on R&D.

– tend to pursue differentiation and focus strategies more than followers, who show more emphasis on low cost.

– are heavily geared towards international markets, presumably based on their more innovative profile.

– are found to operate in more dynamic, competitive, and perhaps less benign environments.

– seem to enjoy higher performance (average profits and average growth rates in sales) than followers.

• “World-class product innovators”, compared to “all-around innovators” and “followers” seem to address (relatively) more the sophisticated needs of the Public sector and of large enterprises rather than the needs of mass markets and small enterprises.



49

How KI ventures are distributed across sectors?

• “Followers” are more concentrated in low-tech manufacturing, medium-low manufacturing, and KI Market services

• “World-class innovators” are basically to be found in high-tech manufacturing, KI high-tech services, and in KI market services

• “All-around innovators” are more prevalent than expected in almost all types of industries, except for high-tech manufacturing

In general, therefore, industry context seems to play a role in KIE, with the qualification that all-around innovators appear to be spread in somewhat higher proportions than expected across all industries except in high-tech manufacturing.



50

How KI ventures are distributed across different Varieties of Capitalism (VoC)? (1)

The ten countries included in the AEGIS survey belong to different VoC types. They are indicatively classified in six categories:•Liberal coordinated market economies UK•Continental Europe Germany•Nordic countries Denmark, Sweden•Large Mediterranean economies / continental France, Italy•Small Mediterranean economies Greece, Portugal•X-planned economies Croatia, Czech Republic



51

How KI ventures are distributed across VoC types? (2)

• “World-class innovators” are basically found in Germany and the Nordic countries

• Mediterranean countries (incl. F and IT) have less world-class innovators than would be expected

• “All-around innovators” are basically found in Mediterranean and X-planned economies

• Followers are more or less evenly distributed except for the UK (where we find more than expected) and for Germany, where –in contrast- we find less than expected.

Taken overall, these results suggest that KIE and VoC are significantly (?) associated; KI ventures are to be found mostly in Germany and the Nordic countries. Further research and deeper intrepretation is needed.



52

How KI ventures are distributed across National Innovation Systems? (1)

Following the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) classification of National Innovation Systems the ten sample countries can be classified into:

• EIS “Leaders” Denmark, Sweden, Germany• EIS “Followers”France, UK• EIS “Moderate innovators”Czech Republic, Greece, Italy,

Portugal• EIS “Modest innovators”Croatia



53

How KI ventures are distributed across National Innovation Systems? (2)

• “World-class product innovators” are mostly found in EIS “leader” economies (i.e. Denmark, Germany, and Sweden) as would be expected.

• In contrast, in EIS ”leader” countries we find fewer “all-around innovators” than expected

• Surprisingly, there is a high concentration of KIE “followers” in EIS “follower” economies (France and UK)

• “All-around innovators” are found mostly in modest (i.e. Croatia) and moderate (i.e. Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, and Portugal) economies

The general message, therefore, is that more KI ventures are mostly to be found in leading economies and (surprisingly) in modest and moderate (in terms of NIS classification) countries.



54

Case studies results in low-tech sector KI firms

Case studies were carried out in:•27 firms •4 countries (Denmark, Germany, Greece and Portugal) •3 low-tech sectors (food beverages, textiles and clothing, basic metals and metal products)



55

Case studies results (cont.)

• Innovation and innovation strategy the way to face the competitive pressures exerted in the maturity stage of sector life cycle

• Innovation strategy has not been mainly based on formal R&D efforts

• Decisive role of external sources of knowledge, especially suppliers and customers

• Exploitation of knowledge and technologies developed in other industries (inter-industry knowledge diffusion)



56

Case studies results (cont.)

• How Knowledge Intensive firms grow and sustain their competitive position

Sector level– Expansion of sectoral knowledge base– Diffusion to the value chain– Expansion of the market and sector



57

Policy Implications and Strategic Considerations

• Entrepreneurship policy- and in particular KIE policy- is distinct from Small Business Policy. Narrow and broader definitions.

• System of policies to promote KIE (Research, Innovation, Diffusion of Technology, Education/ training , Employment) needed, not just traditional SME policies.

• Educational background (solid and higher than in the past) matters impact on Education Policy.

• Innovation and Technology Diffusion Policies matter very much.• Support not only excellent, but also locally relevant research.• Develop and upgrade the Knowledge Infrastructure.• Financing new firms (at what stage and with what kind of instruments?).• Policy coordination is a must for policy implementation.• Measuring KIE regularly Evidence based entrepreneurship policy.• Prepare a Charter for KI entrepreneurs in Europe. • ………AEGIS BRUSSELS MEETING, 29/3/2012


AEGIS and Horizon 2020• AEGIS can be related to some of the objectives of Horizon 2020

Central role of knowledge and human capital in the future of Europe

Among the objectives of Horizon 2020:• Boost European industrial leadership and competitiveness through stimulating

innovation in SMEs• Nurture fast growing SMEs• Remove barriers for entrepreneurs to bring ideas to market• Exploit strengths in design and creativity• Involve SMEs in the innovation cycle

• Launch policies to promote innovation, entrepreneurship and enhance the quality of the business environment

58AEGIS BRUSSELS MEETING, 29/3/2012


59

Thank you very much for your attention!



60

Appendix: other Results

Appendix: other Results



61

Full-time employees the majority are micro firms (q1)

8.51%

63.60%

24.82%

2.79% 0.15% 0.13%

0 1-910-49 50-249250-499 (6 firms) >500 (5 firms)

• On average, 11 full-time employees ( trimmed mean 5%)

• There are 1630 firms (41%) with part-time employees.

• On average, 5.5 part-time employees (2.5 trimmed mean 5%)



62

Share of firms per country employing university graduates (q2)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

84%76% 76% 72% 70% 67%

62% 58%52% 52%

65%

Country ShareTotal share


• 2 out of 3 firms (N= 2599) have employees with a university degree• On average, these firms have 6 employees holding a university degree


63

Share of firms per country employing post-graduates (q2)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

69%

57%50%

41%36% 35% 34% 34%

26% 25%

41%

Country shareTotal share


• 41% of firms (N= 1651) employ people with post-graduate degrees (PhDs excluded)• On average, these firms employ 4 post-graduates


64

Share of firms per country employing people with PhDs

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%16%

14%13% 13%

10%9% 8%

6% 6%4%

11%

Country shareTotal share


• 11% of firms (N= 438) have employees holding a PhD• On average, they have 2 employees with a PhD degree


65

Founders per firm: average founding team 2 persons


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40% 37.3%34.9%

14.1%

7.6%

3.1%1.2% 0.6% 0.4% 0.8%


66

Highest educational attainment of founders (q5)43% non university degree holders, 35% post-graduate degree holders (PhDs included)

1 founder

2 founders

3 founders

4 founders

all founders

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

30%

25%

30%

31%

29%

6%

4%

7%

6%

6%

PhD Postgraduate degree Bachelor degreeSecondary education Elementary education



67

Founders’ last occupation before firm establishment (q6) 40% have previous work experience in the same industry, 15% have previous entrepreneurial activity

1 F

2 Fs

3 Fs

4 Fs

Total Fs

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%44%

41%

40%

40%

41%

22%

22%

18%

14%

19%

Government employee

University or research institute employee

Unemployed

This is his/her first job

Firm owner (firm has ceased operations)

Self-employed

Firm owner (firm still in existence)

Employee in a different industry

Employee in the same industry



68

Years of professional experience (q7)almost 12 years


13.9

11.7

11.25557680051

11.9097472924188

11.6

1 Founder 2 Founders 3 Founders 4 Founders Total Founders


69

Main areas of expertise of founders (q8)50% technical and engineering knowledge


1 Founder

2 Founders

3 Founders

4 Founders

Total Founders

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%54%

49%

51%

50%

50%

25%

24%

21%

22%

23%

6%

7%

7%

6%

6%

None of these / Don't know

Finance

Marketing

Product design

General management

Technical and engineering knowledge


70

Factors influencing firm formation(q13)work experience and market knowledge are the most important formation factors

Work experience in the current activity field

Market knowledge

Technical-engineering knowledge

Networks bulit during previous career

Availability of finance

Large enough customer

Opportunity from a new market need

Design knowledge

Opportunity from technological change

Opportunity deriving for new regulations or institutional requirements

Public procurement initiative

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

8%

7%

17%

16%

27%

29%

25%

36%

36%

52%

65%

83%

73%

68%

63%

47%

47%

46%

41%

38%

24%

16%

no/low importance medium importance high/very high importance



71

Sources of funding for setting up a company(q14)on average 80% of funding came from the founders’ own resources




Venture capital

Funding from a bank

Public funding

EU funding

0% 50% 100%

92%

10%

28%

8%

90%

98%

95%

72%

93%

97%

Yes No




Venture capital

Funding from a bank

Public funding

EU funding

0% 50% 100%

79%

43%

44%

45%

52%

34%

34%



72

Competition intensity and most important customer type (q15&q17) the majority of firms has many business competitors

Competitors Count %Many business competitors 2349 58,7

Only a few business competitors 1374 34,3

No other business competitors 281 7,0

Total4004 100,0

Customers Count %Large firms employ >250 persons 1173 29,3

SMEs1767 44,1

Final consumers

499 12,5

Public sector363 9,1

Other202 5,0

Total4004 100,0



73

Type of most important type of customer per country (q17) the vast majority of customers are B2B

Croatia

Czech republic

Denmark

France

Germany

GreeceItaly

Portugal

Sweden

UK

Total

0%

50%

100%

Large firms SMEs Final consumers Public sector AEGIS BRUSSELS MEETING, 29/3/2012


74

% of sales in different type of markets per country (q16)86% in the domestic market

France

Italy

Greece

Sweden

Portugal

Germany

United kingdom

Denmark

Croatia

Czech republic

Total

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

55

47

40

43

33

42

46

35

42

35

44

36

40

47

43

52

42

38

47

40

43

42

8

13

13

14

14

15

16

18

18

22

14

% of sales in the local/regional market % of sales in the national market% of sales in the international market



75

Impact of different factors on competitive advantage (q19) most important factor adaptation to specific customer needs

Capacity to adapt the products/services to the specific needs of different customers/market

niches

Capability to offer novel products/services

Marketing and promotion activities

R&D activities

1 2 3 4 5

4.22

3.73

3.68

3.27

3.23

2.95

2.94

2.25

Mean



76

Obstacles for company growth (q20)most important obstacles are market risk and funding for growth

Difficulty in finding the necessary funding for growth investments

Difficulties in recruiting highly-skilled employees

Market risk /uncertainty

Difficulty in finding business partners

Lack of technological know-how

Technology risk / uncertainty

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

40.6%

38.3%

26.2%

49.3%

60.7%

58.8%

41.1%

40.3%

42.4%

23.3%

17.0%

15.5%

no or small obstacle obstacle of medium importance significant or very significant obstacle



77

Barriers to operate the company (q21)taxation is an most important barrier but differences exist across countries

Continuously changing taxation regulations

High tax rates

Time consuming regulatory requirements for issuing permits and licenses

Poorly enforced competition law to curb monopolistic practices

Poorly enforced property rights, copyright and patent protection

Strict property, copyright and patent protection

Government officials favor well connected individuals

Bankruptcy legislation makes immense the cost of failure

Rigid labor market legislation

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

14%

23%

26%

24%

36%

34%

42%

40%

45%

21%

16%

15%

17%

13%

12%

11%

9%

7%

36%

28%

23%

22%

21%

18%

14%

12%

8%

No barriers234Very serious barriers



78

Dynamic capabilities (q23)Sensing customer needs is the main DC

Change practises based on customer feedback

Quickly understand new opportunities to serve customers

Observe and absorb best practices

Employees frequently share practical experiences

Regularly consider changing market demands

Quickly recognise market shifts

Respond rapidly to competitive moves

Design activity is important in introducing new products/services

Implement systematic internal and external personnel training

Formal engineering and technical studies department

Formal R&D department

0% 30% 60% 90%12%

11%

12%

20%

16%

15%

16%

36%

31%

65%

66%

74%

71%

70%

66%

62%

58%

58%

45%

42%

24%

22%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree



79

Sources of knowledge for exploring business opportunities (q24) the most important knowledge sources are related to clients,

customers and suppliers

Clients or customers

Public research institutes

In-house (know how, R&D laboratories in your

firm)

Participation in nationally funded

research programmes

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.4

3.4

3.3

2.1

2.1

2.0

3.3

2.9

2.9

1.9

1.9



80

The importance of networking in different firm operationsmain facilitator to contact customers

Contacting customers/clients

Selecting suppliers

Recruiting skilled labor

Collecting information about competitors

Accessing distribution channels

Assistance in obtaining business loans/attracting funds

Advertising and promotion

Developing new products/services

Managing production and operations

Aranging taxation and other legal issues

Exploring export opportunities

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

4.1

3.4

3.3

3.2

2.9

2.4

2.8

3.3

3.0

2.8

2.4



81

Types of agreements the firm participates in (q26)formal types of agreements are ranked relatively low

Strategic alliances

R&D agreements

Technical cooperation agreements

Licensing agreements

Subcontracting

Marketing/export promotion

Research contract-out

Participated in other agreements

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

2.5

2.2

2.1

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.5

1.3



82

New or significantly improved goods or services during the past three years (per country)

Q27a. Did this company introduce new or significantly improved goods or services during the past three years?

France

Denmark

United kingdom

Germany

Sweden

Portugal

Croatia

Czech republic

Greece

Italy

Total

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

54.2%

59.4%

59.9%

60.0%

62.0%

67.4%

69.0%

69.0%

69.8%

74.1%

63.6%

Yes No

Q27b. Please estimate: The share of new or significantly improved goods to total sales

Czech republicUnited kingdom

PortugalGreeceCroatia

DenmarkGermany

ItalyFrance

Swedentotal

0.0 5.0 10.015.020.0 25.030.035.040.045.050.034.3

36.036.437.637.738.739.2

41.643.044.1

39.3

Goods

Czech republicPortugal

United kingdomCroatia

ItalyFrance

DenmarkGreece

SwedenGermany

total

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.032.2

33.834.435.0

36.637.237.838.2

41.441.9

37.1

Services



83

New or significantly improved goods or services during the past three years (per sector)

Q27a. Did this company introduce new or significantly improved goods or services during the past three years?

Other business services activities

Textile and clothing

Wood and furniture

Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c.

Paper and printing

Manufacture of metals

Food, beverages and tobacco

Research and experimental development

Computer and related activities

ICT manufacturing

Telecommunications

Chemical industry (pharmaceuticals incl)

Total

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Yes No

Q27b. Please estimate: The share of new or significantly improved goods to total sales

Telecommunications

Food, beverages and tobacco


Other business services activities


Paper and printing


Wood and furniture


Textile and clothing

ICT manufacturing


total

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0

Goods




ICT manufacturing



total

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0

Services



84

The new or significantly improved products are: (q28)

56.5%31.0%

12.5%

New to the firm New to the market New to the world



85

Methods to protect intellectual property (30)

Patents

Copyrights

Secrecy

Trademarks Trademarks

Complexity of design

Lead-time advantages on competitiors

Confidentiality agreements

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

16.5%

27.5%

40.4%

41.0%

45.8%

53.8%

54.8%

YesNo



86

Process innovation(31)

Methods of manufacturing

Logistics, supply chain

Supporting processes activities

Improved knowledge management systems

Changes in the managing structure

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

42.7%

35.0%

49.0%

49.7%

31.5%

57.3%

65.0%

51.0%

50.3%

68.5%

YesNo



87

The impact of current economic crisis(q34)

Sales

Exports

Employment

Profits

Investments

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

25%

9%

16%

22%

22%

30%

61%

61%

34%

53%

Significant increase (>5%)No significant changes (+/- 5%)Slight Decrease (-5%to -10%)Significant Decrease (-10% to -20%)Very Significant Decrease (>-20%)Don't know



88

Main findings

Knowledge sources and networking• The most important knowledge sources are

related to clients/customers and suppliers.• Networks are perceived as important

facilitators of contacting customers.• Formal types of agreements (e.g. strategic

alliances) are relatively limited.



89

Main findingsInnovation• 64% of firms have introduced improved or

new products/services into the market during the last three years

• The majority of firms have also introduced some kind of process innovation

• They mainly use informal ways to protect intellectual property


the results of the aegis survey

Documents

aegis survey2aegis survey

aegis survey55aegis

aegis survey3aegis survey

aegis survey4aegis survey

survey results

kauffman survey

presentationthe survey

us aegis brussels meeting