• No results found

An interdisciplinary approach on the role of regional governmental authorities within the Hydrogen Innovation Hub Almelo.

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "An interdisciplinary approach on the role of regional governmental authorities within the Hydrogen Innovation Hub Almelo."

Copied!
26
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Hydrogen innovation hub Almelo

An interdisciplinary approach on the role of regional governmental authorities within the

Hydrogen Innovation Hub Almelo.

Bsc Future Planet Studies

Interdisciplinary Project

Dr Coyan Tromp

Vikki de Jong

Names:

Job Prins 11880333 (Social Geography)

Wessel van Rooijen 11804734 (Spatial Planning)

Emma Schalker 11846933 (Earth Science)

Menno Zahn 11283262 (Political Science)

(2)

Abstract

In this paper, the role of policy makers on facilitating a Hydrogen Innovation Laboratory in Almelo in discussed. This will be done by the means of three theories. The first theory is the triple helix theory, which concludes that the involvement of actors with other actors will improve regional development. Secondly, the cluster theory. Clustering enhances the potential for innovation and self-sufficiency which is vital for the future existence of the HIH and its capacity to contribute to the hydrogen sector. The final theory discussed is

collaborative governance, which concludes that the government only should give up its active role once projects are successfully executed and commitment is built

.

Table of contents

Table of contents 1

Introduction 2

Research problem Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.

Mutual relationships and the triple helix 4

The effects of economic clustering 5

Collaborative governance 5

A framework for collaborative governance 6

Methods 8

Interdisciplinarity & Integration 9

Results 10

Conceptualization of the HIH 10

Improved mutual relationships 10

The case for a clustering approach 11

Criteria of successful collaboration in the HIH 14

Leadership and management;

recommendations for policy makers 16

Conclusion 17

Discussion 18

References 19

(3)

Introduction

The economy in the province of Overijssel is characterized by an entrepreneurial spirit and a strong SME (small and medium-sized enterprises) sector with many family businesses. This sector has proven itself determined to innovate and cooperate and as a result there is a growing interest from regional businesses to collaborate (Prins, 2009). The province

supports these enterprises which are often strongly tied to local communities, and stimulates innovation to strengthen the regional economy and accomplish established sustainable development goals (Nieuwe Energie Overijssel, 2017). National commitments to cut carbon emissions have a large impact on the way the Dutch society organizes its energy systems. This is why in Overijssel innovation is increasingly focused on developing new energy solutions that contribute to the energy transition.

These developments are planned to take place in collaborative partnerships. This resulted in the Hydrogen Innovation Hub in Almelo (HIH)(HIH, 2020). This hub is a

collaborative innovation platform that facilitates applied science of hydrogen applications by local entrepreneurs. Together with educational institutes in the region, the hub offers

entrepreneurs the possibility to gain practical experience with testing and developing hydrogen applications and therefore stimulate sustainable processes in the province.

The concept of a hydrogen innovation is not new. Dutch cities like Groningen and Arnhem already have a hydrogen innovation hub that is up and running. The hydrogen economy in Overijssel is still largely in infancy phase and will focus mostly on accelerating demand for the application side of the hydrogen value chain (Nieuwe Energie Overijssel, 2017).

The main question this research aims to answer is the following: How can policy

makers facilitate and guide a successful innovation hub that accelerates the regional energy transition? In order to answer this question there a few sub questions that need to be

answered first:

- How can mutual relations be optimized?

- What can economic clustering offer the HIH in context of its trilateral networks and hybrid organizations?

- What mechanisms of collaboration in the HIH contribute to innovation? The research will start with a clear explanation of the main question in the chapter called “research problem”. Subsequently, in the theoretical framework several

interdisciplinary concepts are discussed. It starts with a clarification of the triple helix model, this mechanism provides a durable and stimulating construction concerning the relationship between the three main actors: state (government of Overijssel), industry (local MSE) and academia (University of Twente and Hogeschool Saxion).

The HIH can be seen as facilitating a new clustering process in the region. The second part of the theoretical framework will show that if the experimentation phase leads to a successful creation of specialized knowledge, it results in an increased public and

corporate investment that could create an environment in which the individual companies can greatly benefit from clustering. There is potential for increased firm productivity, stimulation of innovation and the flourishing of new businesses (Porter, 1998).

The section on collaborative governance is aimed at finding and prescribing possible ways in which the HIH can evolve to overcome barriers in collaboration through the exercise of appropriate leadership and management. This is done by studying the different

(4)

The knowledge gap that we address has a strong socio-graphical element of scale. On a macro-level the HIH is part of a external environment that is described by cluster theory. On a micro level the HIH itself is a institution in which different actors collaborate and interact to reach shared goals and targets. Both these scales are part of the multi-dimensional

framework for collaborative governance which is used for analyzing governance in the HIH. With insights from our interdisciplinary theory we have formulated some recommendations on facilitating a innovation hub from the perspective of policy makers.

In the methods section we discuss the ways in which we have collected interdisciplinary data and how we plan on using it to answer the research question. The next section goes into further detail on the how we integrated different disciplines into our theoretical framework and what value interdisciplinarity adds to our analysis. Our advice will be given in the results chapter, just as the answers of the sub questions. The research will end with the conclusion and the discussion.

Research problem

A topic that is of interest to the provincial government of Overijssel is the role that hydrogen can play in the regional energy transition, more specifically towards a more sustainable mobility sector (Prins, 2009). Questions related to this theme are for example about the creation of hydrogen value chains, identification of relevant stakeholders that could be involved and insights into technical, juridical and organizational preconditions which are considered relevant for implementing hydrogen pilots (Idem, p.7). In the document

‘Uitvoeringsprogramma Nieuwe Energie Overijssel’ (2017) the province of Overijssel sets out her ambitions to facilitating more sustainable practices in the regional economy. It sketches an image of the opportunities which are for the taking in the near future (2017-2023) in a variety of sectors by SME’s, network operators, policy makers and the local community. The potential of hydrogen as an energy carrier is only briefly mentioned within the framework of the electrification of the vehicle fleet, but this has been recognized as the most promising sector for hydrogen experimentation by the writers. The speed of this transition is mostly dependent on the interplay between the availability of affordable vehicles, sufficient charge infrastructure and fill points and user acceptance (Nieuwe Energie Overijssel, 2017). The HIH is meant to bring together different frontrunner companies who are developing hydrogen applications. Comparable regional initiatives in this field can be found in cities like Zwolle, Arnhem and Nijmegen and in nearby regions like Gelderland and Groningen (Prins, 2009).

Both government and the market have a need for new solutions and both sides are now looking for ways to find each other in a way that synergy flows. As Mazzucato (2012) notes that generally in the scientific literature on innovation there is a underappreciation and lack of credit for public lead innovation processes, as opposed to private innovation

processes. She opposes this point of view and proves that historically many important innovations are actually the product of innovative state governance. This argument coheres with a broad strand of academic literature in public policy and management that is aimed at developing frameworks for collaborative innovation, which describes the mechanisms of collaboration between different actors active in innovative partnerships (Hartley, Sørensen and Torfing, 2013). It recognizes and prescribes a new role for government in multi-actor collaborations. This new approach combines both the classic role (rightful and achieving) and new roles of governance (networking, participating and facilitating) (Van der Steen et al., 2014). It demands a more active attitude, based on the general understanding that there are no permanent solutions because the continuously changing technological environment requires adaptive and pragmatic solutions (Aslander & Witteveen, 2016). Our research question aims at uncovering in what ways this new governance can be applied to facilitation of the HIH.

(5)

Theoretical Framework

Mutual relationships and the triple helix

Triple helix is a mechanism that explains and improves the relations between the main actors of the HIH; state, academia and industry. These three actors have to work together in order to achieve a common goal with mutual gain (Youtie & Shapira, 2008). In the situation of the HIH, the province of Overijssel represents the state, the industry is mostly represented by the SMEs in the area and nearby universities (of applied sciences) represent the academia.

Etzkowitz (2003) describes three kinds of triple helix forms in his article. The first one is a triple helix where the state has the dominant role. This scenario was and sometimes still is the main situation in communist countries. The relations are as follows: the state has full control over the actions universities and industries will make in order to get to the desired outcome. The state decides when, where and how things are going to happen. The second form is a laissez-faire (free-market) model. The three actors are free to make their own decisions but work together. They share

information from their own discipline to make decisions together based on the acquired

knowledge. The third and last model builds on the laissez-faire model and is ideally for (regional) development (Etzkowitz, 2003). This form is called: “Trilateral networks and hybrid organizations”.

Figure X: types of triple helice. Source: Etzkowitz (2003).

Key to this form, is that the three actors do not only exercise their premier function. On the contrary, the three actors are supposed to upscale their function and try to take over

functions of other actors and therefor don’t only produce their premier product, but also aim their focus on the development of a region for instance. I.e. the industry will still

predominantly produce goods, but the relevant companies are recommended to give high level trainings, internships and do research. Therefore, they will provide some parts of a university and becomes partly a producers of knowledge and partly a producer of goods.

Continuing on Trilateral networks and hybrid organizations, Etzkowitz (2003) states that firms have to play a big part in clusters, the university have to continue with producing and spreading knowledge, but also offer studies that focus on the local development

projects. The role of the state is to make the social rules and be the guarantor of social rules. Also, it is the function of the state to give subsidies to entrepreneurs and help them grow.

(6)

The effects of economic clustering

The goal of the province of Overijssel is to facilitate sustainable practices into the regional economy (HIH, 2020). The HIH is an example of such an effort. However, the hydrogen sector of which the HIH is part remains relatively underdeveloped. In order to foster

development, and ultimately make a significant impact, this paper argues that it is required for the HIH as an entity to transform from a government subsidized initiative into a self-regulating system. The paper postulates the integration of the HIH into an economic cluster as a way to achieve this.

As Porter (1998, p.78) describes; a cluster could be conceived in its most basic form as a “geographic concentrations of interconnected companies and institutions in a particular field”. The concept of economic clustering builds on the integration of two aspects from the previously mentioned triple helix. Namely, it integrates business and university dynamics from a triple helix perspective into the self-regulatory environment of a cluster.

This chapter on clustering aims to further explain how characteristics of clustering could contribute to the development and self-sufficiency of the HIH in context of its trilateral networks and hybrid organizations and why this is especially relevant for its current and future existence. This part of the analysis seeks to answer the question: “What can

economic clustering offer the HIH in context of its trilateral networks and hybrid organizations?”

Collaborative governance

The interaction between the different actors in the HIH partnership is ideally characterized by collaboration between the participating actors. Contributions from the field of public

administration and management describe governmental efforts to bring about changes at the relevant science-technology-industry interfaces of the triple helix model. Governmental actors apply a range of different policy instruments which are aimed at cluster forming processes in order to stimulate innovation. Facilitating innovation hubs can be seen as an active policy instrument that regional governments use to stimulate innovation and

collaboration between participating actors (Ansell and Gash, 2018).

Academic literature on collaborative governance is used for studying the different mechanisms that drive collaboration between public and private actors in collective platforms based on consensus-oriented decision making (Ansell and Gash, 2007). This new form of governance has emerged to replace the adversarial and managerial modes of governance. The term collaborative governance asks for a definition of the term governance, for which we lend the definition of Stoker (2004):

“As a baseline definition it can be taken that governance refers to the rules and forms that guide collective decision-making”, … “governance is not about one individual making a decision but rather about groups of individuals or organizations or systems of organizations making decisions”. (p.3).

This definition stresses the collective decision making by a multiplicity of actors who “co-produce goals and strategies and share responsibilities and resources” (Davies and White,

(7)

2012). For defining collaborative governance we use the definition of Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh (2012):

“the processes and structures of public policy decision making and management that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private and civic spheres in order to carry out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished.”

Their definition is broad in the sense that it encompasses “multi-partner governance”, which includes hybrid collaborative arrangements like public private partnerships and

programs initiated in private spheres (idem; 3). This collaboration can be seen as carrying out a public purpose since the government makes the collaboration possible through funding and the goal of the HIH is accelerating the transition towards a more sustainable regional economy (HIH, 2020).

A framework for collaborative governance

The platform concept from Ansel & Gash (2007) overlaps for a great part with the regime concept provided by Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh (2012). We use the latter term for the rest of the paper but both concepts indicate an organizational framework which offers a support structure on which over time activities can be organized in a flexible manner, while also actively facilitating reconfigurability of running projects (Ciborra, 1996). It creates “a space or an interface to facilitate the interaction of different skills, resources, knowledge or needs”, which a platform may do by “facilitating the matching of interests, by creating standardized technological interfaces or communication forums or by creating cross-functional teams” (Ansell and Gash, 2018, p.19).

We now introduce the integrative framework for collaboration from Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh (2012), which we will apply to the case of the HIH with the aim of analysing the HIH as a regime or platform that is shaped by both external and internal forces. The framework helps to separate contextual variables from the essential drivers without which collaboration will not occur. The model is three dimensional. The most outer box is the system context; the surrounding landscape of external political, socioeconomic, legal, environmental and other influences that affect and are affected by the collaborative governance regime (CGR), which forms the central feature in the framework. The CGR contains collaborative dynamics and actions, which have been addressed in the theoretical framework, that together shape the overall quality to which a CGR is developed. From the system context emerge drivers that influence the dynamics of collaboration over time (the inner box). These drivers include leadership, consequential incentives, interdependence and uncertainty. The three interactive components of the collaboration are dynamics principled engagement, shared motivation and capacity for joint action. Together they shape the actions which impact the system context or lead to adaptation of the collaboration dynamics themselves (Idem).

(8)

Figure 1 from (Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh, 2012)

Using the theory and framework for collaborative governance we try to answer the subquestion: What mechanisms of collaboration in the HIH contribute to innovation?

(9)

Methods

The method used for studying mechanisms of collaboration in the HIH exists for one part on a literature study of research papers from the field of public administration & management and also on policy documents about the HIH and the hydrogen ambitions in the province of Overijssel. The research papers cited are mainly theoretical conceptualisation studies that explore the wide range of literature in the fields of innovation, collaborative governance and platform studies on a basis of resemblance they have to the institutional setting of the HIH, which is a multi-actor partnership. The knowledge from these field have been captured in the collaborative framework which integrates knowledge about individual incentives and barriers to collective action, collaborative social learning and conflict resolution processes, and institutional arrangements for cross boundary collaboration (Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh, 2012). This framework is then applied to the case of the HIH, which conceptualisation procedure is documented below.

The information on the triple helix model was found in the article of Youtie & Shapira (2008). This article states that hubs are a great means to stimulate development. However, this article mostly focuses on the role of the university. This essay tries to focus more on the role of the government. The article of Etzkowitz (2003) gives clear instructions how to set up a working triple helix and how the relations should be in order to optimize (regional)

development.

The description of clustering and its implications follow a similar methodology. It takes a qualitative approach and uses peer reviewed papers in which Porter’s (1998) theory on clustering is used as a theoretical backbone. Benefits offered by clustering are described both in terms of cooperation by Bengtsson & Sölvell (2004) as well as competition by Chhair & Newman (2014). Synthesizing these theories on clustering then allows for an analysis on the integration of a triple helix approach which is applied in the context of a potential

economic cluster for the HIH.

The overall conceptualization of the HIH is performed using a document study, including business case documents of the HIH, implementation program documents of the province Overijssel and a research study conducted by students of Saxion University. The business case documents of the HIH are relevant because it gives a useful understanding of the setup of the HIH and how the Province of Overijssel is involved. The implementation program documents act as an extension on the business case documents. Four students of Saxion university, conducted a research on a suitable design for the HIH. This research is used to illustrate what facilities will be needed. This research is relevant because it can be used to compare the HIH with other innovation laboratories.

To compare the HIH with other hubs a case studies is used. For successful

development is is important to learn from established hubs, whether they were successful or not (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Two cases will be analysed. First the case of Silicon Valley and afterwards the GO area cluster in Gelderland, a province in the Netherlands. Silicon Valley is not a hydrogen hub, but is one of the most successful hubs in the world. In the article of Berger & Brem (2006) the successfulness of Silicon Valley is discussed and we will apply this information in our advice. The GO area is located near Almelo. In this research we studied this cluster and compared this with our gained theoretical knowledge.

Furthermore, a series of informal consultations and a formal semi-structured

interview was conducted with Jorian Bakker, who represents the HIH. He is deployed by the province of Overijssel to connect the HIH with the province. His function does not have a

(10)

formal title, but innovation broker is a term often used. The interview is transcripted using intelligent verbatim, and can be found in the appendix.

The documents gathered during this research and the interview will be compared to literature and researches on other innovation laboratories and their experiences. The concept of innovation laboratories is relatively new, so a comparison between the HIH and other innovation laboratories is useful to research how a governmental authority, like the Province of Overijssel, can facilitate and guide a successful innovation hub.

Interdisciplinarity & Integration

Interdisciplinary research literally means research between disciplines, referring to the interaction of disciplines with each other. Integration of disciplinary insights is the main defining characteristic of interdisciplinarity (Menken & Keestra, 2016).

In our research we have made use of several concepts and frameworks which are interdisciplinary in nature. Take for example cluster theory, which combines insights from regional economics, urban geography, social geography and political science. Or the collaborative innovation concept, which combines public administration and management, policy development and organisational studies on innovation and learning. We’ve attempted to integrate the concepts offered in the different interdisciplinary framework by starting with a macro perspective on the HIH; The economic environment in which it is ideally situated that fosters innovation by the private sector, which is that of the economic cluster. After this we describe the main actors involved in innovative processes and their respective relationships between themselves using the triple helix model. We then proceed to analyze the micro level of collaborative governance mechanisms using a framework for collaborative governance and provide some criteria for successful collaborative governance which can be applied to the HIH. A concrete attempt of integration can be found in the collaborative governance framework. The different nested dimensions allow analyzing interactions between external forces (for example from the cluster in the region) and the HIH.

(11)

Results

Conceptualization of the HIH

According to the business case from the HIH (HIH, 2020), basic lab facilities will be provided to the participating actors. Students from Saxion university (2020) have conducted a

research on the profiling and laboratory design of the hub. While this research is not all-encompassing, it does, however, give an broad perspective on the facilities of the HIH and the needs of the actors. They write about test terrains, space for production, supply and storage, and most importantly safety measurements such as a hydrogen sensor. These will be provided by the HIH and is funded by a budget made by the entrepreneurs that are affiliated with the HIH and the Province of Overijssel. The Province of Overijssel made a contribution for three years, on the condition that no further requests for money are made thereafter (Bakker, 2020). The reason the Province does not want to contribute after those three years is because they don’t want to stimulate a dependency on state finances (Bakker, 2020). Also, it is contra-intuitive for a government to invest in an project with a relatively high insecurity (van der Steen., et al. 2014). Mustar (1997) argues that public funding is important to ensure success. As Mustar concludes: “Our statistics emphasise the crucial role of public funding during a firm's start-up and initial development phase.”

Moreover, besides financial support, the government supports the HIH with hours of labour. An example is Jorian Bakker, the innovation broker of the HIH. Deployed by the government, he acts as a bridge between the government and the SMEs and academia working at the HIH. Currently, the plan is to override this function as soon as possible. However, Jorian Bakkers’ function is very important in order to maintain and guarantee the trilateral network, since he keeps the government closely connected with the project.

At the moment, the HIH is building a network of SMEs, entrepreneurs, industry sectors and other innovation laboratories, who are all interested in or working with hydrogen. By including several different clusters working with hydrogen, the HIH hopes to create a regional cluster where they can exchange knowledge and a stimulating form of competition within the hydrogen market. They have started the forming of a regional cluster which stimulates the innovation of hydrogen and ultimately, the energy transition in Overijssel.

Improved mutual relationships

Unlike previous reports, it is not the university or the industry that plays the leading role in the HIH project, but it is the government that started the initiative by bringing together a group of innovative entrepreneurs. This asks for a new approach. As explained in the theoretical framework, there are three forms of triple helice. This research advices to make use of the newest form: “Trilateral networks and hybrid organizations”

This means that the actors have to expand their business as usual. The most beneficial situation would appear when Hogeschool saxion together with the University of Twente sets up an hydrogen program, especially meant for Twente. Local MSE has to anticipate on this program by offering internships and stay in good touch with the students. The role of the government is the most important. They have to take a step back with making policies, choices and deciding the directions. Instead, the academia and industry will become partly

(12)

responsible for the development as a whole. The main role of the state is to make the social rules and be the guarantor of these rules, especially now when Overijssel the very core of the project. The second duty of the government is providing the academia and industry of the necessary subsidies. This strategy corresponds with the approach of Silicon Valley.

At the moment, the most successful hub is Silicon Valley. Silicon valley is located in California. In this area, the triple helix approach is applied very clearly. There is a strong network of companies like Apple and Facebook, the Californian state and universities as Stanford. Silicon Valley claims that their successes are due to a few ground rules: First of all, there is a dominant educational environment. Early stage funding is the norm. There is a huge availability of risk capital together with a high level of ambition and a strong belief in the idea that nothing is impossible (Berger & Brem, 2016).

Apart from the last rule, all rules are achieved in our advice. Undoubtedly, the province does not possess an infinite amount of money. That is why it is crucial to set up a system where costs are decreased and risks can be taken without fatal economic losses. We suggest the province to stimulate cluster creation.

The case for a clustering approach

As mentioned, the most basic conceptualization of a cluster is: “geographic concentrations of interconnected companies and institutions in a particular field” (Porter, 1998, p. 78).

Currently the HIH is not situated within a developed cluster. In a developed cluster the independent and (in)formally linked companies and institutions fill in different, and

sometimes hybrid, roles within the cluster. This allows for an efficient use of resources inside said cluster and creates a self-sufficient environment. The HIH currently lacks sufficient interlinking of companies leaving certain roles within its system unfilled and is therefore reliant on less efficient government subsidy programs.

The first advantage of a cluster is having a shared central infrastructure which relieves spending pressures of individual companies and institutions. Another advantage is the relative proximity of interlinked companies. Firms in a cluster act as suppliers or feature specialized services and capital. The proximity to such supplemental capital (both material and human) means easier access to specific labor and tools (Porter, 1998). This lowers the costs that would normally be spent on recruitment of employees and transportation of

capital. The proximity also stimulates general productivity by virtue of simply saving time and being more accessible. The lower costs and higher productivity in turn allow for more

investments in the companies themselves and thereby the cluster as a whole. In addition to this proper linking of companies it opens up further sharing opportunities which enhances risk resilience in terms of product development (Bengtsson & Sölvell, 2004) as well as in sudden economic shifts (Porter, 1998). In short, clustering allows the HIH to benefit from its cooperative and sharing aspects.

Hydrogen as a technology has not sufficiently developed to the point of warranting widespread implementation (Momirlan & Veziroglu, 2005). The lowered risk in product development gained from the cooperative and sharing aspects of clustering bolsters

innovative capacity, which in the case of the hydrogen sector is essential for future success. The central role that innovation plays in the hydrogen sector implies the necessity of strong R&D. Effective R&D, which has the potential to lead to innovation, requires the possession of relevant knowledge. Here it is important to conceptualize knowledge as something which is both produced as well as exchanged (Alipour, Idris, & Karimi, 2011). Knowledge

(13)

production can be translated gaining knowledge through education in forms of both practical and theoretical learning. Knowledge exchange, on the other hand, is a learning process in which learning comes from the exchange of knowledge between actors.

Some research on the role of universities in innovative development has been conducted (Youtie & Shapira, 2008). Universities would seem as an ideal environment for the production of knowledge. In order to apply this produced knowledge for innovative

purposes it is necessary to also facilitate knowledge exchange. However it has become clear that such a fundamental reorientation of a facility often is insufficiently effective. The main reason behind this is the general lack of supplemental assets that are required for it to function (Youtie & Shapira, 2008). In contrast to traditional knowledge creating, the HIH partly focuses on multi-level education (i.e. knowledge creation) but also does contracted work for companies which creates a certain degree of knowledge exchange within the HIH as well as between the HIH and the contracting companies. This means that the hub

functions as a hybrid between academia and industry as modeled in the triple helix: “trilateral networks and hybrid organizations” approach (Etzkowitz, 2003). Here, it becomes clear that clustering can play a key role in the development of sectors using the triple helix approach. Because, whilst the HIH differs from universities, in that it does not require a fundamental shift in its organizational structure by virtue of already being a hybrid organization, it still suffers from having a limited pool of supplemental assets which is reflected by the necessity for government subsidies. Clustering has the potential to nullify this limiting factor by

introducing other companies which offer supplemental assets through the previously discussed sharing and cooperative aspects of a cluster, effectively boosting the HIH innovative capacity.

Central to each cluster are the linked companies that it consists of. The sectoral link makes knowledge exchange possible which is essential to innovation and growth. This form of knowledge exchange stems from the cooperative benefits gained from being within a cluster. In addition, clusters can offer competitive advantages. In general companies in a cluster experience a higher degree of competitive pressures in comparison with standard unlinked companies (Chhair, & Newman, 2014). There is generally more strife between executive within a cluster to outdo each other which translates into a corporate environment with a higher degree of peer pressure and an emphasis on personal pride as an additional driver to outperform others (Porter, 2011). In turn this causes an acceleration of knowledge production and exchange processes in a cluster. Just as it can be observed that educational institutions in a cluster start to take a more business oriented role, it is visible that

businesses start to contribute more to education in a cluster through processes of knowledge creation and exchange. The increased knowledge potential in context of the availability of its resources, increases the likelihood of potential spin-off companies to come up. These spin-offs are able to specialize in specific branch niches that are not yet filled by the cluster. This in turn adds to the general pool of knowledge and resources which can be used to further facilitate the process of knowledge and resource accumulation (Breschi, & Malerba, 2001). Ultimately the creation of spin-offs further strengthens innovative and self-regulatory potential of a cluster.

In conclusion the aspects industry and academia of the triple helix approach fit well within the macro structure of clustering. It enables companies to better create and exchange knowledge whilst in the same vein enables educational institutions to engage more in business and teach their students practical skills. These hybrid organizations benefit from the sharing and cooperative aspects of clustering by boosting the availability of (material and non-material) capital and decreasing economic risk which bolsters innovative potential. The

(14)

competitive pressures experienced within a cluster further boosts knowledge creation and exchange enhancing innovative potential and spin-off creation. Clustering therefore increases potential for self-sufficiency and innovation which in the hydrogen sector is of utmost importance.

A comparative study of innovation hubs

To the east of the Randstad, the west of the Ruhr area and the south of Almelo, lies the GO area. This is a network of three cities: Arnhem, Nijmegen and Wageningen, including some smaller cities within that area. This is not a metropolitan area, but due to the good location, has access to world class knowledge (Barnhoorn, 2017). The GO area contains multiple hubs and clusters. This is because the GO area consists of compartments: Health Valley, BCS, kiEMT, specific regions

such as Food Valley and The Economic Board. In this greater hub, every major city has its own compartment. The economic board is the centre collective that combines the smaller hubs as shown in figure 3 This unites a large group of important companies, universities and governments (Barnhoorn, 2017).

Since Arnhem focuses on energy, that will be the city that is going to be elaborated in this article. Industrial park “Kleefse Waard” (IPKW) aims to achieve inter-firm synergy and stimulate regional knowledge spillovers (Barnhoorn, 2017). Just as Silicon Valley, IPKW has high ambitions and offers an environment where larger- and start up companies can settle.

On the other side, there are also complains coming from actors that have or want to join the hub (Barnhoorn, 2017). Multiple firmes complain about the way the local government is run or the decisions that they make. The most complaints are about business support and the business climate of the region. The municipality can be too slow in their decision making which makes some companies decide not to settle in the hub area (Barnhoorn, 2017). Other companies complain that the municipality does wrong investments (Barnhoorn, 2017). Here is an example of the situation of the TDI Group. Barnhoorn (2017) states: “They wanted to

strengthen their core business, e.g. establishing and supporting start-ups and innovative companies. Instead of receiving funding they learned that, the money already had been invested in a new, fancy building 67 Ultra Plus, a building that in the end provided the region with good publicity but ultimately was too expensive for the group that they were targeting.”

We gained three main point from this case study. First, create an environment where regional development is everyday’s business. This can be created by a functional triple helix as explained before. Second, progress is an activity that often goes fast, companies do not have the time or means to wait for the decision of the government. This can be helped by a shared board, consisting of the government, industry and academia. The third point is the distribution of subsidies. It is the role of the government to hand out subsidies, but actors seem to not always agree with the destination of the money. We think that this can also be helped by a shared board, cause more expertise is available.

Figure 3: Barnhoorn, (2017). Page 45)

(15)

So from cluster theory we conclude that competition may drive firms to innovate, It does not however, provide a method for developing and implementing innovation (Hartley, Sørensen & Torfing, 2013). Collaboration does allow for planning of innovation through the conditions and tools that are inherent in collaborative platforms. The next section test the HIH on the criteria for successful innovation after which some recommendations are given for policy makers involved in innovation hubs. Now that this knowledge is gained, it is a smart move to study a nearby hub with its clusters to see what works in practise, and what does not.

Criteria of successful collaboration in the HIH

In the previous paragraph both mechanisms of competition and collaboration in clusters were discussed from a macro level perspective. In this section a list of criteria for successful collaboration in innovation hubs is proposed based on the insights from different authors who have studied collaboration. We will discuss a couple of them most relevant to the HIH, highlighted in grey, in further detail and try to clarify these criteria by connecting them to the conceptual frame for collaborative governance discussed in the theoretical framework. The system context that surrounds the HIH is determined by the economic mechanisms described in cluster theory. It creates the opportunities and constraints that give shape to the parameters of the collaboration regime (Emmerson et al., 2012).

Tabel 1: Criteria for collaboration: source: Ansel & Gash (2008) & Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh (2012)

Drivers Principled

engagement

Shared motivation Capacity for joint action

Leadership Discovery Mutual trust Procedural /

institutional arrangements Consequential incentives Definition Mutual understanding Facilitative leadership

Interdependence Deliberation Internal legitimacy Knowledge

(16)

Drivers are the essential ‘impetus’ for collaboration between the triple helix actors (Emmerson et al., 2012). Leadership refers to the presence of an identified leader who possesses a commitment to collaborative problem solving, a willingness to not advocate particular solutions and exhibits impartiality with respect to the opinions of the participants (idem, p10). If the initiator leaves the collaborative platform after some time it is important that this leadership role is passed on carefully.

Consequential incentives are the internal (problems, resource needs) and external drivers for collaborative action (threats, crises or opportunities) that can be both positive or negative, which induces participants to engage with each other (idem, p.9). In the case of the HIH it has already been clearly stated in documents what drives the collaboration (HUB, 2020). Positive incentives have been the supply of the building and the financial support from the province. Furthermore the platform has recognized ample opportunities that enables the benefits of collaborative innovation.

Principled engagement occurs over time through the iteration of the basic elements of discovery, definition, deliberation and determination (idem, p.11). These four elements can be considered phases of a iterative social learning process between the participants (idem). The first two phases refer to discovering and defining shared understanding and interests between the partners. The general understanding of knowledge in the framework refers to the social capital of shared knowledge that has been created with the values and judgments of all participants (idem).

Deliberation is the thoughtful examination of issues, the sharing of perspectives and

formation of public judgements on what is common good for the partners (idem, p.12). These processes have been established in the negotiation phase of the HIH. It comes down to asking and answering the hard questions and being able to be honest and have

disagreements. Determination means the making of joint procedural decisions (agenda setting, tabling discussions) and substantive determinations (reaching agreements on agenda items and final recommendations (idem). Inclusion and diversity in decision making and encouraging strong engagement help produce more fair and durable determinations. Another important aspect is bringing the ‘right people to the table’ (Ansel & Gash, 2007). In the case of the HIH this means carefully considering candidates for expanding the hub based on interviews that are meant to test whether new companies fit the hub.

Shared motivation is the product of a reinforcing cycle of mutual trust and

understanding, internal legitimacy and shared commitment. Mutual understanding follows

from trust and allows the actors to look past their own frames of reference and perspectives, and respect partners’ their ideas even when they don’t agree (Emmerson et al, 2012, p.14). Shared commitment is largely determined by the initial motivation for collaboration and requires an up front willingness to abide by the results of deliberation, even when it goes in a direction not fully supported by the stakeholder (Ansel & Gash, 2007, p.559). More

involvement correlates with more commitment. Once generated, shared motivation will enhance and help sustain principled engagement and vice versa in a ‘virtuous cycle’ (Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh, 2012). This is an important effect to take in mind when considering the future growth of the HIH. As more projects are started, it is likely that the platform will continue to grow on the long term.

(17)

Leadership and management;

recommendations for policy makers

One of the big successes of the HIH so far has been the serious commitment that has been established throughout the preparation phase. This is achieved by proper expectation management, communication about the positive and negative developments of the

collaboration and the personal touch of a interested facilitator (van der Steen., et al. 2014, p.57). The HIH is a non-hierarchical and non-profit corporation (Bakker, 2020). There is a management board of three entrepreneurial actors and a board of advisors (in the making) but all participants in the hub enter on equal terms. Still the importance of individual

leadership in the success of the hub shouldn't be ignored.

Collaborative governance demands but also produces the need for leadership (Emmerson et al., 2012). Leadership and management can be provided by trained facilitators or natural leaders who are connected to the stakeholders in the partnership (Gray, 1989). There are different roles of leadership which can be of used during different phases of a collaborative partnership. In order to define the role of leadership in the HIH we list multiple ways in which a leader can act to orchestrate activities that can overcome the different barriers to

interaction, collaboration and innovation (Hartley, Sørensen & Torfing, 2013):

Managers can act as a convener, who aims to motivate, empower, brings together actors, clarifies the interaction process, sets the agenda and promotes a mutual adjustment of expectations (Ansel & Gash, 2007). We think it is important to have this role taken up by a someone who is to some degree impartial and appointed by the management board with input from the advisory board.

Leaders can also act as a mediator, who can encourage and facilitate collaboration between the stakeholders. The mediator points out interdependencies, manages the collaboration process in different phases, builds trust and resolves disputes between actors by aligning interests, constructs common frameworks and and removes barriers for

collaboration (Hartley et al., 2013). This is a role that has been fulfilled by the governmental authorities in the HIH. We consider this a crucial position for as long as the HIH hasn’t reached a autonomous operating stage.

Finally a third leader role is that of the catalyst, which is a role of entrepreneurial leadership. A catalyst encourages the reframing of problems, attributes new knowledge, brings in new actors, examines existing and emerging constraints, manages risks and

promotes ‘out of the box thinking’ (Hartley et al., 2013). This role can be played by any of the involved entrepreneurs. It should be encouraged that the companies use their own unique skills to solve collaborative problems and use their own network to the benefit of the HIH.

(18)

Conclusion

To conclude, we return to the research question posed at the beginning of this paper: How

can governmental authorities facilitate and guide a successful innovation hub that accelerates the regional energy transition?

Currently, the HIH is working together with different SMEs, enterprises, industry sectors and other innovation laboratories that focuses on hydrogen. The HIH had initiated a clustering. This will stimulate the innovation of hydrogen and knowledge exchange.

Furthermore, the Province of Overijssel is planning to exclude itself from the project within a few years. Study shows that it public funding is crucial for a proper conduct of an innovation laboratory.

According to the trilateral networks and hybrid organizations triple helix concept, it is important for a main actor to take over parts of other actors in order to improve regional development. The role of the government is to share the leadership of regional development with academia and the industry. Also, the government has to facilitate the necessary funds for academia and industry.

Clustering as an organizational approach seems promising for its innovative and self-regulatory potential derived from its cooperative and competitive features. In which the cooperative aspects allow for the increased access and availability to (human and nonhuman) resources whilst also lowering economic risk of innovation. Competitive pressures on the other hand boost knowledge creation and exchange which increases innovative potential and the likelihood for spin-off companies to prosper and grow. It also fits well within the triple helix approach as it enables and stimulates both industry and

educational institutions to hybridize. Ultimately clustering enhances the potential for innovation and self-sufficiency which is vital for the future existence of the HIH and its capacity to contribute to the hydrogen sector.

There are plenty of proactive reasons for boosting innovation that focus on improving the capacity of organizations to address the wicked problems that are to be solved in the energy transition, and realizing political goals for sustainable development. The concept of collaborative innovation transcends the idea of innovation being solely attributed to private actors. It brings together a broad range of stakeholders in interactive partnerships that facilitate different forms of collaboration. There are however barriers to successful collaboration and it is up to leaders and managers of the HIH to guide the collaboration regime to overcome these as a group. A good understanding of the mechanisms of collaboration in the context of the cluster processes external to the HIH is vital to the successful facilitation of the hub by policy makers. With regards to leadership in the HIH have described different roles that can be played by a facilitating actor like the government. For the most part participants in the hub are themselves responsible for the collective success of the hub, but we do recognize some leadership roles that are best fulfilled by third parties involved. Especially in the beginning phase of the HIH a facilitating leadership role is of importance. As over time more projects are successfully executed, commitment is built and the participants have become more acquainted with the platform, only then should the government give up its active role in this promising project.

(19)

Discussion

More and more projects like the HIH are emerging in the energy transition. In these projects public goals are achieved through multi-actor partnerships that work off the ‘energetic society’ of people, communities and firms that strive to make a contribution to sustainable development through collaboration (van der Steen, 2014). This study can be placed in a strand of literature that analyses these new projects that move past traditional public-private partnerships. We find that the academic literature does not contain many case studies of HIH like institutions. There is literature on innovation labs but this focuses more on infrastructural design of these facilities. The literature on agglomeration economies

describes the macro characteristics of economic clusters well, but we identify a need for in depth case studies that apply the triple helix concept to innovative collaboration on a micro-institutional level, which also acknowledges the government led innovation. In the innovation literature this means a hybrid analysis of theory on private and public innovation. It must be stressed that this paper presents its results as a general theoretical approach to the role of governance in context of the economic clustering of hybrid organizations. The conclusion of this paper should not be interpreted as a “winning formula”. Success in practice is subject to a multitude of context dependant variables which are impossible (and counterproductive even) to generalize. However, the given theoretical overview does allow for a critical reflection of the way in which the HIH functions and its potential for the future.

(20)

References

Alipour, F., Idris, K., & Karimi, R. (2011). Knowledge creation and transfer: Role of learning organization. International Journal of Business Administration, 2(3), 61.

Ansell, C. and Gash, A. (2007) ‘Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), pp. 543–571. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mum032.

Ansell, C. and Gash, A. (2018) ‘Collaborative platforms as a governance strategy’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), pp. 16–32. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mux030.

Aslander, M., & Witteveen, E. (2016). Nooit af (Permanent beta). Een nieuwe kijk op de fundamenten van ons leven: Werk, school, zorg, overheid en management.

Barnhoorn, R. (2017). Knowledge spillovers in a regional ecosystem: cognitive interaction in an industrial complex. A case study into cross-over activity in the Arnhem, Nijmegen, Wageningen region.

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The qualitative report, 13(4), 544-559.

Bengtsson, M., & Sölvell, Ö. (2004). Climate of competition, clusters and innovative performance. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 20(3), 225-244.

Berger, A., & Brem, A. (2016). Innovation Hub How‐To: Lessons From Silicon Valley. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 35(5), 58-70.

Breschi, S., & Malerba, F. (2001). The geography of innovation and economic clustering: some introductory notes. Industrial and corporate change, 10(4), 817-833.

Chhair, S., & Newman, C. (2014). Clustering, competition, and spillover effects: Evidence from Cambodia (No. 2014/065). WIDER Working Paper.

Ciborra, C. U. (1996). The platform organization: Recombining strategies, structures, and surprises. Organization science, 7(2), 103-118.

Davies, A. L. and White, R. M. (2012) ‘Collaboration in natural resource governance: Reconciling stakeholder expectations in deer management in Scotland’, Journal of Environmental Management. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.07.032.

Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T. and Balogh, S. (2012) ‘An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), pp. 1–29. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mur011.

Gray, Barbara. 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hartley, J., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2013). Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative to market competition and organizational entrepreneurship. Public administration review, 73(6), 821-830.

(21)

Bakker, J.(2020). Hydrogen Innovation Hub Almelo: Opmerkingen van Jorian Bakker. HIH. (2020). HUB voor Opleiding en Toepassing van waterstoftechnologie. Businesscase en begroting. Waardemakers in waterstof.

Industriepark kleefse waarde. Retrieved from: https://www.ipkw.nl/over-ipkw Consulted on: 03-04-2020

Mazzucato, M. (2012) ‘The entrepreneurial state’, Soundings. doi: 10.3898/136266211798411183. Menken, S., Keestra, M., Rutting, L., Post, G., de Roo, M., Blad, S., & de Greef, L. (2016). An introduction to interdisciplinary research. Theory and practice.

Momirlan, M., & Veziroglu, T. N. (2005). The properties of hydrogen as fuel tomorrow in sustainable energy system for a cleaner planet. International journal of hydrogen energy, 30(7), 795-802. Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition (Vol. 76, No. 6, pp. 77-90). Boston: Harvard Business Review.

Porter, M. E. (2011). Competitive advantage of nations: creating and sustaining superior performance. simon and schuster.

Prins, F. (2009) ‘Projectplan Regio aanpak Waterstof-initiatieven Overijssel’, pp. 1–8.

Stoker, G. (2004) ‘Designing institutions for governance in complex environments: Normative rational choice and cultural institutional theories explored and contrasted’, Economic and Social Research Council Fellowship ….

Van der Steen, M., Hajer, M., Scherpenisse, J., Van Gerwen, O. J., & Kruitwagen, S. (2014). Leren door doen: Overheidsparticipatie in een energieke samenleving. Den Haag Nederlandse School voor Openbaar Bestuur (NSOB).

Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2008). Building an innovation hub: A case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development. Research policy, 37(8), 1188-1204.

Appendix 1: Transcript interview Jorian Bakker

Emma: Eerst zou ik willen weten hoe het zit met de faciliteiten in de ruimte. Dus ik had gezien dat studenten van Saxion onderzoek doen naar een geschikte opstelling. Zijn ze daar nog steeds mee bezig of hebben ze al iets gepubliceerd?

Jorian: Nee ze hebben een verkenning opgeleverd inderdaad. Hebben ze begin dit jaar een verkenning opgeleverd naar wat er ongeveer aanwezig zou moeten zijn.

Emma: En kan ik daar bij komen of niet? Aan die verkenning. Jorian: Ja dat kan ik wel delen.

(22)

Emma: Dat zou fijn zijn. En weet jij ook een beetje wat er in staat zoals hoe komen ze aan die basis lab faciliteiten. Wordt dat door Saxion geleverd of door bedrijven?

Jorian: Wij hebben opdracht geven aan Saxion om een verkenning te doen. Maar waar zijn we begonnen? De initiatiefnemer is een van de ondernemers. De groep van ondernemers, die zich committeert aan deze hub, zegt: wij willen op twee poten bouwen. De ene poot is onderwijs en onderzoek en de andere poot is projectontwikkeling, dus echt het bouwen van pilots en demonstratieprojecten. Voor zowel onderwijs als voor die projecten is het van toegevoegde waarde om een aantal basis lab voorzieningen in te richten. Zodat je wat kan experimenteren en zodat je testen kan doen, zodat je configuraties kunt afstemmen en dat je gewoon proefjes kunt doen. Maar omdat dat allemaal gewoon vrij kostbaar is hebben we het gehouden op basis voorzieningen zodat er in basisbehoeften voorzien wordt. Zodra er voor een specifiek project uitgebreidere test voorzieningen nodig zijn, dat je die dan in de

businesscase van dat project meeneemt, maar niet in de businesscase van de hub. Emma: klopt dat had ik gelezen

Jorian: Ja, dus we hebben de opdracht gegeven aan Saxion om eens te verkennen van nou wat zijn dan basisvoorzieningen he, waar moet je dan aan denken? Daar hebben ze dan onderzoek naar gedaan. Dat was eerlijk gezegd nog een beetje op hoofdlijnen en wel behulpzaam maar ook nog onvolledig. Dus denk aan een ATEX gecertificeerde kast waar je met gassen kunt werken. Certificering is belangrijk en duurt lang en dat is ook kostbaar. Dus als je zo een, dat heet dan een in-box principe, dat is een soort afgesloten wat je gewoon neer kunt zetten en klaar. Dat is eigenlijk de snelste mogelijkheid. Als je de hele ruimte wil certificeren dan is weer heel veel lastiger. Verder moet het dan gaan over hoeveel wil je waterstof beschikbaar maken binnen de ruimte of buiten de ruimte? Ga je zelf waterstof comprimeren, ga je het zelf opwekken of ga je het inkopen? Op wat voor een manier ga je het beschikbaar maken? Onder welke druk? Met wat voor aansluiting? Hoeveel

aansluitingen wil je hebben? Nou, wat voor een afzuiging? Ik ben zelf geen expert op dat gebied. Maar dat zijn dan de vragen waarmee zij aan de slag zijn gegaan en een voorstel van hebben gedaan. De volgende stap die nu nodig is om dat in een gedetailleerd, technisch plan uit te werken. Zodat beschreven staat precies wat voor een aansluitingen, afzuiging, wat voor een apparatuur er komt, waar dat besteld gaat worden. Dat soort zaken. Dat wordt betaald uit de begroting van de HUB. En die begroting bestaat uit een bijdrage van de provincie en de ondernemers.

Emma: Mocht een project iets groters nodig hebben dan een basis faciliteit, gaan ze dat dan zelf creëren als ze het nodig hebben of gaan ze dat zelf kopen. Hoe moet ik dat dan voor me zien?

Jorian: Je moet het zo zien. De hub biedt ondersteuningen op een aantal punten. De Hub is een paraplu die zegt wij kunnen wat randwaarde geven. Zoals die basis lab voorzieningen, werkruimte, een netwerk van relevante partijen, ondersteuning op proces, misschien een beetje bijdrage op een eerste subsidie scan of meeschrijven aan een aanvraag van subsidie. Dat kunnen we bieden vanuit de hub. Daarvoor vragen we om een bijdrage van iedere ondernemen van de HUB. Of wel in uren of wel financieel. Maar uit die businesscase van de HUB kun je geen project draaien. Als je het hebt over een project zoals een heftruck of een drone dan gaat het al snel over 1 of 2 miljoen of meer. En daar moeten ze dus een aparte

(23)

begroting voor maken. Om die begroting sluitend te krijgen wordt wederom gevraagd om zowel een eigen bijdrage, maar dat is heel duidelijk, en kun je kijken naar cofinancieringen, subsidieringen en leningen van andere regelingen. Daarvoor moet je dus een beeld krijgen wat voor een lokale, regionale, landelijke, Europese subsidies zijn er en dat soort zaken. Dus zo probeer je per project een aparte sluitende businesscase te maken. Daarin zou je eventueel die extra kosten voor lab faciliteiten mee kunnen nemen

Emma: Dan wilde ik vragen over de succes van de hub. Ik heb een artikel gevonden waar ze verschillende projectmanagers interviewen met de vraag hoe zij succes zagen en dat vond ik wel interessant om dat van jou te weten wanneer jij denkt dat de hub succesvol is en wat jij denkt dat het punt is dat de HUB helemaal zelf regulerend is. Dus dat er geen hulp van buitenaf meer nodig is. Dus als je naar het grote plaatje kijkt van het gehele succes, dus over het hele project. Is wel een beetje een hele grote vraag maar als je het een beetje beknopt in grote lijnen kan uitleggen?

Jorian: Inderdaad een grote vraag, wel een belangrijke vraag. Ik hoor nu ook meerdere vragen, dus als je vraag is wat vind je en succes dan zit daar ook verschillende niveaus in. We hebben inmiddels al een aantal succes bereikt en dat is heel mooi. Een van die

successen is dat er een groep van toegewijde deelnemers is die zegt wij willen ons committeren met uren, geld en we hebben ideeën en we geloven er in. Dat is een van de belangrijkste successen. Verder dat de provincie heeft gezegd dat wij vinden dit ook een goed succes en wij willen dit financieel ondersteunen maar ook in uren. Dus in begroting is inderdaad financieel bijgedragen maar in de vorm van mijn persoon, dus ik ben ook half FTE beschikbaar gesteld voor dit jaar. Dat is natuurlijk ook een bijdrage. Dus best een flinke bijdrage voor een initiatief. En dat is een succes. En volgende succes is dat die hub ook daadwerkelijk geopend gaat worden. Wat nu is het vooral nog een leeg pand met een heleboel plannen erom heen. Maar de HUB moet geopend gaan worden in 4 september maar dat stellen we nu uit naar tien oktober, de dag van de duurzaamheid. Die opening, dat is ook een mijlpaal. Daarin vieren we natuurlijk wat er reeds bereikt is en geven we ook een soort doorkijk naar wat er mogelijk is en dat is ook voor het brede publiek dus met pers erbij en politiek. Dat is een mijlpaal. Een andere mijlpaal is de projecten die we aan het bouwen zijn. Dat was natuurlijk heel lang een soort voorbereiding. Dus als je begint met een behoefte van: we zouden graag willen, en dan daar langzamerhand toewerkt. Toewerken naar een concreet project waarin je een consortium hebt, afspraken maakt over wie doet wat, wat wordt er onderzocht, met welk geld en er dan voor gaan. Zeg maar dat hele voortraject van een project, daar zitten we nu in. We zijn nu op een punt dat die projecten echt gedefinieerd gaan worden, waarin subsidieaanvragen ingediend zijn. Dat is natuurlijk heel mooi. Zodra we straks daar naar toe werken, en die subsidies toegekend zijn, betekent dat projecten van start kunnen gaan. Dat er gewerkt wordt aan pilots en dat er echt straks iets te zien is. Dat er een drone vliegt, een heftruck rijdt op waterstof, een vulpunt tankstation gerealiseerd wordt waar lokaal waterstof geproduceerd wordt en getankt kan worden. Dan wordt het zichtbaar, en dat is ook een succes. Dan heb je het over nog een langere termijn. Op dit moment hebben we 4 projecten in oprichting en het idee is dat dat wel groeit in de komende 3 jaar. Dat het aantal deelnemers aan de HUB van 10 naar 50 groeit. Dat het aantal projecten van 4 naar, nou ja daar kunnen we niet echt een getal aan binden, maar ook groeit naar 10, 15 misschien wel 20 projecten. En dat na die 3 jaar het zo succesvol blijkt dat zonder financiële overheidsbijdrage, die hub kan blijven bestaan

(24)

Emma: Dus jij denk dat het ongeveer na die 3 jaar, dat het dan succesvol genoeg is om voor de provincie Overijssel er niet meer mee te bemoeien. Dat is een beetje jouw beeld?

Jorian: Wij hebben de begroting gemaakt voor 3 jaar en de provincie heeft een bijdrage gedaan voor 3 jaar, onder de voorwaarde dat er daarna niet meer gevraagd wordt om meer geld. Daar kun je het mee eens zijn of niet maar dat is wel de realiteit op dit moment. Dus er zal gestreefd worden naar een zelfvoorzienendheid na die 3 jaar. Maar het is wel een hele actuele discussie op dit moment. Hoe de betrokkenheid van de provincie er uit zou moeten zien. Er zijn best wel verschillende ideeën over. De ene zegt [de provincie]: nou we willen dit opstarten en zo snel mogelijk onze handen ervan aftrekken want het is verder hun speeltje. En een ander geluid is [de ondernemers]: dit is typisch een samenwerking van de triple helix: overheid, onderwijs en ondernemers, en eigenlijk een vierde ook: bewoners. Daar kun je niet te vroeg je handen van af trekken want dan sterft het een vroegtijdige dood. En het geluid van de ondernemers is op dit moment: Heel fijn dat de provincie dit een goed idee vind het financieel ondersteunt. Maar zonder betrokkenheid van de provincie was dit in eerste instantie nooit ontstaan en zonder blijvende betrokkenheid zal dit geen succes worden. We hebben liever een serieuze betrokkenheid van de provincie dan het geld. Dat is op dit moment het signaal wat ze [de ondernemers] afgeven. Een succesvol project is belangrijker dan een zak geld waar je geen succes mee weet te behalen. Maar dat is wel een lastige discussie. Op een hoog abstractie niveau is men het wel met elkaar eens maar als het dan moet gaan over een concrete uitvoering, van hoe gaan we dit dan oplossen, is dan het laatste woord er nog niet over gezegd. Concreet, mijn beeld daarbij is dat als

overheid/provincie kan je niet te vroeg je vingers er vanaf halen. Maar het andere verhaal is, ik snap de provincie ook wel die zegt: we [provincie] willen niet een soort afhankelijk creëren dat die ondernemers een soort van gaan leunen op de overheid en daar lui van worden. Dat is een beetje de angst die er is. Die ik overigens onterecht vind in dit geval, maar goed ik snap dat die er is.

Emma: Wij gebruiken in ons onderzoek 3 theorieën dus de triple helix, clustering en collaboratieve governance en dat wordt dan allemaal aan elkaar verbonden en dat wordt dan in mijn deel verwerkt. Om het zo vorm te geven.

En dan nog 1 vraag over succes. Jij vertelde dat op een gegeven moment de HIH wordt geopend en daar komt de pers bij kijken. Dan zal waarschijnlijk de naam groter worden, maar hebben ze nu al een reputatie binnen Overijssel en daarbuiten?

Jorian: oh ja dat is ook een goeie. Dat hoort zeker tot 1 van de successen. Een van de zorgen aan de voorkant van deze hele ontwikkeling was we [de HUB] moeten voorkomen dat dit een Twents dingetje wordt. Dat het een soort clubje wordt dat met elkaar lekker bezig is en een beetje na staren is. Dit moet ingebed worden in een regionale samenwerking. Dus daar is ook veel aandacht naar toe gegaan sinds eind vorig jaar, sinds oktober ongeveer. We merkten dat tot dat moment er eigenlijk niet echt iets bestond als een regionale

inbedding, op het thema waterstof tenminste. Maar wat we met een aantal partijen hebben gesignaleerd, is dat sinds vorig jaar er echt een significante toename is in het aantal initiatieven op het gebied van waterstof, in zowel in Gelderland als in Overijssel. Wat de eerste aanleiding is geweest is om de koppen bij elkaar te steken, en dan heb ik het over beide provincies, oost nl, kiemt, cleantech regio, regio achterhoek, en regio Twente. Zo van welk initiatieven zijn er dan zoal en wat voor behoefte hebben die initiatieven en kunnen we

(25)

daar iets zinnigs over zeggen? Dat we daar een beetje met elkaar dat delen zodat je daar beeld van krijgt. De volgende stap is: waar hebben ze behoefte aan en wat voor een manier kunnen we ze daar in voorzien? Daarin zien we dat er zich aantal clusteringen aan het vormen zijn in Oost Nederland, en oost Nederland is dan Gelderland en Overijssel samen in dit geval, en die clusters vormen zich rond Arnhem, Deventer, Almelo. Daarnaast zijn er nog verschillende kleinere initiatieven in Zwolle, Lochem, Zutphen, Deventer Apeldoorn,

Steenwijkerland en Doetinchem. Dat zijn op dit moment de plekken die we in het vizier hebben. Het idee is (en dat is ook wat de provincie zegt, in ieder geval Overijssel) dat we willen niet individuele initiatieven ondersteunen maar we willen, daar waar mogelijk, clusters en samenwerkingen ondersteunen. Het liefst clusters die onderscheidend en aanvullend zijn op elkaar. Dus niet dat het cluster Almelo en Arnhem precies hetzelfde gaan doen. Dat is onzinnig. Laten we dan zoveel mogelijk gebruik maken van elkaars ervaring en kennis en aanvullend zijn op elkaar. Daar zie je dat in Arnhem meer de focus ligt op technologie ontwikkelingen. Daar hebben ze een aantal bedrijven die electrolytes en brandstofcellen ontwikkelen en daar is mobiliteit sterk. In Deventer zijn ze nu een studie aan het doen naar systeemintegratie dus onder welke voorwaarde is de businesscase positief dus als je

misschien ook je zuurstof gaat verwaarden of stapelen in wellicht warmte stromen. In Zwolle merk je dat het accent ligt op net congestie. Daar waar de elektriciteitsnetten te licht zijn en ook in de komende 30 jaar onvoldoende uitgebreid gaan worden om allerlei

duurzaamheidsprojecten door te laten gaan. Wat je ziet in de praktijk is dat er een initiatief is om een zonneweide of een zon op dak installatie te installeren van enkele megawatts maar dat dat niet doorgaat omdat het [elektriciteit] net te licht is. Zou je daar iets kunnen doen met ander opslag vormen zoals met waterstof? In Almelo zie je dat het accent veel meer ligt op de toepassing van waterstof. Er is heel veel maakindustrie. Heel veel mkb’ers hebben opgemerkt dat in hun ‘core business’ veel gebruik gemaakt wordt van fossiele brandstoffen. Deze mkb’ers zien de toegevoegde waarde in alternatieve brandstoffen en daarbij is een batterij elektrisch onvoldoende. Er moet dus worden gekeken naar een alternatief. Waterstof zou daar wel interessant in kunnen zijn maar dat is complex en duur, maar er is wel een wil om er mee te experimenteren. In Almelo zie je dat daar dus het accent veel meer op de toepassing zit. Op dit moment is dat toepassing in de mobiliteit maar dat kan ook een toepassing zijn op een andere type toepassingen. Die samenwerking op oost Nederlandse schaal heeft nu de werktitel hy east (hy van hydrogen) en in hy east worden al die

initiatieven besproken en adviseren we de provincies waar wel en niet op in te zetten. Dat is allemaal nog in ontwikkeling maar het is wel een poging om al van die losse flodders een logisch geheel te maken. Zodat je een verhaal kunt uitdragen naar het rijk, maar ook naar Europa. Daarmee kun je je profileren als oost Nederland living lab voor waterstof of decentrale energie systemen. Decentrale energiesystemen is ook weer een apart ding. Je hebt grootschalige energie opwek op zee en op land en dat is vooral in Groningen aan de hand. Vanuit Groningen komt heel veel energie van wind tot zee aan land en de havens zijn daar belangrijk in. In oost Nederland heb je eigenlijk geen grootschalige wind of zon op land maar daar heb je weer heel veel decentrale initiatieven, zoals initiatieven van enkele

megawatt zon op dak. Dat is op het hele landelijke verhaal peanuts maar als je al die decentrale initiatieven bij elkaar optelt zou dat nog best significant kunnen zijn, maar hoe significant weten we nog niet. Verder, hoe we ze willen ondersteunen weten we ook nog niet. Maar die clusters die daar aan het vormen zijn zouden daar wel een mogelijke rol in kunnen spelen. Daarmee zie je dat zo een hub Almelo, misschien klinkt het in eerste instantie niet zo groot, maar het wel onderdeel van een groot verhaal en heeft het heel erg

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

We suggest that the latter two effects are halo effects: The actual greenwashing is not directly related to product and service quality or financial perfor- mance, but

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: In our proposal we used the project method according to Carl Rogers (Rogers, 1977), consisting of 4 phases: Students 1) define project and

This study is in line with research, focussing on the receiver side of organizational transparency (Hood, 2006; O’Neill, 2006; Rawlins, 2008; Christensen & Langer, 2009) and

The results indicate that enterprise R&D, research institutions R&D and the interaction between various R&D performers in RIS are significant determinants of

Culture of the finance department: - Orientation to change - Manner of processing - Ways of deciding Shared perception of business issues Communication between

The initial goal of writing the scenarios aligns with the results, because all interviewees confirmed out- of-the-box thinking resulted from the process. Entrepreneurs, also the

There are five main dimensions to the model, which are listed in sequence: (1) External triggers for changes in management (2) Internal triggers for changes in

The engagement with internal and external stakeholders is thus an important aspect of the stakeholder theory, which can improve the relations with the stakeholders at several