RDAs and Benchmarking: Learning from Good Practice when the Model has Broken
| Date | 01 July 2005 |
| DOI | 10.1177/095207670502000303 |
| Author | Michael Hughes,Ewa Helinska-Hughes,Michael Danson, |
| Published date | 01 July 2005 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
RDAs
and
Benchmarking:
Learning
from
Good
Practice
when
the
Model
has
Broken
Michael
Danson,
University
of
Paisley
Ewa
Helinska-Hughes,
University
of
Paisley
Michael
Hughes,
University
of
Aberdeen
Abstract
Following
a
Europe-wide
survey,
a
model
RDA
was
defined
by
Halkier
and
Danson
(1997,
p.245)
as
a
body
which,
first,
organisationally
is
in
a
semi-
autonomous
position
vis-a'-vis
its
sponsoring
political
authority;
second,
supports
mainly
indigenous
firms
by
means
of
'soft'
policy
instruments;
and,
third,
is
a
multifunctional
and
integrated
agency,
the
level
of
which
may
be
determined
by
the
range
of
policy
instruments
it
uses.
The
breakdown
of
this
model
in
the
period
since
then
(Danson
and
Helinska-Hughes,
2003
&
2004)
raises
important
issues
for
the
dissemination
of
good
practice.
By
contrast,
leadership
qualities,
good
practice,
efficiency
and
effectiveness
may
have
become
to
be
associated
with
the
smaller
focused
EDAs
(economic
development
agencies)
and
not
with
the
large
traditional
institutions
such
as
Scottish
Enterprise
(SE)
and
the
Irish
agencies.
Regional
development
agencies
(RDAs)
are
at
the
forefront
of
those
who
place
strong
weight
on
the
role
of
knowledge,
knowledge
transfer
and
the
knowledge
economy
in
economic
development.
To
promote
such
an
approach,
strategies
have
been
evolved
which
seek
to
recognise
and
build
upon
the
idea
of
the
'learning
region'
(Cooke
and
Morgan,
2000).
Attention
is
paid,
therefore,
to
ensuring
there
is
appropriate
institutional
capacity
and
thickness
to
support
this
corporate
learning
(Wong,
1999).
These
concepts
are
themselves
believed
to
be
underpinned
by
trust
and
cooperation
between
economic
actors
and,
in
turn,
these
are
established
and
nurtured
through
networking
and
partnership
working
(Danson
and
Whittam,
1999;
Danson
and
Cameron,
2000).
This
article
reports
on
two
surveys
conducted
to
determine
which
agencies
are
considered
to
be
'model'
and
leading
players:
the
organisations
from
which
Public
Policy
and
Administration
Volume
20
No.
3
Autumn
2005
4
others
learn.
The
article
concludes
that
EDAs
and
experts
tend
to
benchmark
against
a
set
of
similar
specialist
agencies
rather
than
the
traditional
leading
model
agency.
In
this
context:
*
many
EDAs
lack
benchmarking
experience;
*
there
is
often
little
awareness
of
what
others
are
doing;
*
as
a
result
there
is
a
lack
of
an
industry
standard
to
gauge
the
performance
of
SE
and
other
EDAs;
*
there
is
uncertainty
over
which
performance
indicators
are
appropriate;
and
*
the
varying
social,
economic
and
political
contexts
and
environments
within
which
different
agencies
operate,
etc.
make
it
difficult
for
agencies
and
commentators
to
benchmark
generally.
Changing
Context
This
article
explores
the
implications
of
institutional
change
for
learning
in
economic
development
organizations.
Context
is
important
in
determining
how
such
changes
impact
on
particular
organisations,
and
especially
on
regional
development
agencies
(RDAs).
By
the
1990s,
regions
across
Europe
had
established
RDAs
as
the
most
effective
way
of
delivering
economic
growth
and
development
strategies.
These
RDAs
tended
to
look
to
the
Celtic
countries
for
best
practice
(Halkier
and
Danson,
1997),
and
to
Scottish
Enterprise
(SE)
and
the
Irish
Development
Agency
(IDA)
in
particular.
These
RDAs
were
considered
as
demonstrating
best
practice
both
in
the
sense
that
they
met
the
criteria
of
a
'model
agency'
(Halkier
and
Danson,
1997),
and
that
they
evangelised
the
advantages
of
their
form
of
agency
across
Europe.
Knowledge
about
these
two
'model'
agencies
(Halkier
and
Danson,
1997)
was
generally
and
widely
distributed
and
disseminated
especially
through
such
networks
as
EURADA
(the
European
Association
of
Regional
Development
Agencies)
and
their
leading
roles
in
innovation
and
the
evolution
of
strategic
interventions
were
recognized
and
accepted
fairly
universally.
Complementing
this,
most
smaller
RDAs
at
that
time
had
restricted
autonomy
functions
and
looked
to
SE
and
the
IDA
as
ideals,
as
models
to
aspire
to
with
their
capacities
to
set
their
own
agenda
relatively
free
from
governmental
control.
Some
recent
limited
desk-based
studies
(Scottish
Enterprise,
2001
and
2002),
however,
suggested
that
the
landscape
had
changed.
Many
of
the
smaller
RDAs
still
had few
functions
but
had
gained
much
more
autonomy
and
a
number
of
the
larger
organizations
had
been
demerged
into
component
agencies
each,
again,
with
a
good
deal
of
control
over
their
own
affairs.
These
changes
prompted
questions
over
whom
the
RDAs
now
considered
to
be
best
practice
or
model
agencies,
and
so
from
whom
they
were
now
learning.
This
paper
reports
on
research
which
sought
to
answer
these
questions,
in
the
context
of
a
benchmarking
exercise
for
SE.
The
following
section
justifies
the
definition
of
a
model
RDA
and
provides
the
theoretical
underpinnings
on
learning,
regions
and
institutions
for
the
later
arguments.
As
it
is
proposed
that
the
parallel
growth
of
collaboration
with
other
organizations
in
the
1990s
was
Public
Policy
and
Administration
Volume
20
No.
3
Autumn
2005
5
To continue reading
Request your trial