Cross Innovation: Academic Analyst’s Report from Policy Clinic 2 Brokerage Birmingham 21 – 22 February 2013 By Jez Collins, Centre for Media and Cultural Research, Birmingham City University This is an observational report from the second Cross Innovation Policy Clinic, which was held in Birmingham, England, from 21-‐22 February 2013. Participants from Warsaw, Vilnius and Birmingham took part in exercises and discussions related to the broad and wide-‐ranging role that brokerage plays in engendering and supporting cross innovation networks, i.e. those involving creative industries sharing knowledge with other growth sectors. Definition: Brokerage. This theme refers to services offered by agencies that facilitate connections between sectors and individual firms, where none previously existed. Observations of the discussion The event was held in the Moseley Exchange, a former telephone exchange building, which is now a co-‐working space in Moseley, a suburb of Birmingham. Whilst not exclusively for creative industry workers, the use of co-‐working and hot-‐desking facilities is driven by freelance and micro business working patterns frequently found in the creative industry sector. These types of spaces are common and have become established across Europe as an accepted part of the creative industries’ offer, used by local and regional governments and support agencies to aid sector growth. What hasn’t been fully researched is their use, or otherwise, in the role of brokerage for and between users of such spaces. Dr Steve Harding (Birmingham City University) gave an introduction to the Policy Clinic and provided examples of Brokerage taken from the Cross Innovation partnership: 1) The use of showcase events as brokerage, bringing people together, e.g. Fashion Infection, Vilnius. 2) The use of time-‐defined and goal-‐oriented events such as Innovation Bootcamps, as brokerage, e.g. Garage 48, Tallinn. 3) Brokerage and networking, e.g. between specialisms at the Stockholm Universities. 4) Space as a broker, e.g. Planet Modular, Berlin. Also mentioned were: 5) Voucher schemes to aid cross-‐country brokerage through travel subsidies. 1
As a neutral observer, what I found interesting were the dynamics of the city groups. There were clearly different approaches to how policy is devised and implemented in the partner cities, but I felt that there was a tendency for the groups I observed to focus on discussions about definitions and methodologies, rather than using the Policy Clinic as an opportunity to experiment and alter the ways in which such topics are often discussed. In future Policy Clinics, this would require a different emphasis from the facilitators, but could result in providing or stimulating new thinking and ideas for the Cross Innovation project. There was a wide-‐ranging discussion involving policy makers and sector workers about brokerage and its different uses and meanings, not only across different partner cities but also within individual cities and agencies. However it was clear that there was commonality across the partners in so much as brokerage was closely interlinked with the spaces and places where creative industry workers, and those from other growth sectors, coalesce and meet. In addition, brokerage was also clearly identified with individuals, whether from public, private or third sector agencies, and a very strong theme right through the Clinic was the term “honest brokers” – individuals who have the trust of policy makers to influence policy and the trust of the creative industry sector/other growth sectors to understand their needs when communicating with policy makers. One delegate from Birmingham who provides this function, neatly summarised his role as a broker as “engineering serendipity” – helping people meet the right people whatever sector they work in or wherever they might spatially locate themselves. But I wasn’t convinced that there was a clear process of knowing who the right people (i.e. the brokers) are – the process does rely heavily on intermediaries and my concern is what happens when those people are no longer available and, relatedly, how do those people continually refresh their own networks to ensure that there is an on-‐going cycle of new people and new ideas. Is there a role for a light-‐touch policy to capture and support these individuals and their networks? When tackling specifically the brokering of relationships between creative industries and other growth sectors, there was a wide-‐ranging discussion about what constitutes the creative industries, with a focus on the terminology used to mark out the overlapping ground between creative industries, cultural organisations, digital businesses and ICT. It was felt that brokers might have a role to play in nuancing this terminology and presenting the offer of creative industries to “cross innovation-‐ready” growth sectors, such as nanotechnology and biotechnology. It was agreed that the creative industry sector has a role to play in such growth sectors, but that an understanding of how the CI sector operates and can be used is key; knowledgeable and trusted brokers are required to facilitate these types of connections. However, there was also an agreement that the creative industry sector perhaps does not market or communicate its breadth and depth of knowledge, skills and expertise, and that brokerage/brokers could also play a role in this area. 2
There was a lot of talk about space, how is it used and the need for physical places for brokers and sector workers to meet, network and work together – whether formal or informal. Also discussed was how such spaces might be established and supported during current times of economic restraint. However, there was also mention of the role of social media in brokerage, as an increasing amount of such activity takes place online through “invisible” networks. What role does, or should, policy play in capturing, harnessing and proactively using these online spaces and networks? Interestingly, there was little talk of how cross innovation processes could be applied to brokerage itself, so I perceive there to be a role for broader skills and a wider knowledge-‐base in the theme. Relatedly, is there an opportunity to develop more formal modes of training for brokers? And could there be a greater emphasis on bringing brokers from different sectors together, to exchange knowledge and develop networking opportunities? Finally, how do policy makers measure the success or otherwise of brokerage initiatives? Should economic indicators always be considered the most important, or is there scope to better understand the multiple roles brokers play in and across sectors, removed from financial outputs? February 2013
3