Rethinking the ‘Entrepreneurial Discovery Process’ in times of physical distancing : lessons from Portuguese regions.
Date: 2021-03-04
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: coronavirus disease, digital technology, entrepreneurship, fishery management, innovation, regions of Portugal, report, research and development

Rethinking the ‘Entrepreneurial Discovery 
Process’ in times of physical distancing 

Lessons from Portuguese 
regions 

Laranja, M. 

Marques Santos, A. 

Edwards, J. 

Foray, D. 

2021 

EUR 30615 EN 

This publication is a Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge 
service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does 
not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the 
Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying 
the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the 
referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion 
whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or 
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. 

Contact information 
Name: Anabela Marques Santos 
Address: Edificio EXPO, c. Inca Garcilaso 3, 41092 Sevilla, Spain 
Email: anabela.marques-santos@ec.europa.eu 
Tel.: +34 95-448.71.61 

EU Science Hub 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

JRC123818 

EUR 30615 EN 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-76-30903-1 

ISSN 1831-9424 

doi:10.2760/094408 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021 

© European Union, 2021 

The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the 
reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under 
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that 
reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. For any use or reproduction of photos or other 
material that is not owned by the EU, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. 

All content © European Union 2021, except: cover, light_bulbs_strategy_(c)_EtiAmmos_230583074, 2020. Source: stock.adobe.com 

How to cite this report: Laranja, M.; Marques Santos, A.; Edwards, J.; Foray, D., Rethinking the ‘Entrepreneurial Discovery Process’ in times 
of physical distancing: Lessons from Portuguese regions, EUR 30615 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, 
ISBN 978-92-76-30903-1, doi:10.2760/094408, JRC123818. 

Contents 

1 

Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 

2  Understanding “Entrepreneurial Discovery Processes” and “Smart Specialisation Strategies”...................................... 6 

3  Challenges for governance in “normal circumstances” and in times of Covid-19 pandemic .......................................... 9 

4  Covid-19 and the use of synchronous communication tools to support online events ..................................................... 12 

5  Prototyping Online “Entrepreneurial Discovery Process” events in Alentejo and Algarve: Lessons Learned . 13 

6  Event evaluation: Stakeholders perception and suggestions for improvements ...................................................................... 18 

7  Conclusions and Discussion: Opportunities to further improve support to Entrepreneurial Discovery 
Processes ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 20 

References ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 21 

Annexes .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 

Annex 1. Agenda Entrepreneurial Discovery Process workshop “Sustainable Bioeconomy in the Alentejo 
Region”, 24 June and 30 June 2020 ................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 

Annex 2. Agenda Entrepreneurial Discovery Process workshop “Innovate in Tourism: from Digital transition 
to Smart Destination” 30 September and 8 October 2020 .......................................................................................................................... 24 

List of abbreviations and definitions ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 

List of boxes......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 

List of figures ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 

List of tables ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 28 

i 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Abstract 

The  “Entrepreneurial  Discovery  Process”  is  a  key  element  of  Smart  Specialisation  Strategy,  referring  to 
stakeholder  involvement  in  policy  design  to  ‘discover’  and  identify  new  or  existing  priorities  for  innovation 
investment, based on region strengths and market trends. However, studies have revealed that this principle 
has been one of the most demanding for regions (or countries) to implement, and such interaction between 
stakeholders has been even more challenging in times of physical distancing,  as the result of the COVID-19 
pandemic.  

The  present  report  aims  to  present  the  lessons  learned  from  pilot  actions  conducted  with  the  Alentejo  and 
Algarve regions of Portugal for prototyping online events to support the “Entrepreneurial Discovery Process”. 
The pilots provide the opportunity to design and test whether online workshops could be used to support EDP 
more widely, and what adaptations would be needed for a new online context. 

For  both  events  the  objective  was  to  stimulate  regional  actors  to  participate  in  an  initial  exploration  of 
relevant thematic areas, in order to define them as possible priority domains for the next Smart Specialisation 
cycle. Participating actors in both regions were invited to participate, share experiences, identify obstacles, and 
suggest  solutions  to  strengthen  the  innovative  capacity  of  the  region  in  these  thematic  areas.  Hence  the 
events  were  prepared  to  bring  together  a  range  of  actors  in  the  territory,  from  business,  research,  and  the 
public administration to discuss issues relevant to their regional strategies.  

This  report  sets  out  the  lessons  learned  from  this  experience  with  organising  and  participating  on  online 
events to support EDP can be divided in before-the-event, during-the-event and after-the-event. 

Furthermore,  an  ex  post  online  survey  to  participants  revealed  an  overall  high  satisfaction  with  onine  EDP 
events  and  that  future  similar  events  associated  with  the  EDP  process  could  have  a  mixed  format,  where 
physical  meetings  could  (if  possible)  be  used  to  complement  online  meetings.  Altogether,  such  findings 
suggest  adopting  a  digital  approach would  ensure  not  only  the  continuity  of  the  policy  process  in  difficult 
times, but can also be a way to improve the participation in the governance model in the post-corona crisis. 

Keywords: COVID- 19; Entrepreneurial Discovery Process; On-line event; Portugal. 

2 

 
 
 
 
Acknowledgements 

The  authors  would  like  to  thank  CCDR-Alentejo  and  CCDR-Algarve  for  their  collaboration  as  well  as  all 
participants to the EDP events online. They also thank Mark Boden from the JRC for his encouragements and 
support to write this paper. 

Authors 

Manuel Laranja  

ISEG, Lisbon School of Economics & Management, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal 

Anabela M. Santos  

Joint Research Centre, European Commission 

John Edwards 

Joint Research Centre, European Commission (until August 2020), CICS-NOVA and Policy Experimentation and 
Evaluation Platform (from October 2020)  

Dominique Foray  

College of Management of Technology, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

The COVID-19 pandemic, first identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, the capital of the Chinese province of 
Hubei,  quickly  spread  round  the  world  within  weeks  and  was  declared  a  pandemic  by  the  World  Health 
Organization, on 11 March 2020. Lockdown, confinement and travel limitations were some of the measures 
adopted by governments to stop the disease from spreading. When economic activities allowed it, teleworking 
has  been  an  alternative  for  some  companies  to  continue  operating.  Teleworking  was  also  followed  by 
increasing use of digital platforms for communication, and such a trend may persist beyond the short term 
and even post-COVID (Marques Santos et al., 2020). 

Policy context 

In  addition  to  the  contribution  of  digitisation  to  the  private  sector,  remote  communication  technologies  can 
also help to improve mechanisms of support to the Smart Specialisation policy process, as well as beyond, in 
times  of  physical  distance.  For  instance,  they  allow  the  involvement  of  stakeholders  dispersed  in  remote 
places or territories (e.g. islands or remote places distant from the region's capital) in the design and follow-
up  of  policy  interventions.  Re-thinking  the  support  of  the  “Entrepreneurial  Discovery  Process”  (EDP)  and 
adopting a digital approach can ensure not only the continuity of the policy in difficult times but can also be a 
way to improve participation in the S3 governance model in the post-corona crisis. 

Under  the  project  “Targeted  Support  to  Lagging  Regions”,  funded  through  a  European  Parliamentary  Action, 
the JRC-B3 implemented a pilot action with the Alentejo and Algarve regions of Portugal, to experiment how 
support to “Entrepreneurial Discovery Process” can be undertaken using online events. 

Key conclusions 

The lessons learned with organising and participating on online events to support EDP revealed that the large 
majority of the  participants were welcomed  with the experience. They also expressed their preference for a 
mixed format where in-person meetings could (if possible) be used in complement of the online meetings. 

Furthermore, this pilot action allows to draw some guidelines on the organisation of online events to support 
the EDP, distinguishing between what can be done before, during and after the event. 

Digitalisation  of  support  to  EDP  allows  for  more  regular  interactions,  even  if  it  lacks  the  ‘human  touch’  of 
meeting  physically.  It  also  allows  for  a  potentially  more  inclusive  process  as  people  can  join  online  events 
from wherever they are based. As we enter the ‘new normal’, which although is still far from clear, support to 
EDP can surely be improved and strengthened by experimenting with and building on new opportunities in the 
digital world. 

Related JRC work 

This report complements JRC work on Smart Specialisation Strategies in Portugal, namely with a focus on the 
assessment of S3 implementation (see Laranja, Edwards, Pinto and Foray, 2020) as well as complementary 
work on the involvement of higher education institutions in S3. 

4 

 
  
1 

Introduction 

This report discusses how support to the “Entrepreneurial Discovery Process” (EDP), which lies at the heart of 
Smart Specialisation Strategies (S3), can be undertaken using online events. 

While  there  are  many  aspects  of  S3  and  EDP  that  have  been  discussed  in  the  literature,  relatively  less 
attention has been payed to how EDP would be supported by regional authorities and, in particular, how such 
support would be delivered in this new pandemic context., where in-person meetings and events have become 
much more difficult and virtual gatherings have become much more common.  

In  the  short  term,  this  may  help  all  regions  to  adapt  the  process  of  revising  their  S3  ahead  of  the  next 
programming  period  of  EU  funds  (2021-2027),  although  as  we  will  underline,  regional  authorities’  role  in 
supporting and facilitating EDP cannot be reduced to an one off event at the beginning of the S3 policy cycle, 
and needs to be taken as a continuous process. Holding online events is one way to continue holding relatively 
large gatherings and there is a growing number of organizations already experimenting with virtual events for 
different  purposes  at  different  scales.  The  COVID-19  pandemic  has  accelerated  the  use  of  digital 
communication platforms and even if in the future physical meetings become safe as they used to be, online 
means of supporting the entrepreneurial discovery process may become part of the ‘new normal’. This will not 
be a case of physical meetings being entirely replaced, since we know that person-to-person interactions are 
important for innovation, but a way of complementing and strengthening the process.  

Despite  support  provided  at  EU  level  (Kyriakou  et  al.,  2017),  providing  regional  support  for  entrepreneurial 
discovery  remains  a  major  challenge,  particularly  for  less  developed  regions  with  lower  innovation  policy 
capacity. Digitalising the support to EDP could be an advantage for peripheral and rural regions that by nature 
benefit less from agglomeration and physical interaction that drive innovation in many places.  

Before the pandemic the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) was already providing hands on 
support  for  implementation  of  EDP  as  part  of  its  project  on  Targeted  Support  to  Lagging  Regions,  funded 
through a European Parliamentary Action. Based on our experience of co-organising EDP online events in the 
regions  of  Alentejo  and  Algarve  in  Portugal  with  the  support  of  the  JRC,  in  this  report  we  provide  a  critical 
reflexion  around  EDP  and  how  it  can  be  supported,  providing  practical  guidance  for  organising  online  EDP 
support events. 

The next section of the paper reviews the concept of entrepreneurial discovery within the smart specialisation 
approach,  while  section  three  discusses  governance  challenges  for  policy  support  through  EDP,  section  4 
reflects  on  new  challenges  presented  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  the  rise  of  online  events  in  general. 
Section five reports on the lessons learned from the pilot on-line workshop in Alentejo and Algarve. Finally, 
section  six  reflects  on  how  this  experience  can  help  strengthen  EDP  despite  the  challenges  and  difficulties 
brought by the pandemic. 

5 

 
 
 
2  Understanding “Entrepreneurial Discovery Processes” and “Smart 

Specialisation Strategies” 

The S3 approach focuses on the deployment of innovative activity and the establishment of new connections 
within and beyond the region, enabling the region concerned to transform itself and develop new competitive 
advantages  based  on  these  transformations.  The  other  raison  d’être  of  S3  is to  encourage  regions  to  build 
these  competitive  advantages on  their specific  strengths,  potentials and opportunities,  rather than  doing  as 
others do. Thus, they avoid doing the same “good” things as others, which in the end will in many cases prove 
inconsistent  and  unrelated  to  the  region’s  existing  assets  and  potentials  and  does  not  provide  any 
comparative advantage.  

To attain these very general objectives, the principles identified in 2009 remain valid: 

Concentrate on certain priorities. This principle aims to generate a certain density of actors and projects that 
are related as they are dedicated to the same priority – an imperative condition to benefit from the resulting 
synergies, complementarity and agglomeration, which are essential determinants of innovation, creativity and 
R&D productivity. This is also an important condition for a government to be able to reach the level of input 
specificity required to innovate in a given industrial or technological domain. Governments cannot address all 
specific innovation infrastructures and specific services for all markets and activities. They need to choose. 

Concentrate  not  on  structures  (for  example  the  region’s  three  most  important  industries)  but  on  the 
transformation  of  these  structures.  Each  priority  includes  one  or  several  sectors  as  well  as  a  direction  of 
change. If both elements are combined and sufficiently well defined to create the density effects mentioned 
above, they build a priority area, a cornerstone of a smart specialisation strategy. 

Favour  an  entrepreneurial  discovery  logic,  which  means  simply  that  the  targeted  transformation  will  not 
follow a path that is decided from the top but will be discovered as the process unfolds. There is therefore no 
ex ante plan, but rather a permanent process of navigation in line with the transformation objectives, which 
implies rigorous feedback, monitoring and flexibility mechanisms. This does not mean that objectives should 
not be set but rather they should be pursued and adjusted in line with emerging evidence and experience. 

The  S3  approach  is  thus  marked  on  the  one  hand  by  a  high  level  of  intentionality  and  strategic  focus  on 
priorities. On the other hand, it is characterised by a high level of self-discovery and initiative by the actors of 
the innovation process. It is this combination of two policy logics – a planning logic and a self-discovery logic, 
frequently opposed in the literature and in practice – that constitutes its trademark! 

Instead of talking of a large number of stages within a rigid process that must be respected at all costs, it is 
undoubtedly wiser to suggest just three steps to regions, which they can then conduct as they prefer. 

The identification of thematic priority areas is the starting point. The goal of this step is to make explicit what 
transformations are desirable for what kind of sectors. A priority area must include one (or several) sector(s) 
with a clear direction of change.  

It must be noted here that there is not really any entrepreneurial discovery at this stage and what is needed is 
a more “simple” participatory process. Having no entrepreneurial discovery here is not a problem because, as 
already stated, the S3 design is structured to involve two logics of policy actions  – a planning  mode and a 
self-discovery  mode.  Clearly,  the  first  step  (selecting  a  few  priority  areas)  has  a  planning  aspect  while  the 
second and third ones will be profoundly influenced by the entrepreneurial discovery process (below). There is 
therefore  no  room  or  need  for  an  entrepreneurial  discovery  process  at  the  priority  area  selection  stage.  he 
entrepreneurial discovery will very quickly materialise during the following two phases.  

The translation of a priority area into a transformational roadmap through EDP is the second step. It involves 
the definition of the nature, scope and meaning of the investments for transformation and transition within 
the  considered  sector(s).    It  is  important  to  emphasize  this  step  because  it  has  been  observed  that  many 
regions  that  had  correctly  conducted  their  prioritisation  task  found  it  very  difficult  to  concretise  and 
implement  these  priorities.  And  yet  this  is  the  crucial  phase:  the  conversion  of  each  priority  into  a  more 
concrete  transformational  roadmap  –  a  set  of  projects  and  actors  –  all    committed  to  following  the  same 
direction of change – and thus linked by this common direction.  

The  problem  can  be  expressed  thus:  an  identified  priority  area  targets  a  certain  transformation  of  one  or 
several industries – e.g. the transition of electromechanical sector towards industry 4-0. Before S3 is designed 
and implemented, we are at a certain level of technology, employment and qualification, business model and 
performance and we are aiming to move to a higher level of digital innovation in this industry. This requires a 
full understanding of the obstacles to this transformation: Why haven’t we already reached this level? What 

6 

 
constraints, market and coordination failures, obstacles of all kinds prevented this evolution? How can it work? 
All the identified projects and actors are going to address these problems and  constraints that concern not 
only R&D but enterprises with their suppliers and clients, with the need for new skills and qualifications, new 
forms of management and logistics, specific  public  goods (specialised  services, and adoption of certain key 
technologies  (diffusion).  Here,  in  the  identification  and  search  for  resolutions  to  these  obstacles,  is  where 
entrepreneurial discovery kicks in. 

All  of  these  diversified  projects  will  eventually  constitute  the  transformative  activity.  The  definition  of  a 
transformative  activity  is  very  simple  :  It  is  neither  an  individual  project  nor  a  sector  as  a  whole  but  a 
collection of related capacities, projects, activities and people that are present in the region, to which can be 
added extra-regional capacities and that is oriented towards a certain direction of change.  

This  translation  of  a  priority  into  transformational  roadmap  in  order  to  build  and  develop  a  transformative 
activity is the key transition.  It enables many of the S3 objectives to be attained  - which we have grouped 
under the heading the 5 Ds: 

It  concretises  a  certain  direction  of  change,  initially  expressed  by  the  priority,  and  reveals  guidelines 
concerning the course of action to achieve this change. 

It enables the transition from priorities, which can to a great extent be similar from one region to another, to 
a broad regional differentiation. In fact, similar priorities will lead to different transformative activities as the 
latter  are  designed  as  a  specific  response  to  problems  and  opportunities  that  are  specific  to  the  particular 
region. 

The transformative activity is a collection of related projects - linked by the fact that they all contribute in one 
way  or another  to  the  same  structural  transformation  in  the  priority  area.  It  thus  creates relational  density 
and the chance to reap the benefits of a certain coordination between the projects and actors involved in this 
transformation.  

The  transformative  activity  covers  a  large  number  of  factors,  including  the  formation  of  human  capital, 
corporate management, adoption of new technologies, etc. It is therefore a collection of distributed capacities 
and  projects,  which  cannot  be  reduced  to  the  notion  of  a  single  major  project  (like  the  creation  of  a  new 
specialised R&D institute, frequently destined to become the proverbial white elephant). 

This is the preferred framework for entrepreneurial discovery. At the end of the priority definition phase, it is 
impossible to know what the outlines and content of the transformative activities will be. They are built and 
developed on the basis of the entrepreneurial discovery process. 

An  important  contribution  of  S3  is  that  offered  by  this  concept  of  transformative  activity.  It  reflects  the 
appropriate  level  of  granularity  at  which  the  S3  must  materialise,  once  the  strategic  priority  has  been 
identified.  This  level  of  granularity  is neither that  of  the  sector (S3  is not  a  sectoral  policy)  nor  that  of  the 
individual project (since S3 must create relational density, synergies and complementarities). The appropriate 
level is therefore that of a set of related projects, covering a multitude of problems to be resolved (research, 
innovation, infrastructure, training) and all oriented towards the same transformation priority.  

We can add one important effect of this translation phase. It operates as a feedback mechanism to verify the 
pertinence  of  the  priorities.  If  the  transformational  roadmap  comprises  only  a  few  projects,  perhaps  badly 
formulated  or  premature.  We  should  go  back  to  square  one  and  discuss  the  pertinence  of  the  priority  in 
question again. 

Finally,  the  action  plan  step  centres  on  the  implementation  of  the  transformative  activity.  It  involves 
mobilising  and  coordinating  financial  instruments,  which  often  have  different  objectives  (R&D,  training, 
infrastructures),  evaluating  projects  regarding  their  financing,  designing  feedback  mechanisms,  monitoring 
and  flexibility  to  maximise  the  informational  effects  and  spillovers  of  entrepreneurial  discovery  –  more 
important than ever at the transformative activity development stage. Finally, the action plan is the right step 
to  acknowledge  the  strategic  complementarity  between  projects  (training,  research,  technological  diffusion, 
public  procurement  projects  etc.),  which  implies  that  there  is  great  advantage  to  be  gained  in  adopting  all 
these projects simultaneously, resulting in a transformative activity.  

To close this  section, it is useful to observe that  recent and current experiences in  various regional settings 
show  clearly  that  S3  design  and  implementation  are  feasible  but  challenging.  It  is  difficult  to  identify  a 
relevant priority area, but even more so to translate it into a transformative activity and finally move towards 
the  action  plan.  The  main  problem is  that  the  construction  of  the  transformative  activity  requires  from  the 
policy  agency  a  very  detailed  understanding  of  the  coordination  relationships  between  different  types  of 

7 

 
investments  as  well  as  a  deep  knowledge  of  the  specific  inputs,  which  are  needed  to  innovate  within  a 
particular set of industries. These informational requirements are hard to meet. 

The  logic  of  entrepreneurial  discovery  offers  here  a  solution  to  the  information  problem.  This is  the  role  of 
stakeholders – firms, research, etc. – to discover what needs to be done; the kind of investments required at a 
very high level of details and specificities. The notion of entrepreneurial discovery should – by no means – be 
viewed as just an elegant academic trick – theoretically useful to minimise the top-down logic of the process. 
It  is  a  true  necessity  –  to  overcome  the  informational  challenge  raised  by  the  logic  of  constructing  and 
developing transformative activities within the selected priority areas. 

8 

 
 
3  Challenges for governance in “normal circumstances” and in times of 

Covid-19 pandemic  

Existing  literature  on  S3  and  EDP  (Foray,  2014;  EC,  2012;  Gianelle  et  al,  2016)  provides  relatively  litle 
attention  to  how  should  public  authorities  provide  support  and  facilitate  the  whole  S3  design  and 
implementation process and, in particular, how should EDP be facilitated. 

For  example,  Aghion,  David  and  Foray  (2009)  refer  that  governments  must  drop  their  traditional  role  as 
principal-agent  of  a  top-down  planning  and  control  process  and  learn  a  new  role  as  facilitators  and  co-
discoverers,  stimulating  and  promoting  the  design  and  implementation  process.  However,  this  new  role  as 
facilitators  requires  governance  structures  other  than  the  existing  hierarchical  structures.  Haussman  and 
Rodrik  (2006)  recommend  exploring  “network  arrangements”  and/or  industrial  and  trading  associations 
(possibly cluster associations) as intermediaries that may support and speed up the process.  

In Figure 1 we illustrate two different understandings of regional innovation strategy. Along the top we have 
regional innovation plans elaborated through a top-down participated process, arriving at a common vision for 
improving general R&D infrastructures and innovation activities. After  such participated planning for general 
innovation,  policy  makers  usually  concentrate  on  monitoring  and  control  of  public  support  expenditures 
related to R&D and Innovation according to the plan.  

Figure 1. S3 as Strategic Planning Process and S3 as a balanced planning and participatory incremental process 

Source: own elaboration 

In a S3 policy process, designed in Figure 1 as a U curve, the idea is to concentrate on a certain density of 
inter-related projects and activities in specific priority domains, in order to experiment whether the resulting 
synergies, complementarities and agglomeration trigger regional economic transformation on the longer term. 

Finding  areas  or  domains  for  concentration  of  projects  and  activities  is,  however,  a  decentralised  “self-
discovery” process (Haussman and Rodrik, 2003), that should be driven by local enterprises and entrepreneurs 
(i.e. not driven by local government and not driven by local universities). Which means that the domains the 
region believes may trigger the targeted transformation processes are not, as referred in the previous section, 
entirely  pre-defined  but  discovered  as the  process  unfolds.  S3  is therefore  a  blending  of  strategic-planning 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
with strategic-practice processes (Whittington, 1996) i.e. initial ill-defined priorities evolve through a step-by-
step  experimental  process  that  (re)discovers  or  redefines  at  lower  granularity  levels,  narrower  domains  for 
concentration of concrete R&D, experimentation and prototyping initiatives. 

In section 2 we suggest to organize the S3 policy process into 3 stages: (1) identification of thematic priority 
areas:  (2) translation of a priority area into a transformational roadmap through EDP, and (3) an action plan 
for the implementation of the transformative activities. Looking at the S3 policy process from the perspective 
of  providing  a  framework  that  encourages  engagement,  collaboration  and  learning  amongst  public  and 
private participant actors, these stages can be further characterised into activities of co-initiating, co-sensing, 
co-discovery, co-creating and co-evolving – Figure 1. 

To achieve transformation, the S3 process starts from an initial process of co-initiating where regional actors 
(public  and  private)  come  together  for  a  first  attempt  to  define  possible  directions  of  transformation  for 
groups  of  sectors  (including  directions  to  change  existing  R&D  and  technology  infrastructure).  At  the  next 
stage of co-sensing regional actors work in groups to define at lower granularity levels specific market-needs 
and technological  problems and opportunities that need to be addressed. At co-discovering actors will them 
attempt to explore, test and experiment with R&D and ideas that may solve the problems and/or address the 
opportunities.  In  these  two  stages  regional  authorities  with  the  support  of  regional  actors,  will  therefore 
produce a roadmap of selected projects and initiatives. At co-creating relevant regional actors would further 
develop their ideas beyond initial testing, receiving support for larger projects. However, to be transformative 
some  projects  must  scale-up  and  evolve  to  a  stage  where  they  will  generate  local  spill  overs,  encouraging 
entry of more players and wide market diffusion of the new discoveries, through  increasing returns (Arthur, 
1996) and entrepreneurial “creative imitation”. 

Success in spreading imitation and generating spill-overs appears to depend on important issues associated 
to related variety, access to specialised suppliers, also on local turnover of skilled workers and managers and 
on  easy  access  of  “imitators”  to  local  key  knowledge-capability  infrastructures  (which  may  not  be  available 
within the region) as well as access to markets and adequate finance. 

Because  S3  in  this  U  curve  model  is  not  just  a  matter  of  planning  how  to  go  from  one  current  stage  to 
another  future  stage,  but  the  continuously  negotiated  accomplishments  of  an  assembly  of  resources  and 
initiatives, instead of the traditional hierarchical governance structure serving a centralised top-down decision 
process, we suggest the use of participatory governance. Particularly for the initial stages co-sensing and co-
discovering  where  regional  actors  learn  and  discover  common  needs  and  problems,  defined  at  lower 
granularity levels, participatory governance may accelerate learning and discovery. 

The use of participatory processes will most likely enhance the quality of the policy-decision process in terms 
of  depth  of  discovery,  meaningfulness,  capacity  to  monitor  progress  and,  more  importantly,  will  enable 
business and entrepreneurial learning which is needed to feed the discovery process. It will also facilitate the 
need  to  counteract  the  entrenchment  of  incumbents  and  vested  interests  of  the  more  powerful  regional 
actors that may constrain opening and exploring new directions for discovery. In addition, as the process self-
enfolds and if initial discoveries prove successful, participatory governance may help to smooth the tensions 
between private appropriation and the need to promote local spill-overs (Foray, 2014). 

In this regional participatory process, policy makers play the role of facilitators and therefore could use 
facilitation-consultants. The quality of participatory governance is greatly enhanced by the use of facilitation 
tools,  enabling  dialogic  interactions  between  multiple  actors  (consumers,  producers,  intermediaries,  regional 
authorities,  etc.)  i.e.  enabling  deep  dialogue  where  actors  listen  and  understand  each  other  reaching 
consensus and collectively legitimizing decisions. Tools that may be used to facilitate the participatory process 
supporting EDP include, for example, “Open Space Technology” (Harrison, 2008) and practices such as Art of 
Hosting  –  AoH,  World  Café  (Brown  and  Isaacs,  2005).  Other  frameworks  such  as  Appreciative  Inquiry 
(Coperrider and Whitney, 2005) or even Theory U  - based on the human capacity to “presence” and to “pre-
sense” an emerging future (Scharmer, 2007), may also be useful. Used mostly on other policy areas such as 
social  and  sustainability  policies,  these  facilitation  tools  enable  actors  to  go  beyond  explicit  knowledge  and 
analysis  of  hard  evidences  on  markets  and  on  their  own  resources  and  capabilities.  They  enable  to  sense, 
amplify  common  understandings,  build  awareness,  legitimize  viewpoints,  clarify  zones  of  opposition  and 
indifference,  change  perceived  risks,  put  forward  ideas  and  concepts,  create  early  commitment  from  local 
actors, manage coalitions, and finally stimulate actions.  

In  addition  to  participatory  governance  supported  by  facilitation  techniques,  monitoring  of  S3  must  also  be 
taken  as  participatory  monitoring.  While  in  a  traditional  planning-control  approach,  monitoring  is  usually 
based  on  investment  data  and  indicators  illustrating  possible  changes  in  the  regional  context  (Kleibrink, 

10 

 
Gianelle and Doussineau, 2016), in a strategy-as-practice approach there is a need to engage participants on 
critical  analysis  of  successes  and  constraints  in  formulating  and  implementing  their  projects  and  initiatives 
with transformative potential. In participatory monitoring  regional actors share control over the  content, the 
process and the results of their on-going activities and projects in each domain, engaging in identifying and 
taking corrective actions if necessary. Information generated throughout the  process  would be  used to help 
understand which experimental discovery activities should be corrected, stopped, or whether it is too soon to 
stop experimentation. 

11 

 
 
4  Covid-19 and the use of synchronous communication tools to support 

online events 

In  “normal”  circumstances,  S3  and  governance  supporting  the  EDP  process  as  described  in  the  previous 
sections,  would  benefit  from  a  series  of  in-person  workshop-events.  Different  stages  of  the  EDP  process 
would have different kinds of workshops, such as EDP-focus-groups or Project Development Labs (Boden et 
al.,  2016).  For  example,  co-initiating  would  be  supported  by  workshops  that  envision  improving  the 
perceptions of all actors about their domain ecosystem (see and sense the system), followed by workshops 
that  stimulate  ideas  and  creativity  for  definition  of  problems  and  needs  (co-sensing)  and  workshops  for 
helping  with  ideas  prototyping  and  project  roadmapping  (co-discovery).  These  series  of  workshops  may  be 
organized  by  priority-domains  and  would  envisioning  to  further  define  and  explore  areas  for  concentration 
experimental projects and activities. 

With  the  new  reality  of  “physical  distancing”  due  to  the  Covid-19  pandemic,  the  rapid  rise  in  the  use  of 
synchronous communication  tools for  all  kinds  of  meetings and  events  suggests that  in-person  EDP  events 
could be adapted to online events/workshops. For instance, in April 2020, 67% of the worldwide businesses 
increased spending on web conferencing software (Figure 2) and Cisco's video conferencing business Webex 
reported more than three times more meeting minutes than in January 2020 (Figure 3). 

Figure  2.  Business  software  spending  increases  amid 
COVID-19 worldwide, April 2020 

Figure  3.  Reported  meetings  minutes  of  Cisco  Webex 
worldwide, Jan-April 2020 (billions) 

Web confering sotware

Collaboration tools

Remote desktop tools

67%

57%

52%

Security software

41%

Learning management software

23%

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

25

14

6

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

January 2020

March 2020

April 2020

Source: Statista (2020). 

In addition, the Open Space Technology tools, referred in the previous section can also be adapted to  shorter 
online  events.  While  these  tools  can  be  a  refreshing  alternative  to  the  stultified,  over  programmed  event 
formats of keynotes and discussion panels, nevertheless their use needs to be carefully organized.  

The  Prototyping  of  such  online  event  for  the  initial  stages  of  EDP  in  the  regional  of  Alentejo  and  Algarve 
suggested that careful preparation of these online event and of the specific facilitation techniques to be used 
is  one  a  key  aspect.  However,  even  if  online  events  have  several  advantages  in  comparison  with  in-person 
events, namely in terms of time-saving and cost reduction, there will always be a loss of personal and human 
contact  (Table  1Error!  Reference  source  not  found.).  This  last  aspect  is  particularly  important  when 
stakeholders  are  invited  to  discuss  and  discover  new  ways  to  foster  the  innovative  capacity  of  a  region, 
through EDP supported by online platforms. 

Table 1. Pros and Cons of online versus in-person meetings/events 

Pros 

Cons 

Online 
events 

In-person 
events 

─  Cost savings (time and money) 
─  More flexible scheduling 
─ 
─  Gains in interpersonal communication 
─  Higher concentration and 

From anywhere in the world 

participation 

─  Highly dependent of internet and IT 

─ 

equipment quality 
Loss of interpersonal relationship 
─  Cost (money and time) to travel to 

the meeting place 

─  Cost with event organization 

Source: Own elaboration. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5  Prototyping Online “Entrepreneurial Discovery Process” events in 

Alentejo and Algarve: Lessons Learned 

In preparation of the next S3 cycle (2021-2027), workshop events in Alentejo and Algarve that were planned 
as physical in-person events, had to be modified and adapted to online events. This provided the opportunity 
to test whether support to EDP could be transferred to an online context and what would be the main issues 
to  consider.  Both  events  were  organised  by  the  regional  authorities  in  charge  of  implementing  S3  in  their 
regions, with the support of the JRC-B3 in the context of the Lagging Regions project. For Alentejo the theme 
was “Sustainable Bioeconomy” and for Algarve the “Digitalisation in Tourism”. 

For the Alentejo’s workshop, bioeconomy was defined as all the activities related to agriculture and livestock, 
forestry, fishing and aquaculture, food and beverage manufacturing, and wood and cork manufacturing (for 
more  details  see  Fialho,  2020).  This  theme  was  articulated  with  the  concepts  of  sustainability  and  circular 
economy,  due  to  several  bottlenecks  that  bioeconomy  is  faced  regarding  waste  management  and  a  more 
efficient use of natural resources. Furthermore, it also represents the alignment of S3 priorities (Figure 2) to 
the EU’s new  growth  policy,  the European  Green Deal,  developed on the  basis to  become climate neutral in 
2050.  Such  new  directionality  of  the  S3  is  also  in  line  with  the  previous work of  Neto, Serrano  and  Santos 
(2018),  who  analysed  the  new  possible  evolutions  for  strengthening  the  implementation  of  RIS3’s strategic 
rationale in the context of grand societal challenges. In a similar vein, McCann and Soete (2020) come more 
recently  to  present  some  reflections  on  how  place-based  innovation  policy  can  support  the  achievement  of 
the European Green Deal. 

Figure 2. RIS3 Innovation priorities for the Alentejo region in the period 2021-2027 

Source: Marques Santos, Madrid and Haegeman (2020). 

For  the  Algarve  event,  the  selected  theme  was  related  to  the  concept  of  “Smart  Tourism  Destination”, 
combining two innovation priorities domains of the region: tourism with the digitalisation (Figure 3). “Smart 
Destination”  was  a  difficult  concept  to  define  as  it  involves  how  regions  as  tourism  destinations,  use 
technology  for  attraction  of  the  tourists,  as  well  the  increasing  digitalisation  of  operations  and  services 
involved in the tourist visit to the region. Many destinations are now modernising to include increased use of 
smart technology in their tourist operations e.g. use smartphones to pay for taxis, order meals, check queue 
times,  read  information  on  the  destination,  use  of  a  supplied  QR  code  to  access  to  specific  information  on 
local attractions, etc. The ultimate aim of smart tourism is to improve the efficiency of resource management 
and  enhance  sustainability  through  the  use  of  technological  innovations  and  practices.  Furthermore,  the 
selection of the theme appears also as the result of the current pandemic context. Indeed, the Algarve is one 
of  the  Portuguese  regions  most  affected  by  COVID-19,  due  to  its  highest  tourism  intensity  and  high 
dependence  on  foreign  tourists  (Batista  e  Silva  et  al.,  2018;  Marques  Santos  et  al.,  2020).  Secondly,  new 
market trends appearing in tourism sector, in a context marked by fear to travel, were implemented for trying 
to recover tourist confidence and for sanitary reasons, as a contactless system.  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3. RIS3 Innovation priorities for the Algarve region in the period 2021-2027 

Source: Own elaboration based on information provided by CCDR-Algarve. 

Preparatory meetings with the regional authorities and with experts on each domain enabled to build a small 
list  of  what  appeared  to  be  fundamental  issues  related  to  the  priority-domains  that  could  be  used  to 
stimulate participation and discussion of relevant actors (Table 2). 

Table 2. List of initial issues to stimulate discussion in the Alentejo and Algarve workshops 

Alentejo 

Algarve 

“Sustainable Bioeconomy” 

“Digitalisation in Tourism” 

─  Need to organize the Bioeconomy domain 

─  Principles of Smart Destination 

─  Use ICT-based tools for data collection, 

processing and analysis 

─ 

Improve efficiency in the use of resources and 
enhance sustainability 

─ 

Increase tourist satisfaction 

─  Regional weaknesses in qualified human resources 
and articulating supply and demand of vocational 
and higher education 

─ 

Economic valorisation of local waste and sub-
products of the local food and forestry industries 
and across industries 

─  Bureaucracy and legal issues for enterprises 

─  Better coordination and articulation of all relevant 

actors along the value chain 

─  Weaknesses in local technology and R&D 

infrastructure and in mapping acknowledging 
already existent knowledge 

To avoid online fatigue, events online are normally shorter events when compared with face-to-face physical 
events  and  therefore  the  workshops,  they  were  divided  into  two  separate  sessions  i.e.  two  half  days.  The 
agendas are included in the supplement material. 

A  third  issue  to  consider  was  whether  facilitation  techniques,  used  in  face-to-face  events  to  increase  the 
quality of the participatory process, could be used on an online context. We decided to try a most simple and 
well known technique  – now used in many  different kinds of events  – which is a World Café.  A World Café 
process  is  driven  by  15-20  minutes  rounds  of  conversation  for  small  groups  of  people  seated  around  a 
(virtual)  table.  At  the  end  of  period  some  people  may  move  to  a  different  new  table.  However  usually  one 
member known as the “table host” stays for the next rounds. Each round is prefaced with a question specially 
crafted for the specific context of the World Café. The same questions can also be used for more than one 
round,  or  they  may  build  upon  each  other  to  focus  the  conversation  or  guide  its  direction.  After  the  small 
groups  finish  all  rounds  (and/or  in  between  rounds,  as  needed),  table-hosts  are  invited  to  share  insights  or 
from their conversations with the rest of the large group.  

14 

 
 
 
 
 
As referred before both workshop events were divided into two sessions. On the first session and after a brief 
welcome  and  introduction  to  the  themes  (by  invited  experts),  participants  were  divided  in  small  groups  by 
virtual rooms and asked to  work on a  series of  questions (Table  3) that  guided World Café rounds. On the 
second  session,  the  rapporteur  of  each  virtual  room  was  asked  to  present  the  main  conclusions  and 
suggestions discussed in their  group (1), as listed in Table 4. Following from this, all participants questioned 
and commented on each other’s proposals. 

Table 3. Word Café questions in the Alentejo and Algarve workshop 

Alentejo 

Algarve 

“Sustainable Bioeconomy” 

“Digitalisation in Tourism” 

1. Please identify market needs that could be met by 
development of BioEconomy in Alentejo 

2. Characterise the identify needs 

- What are the problems? 

- What are the causes of that problem? 

- Who feels the problem? 

3. Propose ideas, initiatives or projects that may lead to the 
discovery of innovative solutions to the problem-needs 
identified? 

4. What would you like to know about technologies for the 
use of BioEconomy to implement the proposed ideas and 
projects? 

5 Which partners would be more adequate to implement 
the ideas and proposed projects 

1. Please identify market needs that could be met by 
development of Digitalisation of Tourism and “Smart 
Destination” in Algarve 

2. Characterise the identify market needs for Digitalisation 
of Tourism in Algarve 

- What are the problems? 

- What new problems result from the COVID-19 crisis? 

- What are the causes of that problem? 

- Who feels the problem? 

3. Propose ideas or projects leading to discovery of 
innovative solution to the problems and needs identifies 

Table 4. Summary of the main conclusions of the workshops (*) 

Alentejo 

Algarve 

“Sustainable Bioeconomy” 

“Digitalisation in Tourism” 

─ 

conditions 

framework 

Inadequate 
(legal  and 
infrastructures)  and  disarticulation  between  skills 
education/training  available  were 
needs  and 
highlighted as some of the barriers to innovation  

─  Greater  articulation  between  the  different  actors  in 
the  value  chain  and  a  more  integrated/systemic 
approach  are  some  of  the  identified  needs  of  the 
market 

─ 

Lack  of  adequate  skills,  inadequate  infrastructure 
(communication  and  transport),  weak  links  between 
tourism  services  and  others  economic  activities  and 
ineffective  data  collection  and  analysis  are  some  of 
bottlenecks. 

─  Better  data  management,  diversification  of  tourism 
offer, more networking and cooperation are some of 
the identified needs of the market 

(*) For more details see Marques Santos, Edwards and Laranja (2020a, b). 

The  experience  of  prototyping  online  EDP-events  in  Alentejo  and  Algarve  lead  to  a  number  of  lessons 
illustrated in Figure 4 and summarised in Box 1, Box 2 and Box 3. 

(1)  Main conclusions of both workshops are available in Marques Santos, Edwards and Laranja (2020a, b).  

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Figure 4. Steps of an online EDP workshop 

Source: Marques Santos, Edwards and Laranja (2020a). 

Box 1. Lessons learned: Before the event phase 

Type of event - The type of event to organise depends on to the stage of the S3 policy process. Initial events at an initial 
innovation planning stage to find define priority domains may serve to characterise and sense the system while exploring 
and  validating  the  general  domains  proposed  by  regional  authorities.  Events  at  later  stages,  may  focus  on  stimulating 
ideas and creativity for (re)definition of priority-domains and helping with project road-mapping i.e. project ideas events or 
project  road-mapping  events.  At  stages  where  domains  are  better  defined,  regions  may  already  have  working  groups 
(composed by relevant actors on a particular priority domain) and therefore choice of theme should be discussed with the 
working-group.  Nevertheless,  the  theme  should  be  clearly  defined  in  order  to  attract  sufficient  interest  from  potential 
regional participants. 

Choice  of  Platform  -  Another  important  aspect  for  organising  events  is  the  choice  of  platform.  There  are  different 
synchronous communication platforms able to support online events.  Although they appear similar, they do not  provide 
the same features, particularly with regards assigning participants to virtual side sessions or rooms and bring them back 
to the main plenary meeting which was one of the features needed to implement World Café rounds online. In addition, 
one feature that may be useful is the use of Waiting Rooms enabling the organisers to validate participants’ registration 
and admit them one by one or all at once. One particular important aspect to consider is how the need to share visuals 
and documentation during the event. For sharing content during the event, ideally one should standard formats (e.g. pdf 
files) uploaded through chat facilities. 

Duration of the event - Because of online fatigue, the duration of an online event is usually shorter. Shorter events of 
half-day maximum should be considered even if the workshop needs to be divided in different days. Likewise, the duration 
of the speakers’ communications should be kept to a minimum, ideally 10 minutes.  

Playbook - Another aspect that may be useful is the preparation of a Playbook detailing all the operations (pre-, during-, 
and after-the-event) needed to implement the event. The details usually include precise definition of tasks/actions, costs, 
deadlines,  as  well  as  roles  and  responsibilities  of  different  people  intervening  throughout  the  event  operations-flow  at 
different stages. A more complete Playbook, may also may also include contingency actions  e.g. what to do in case key 
actors are not present? What to do if internet connection is lost during the event? 

Guide for participants - It is important to provide beforehand a small guide for participants. This could be a PowerPoint 
or  Word  document  with  the  objectives  of  the  participatory  exercise  and  questions  and  topics  to  be  discussed  with  the 
participants (Word Café – generative questions). This small guide should be posted on the event website, or alternatively 
in the website of the organiser. It can also be sent by email to invited/registered participants. 

Calling  question  –  In  any  event,  all  operations  regarding  promotion  and  invitations  are  very  important.  We  found 
particularly  important  the  way  in  which  the  invitation  expresses  a  “calling-question”  that  attracts  wide  interests  from  a 
variety of actors related to the event theme.  

16 

 
 
 
Invitations - Care should be taken in preparing a list that has plenty of  actors from the private-sector, both large and 
smaller companies. Although business and sectoral associations may also be present, presence of  regional entrepreneurs 
to benefit from their entrepreneurial knowledge and real case experiences.  

Registration  -  It  is  also  important  to  make  registration  compulsory  in  order  to  control  the  number  of  participants. 
Nevertheless, last minute participants without previous registration, if relevant for the theme in discussion may also be 
allowed to enter the virtual event. 

Box 2. Lessons learned: During the event phase 

Moderators – Our most important lesson during the events relate to the importance of having good moderators for the 
whole  event  (a  Host  and  a  Co-host)  and  of  having  moderators  and  or  rapporteurs  for  the  group  sessions.  The  whole 
structure of the event i.e. how different sessions are organised and how the virtual group discussion sessions will work 
should be clearly explained to participants during the event. Moderator’s knowledge of facilitation techniques (Word Café 
and others) will be most helpful to increase the quality of the participatory process. 

Assigning  participants  to  discussion  groups  -  Using  the  participants’  final  list  the  event-will  attribute  different 
participants  to  the  virtual  discussion  groups  /  rooms.  Depending  on  which  platform  is  used  it  is  possible  to  distribute 
participants randomly by virtual rooms. The number or participants per discussion group should be around 6 participants 
so that each participant has enough time to express his/her views. During the discussion-group sessions, it helps if one of 
the co-hosts is not assigned to any particular room and is allowed to enter and leave any of the parallel discussion-group 
sessions.  

Box 3. Lessons learned: After the event phase 

Evaluation of the EDP online event – It is most useful to run a short on-line survey at the end of the second workshop 
session (second day) to get participants feedback on the event and suggestions on how to improve the process and ideas 
of themes for future events. 

Follow-up – After the two sessions, it is important to send messages to all participants acknowledging the importance of 
their contributions. In addition a summary with the main findings of the event should be circulated (or posted on the event 
website). It is important to keep the dialogue going, by inviting participants to continue to share their experience. This can 
be done by continuing to organise workshops related to different stages of the regions EDP.  

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6  Event evaluation: Stakeholders perception and suggestions for 

improvements 

Over  the  two  half-day  event  56  (and  65  stakeholders)  participated  in  the  Alentejo  (and  Algarve)  EDP 
workshop. Some of them only for one of the days (Figure 5 and Figure 6). During the second sessions of the 
workshop-events  in  Alentejo  and  Algarve,  participants  were  asked  to  respond  to  a  small  online  satisfaction 
survey to assess their satisfaction and provide some suggestions for next events. Results of these surveys are 
reported in this section of the report. 

Figure 5. Number of participants in the EDP workshop, 
Alentejo, Portugal 

Figure 6. Number of participants in the EDP workshop, 
Algarve, Portugal 

Total = 56 participants 

Total = 65 participants 

21

10

25

29

20

16

Only day 1

Only day 2

Both days

Only day 1

Only day 2

Both days

The overall satisfaction of participants in the EDP workshops was high, with an average score of 4.2 out of 5 
for Alentejo workshop (Figure 7) and 4.3 out of 5 for the Algarve ones (Figure 8).  

Figure 7. Overall satisfaction about the EDP workshop, 
Alentejo, Portugal 

Figure 8. Overall satisfaction about the EDP workshop, 
Algarve, Portugal 

Number of respondents = 30 

Number of respondents = 34 

43%

40%

44%

44%

17%

3%

9%

Score = 3

Score = 4

Score = 5

Score = 1 Score = 2 Score = 3 Score = 4 Score = 5

To test the most adequate duration for the World Café session in day 1, in the Alentejo workshop  two hours 
were given for the participatory exercise whereas 1h30 for the Algarve ones. Satisfaction on the duration of 
the  session  revealed  that  in  any  workshop  participants  considered  the  time  allotted  for  exercising  too  long 
(Figure  9  and  Figure  10).  Even  if  around  90%  of  the  participants  consider  adequate  time  for  a  group 
discussion in day 1, around 10% suggest having more time. Additional comments received by participants in 
Algarve  workshop  indicated  having  between  30  and  60  minutes  more  for  group  discussion.  Altogether,  this 
suggest  that  up  to  two  hours  could  be  the  most  adequate  for  an  online  intensive  interaction  between 
stakeholders. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 9. Satisfaction on the duration of the World Café 
session in day 1 (2h00), Alentejo, Portugal 

Figure 10. Satisfaction on the duration of the World 
Café session in day 1 (1h30), Algarve, Portugal 

Note: Number of respondents = 30 

Note: Number of respondents = 24 

Adequate

90%

Adequate

88%

Too short

10%

Too short

13%

Too long

0%

Too long

0%

Concerning the format of future EDP workshops, around 50% of the participants in both workshops revealed 
preferences  for  mixed  events,  online  and  in  person  (Figure  11  and  Figure  12).  Participants  in  Algarve 
workshop  demonstrated  a  higher  preferences  for  only  on-line  events  (48.5%)  than  that  in  Alentejo  ones 
(21%). Few of them in the Algarve event have preferences for exclusively in-person events (3%), whereas in 
Alentejo 21% still have preferences for this format. 

Figure 11. Format preferences for future EDP 
workshops, Alentejo, Portugal 

Figure 12. Format preferences for future EDP 
workshops, Algarve, Portugal 

Number of respondents = 28 

Number of respondents = 33 

Mix (on-line and in-person)

54%

Mix (on-line and in-person)

In-person

25%

On-line

On-line

21%

In-person

3%

48.5%

48.5%

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7  Conclusions and Discussion: Opportunities to further improve support to 

Entrepreneurial Discovery Processes  

Regional Smart Specialisation Strategies are much different from regional strategic innovation plans that are 
elaborated  through  a  top-down  participated  process,  and  then  followed  by  monitoring  and control  of  public 
support expenditures related to R&D and Innovation according to the plan. In S3 regions are to concentrate on 
a  certain  density  of  inter-related  projects  and  activities  in  specific  priority  domains,  in  order  to  experiment 
whether  the  resulting  synergies,  complementarities  and  agglomeration  trigger  regional  economic 
transformation on the longer term. However this process of concentration is a decentralised “self-discovery” 
process (Haussman  and Rodrik, 2003),  driven  by  local  enterprises  and  entrepreneurs i.e.  not  driven  by  local 
government, and not driven by local universities. 

In “normal” circumstances, S3 and the EDP would be supported by a series of in-person workshop-events such 
as  EDP-focus-groups  or  Project  Development  Labs  (Boden  et  al.,  2016).  However,  with  the  new  reality  of 
“physical distancing” due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the rapid rise in the use of synchronous communication 
tools  for  all  kinds  of  meetings  and  events  suggests  that  in-person  EDP  events  could  be  adapted  to  online 
events/workshops.  

The pilot workshops in Alentejo and Algarve suggest that support to EDP can be continued and improved, even 
in difficult circumstances. EDP events organised by regional authorities should have the objective of creating 
a  space  or  fora  for  understanding  current  regional  innovation  capabilities  and  learning-by-discovery 
opportunities to explore. These workshops are  by no means the start and end of the  process and therefore 
cannot be considered a tick box exercise when designing or revising a strategy. Before innovation actors can 
independently  take  the  process  forward,  events  organised  by  regional  authorities  can  help  create  a  shared 
understanding of what is required if S3 is to be properly implements through EDP. 

Going forward, the type of event depends on to the stage of the S3 policy process. Events at the beginning of 
the  process  may  serve  to  characterise  and  sense  the  system  while  exploring  and  validating  the  general 
domains  proposed  by  regional  authorities.  Events  at  later  stages,  may  focus  on  stimulating  ideas  and 
creativity for (re)definition of priority-domains at lower granularity levels and helping with project design and 
roadmapping.  As  with  physical  events however,  there  needs to  be  sufficient  human  and financial  resources 
allocated to support the role of facilitation and moderation of the entrepreneurial learning activities. 

One  advantage  of  online  meetings  is  that  the  proceedings  can  be  easily  recorded.  To  keep  a  synchronous 
conversation  alive,  one  idea  is  to  synthesize  key  themes  and  next  steps,  then  cut  and  paste  them  into  an 
online community discussion board, blog, microblog, or community website. Ideally this could be done on the 
regional  authorities  website  or  even  better  on  a  specific  micro-site  to  support  the  S3  process.  This  type  of 
follow up is good practice for any type of event, not just digital ones. In fact, physical meetings may create 
lots  of  dynamics  on  the  day  but  this  energy  is  often  subsequently  lost.  Moving  from  events  to  online 
communities and discussion groups associated to each domains, is one way to keep the EDP alive. Therefore, 
regions should encourage the development of open discussion groups in each priority domain. 

These  on  line  open  discussion  groups  in  each  domain  can  be  supported  by  multiple  channels.  While  some 
channels  such  as  text  chat,  are  synchronous  (real-time),  others  such  as  blogs  and  wikis,  are  asynchronous. 
Some, such as most blogs, are one-way, and others, such as wikis and those using voice-over-IP, are two-way. 
For example, participants can post suggestions related to the event(s) theme on an online discussion board. In 
addition,  announcements  of  the  events,  registration,  pre-session  preparations,  places  to  post  session  topics 
can be organized the workshop site or alternatively on the sites of the organizers. However, unlike in-person 
events, because of online fatigue online events must be shorter and full day events should be avoided. 

Overall, digitalisation of support to EDP allows for more regular interactions, even if it lacks the ‘human touch’ 
of meeting physically. It also allows for a potentially more inclusive process as people can join online events 
from wherever they are based. As we enter the ‘new normal’, which although is still far from clear, support to 
EDP can surely be improved and strengthened by experimenting with and building on new opportunities in the 
digital world.  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
References 

Aghion, P., David, P. A., and Foray, D. (2009). Science, Technology and Innovation for Economic Growth: Linking 
Policy Research and Practice. Research Policy 38 (4): 681–693. 

Arthur, B. (1996). Increasing Returns and the New World of Business. HBR July-August 

Batista e Silva, F., Herrera, M. A. M., Rosina, K., Barranco, R. R., Freire, S., and Schiavina, M. (2018).  “Analysing 
spatiotemporal  patterns  of  tourism  in  Europe  at  high-resolution  with  conventional  and  big  data  sources”. 
Tourism Management, 68:101-115 

Boden, M., Dos Santos, P., Haegeman, K., Marinelli, E. and Valero, S. (2016). Implementing RIS3 in the Region 
of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace: towards a RIS3 toolbox. JRC Technical Report, JRC101214. Retrieved from: 
http://tinyurl.com/hxubb6xBrown,  J.  and  Isaacs,  D.  (2005).  The  World  Cafe,  Shaping  Our  Futures  Through 
Conversations That Matter, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, ISBN 9781576752586 

Cooperrider, D. and Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change. Berrett-Koehler 
Publishers, ISBN 9781576753569 

EC (2012). Guide to Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS 3). May 2012, JRC S3-
platform. Retrieved from: http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/s3guide 

Fialho  (2020).  Domínio  de  Especialização  Bioeconomia  Sustentável  -  Alentejo  2030,  Estratégia  Regional  de 
Especialização Inteligente, Webinar EDE 24 June 2020. 

Foray,  D.  (2014).  From  smart  specialisation  to  smart  specialisation  policy.  European  Journal  of  Innovation 
Management, 17(4), 492–507. DOI:10.1108/EJIM-09-2014-0096 

Gianelle, C., D. Kyriakou, C. Cohen and M. Przeor (eds) (2016). Implementing Smart Specialisation: A Handbook, 
Brussels: 
from 
Commission, 
http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/s3implementation-handbook 

doi:10.2791/610394 

European 

Retrieved 

28053 

EUR 

EN, 

Harrison, O. (2008). Open Space Technology: A User’s Guide. Third edition. Berrett-Koehler Publishers; Oakland, 
CA. 

Hausmann,  R,  and  Rodrik,  D.  (2003).  Economic  Development  and  self-discovery.  Journal  of  Development 
Economics 72(2) pp.603-633. 

Hausmann,  R.,  &  Rodrik,  D.  (2006).  Doomed  to  choose:  industrial  policy  as  predicament,  Blue  Sky  Seminar, 
Center for International Development, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. 

Kleibrink,  A.,  Gianelle,  C.  and  Doussineau,  M.  (2016).  Monitoring  innovation  and  territorial  development  in 
Europe: emergent strategic management, European Planning Studies, doi: 10.1080/09654313.2016.1181717 

Kyriakou,  D.  (ed)  (2017).  Addressing  EDP  pitfalls.  Exit,  Voice  and  Loyalty.  In  Kyriakou,  D.,  Martinez  M.P., 
Peiáñez-Forte, I., Rainoldi, A. (eds) (2017). Governing Smart Specialisation Abington: Routledge 

Kyriakou,  D.,  Martinez  M.P.,  Peiáñez-Forte,  I.,  Rainoldi,  A.  (eds)  (2017).  Governing  Smart  Specialisation 
Abington: Routledge 

Laranja, M., Edwards, J., Pinto, H. and Foray, D., Implementation of Smart Specialisation Strategies in Portugal: 
An assessment, EUR 30287 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020,ISBN 978-92-
76-20400-8, doi:10.2760/363370, JRC121189 

Marques Santos, A., Madrid, C., Haegeman, K. and Rainoldi, A. (2020). Behavioural changes in tourism in times 
ISBN  978-92-76-20401-5, 
of  Covid-19,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg, 
doi:10.2760/00411, JRC121262. 

Marques Santos, A.; Madrid, C.;  Haegeman, K. (2020). The Role of Smart Specialization in Tourism Recovery, 
SMARTER  2020  Conference:  1st  Webinar  -  Place-based  responses  to  the  COVID-19  economic  crisis,  17 
September 2020. 

Marques  Santos,  A.,  Edwards,  J.  and  Laranja,  M.  (2020a).  Challenges,  Opportunities  and  Needs  for  a 
Sustainable Bioeconomy in the Alentejo Region, Territorial Development Briefs Series, European Commission, 
JRC122316 

21 

 
Marques  Santos,  A.,  Edwards,  J.  and  Laranja,  M.  (2020b).  From  Digital  Innovation  to  “Smart  Tourism 
Destination”:  some  stakeholders’  reflections  in  times  of  a  pandemic,  Territorial  Development  Briefs  Series, 
European Commission, JRC122316 

Marques Santos,  A. (2020).  How  has COVID-19 accelerated digitization and changed  consumer preferences? 
Focus on the tourism sector, Presentation in “Innovate in Tourism: From Digital Transition to Smart Destination 
EDP Workshop”, Algarve, 30 September 2020 

Mccann, P. and Soete, L., Place-based innovation for sustainability, Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-20392-6, doi:10.2760/250023, JRC121271 

Neto,  P.;  Serrano,  M.  M.;  Santos,  A.  (2018).  “Renewed  challenges  for  public  policies  in  post-2020  Cohesion 
Policy:  From  RIS3  to  RIS4  and  a  new  social  dimension  for  smart  specialisation”,  Public  Policy  Portuguese 
Journal, 3(1): 8-26. 

Rodrik,  D.  (2004).  Industrial  policy  for  the  twenty-first  century.  Discussion  Paper  Series,  No.  4767,  CEPR, 
November. 

Scharmer, C. Otto (2007). Theory U: Leading from the Emerging Future As It Emerges. The  Social Technology 
of Presencing, Cambridge, MA: SoLPress. 

Whittington, 
(1996) 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(96)00068-4 

Strategy 

as 

R. 

Practice. 

Long 

Range 

Planning, 

29, 

731-735.  

Statista (2020). Work from home & remote work, Coronavirus (COVID-19) impact – preliminary data. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annexes 

Annex 1. Agenda Entrepreneurial Discovery Process workshop “Sustainable Bioeconomy in the 
Alentejo Region”, 24 June and 30 June 2020  

DIA 1 (24 June 2020) 

10:00 - 10:10 

10:10 - 10:40 

Opening Session 

  Welcome 

Roberto Grilo, President CCDR-Alentejo 
John Edwards, Joint Research Centre, European Commission 

Plenary session  

Moderator: Carmen Carvalheira, Vice-President CCDR-Alentejo 

  Good governance of RIS3. How to support ‘Entrepreneurial Discovery 

Process’? 
Manuel Laranja, ISEG – Universidade de Lisboa 
  Sustainable Bioeconomy in the Alentejo Region 

Joaquim Fialho, CCDR-Alentejo  
António Oliveira das Neves, Gabinete Oliveira das Neves 

10:40 - 12:30 

Participatory Exercise  
Participants are divided into groups of 5 to 6 people (virtual rooms) 

Plenary Session  

  Sharing experience  

12:00 - 12:15 

Patricia da Costa Félix Bermejo (FUNDECYT-PCTEX) 

  Closing and next steps of the workshop 

Carmen Carvalheira, Vice-President CCDR-Alentejo 

DAY 2 (30 June 2020) 

10:00 – 10:10 

  Welcome 

Roberto Grilo, President CCDR-Alentejo 

Plenary session 

10:10 – 11:30 

Moderator: Carmen Carvalheira, Vice-President CCDR-Alentejo 

  Presentations of the main conclusions from the participatory exercise 

(10 mins per group) 
Q&A 

Clossing session 

11:30 – 12:00 

Carlos Cabo (FUNDECYT-PCTEX)  

  High Technology Incubator in Bioeconomy and Circular Economy  

  Closing words – Carmen Carvalheira, Vice-President CCDR-Alentejo  

For more information about the event see S3 Platform webpage: 

https://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/-/alentejo-goes-digital-with-its-edp?inheritRedirect=true 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2. Agenda Entrepreneurial Discovery Process workshop “Innovate in Tourism: from Digital 
transition to Smart Destination” 30 September and 8 October 2020  

DAY 1 (30 September 2020) 

09:45 - 10:00 

Registration / Access / Virtual Welcome coffee 

10:00 - 10:10 

Opening Session 

  Welcome 

Francisco Serra, President CCDR-Algarve  

  Mark Boden, Team Leader, Joint Research Centre, European Commission 

Plenary session  

Moderator: Aquiles Marreiros, CCDR-Algarve 

10:10 - 10:30 

 

Tourism in the Algarve region: Challenges for a smart destination 
Aquiles Marreiros, CCDR-Algarve | Hugo Barros, CRIA UALG  

  How has COVID-19 accelerated digitization and changed consumer preferences? 

Focus on the tourism sector 
Anabela Santos, Joint Research Centre, European Commission  

  Good governance of RIS3. How to support ‘Entrepreneurial Discovery Process’? 

Manuel Laranja, ISEG – Universidade de Lisboa 

10:30 - 12:00 

Participatory Exercise  
Participants are divided into groups of 5 to 6 people (virtual rooms) 

Plenary Session  

Moderator: Aquiles Marreiros, CCDR-Algarve 

12:00 - 12:15 

 

 

Sharing experience  
Carmen Carvalheira, Vice-Presidente CCDR-Alentejo 
Closing and next steps of the workshop 
Francisco Serra, President CCDR-Algarve  

DAY 2 (8 October 2020) 

09:45 - 10:00 

Registration / Access / Virtual Welcome coffee 

10:00 – 10:05 

  Welcome 

Francisco Serra, President CCDR-Algarve  

Plenary session 

Moderator: Aquiles Marreiros, CCDR-Algarve 

10:05 – 11:15 

  Presentations of the main conclusions from the participatory exercise 

(5-10 mins per group) 
Q&A 

Clossing session 

11:15 – 11:30 

 

 

 

Project “Smart Destination” – Digital Innovation Hub 
Francesco Berrettini, Algarve STP  
Interregional partnership for Smart Specialisation on Digitalisation and Safety 
for Tourism (https://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/tourism) 
Ana Moniche, Junta de Andalucía 
Closing – Francisco Serra, President CCDR-Algarve  

For more information about the event see S3 Platform webpage: 

https://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/-/innovate-in-tourism-from-digital-transition-to-smart-
destination?inheritRedirect=true 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
List of abbreviations and definitions 

AoH 

EDP 

EU 

IT 

JRC 

S3 

Art of Hosting  

Entrepreneurial Discovery Process 

European Union 

Information technology 

Joint Research Center 

Smart Specialization Strategies 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
List of boxes  

Box 1. Lessons learned: Before the event phase ...................................................................16 

Box 2. Lessons learned: During the event phase ...................................................................17 

Box 3. Lessons learned: After the event phase .....................................................................17 

26 

 
 
 
 
List of figures 

Figure 1. S3 as Strategic Planning Process and S3 as a balanced planning and participatory incremental 
process .................................................................................................................. 9 

Figure 2. RIS3 Innovation priorities for the Alentejo region in the period 2021-2027 ..........................13 

Figure 3. RIS3 Innovation priorities for the Algarve region in the period 2021-2027 ...........................14 

Figure 4. Steps of an online EDP workshop .........................................................................16 

Figure 5. Number of participants in the EDP workshop, Alentejo, Portugal .....................................18 

Figure 6. Number of participants in the EDP workshop, Algarve, Portugal ......................................18 

Figure 7. Overall satisfaction about the EDP workshop, Alentejo, Portugal .....................................18 

Figure 8. Overall satisfaction about the EDP workshop, Algarve, Portugal .....................................18 

Figure 9. Satisfaction on the duration of the World Café session in day 1 (2h00), Alentejo, Portugal .......19 

Figure 10. Satisfaction on the duration of the World Café session in day 1 (1h30), Algarve, Portugal ......19 

Figure 11. Format preferences for future EDP workshops, Alentejo, Portugal .................................19 

Figure 12. Format preferences for future EDP workshops, Algarve, Portugal ..................................19 

27 

 
 
List of tables 

Table 1. Pros and Cons of online versus in-person meetings/events .............................................12 

Table 2. List of the initial issues to discuss in the Alentejo and Algarve workshops ............................14 

Table 3. Word Café questions in the Alentejo and Algarve workshop ............................................15 

Table 4. Summary of the main conclusions of the workshops (*) .................................................15 

28 

 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address of the centre 
nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service: 

- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or 

- by electronic mail via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: 
https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. 
Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

 
 
 
 
 
K
J
-
N
A
-
3
0
6
1
5
-
E
N
-
N

doi:10.2760/094408  

ISBN 978-92-76-30903-1