Results presentation march 2007
Download
1 / 131

Business Support Cross-Product Monitoring Survey Wave 7 PPT ... - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 353 Views
  • Uploaded on

Results Presentation March 2007 DTI Business Support Cross-Product Monitoring Survey 7 Presentation Structure Background Objectives, Methodology, Sampling, Response Rates, Outliers Profile Programme Participation Additionality Quality & Satisfaction Impact & Outcomes Costs & Benefits

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Business Support Cross-Product Monitoring Survey Wave 7 PPT ...' - Audrey


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Results presentation march 2007 l.jpg

Results Presentation

March 2007

DTI Business Support Cross-Product Monitoring Survey 7


Presentation structure l.jpg
Presentation Structure

  • Background

    • Objectives, Methodology, Sampling, Response Rates, Outliers

  • Profile

  • Programme Participation

  • Additionality

  • Quality & Satisfaction

  • Impact & Outcomes

  • Costs & Benefits



Background4 l.jpg
Background

  • This presentation outlines the findings of the 7th in the Business Support Cross-Product Monitoring Surveys (BSMS) series

  • This annual programme of research is now an established part of the monitoring arrangements for the Department’s key business support products

  • The surveys provide data on areas such as customer satisfaction and profiling as well as the impact and effectiveness of the products

    • With the surveys being designed in such a way as to provide data in a consistent and comparable form across products.


Objectives l.jpg
Objectives

  • It is the intention that the results of this research will be used in conjunction with other information sources for such purposes as…

    • informing policy development in the area of business support

    • Providing evidence for periodic in-depth impact evaluations of individual business support products

    • As well as for ongoing monitoring

  • To this end, it was required that this survey provide:

    • Evidence of the impact and effectiveness of the products on business beneficiaries, taking into account additionality

    • Data for a number of key survey-based measures, including customer satisfaction

    • Participant profile data

    • Comparisons with results from previous surveys


Coverage l.jpg
Coverage

  • This 7th wave of the Business Support Cross-Product Monitoring Surveys (BSMS) series covers beneficiaries of the following five business support products:

    • Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTP) – 200 interviews

    • Grant for Investigating an Innovative Idea (GIII) – 122 interviews

    • Grant for Research & Development (GRD) – 158 interviews

    • Business Performance Diagnostic (BPD) – 390 interviews

    • Selective Finance for Investment in England (SFIE) – 185 interviews

  • Please note that it was the intention that the Small Firms Loan Guarantee (SFLG) product would also be covered in this wave of the BSMS, but problems with sample availability have made this impossible


Methodology l.jpg
Methodology

  • The methodological approach essentially mirrors that taken in previous waves of the Business Support Cross-Product Monitoring Surveys, namely:

    • Telephone interviews, administered using CATI, conducted with beneficiaries of the various business support products between 4th January & 2nd March 2007

    • Pre-contact letters sent to potential interviewees to explain the purpose of the research

    • Full quantitative and qualitative piloting conducted prior to live fieldwork

    • Series of measures in place in an attempt to achieve the target response rate of 70%, including:

      • Full review & piloting of the questionnaire

      • Pre-contact letters

      • Extended fieldwork period

      • Experienced, specialist interviewer team

      • Executive appointment setting

  • The key methodological change has been in terms of a streamlining of the questionnaire length, and hence a substantial reduction in overall interview length to 15-mins.


Sampling l.jpg
Sampling

KTP

Sample Frame:

Successful applicants, where application made July 2005 – June 2006.

Unsuccessful applicants, those awaiting a decision and successful applicants whose project had been ‘abandoned’ at time of interview. Manual look-up for 29 records without telephone numbers.

Proportionate, stratified random sample with stratification by SIC, RDA, employees & pre/post Nov 2005.

Exclusions:

Sampling Approach:

GIII

Sample Frame:

Successful applicants, where application made July 2005 – June 2006.

Unsuccessful applicants, those awaiting a decision and successful applicants whose project had been ‘abandoned’at time of interview.

Census.

Exclusions:

Sampling Approach:


Sampling9 l.jpg
Sampling

GRD

Sample Frame:

Successful applicants, where application made July 2005 – June 2006. N.B. East of England & South West missing.

Unsuccessful applicants, those awaiting a decision and successful applicants whose project had been ‘abandoned’at time of interview. Manual look-up for 14 records without telephone numbers.

Proportionate, stratified random sample with stratification by SIC, RDA & employees.

Exclusions:

Sampling Approach:

BPD

Sample Frame:

Recipients of a diagnostic report, where ‘diagnostic start date’ April – September 2006.

Firms who had not received their diagnostic report at the time of interview.

Proportionate, stratified random sample with stratification by SIC, RDA & employees.

Exclusions:

Sampling Approach:


Sampling10 l.jpg
Sampling

SFIE

Sample Frame:

Successful applicants, where application made July 2005 – June 2006.

Unsuccessful applicants, those awaiting a decision and successful applicants whose project had been ‘abandoned’at time of interview. Firms participating in recent economic impact study avoided where possible.

Proportionate, stratified random sample with stratification by SIC, RDA & employees.

Exclusions:

Sampling Approach:



Outlier analysis l.jpg
Outlier Analysis

Profit & Turnover

Investigated:

All records where profit >= turnover

1

1

No action required

Number of Records:

Callbacks Required:

Results:

Turnover & Employees

Investigated:

All records where sales per employee <£10,000 or >£1million

26

10

7 amends, 3 confirmed

Number of Records:

Callbacks Required:

Results:


Outlier analysis13 l.jpg
Outlier Analysis

£ Estimated Benefit

Investigated:

All records with £ Estimated Benefit £17million+

9

9

8 confirmed, 1 amended

Number of Records:

Callbacks Required:

Results:


Key measures l.jpg
Key Measures

Service Quality & Satisfaction

Competence & knowledge of mentor (B27)

Quality rating (A09)

Clear information rating (B09)

Time to process application (C19)

Transparency & efficiency

rating (A32)

Overall satisfaction (B10)

Impact & Outcomes

Improved productivity & competitiveness (A06)

£ estimated benefit (A49)

Improved Access to Finance (A91)

Improved hard business performance (A68)

Changed behaviour (A83)

Increased skills (A81)

Increased innovation (A04)

New products, processes

or man. practices (A57)

Improved ability to access external expertise (A76)



Region l.jpg
Region

Region

Base: All respondents (Base)

KTP (200); GIII (122); GRD (158); BPD (390); SFIE (185)


Age of business l.jpg
Age Of Business

Over 20 years

When Business Established

10-20 years

5-10 years

2-5 years

Within last 2 years

Not yet trading

Source: 2005 SBS Annual Survey of Small Businesses

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused)

BDP – West Mids (188, 1%); The rest (202, 0%)

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused)

KTP (200, 0%); GIII (122, 0%); GRD (158, 0%); BPD (390, 1%); SFIE (185, 0%)


Industry sector l.jpg
Industry Sector

Sector (Based on SIC)

Services

Construction

Production

Primary

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused)

BDP – West Mids (188, 0%); The rest (202, 0%)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused)

KTP (200, 0%); GIII (122, 0%); GRD (158, 0%); BPD (390, 0%); SFIE (185, 0%)


Company status l.jpg
Company Status

Company Status

Other

Subsidiary of another business

A business with subsidiaries

Independent business – no subsidiaries

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused)

BDP – West Mids (188, 0%); The rest (202, 0%)

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused)

KTP (200, 1%); GIII (122, 0%); GRD (158, 0%); BPD (390, 0%); SFIE (185, 0%)


Size of business l.jpg
Size Of Business

250+

Number Of Employees

100-249

50-99

10-49

1-9

0

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused)

BDP – West Mids (188, 1%); The rest (202, 1%)

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused)

KTP (200, 0%); GIII (122, 0%); GRD (158, 0%); BPD (390, 1%); SFIE (185, 0%)


Size of business21 l.jpg
Size Of Business

Number of Employees

Base: All respondents/All successful applicants (Base – Wave 7, Wave 5)

KTP (200, 350); GIII (122, 348); GRD (158, 419); BPD (390, 136); SFIE (185, 134)


Financial profile turnover l.jpg
Financial Profile - Turnover

Current Annual Turnover

More than £10million

£2million-£10million

£500,000-£2million

£100,000-£500,000

Less than £100,000

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused)

BDP – West Mids (188, 3%); The rest (202, 3%)

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused)

KTP (200, 5%); GIII (122, 4%); GRD (158, 3%); BPD (390, 3%); SFIE (185, 2%)


Financial profile exports l.jpg
Financial Profile - Exports

Proportion Of Turnover Accounted For By Exports

More than 15%

Up to 15%

Zero

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused)

BDP – West Mids (188, 3%); The rest (202, 3%)

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused)

KTP (200, 7%); GIII (122, 5%); GRD (158, 4%); BPD (390, 3%); SFIE (185, 2%)


Export activity further analysis l.jpg
Export Activity – Further Analysis

Business Type – By Export Activity

Base: All respondents (Base)

Zero (541); Up to 15% (223); More than 15% (249)


Financial profile profitability l.jpg
Financial Profile - Profitability

Profit & Loss

Breaking even

Making a loss

Profit

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused)

BDP – West Mids (188, 2%); The rest (202, 2%)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused)

KTP (200, 5%); GIII (122, 8%); GRD (158, 6%); BPD (390, 2%); SFIE (185, 0%)



Number of times participated l.jpg
Number of Times Participated

Number of Times Company Has Participated In Scheme

More than twice

Twice

Once

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused)

BDP – West Mids (188, 0%); The rest (202, 0%)

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused)

KTP (200, 0%); GIII (122, 0%); GRD (158, 0%); BPD (390, 0%); SFIE (185, 0%)


Progress of current project l.jpg
Progress Of Current Project

Stage of Current Project

Project complete

Project in progress

Project not yet started

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused)

KTP (200, 0%); GIII (122, 0%); GRD (158, 0%); SFIE (185, 0%)


Receipt of the diagnostic report when bpd l.jpg
Receipt Of The Diagnostic Report – When?(BPD)

When?

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

BDP – West Mids (188, 4%); The rest (202, 1%)

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

BPD (390, 3%)


Receipt of the diagnostic report how bpd l.jpg
Receipt Of The Diagnostic Report – How?(BPD)

How?

At a meeting with the BLA

Remotely - with a follow-up meeting

Remotely – no meeting

Other

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

BDP – West Mids (188, 2%); The rest (202, 1%)

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

BPD (390, 2%)


Progress bpd l.jpg
Progress (BPD)

Progress To Date

Received diagnostic report

Formulated a strategic action plan with BLA (but not begun work on it)

Begun working on strategic action plan

Put forward for financial assistance for a consultancy project

Had financial assistance approved

Base: All respondents (Base)

BPD (390)

Base: All respondents (Base)

BDP – West Mids (188); The rest (202)


Progress bpd32 l.jpg
Progress (BPD)

Progress To Date

Received diagnostic report

Formulated a strategic action plan with BLA (but not begun work on it)

Begun working on strategic action plan

Put forward for financial assistance for a consultancy project

Had financial assistance approved

Base: All respondents (Base)

BPD (390)

Base: All respondents (Base)

BDP – West Mids (188); The rest (202)


Influence of diagnostic exercise bpd l.jpg
Influence Of Diagnostic Exercise (BPD)

Influence Of Diagnostic Exercise On Decision About Which Aspect Of The Business To Focus On

Identified issues previously unaware of

Clarified which issues should be focussed on

Confirmed the need to focus on particular issues

Had no influence

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know, ‘None of these’)

BPD (390, 1%, 1%)

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know, ‘None of these’)

BDP – West Mids (188, 1%, 2%); The rest (202, 0%, 0%)


Influence of diagnostic exercise further analysis l.jpg
Influence Of Diagnostic Exercise – Further Analysis

Influence Of Diagnostic Exercise – By Progress

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know, ‘None of these’)

Begun working on strategic action plan (235, 0%, 0%); Had financial assistance approved (162, 1%, 2%)


Awareness of dti funding grd l.jpg
Awareness of DTI Funding (GRD)

When First Considered Grant Were You Aware That The DTI Was Helping To Fund GRD Scheme

Yes

No

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

GRD (158, 1%)



Additionality37 l.jpg
Additionality

Additionality – Would Have Achieved Similar Results Anyway?

Definitely wouldn’t

Probably wouldn’t

Some but not all

Yes, but not as quickly

Yes (non-additional)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Base: All respondents (Base, None of these)

BDP – West Mids (188, 3%); The rest (202, 2%)

Base: All respondents (Base, ‘None of these’)

KTP (200, 3%); GIII (122, 2%); GRD (158, 1%); BPD (390, 3%); SFIE (185, 3%)


Additionality further analysis l.jpg
Additionality – Further Analysis

Additionality – By Number of Times Company Has Participated In Scheme

Base: All respondents (Base, ‘None of these’)

Once (863, 2%); Twice (133, 2%), More than twice (59, 0%)


Extent to which financial benefits attributable to scheme l.jpg
Extent To Which Financial Benefits Attributable To Scheme

Proportion Of Financial Benefit Would Expect To Realise Anyway & To The Same Timeframe – For Those Anticipating A Financial Benefit

None of it (0%)

20% of it or less

21%-40% of it

41%-60% of it

More than 60% of it

All of it (100%)

Zero benefits

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know (benefit), Don’t know (attribution))

KTP (200, 25%, 3%); GIII (122, 21%, 1%); GRD (158, 23%,2%); BPD (390, 16%, 1%); SFIE (185, 15%, 2%)

Base: All resp’ (Base, Don’t know(benefit) Don’t know(attribution))

BDP – West Mids (188, 15%, 1%); The rest (202, 17%, 1%)



Overall satisfaction l.jpg
Overall Satisfaction

Overall Satisfaction

1 – Very dissatisfied

2 – Fairly dissatisfied

3 - Indifferent

4 – Fairly satisfied

5 – Very satisfied

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Can’t remember)

KTP (200, 3%); GIII (122, 0%); GRD (158, 0%); BPD (390, 1%); SFIE (185, 1%)

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Can’t remember

BDP – West Mids (188, 1%); The rest (202, 0%)


Overall satisfaction survey measure b10 l.jpg
Overall Satisfaction – Survey Measure B10

  • Proportion of firms scoring ‘4 – Fairly satisfied’ or ‘5 – Very satisfied’ on a 5-point scale for…

    • Thinking about your total experience of <scheme> how would you rate your satisfaction with the scheme overall?


Overall satisfaction survey measure b1043 l.jpg
Overall Satisfaction – Survey Measure B10

Overall Satisfaction - (B10)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Proportion giving a rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’

75%

79%

84%

61%

71%

BPD

West Mids

The rest

60%

62%

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Can’t remember)

KTP (200, 3%); GIII (122, 0%); GRD (158, 0%); BPD (390, 1%); SFIE (185, 1%)

95% Confidence Intervals

± 4%

± 4%

± 4%

± 4%

± 4%


Overall satisfaction comparisons with previous research l.jpg
Overall Satisfaction – Comparisons With Previous Research

Overall Satisfaction - (B10)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

BSMS Wave 7

Proportion giving a rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’

75%

79%

84%

61%

71%

Base:

200

122

158

390

185

BSMS Wave 5

Proportion giving a rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’

73%

81%

79%

54%

76%

Base:

350

348

419

136

128

No statistically significant differences between Wave 7 and Wave 5 at the 95% confidence level


Reasons for dissatisfaction l.jpg
Reasons For Dissatisfaction

Reasons For Dissatisfaction (Unprompted)

KTP

GIII

GRD

  • (One-off mentions only)

  • Did not benefit business – 2 firms

  • Time consuming/slow process – 2 firms

  • Did not receive the full amount requested – 2 firms

  • Too much bureaucracy – 3 firms

  • Did not receive the full amount requested – 2 firms

BPD

SFIE

  • Did not benefit the business – 31%

  • Not relevant to the business – 18%

  • Benchmarks not suitable – 16%

  • Poor level of guidance – 16%

  • Too much bureaucracy – 11%

  • Received no funding – 10%

  • Time consuming/slow process – 5 firms

  • Too many restrictions – 5 firms

  • Process unclear – 4 firms

  • Did not received the full amount requested – 4 firms

  • Too much bureaucracy – 3 firms

  • Process too complex – 3 firms

  • Did not benefit the business – 3 firms

Base: All respondents (Base) – Dissatisfaction: BPD - 10%+ mentions only; Others – 2+ firms mentioning only

KTP (6); GIII (7); GRD (7); BPD (61); SFIE (19)


Quality rating survey measure a09 l.jpg
Quality Rating – Survey Measure A09

Quality Rating - (A09)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Average proportion giving a rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’

72%

74%

70%

72%

60%

BPD

West Mids

The rest

73%

71%

Base: All respondents (Base)

KTP (200); GIII (122); GRD (158); BPD (390); SFIE (185)

95% Confidence Intervals

± 4%

± 5%

± 5%

± 4%

± 5%


Quality rating comparisons with previous research l.jpg
Quality Rating – Comparisons With Previous Research

Quality Rating - (A09)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

BSMS Wave 7

Average proportion giving a rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’

72%

74%

70%

72%

60%

Base:

200

122

158

390

185

BSMS Wave 5

Average proportion giving a rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’

79%

78%

60%

62%

74%

Base:

318

348

70

136

91

* Please note that there are differences in the construction of the A09 measure between Wave 5 and Wave 7

Denote statistically significant differences between Wave 7 and Wave 5 at the 95% level of confidence


Quality rating survey measure a0948 l.jpg
Quality Rating – Survey Measure A09

  • For KTP:

  • Average proportion of firms scoring ‘4’ or ‘5’ on a 5-point scale for…

    • Competence & knowledge of Associate (B1g2) in progress/completed projects only

    • Competence & knowledge of HEI supervisor (B1g3) in progress/completed projects only

    • Written information to assist in preparing application (B1b)

    • Verbal advice to assist in preparing application (B1b5)

    • Transparency of application process (B1b7)

    • Professionalism & impartiality of scheme staff (B1c) in progress/completedprojects only

    • Communications between firm and scheme staff (B1h) in progress/completed projects only

    • Efficiency of whole process (B1f)


Quality ratings ktp l.jpg
Quality Ratings– KTP

Quality Ratings

Good

‘4’ or ‘5’

BSMS Wave 5

Average Or Poor

‘1’, ‘2’ or ‘3’

Application process

Scheme staff

Competence & knowledge

Associate

HEI supervisor

Written information

Verbal advice

Transparency

Professional & impartial

Commun-ications

Efficiency of process

In progress/completed projects only

In progress/completed projects only

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

KTP (175-200, 4%, 5%, 9%, 9%, 3%, 2%, 1%, 2%)


Quality rating survey measure a0950 l.jpg
Quality Rating – Survey Measure A09

  • For GIII:

  • Average proportion of firms scoring ‘4’ or ‘5’ on a 5-point scale for…

    • Competence & knowledge of mentor (B1ga) in progress/completed projects only

    • Service provided by mentor (B1g4) in progress/completed projects only

    • Written information from DTI & mentor to assist in preparing application (B1b)

    • Verbal advice from DTI & mentor to assist in preparing application (B1b5)

    • Time to process application (B1g5) in progress/completed projects only

    • Competence & knowledge of scheme staff (B1g) in progress/completed projects only

    • Communications between firm and scheme staff (B1h) in progress/completed projects only


Quality ratings giii l.jpg
Quality Ratings– GIII

Quality Ratings

Good

‘4’ or ‘5’

BSMS Wave 5

Average Or Poor

‘1’, ‘2’ or ‘3’

Application process

Scheme staff

Mentor

Competence & knowledge

Service

Written information

Verbal advice

Time to process

Competence & knowledge

Commun-ications

In progress/completed projects only

In progress/completed projects only

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

GIII (115-122, 1%, 0%, 1%, 8%, 0%, 12%, 6%)


Quality rating survey measure a0952 l.jpg
Quality Rating – Survey Measure A09

  • For GRD:

  • Average proportion of firms scoring ‘4’ or ‘5’ on a 5-point scale for…

    • Written information from DTI or RDA to assist in preparing application (B1b)

    • Verbal advice from DTI or RDA to assist in preparing application (B1b5)

    • Transparency of application process (B1b7)

    • Efficiency of whole process (B1f)


Quality ratings grd l.jpg
Quality Ratings– GRD

Quality Ratings

Good

‘4’ or ‘5’

BSMS Wave 5

Average Or Poor

‘1’, ‘2’ or ‘3’

Application process

Written information

Verbal advice

Transparency

Efficiency of process

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

GRD (158, 1%, 9%, 2%, 1%)


Quality rating survey measure a0954 l.jpg
Quality Rating – Survey Measure A09

  • For BPD:

  • Average proportion of firms scoring ‘4’ or ‘5’ on a 5-point scale for…

    • Business Link Advisor for being impartial (B1)

    • Business Link Advisor for being competent and knowledgeable (B1)

    • Business Link Advisor for being able to communicate (B1)

    • Relevance of the benchmarks (B1)

    • Clarity & ease of understanding of diagnostic report (B1)


Quality ratings bpd l.jpg
Quality Ratings– BPD

Quality Ratings

Good

‘4’ or ‘5’

BSMS Wave 5

Average Or Poor

‘1’, ‘2’ or ‘3’

Business Link Advisor

Diagnostic

Impartial

Competence & knowledge

Able to communicate

Relevance of benchmarks

Clarity & ease of understanding report

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

BPD (390, 1%, 1%, 0%, 3%, 2%)


Quality ratings bpd56 l.jpg
Quality Ratings– BPD

Quality Ratings

Good

‘4’ or ‘5’

BSMS Wave 5

Average Or Poor

‘1’, ‘2’ or ‘3’

Business Link Advisor

Diagnostic

Impartial

Competence & knowledge

Able to communicate

Relevance of benchmarks

Clarity & ease of understanding report

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

BPD (390, 1%, 1%, 0%, 3%, 2%)


Quality ratings bpd57 l.jpg
Quality Ratings– BPD

Quality Ratings

Good

‘4’ or ‘5’

BSMS Wave 5

Average Or Poor

‘1’, ‘2’ or ‘3’

Business Link Advisor

Diagnostic

Impartial

Competence & knowledge

Able to communicate

Relevance of benchmarks

Clarity & ease of understanding report

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

BPD (390, 1%, 1%, 0%, 3%, 2%)


Quality rating survey measure a0958 l.jpg
Quality Rating – Survey Measure A09

  • For SFIE:

  • Average proportion of firms scoring ‘4’ or ‘5’ on a 5-point scale for…

    • Written information to assist in preparing application (B1b)

    • Verbal advice to assist in preparing application (B1b5)

    • Transparency of application process (B1b7)

    • Efficiency of whole process (B1f)


Quality ratings sfie l.jpg
Quality Ratings– SFIE

Quality Ratings

Good

‘4’ or ‘5’

BSMS Wave 5

Average Or Poor

‘1’, ‘2’ or ‘3’

Application process

Written information

Verbal advice

Transparency

Efficiency of process

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

SFIE (185, 3%, 10%, 0%, 1%)


Transparency efficiency rating survey measure a32 l.jpg
Transparency & Efficiency Rating – Survey Measure A32

  • Average proportion of firms scoring ‘4’ or ‘5’ on a 5-point scale for…

    • Transparency of application process (B1b7)

    • Efficiency of whole process (B1f)


Transparency efficiency rating survey measure a3261 l.jpg
Transparency & Efficiency Rating – Survey Measure A32

Transparency & Efficiency Rating - (A32)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Average proportion giving a rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’

60%

-

66%

-

55%

Base: All respondents (Base)

KTP (200); GRD (158); SFIE (185)

95% Confidence Intervals

± 4%

-

± 5%

-

± 5%


Competence knowledge of mentor survey measure b27 l.jpg
Competence & Knowledge of Mentor – Survey Measure B27

  • For GIII

  • Proportion of firms scoring ‘4’ or ‘5’ on a 5-point scale for…

    • Competence & knowledge of mentor (B1ga) in progress/completed projects only


Competence knowledge of mentor survey measure b2763 l.jpg
Competence & Knowledge of Mentor – Survey Measure B27

Competence & Knowledge of Mentor Rating - (B27) - in progress/completed projects only

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Average proportion giving a rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’

-

84%

-

-

-

Base: All in progress/completed projects (Base)

GIII (115)

95% Confidence Intervals

-

± 4%

-

-

-


Competence knowledge of mentor comparisons with previous research l.jpg
Competence & Knowledge of Mentor – Comparisons With Previous Research

Competence & Knowledge of Mentor Rating - (B27) - in progress/completed projects only

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

BSMS Wave 7

Average proportion giving a rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’

-

84%

-

-

-

Base:

-

115

-

-

-

BSMS Wave 5

Average proportion giving a rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’

-

82%

-

-

-

Base:

-

348

-

-

-

No statistically significant difference between Wave 7 and Wave 5 at the 95% confidence level


Time to process application survey measure c19 l.jpg
Time to Process Application – Survey Measure C19

  • For GIII

  • Proportion of firms scoring ‘4’ or ‘5’ on a 5-point scale for…

    • Time to process application (B1g5) in progress/completed projects only


Time to process application survey measure c1966 l.jpg
Time to Process Application – Survey Measure C19

Time to Process Application Rating - (C19) - in progress/completed projects only

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Average proportion giving a rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’

-

62%

-

-

-

Base: All in progress/completed projects (Base)

GIII (115)

95% Confidence Intervals

-

± 5%

-

-

-


Time to process application comparisons with previous research l.jpg
Time To Process Application – Comparisons With Previous Research

Time to Process Application Rating - (C19) - in progress/completed projects only

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

BSMS Wave 7

Average proportion giving a rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’

-

62%

-

-

-

Base:

-

115

-

-

-

BSMS Wave 5

Average proportion giving a rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’

-

76%

-

-

-

Base:

-

326

-

-

-

Denotes a statistically significant difference between Wave 7 and Wave 5 at the 95% level of confidence


Likelihood to recommend bpd l.jpg
Likelihood To Recommend (BPD)

Likelihood Of Recommending BPD To Others

Very likely

Likely

Not very likely

Not at all likely

Base: All respondents (Base, None of these)

BDP – West Mids (188, 2%); The rest (202, 2%)

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

BPD (390, 2%)


Comparison with expectations l.jpg
Comparison With Expectations

Comparison With Expectations

Not met at all

Partially met

Met in the main

Fully met

Exceeded

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

KTP (200, 5%); GIII (122, 0%); GRD (158, 2%); BPD (390, 1%); SFIE (185, 1%)

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

BDP – West Mids (188, 2%); The rest (202, 0%)


Clear information rating survey measure b09 l.jpg
Clear Information Rating – Survey Measure B09

Clear Information Rating - (B09)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Average proportion giving a rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’

74%

77%

85%

64%

74%

BPD

West Mids

The rest

61%

66%

Base: All respondents (Base)

KTP (200); GIII (122); GRD (158); BPD (390); SFIE (185)

95% Confidence Intervals

± 4%

± 5%

± 4%

± 4%

± 4%


Clear information rating comparisons with previous research l.jpg
Clear Information Rating – Comparisons With Previous Research

Clear Information Rating - (B09)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

BSMS Wave 7

Average proportion giving a rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’

74%

77%

85%

64%

74%

Base:

200

122

158

390

185

BSMS Wave 5

Average proportion giving a rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’

74%

76%

85%

53%

78%

Base:

350

348

419

136

128

Denotes a statistically significant difference between Wave 7 and Wave 5 at the 95% level of confidence


Clear information rating survey measure b0972 l.jpg
Clear Information Rating – Survey Measure B09

  • For KTP & GIII:

  • Average proportion of firms scoring ‘4’ or ‘5’ on a 5-point scale (where 5 is very clear and 1 is not at all clear) for…

    • Clarity of eligibility criteria (C3a)

    • Clarity of format, content and delivery of the scheme (C3a2)


Clear information rating ktp giii l.jpg
Clear Information Rating – KTP & GIII

Clear Information Ratings

Clear

‘4’ or ‘5’

Neither or Unclear

‘1’, ‘2’ or ‘3’

KTP

GIII

Eligibility criteria

Format, content & delivery

Eligibility criteria

Format, content & delivery

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

KTP (200, 4%, 4%), GIII (122, 1%, 1%)


Clear information rating survey measure b0974 l.jpg
Clear Information Rating – Survey Measure B09

  • For GRD & SFIE:

  • Average proportion of firms scoring ‘4’ or ‘5’ on a 5-point scale (where 5 is very clear and 1 is not at all clear) for…

    • Clarity of eligibility criteria (C3a)

    • Clarity of terms and conditions (C3a5)

  • N.B. Not included in the ‘clear information’ scorecard measure but asked for GRD & SFIE

    • Clarity of grant application assessment criteria (C3a1)


Clear information rating grd sfie l.jpg
Clear Information Rating – GRD & SFIE

Clear Information Ratings

Clear

‘4’ or ‘5’

Neither or Unclear

‘1’, ‘2’ or ‘3’

GRD

SFIE

Eligibility criteria

Terms & conditions

Grant assessment criteria

Eligibility criteria

Terms & conditions

Grant assessment criteria

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

GRD (158, 1%, 1%, 1%), SFIE (185, 1%, 1%, 1%)


Clear information rating survey measure b0976 l.jpg
Clear Information Rating – Survey Measure B09

  • For BPD:

  • Proportion of firms scoring ‘4’ or ‘5’ on a 5-point scale (where 5 is very clear and 1 is not at all clear) for…

    • Clarity of format, content and delivery of diagnostic (C3a4)


Clear information rating bpd l.jpg
Clear Information Rating – BPD

Clear Information Ratings

Clear

‘4’ or ‘5’

Neither or Unclear

‘1’, ‘2’ or ‘3’

West Midlands

BPD

The rest

Format, content & delivery of diagnostic

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

BPD (390, 1%), West Midlands (188, 0%), The rest (202, 2%)


Satisfied objectives l.jpg
Satisfied Objectives?

Extent To Which Objectives For Participation Have Been Satisfied

1 – didn’t satisfy objectives at all

2

3

4

5 – totally satisfied objectives

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know, Project not yet started)

KTP (200, 8%, 13%); GIII (122, 0%, 6%); GRD (158, 3%, 3%); BPD (390, 2%, 0%)

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

BDP – West Mids (188, 2%); The rest (202, 2%)


Satisfaction with level of assistance bpd l.jpg
Satisfaction With Level Of Assistance (BPD)

Satisfaction That Level of Assistance Received Has Been Sufficient To Meet Your Intended Aims And Objectives For Scheme

1 – Very dissatisfied

2 – Fairly dissatisfied

3 - Indifferent

4 – Fairly satisfied

5 – Very satisfied

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

BDP – West Mids (188, 2%); The rest (202, 0%)

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Can’t remember)

BPD (390, 1%)



Benefits of participation prompted l.jpg
Benefits Of Participation – Prompted

Improved exchange of information with key customers or suppliers

Introduction of new or significantly improved products or processes

Introduction of new or significantly improved management practices

Improved management of innovation processes (not SFIE)

Improved marketing strategy

Improved ability to identify strengths and weaknesses as a company

Improved ability to identify & access external expertise (not SFIE)

Improved technical understanding or capability (not SFIE)

Improved understanding of the value of measuring your business performance

Improved ability to make informed business decisions

Improved staff knowledge or skills

Reduced costs

Improvements in sales

Increased efficiency

Provided some (or all) of the initial capital needed to get the business started


Improved exchange of information l.jpg
Improved Exchange Of Information

Improved Exchange Of Information With Key Customers Or Suppliers

Non-additional

1 – To no extent

2

3

4

5 – To a critical extent

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

BSMS Wave 5- % ‘4’ or ‘5’ (net of non-additionality)

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

KTP (200, 4%); GIII (122, 2%); GRD (158, 0%); BPD (390, 0%); SFIE (185, 1%)

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

BDP – West Mids (188, 0%); The rest (202, 0%)


Benefits of participation the analysis l.jpg
Benefits Of Participation – The Analysis

Improved productivity & competitiveness (A06)

Improved hard business performance (A68)

Changed behaviour (A83)

Increased skills (A81)

Increased innovation (A04)

New products, processes

or man. practices (A57)

Improved ability to access external expertise (A76)


Benefits of participation prompted84 l.jpg
Benefits Of Participation – Prompted

Improved exchange of information with key customers or suppliers

Introduction of new or significantly improved products or processes

Introduction of new or significantly improved management practices

Improved management of innovation processes (not SFIE)

Improved marketing strategy

Improved ability to identify strengths and weaknesses as a company

Improved ability to identify & access external expertise (not SFIE)

Improved technical understanding or capability (not SFIE)

Improved understanding of the value of measuring your business performance

Improved ability to make informed business decisions

Improved staff knowledge or skills

Reduced costs

Improvements in sales

Increased efficiency


Improved productivity competitiveness survey measure a06 l.jpg
Improved Productivity & Competitiveness – Survey Measure A06

Improved Productivity & Competitiveness - (A06)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Proportion ‘4’ or ‘5’ for any – net of non-additionality

90%

86%

92%

60%

82%

BPD

West Mids

The rest

66%

55%

Base: All respondents (Base)

KTP (200); GIII (122); GRD (158); BPD (390); SFIE (185)

95% Confidence Intervals

± 3%

± 4%

± 3%

± 4%

± 4%


Measure a06 comparisons with previous research l.jpg
Measure A06 – Comparisons With Previous Research

Improved Productivity & Competitiveness - (A06)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

BSMS Wave 7

Proportion ‘4’ or ‘5’ for any – net of non-additionality

90%

86%

92%

60%

82%

Base:

200

122

158

390

185

BSMS Wave 5

Proportion ‘4’ or ‘5’ for any – net of non-additionality

86%

85%

87%

57%

88%

Base:

321

329

399

136

128

No statistically significant differences between Wave 7 and Wave 5 at the 95% confidence level


Benefits of participation prompted87 l.jpg
Benefits Of Participation – Prompted

Improved exchange of information with key customers or suppliers

Introduction of new or significantly improved products or processes

Introduction of new or significantly improved management practices

Improved management of innovation processes (not SFIE)

Improved marketing strategy

Improved ability to identify strengths and weaknesses as a company

Improved ability to identify & access external expertise (not SFIE)

Improved technical understanding or capability (not SFIE)

Improved understanding of the value of measuring your business performance

Improved ability to make informed business decisions

Improved staff knowledge or skills

Reduced costs

Improvements in sales

Increased efficiency


Changed behaviour survey measure a83 l.jpg
Changed Behaviour – Survey Measure A83

Changed Behaviour - (A83)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Proportion ‘4’ or ‘5’ for any – net of non-additionality

80%

73%

84%

50%

66%

BPD

West Mids

The rest

57%

43%

Base: All respondents (Base)

KTP (200); GIII (122); GRD (158); BPD (390); SFIE (185)

95% Confidence Intervals

± 4%

± 5%

± 4%

± 4%

± 4%


Changed behaviour comparisons with previous research l.jpg
Changed Behaviour – Comparisons With Previous Research

Changed Behaviour - (A83)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

BSMS Wave 7

Proportion ‘4’ or ‘5’ for any – net of non-additionality

80%

73%

84%

50%

66%

Base:

200

122

158

390

185

BSMS Wave 5

Proportion ‘4’ or ‘5’ for any – net of non-additionality

73%

73%

73%

32%

69%

Base:

321

329

399

136

128

Previous Wave

Denote statistically significant differences between Wave 7 and Wave 5 at the 95% level of confidence


Benefits of participation prompted90 l.jpg
Benefits Of Participation – Prompted

Improved exchange of information with key customers or suppliers

Introduction of new or significantly improved products or processes

Introduction of new or significantly improved management practices

Improved management of innovation processes (not SFIE)

Improved marketing strategy

Improved ability to identify strengths and weaknesses as a company

Improved ability to identify & access external expertise (not SFIE)

Improved technical understanding or capability (not SFIE)

Improved understanding of the value of measuring your business performance

Improved ability to make informed business decisions

Improved staff knowledge or skills

Reduced costs

Improvements in sales

Increased efficiency


Increased innovation survey measure a04 l.jpg
Increased Innovation – Survey Measure A04

Increased Innovation - (A04)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Proportion ‘4’ or ‘5’ for any – net of non-additionality

74%

60%

82%

39%

59%

BPD

West Mids

The rest

45%

33%

Base: All respondents (Base)

KTP (200); GIII (122); GRD (158); BPD (390); SFIE (185)

95% Confidence Intervals

± 4%

± 5%

± 4%

± 4%

± 5%


Increased innovation comparisons with previous research l.jpg
Increased Innovation – Comparisons With Previous Research

Increased Innovation - (A04)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

BSMS Wave 7

Proportion ‘4’ or ‘5’ for any – net of non-additionality

74%

60%

82%

39%

59%

Base:

200

122

158

390

185

BSMS Wave 5

Proportion ‘4’ or ‘5’ for any – net of non-additionality

67%

64%

69%

24%

66%

Base:

321

329

399

136

128

Previous Wave

Denote statistically significant differences between Wave 7 and Wave 5 at the 95% level of confidence


Benefits of participation prompted93 l.jpg
Benefits Of Participation – Prompted

Improved exchange of information with key customers or suppliers

Introduction of new or significantly improved products or processes

Introduction of new or significantly improved management practices

Improved management of innovation processes (not SFIE)

Improved marketing strategy

Improved ability to identify strengths and weaknesses as a company

Improved ability to identify & access external expertise (not SFIE)

Improved technical understanding or capability (not SFIE)

Improved understanding of the value of measuring your business performance

Improved ability to make informed business decisions

Improved staff knowledge or skills

Reduced costs

Improvements in sales

Increased efficiency


Introduced new products processes or management practices survey measure a57 l.jpg
Introduced New Products, Processes Or Management Practices – Survey Measure A57

Introduced New Products, Processes Or Management Practices - (A57)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Proportion ‘4’ or ‘5’ for any – net of non-additionality

68%

55%

79%

34%

59%

BPD

West Mids

The rest

38%

29%

Base: All respondents (Base)

KTP (200); GIII (122); GRD (158); BPD (390); SFIE (185)

95% Confidence Intervals

± 4%

± 5%

± 4%

± 4%

± 5%


Measure a57 comparisons with previous research l.jpg
Measure A57 – Comparisons With Previous Research

Introduced New Products, Processes Or Management Practices - (A57)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

BSMS Wave 7

Proportion ‘4’ or ‘5’ for any – net of non-additionality

68%

55%

79%

34%

59%

Base:

200

122

158

390

185

BSMS Wave 5

Proportion ‘4’ or ‘5’ for any – net of non-additionality

61%

55%

62%

21%

66%

Base:

321

329

399

136

128

Previous Wave

Denote statistically significant differences between Wave 7 and Wave 5 at the 95% level of confidence


Benefits of participation prompted96 l.jpg
Benefits Of Participation – Prompted

Improved exchange of information with key customers or suppliers

Introduction of new or significantly improved products or processes

Introduction of new or significantly improved management practices

Improved management of innovation processes (not SFIE)

Improved marketing strategy

Improved ability to identify strengths and weaknesses as a company

Improved ability to identify & access external expertise (not SFIE)

Improved technical understanding or capability (not SFIE)

Improved understanding of the value of measuring your business performance

Improved ability to make informed business decisions

Improved staff knowledge or skills

Reduced costs

Improvements in sales

Increased efficiency


Increased skills survey measure a81 l.jpg
Increased Skills – Survey Measure A81

Increased Skills - (A81)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Proportion ‘4’ or ‘5’ for any – net of non-additionality

87%

78%

82%

54%

49%

BPD

West Mids

The rest

59%

50%

Base: All respondents (Base)

KTP (200); GIII (122); GRD (158); BPD (390); SFIE (185)

95% Confidence Intervals

± 3%

± 5%

± 4%

± 4%

± 5%


Increased skills comparisons with previous research l.jpg
Increased Skills – Comparisons With Previous Research

Increased Skills - (A81)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

BSMS Wave 7

Proportion ‘4’ or ‘5’ for any – net of non-additionality

87%

78%

82%

54%

49%

Base:

200

122

158

390

185

BSMS Wave 5

Proportion ‘4’ or ‘5’ for any – net of non-additionality

76%

70%

68%

46%

49%

Base:

321

329

399

136

128

Denote statistically significant differences between Wave 7 and Wave 5 at the 95% level of confidence


Benefits of participation prompted99 l.jpg
Benefits Of Participation – Prompted

Improved exchange of information with key customers or suppliers

Introduction of new or significantly improved products or processes

Introduction of new or significantly improved management practices

Improved management of innovation processes (not SFIE)

Improved marketing strategy

Improved ability to identify strengths and weaknesses as a company

Improved ability to identify & access external expertise (not SFIE)

Improved technical understanding or capability (not SFIE)

Improved understanding of the value of measuring your business performance

Improved ability to make informed business decisions

Improved staff knowledge or skills

Reduced costs

Improvements in sales

Increased efficiency


Improved ability to identify access external expertise survey measure a76 l.jpg
Improved Ability To Identify & Access External Expertise – Survey Measure A76

Improved Ability To Identify & Access External Expertise - (A76)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Proportion ‘4’ or ‘5’ for any – net of non-additionality

50%

52%

34%

25%

-

BPD

West Mids

The rest

31%

19%

Base: All respondents (Base)

KTP (200); GIII (122); GRD (158); BPD (390)

95% Confidence Intervals

± 5%

± 5%

± 5%

± 3%

-


Measure a76 comparisons with previous research l.jpg
Measure A76 – Comparisons With Previous Research

Improved Ability To Identify & Access External Expertise - (A76)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

BSMS Wave 7

Proportion ‘4’ or ‘5’ for any – net of non-additionality

50%

52%

34%

25%

-

Base:

200

122

158

390

-

BSMS Wave 5

Proportion ‘4’ or ‘5’ for any – net of non-additionality

37%

42%

23%

15%

-

Base:

321

329

399

136

-

Previous Wave

Denote statistically significant differences between Wave 7 and Wave 5 at the 95% level of confidence


Benefits of participation prompted102 l.jpg
Benefits Of Participation – Prompted

Improved exchange of information with key customers or suppliers

Introduction of new or significantly improved products or processes

Introduction of new or significantly improved management practices

Improved management of innovation processes (not SFIE)

Improved marketing strategy

Improved ability to identify strengths and weaknesses as a company

Improved ability to identify & access external expertise (not SFIE)

Improved technical understanding or capability (not SFIE)

Improved understanding of the value of measuring your business performance

Improved ability to make informed business decisions

Improved staff knowledge or skills

Reduced costs

Improvements in sales

Increased efficiency


Improved hard business performance survey measure a68 l.jpg
Improved Hard Business Performance – Survey Measure A68

Improved Hard Business Performance - (A68)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Proportion ‘4’ or ‘5’ for any – net of non-additionality

64%

38%

60%

35%

73%

BPD

West Mids

The rest

44%

28%

Base: All respondents (Base)

KTP (200); GIII (122); GRD (158); BPD (390); SFIE (185)

95% Confidence Intervals

± 4%

± 5%

± 5%

± 4%

± 4%


Measure a68 comparisons with previous research l.jpg
Measure A68– Comparisons With Previous Research

Improved Hard Business Performance - (A68)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

BSMS Wave 7

Proportion ‘4’ or ‘5’ for any – net of non-additionality

64%

38%

60%

35%

73%

Base:

200

122

158

390

185

BSMS Wave 5

Proportion ‘4’ or ‘5’ for any – net of non-additionality

64%

53%

56%

33%

82%

Base:

321

329

399

136

128

Previous Wave

Denotes a statistically significant difference between Wave 7 and Wave 5 at the 95% level of confidence


Ability to secure financial backing l.jpg
Ability To Secure Financial Backing

Businesses Experiencing Or Anticipating An Increased Ability To Secure Financial Backing

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/Refused)

GIII (122, 3%); GRD (158, 4%)


Improved access to finance survey measure a91 l.jpg
Improved Access To Finance – Survey Measure A91

For GIII & GRD:

Proportion of firms agreeing that they are now better placed to obtain financial assistance in the future (D11b2)


Improved access to finance survey measure a91107 l.jpg
Improved Access To Finance – Survey Measure A91

Improved Access To Finance - (A91)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Proportion agreeing

-

84%

85%

-

-

Base: All respondents (Base)

GIII (122); GRD (158)

95% Confidence Intervals

-

± 4%

± 4%

-

-


New product development grd l.jpg
New Product Development (GRD)

Have You Done (Or Do You Expect To Do) Any Of Following As A Result Of Participation In GRD Scheme

Produced a demonstration model

Produced a basic prototype

Produced a pre-production prototype

Granted a patent

Registered a design

Granted a trademark

Obtained a copyright

Entered into a licensing agreement

Significant extent

Introduced new products or processes

Lesser extent

Non-additional

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know, ‘None of these’)

GRD (158, 0%, 1%)


Increased r d grd l.jpg
Increased R&D - GRD

Businesses Experiencing Or Anticipating An Increase In Amount Of Research & Development Activity

Yes

No

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

GRD (158, 1%)


Increased use of external expertise bpd l.jpg
Increased Use Of External Expertise (BPD)

Businesses Experiencing Or Anticipating An Increase In Use Of External Sources Of Expertise, Advice Or Diagnostics

Increased use of external sources

Anticipate increasing use of external sources

Do not anticipate increasing use of external sources

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

BDP – West Mids (188, 2%); The rest (202, 2%)

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

BPD (390, 2%)


External expertise used bpd l.jpg

BPD

  • Consultants - 21%

  • Business Link – 13%

  • The Internet – 4%

  • Professional services – 3%

  • Not anticipating an increase in usage of external support – 47%

External Expertise Used (BPD)

Sources Anticipate Increasing Use Of (Unprompted)

Reasons For Using Business Link

Advice & help with grant applications

Benchmarking exercise/diagnostic

General information & advice

Other

Base: All respondents who have increased/anticipate increasing their use of Business Link (Base, Don’t know)

BPD (52, 2%)

Base: All respondents (Base) – 3%+ mentions only;

BPD (390)



Total costs including subsequent action l.jpg
Total Costs – Including Subsequent Action

Total Cost To Business Of Participation In Scheme – Including Any Subsequent Action

More than £500,000

£100,001-£500,000

£50,001-£100,000

£10,001-£50,000

£1,001-£10,000

Up to £1,000

Zero

Mean (£)

94,600

80,700

192,000

19,200

1,550,000

Median (£)

50,000

15,000

100,000

2,500

350,000

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

BDP – West Mids (188, 4%); The rest (202, 7%)

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know) - £ figures to 3 s. f.

KTP (200, 11%); GIII (122, 5%); GRD (158, 11%); BPD (390, 5%); SFIE (185, 5%)


Benefits in relation to costs l.jpg
Benefits In Relation To Costs

Expected Benefit In Relation To The Costs

(Including Any Subsequent Action Taken)

Less than the costs

About the same as the costs

Greater than the costs

Zero costs

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Base: All respondents (Base, None apply, Don’t know/Too early to say)

KTP (200, 1%, 12%); GIII (122, 0%, 7%); GRD (158, 0%, 11%); BPD (390, 1%, 6%); SFIE (185, 1%, 6%)

Base: All respondents (Base, None apply, Don’t know)

BDP – West Mids (188, 1%, 5%); The rest (202, 0%, 7%)


Calculating benefit l.jpg
Calculating £ Benefit

  • Stage 1 – Estimated financial gain to business in terms of bottom line profit (E5a/b) used to create a continuous £ estimated benefit variable

  • Stage 2 – E5c/d and F13 used to convert any figures given in terms of turnover to profit

  • Stage 3 – Future expectations allowed for up to a maximum of 10 years (using E6/7 and an annual discount rate of 8%)

  • Stage 4 – Allowance made for actions not taken as a result of support (E7e-k)

  • Stage 5 – Adjusted for additionality as follows:

  • Weighted by response to D5 (non-additionality = 0, partial additionality = 0.5, full additionality = 1)


Calculating benefit116 l.jpg
Calculating £ Benefit

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Stage 1 (£)

502,000

292,000

919,000

93,800

514,000

Stage 2 (£)

368,000

255,000

571,000

43,600

397,000

Stage 3 (£)

1,230,000

664,000

2,070,000

144,000

1,210,000

1,230,000

665,000

2,070,000

144,000

1,210,000

Stage 4 (£)

882,000

423,000

1,500,000

103,000

850,000

Stage 5 (£)

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know) – £ figures to 3 s.f.

KTP (200, 25%); GIII (122, 21%); GRD (158, 23%); BPD (390, 16%); SFIE (185, 15%)



Benefit distributions118 l.jpg
£ Benefit Distributions

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE



Benefit distributions logs120 l.jpg
£ Benefit Distributions (Logs)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE


Total benefit in terms of bottom line profit including any subsequent action taken l.jpg
Total £ Benefit – In Terms Of Bottom-Line Profit & Including Any Subsequent Action Taken

Total £ Benefit (In Terms Of Bottom Line Profit & Including Any Subsequent Action Taken) – Including Costs Averted, Net Of Non-Additional Interventions & Halved If Partially Additional

More than £500,000

£100,001-£500,000

£50,001-£100,000

£10,001-£50,000

Up to £10,000

Zero

Mean (£)

882,000

423,000

1,500,000

103,000

850,000

Median (£)

149,000

55,300

284,000

6,390

144,000

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/refused) - £ figures to 3 s. f.

KTP (200, 25%); GIII (122, 21%); GRD (158, 23%); BPD (390, 16%); SFIE (185, 15%)

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/refused)

BDP – West Mids (188, 15%); The rest (202, 17%)


Estimated benefit survey measure a49 l.jpg
£ Estimated Benefit– Survey Measure A49

£ Estimated Benefit To Business Users - (A49)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Mean, net of non-additionality (£)

882,000

423,000

1,500,000

103,000

850,000

BPD

The rest

West Mids

151,000

57,100

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/refused) – All figures shown to 3 s.f.

KTP (200, 25%); GIII (122, 21%); GRD (158, 23%); BPD (390, 16%); SFIE (185, 15%)

±

321000

±

160,000

±

776,000

±

67,400

±

248,000

95% Confidence intervals (£)


Estimated benefit alternative calculations l.jpg
£ Estimated Benefit– Alternative Calculations

£ Estimated Benefit (In £)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

882,000

423,000

1,500,000

103,000

850,000

Mean, net of non-additionality & halved for partial additionality (£)

Base:

150

96

122

327

157

1,190,000

653,000

2,050,000

140,000

1,180,000

Mean, net of non-additionality (£)

Base:

150

96

122

327

157

732,000

491,000

1,350,000

104,000

799,000

Mean, adjusted for additionality using % attributable (£)

Base:

150

96

122

327

157

Base: All respondents providing full data – All figures shown to 3 s.f.


Estimated benefit comparisons with previous research l.jpg
£ Estimated Benefit– Comparisons With Previous Research

£ Estimated Benefit To Business Users - (A49)

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Mean, net of non-additionality & halved for partial additionality (£)

882,000

423,000

1,500,000

103,000

850,000

BSMS Wave 7

Median, net of non-additionality & halved for partial additionality (£)

149,000

55,300

284,000

6,390

144,000

Base:

150

96

122

327

157

Don’t know:

25%

21%

23%

16%

15%

Mean, net of non-additionality & halved for partial additionality (£)

504,000

435,000

1,388,000

21,000

791,000

BSMS Wave 5

Median, net of non-additionality & halved for partial additionality (£)

75,000

4,000

62,000

1,000

128,000

Base:

160

143

183

57

75

Don’t know:

50%

57%

54%

58%

41%

Base: All respondents providing full data – All Wave 7 figures shown to 3 s.f., all Wave 5 figures shown to nearest £1,000


Estimated benefit further analysis l.jpg
£ Estimated Benefit – Further Analysis

Key Measures – By £ Estimated Benefit

Base: All respondents (Base)

Zero (207); Up to £10,000 (77); £10,001-£50,000 (141); £50,001-£100,000 (92); £100,001-£500,000 (177); More than £500,000 (158)

£ Estimated Benefit – By Business Size

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

0-9 (360, 20%); 10-49 (324, 18%); 50-99 (79, 19%); 100+ (88, 18%)


Estimated benefit further analysis126 l.jpg
£ Estimated Benefit – Further Analysis

Business Type – By £ Estimated Benefit

Base: All respondents (Base)

Zero (207); Up to £10,000 (77); £10,001-£50,000 (141); £50,001-£100,000 (92); £100,001-£500,000 (177); More than £500,000 (158)


Estimated benefit further analysis127 l.jpg
£ Estimated Benefit – Further Analysis

Past Participation – By £ Estimated Benefit

Base: All respondents (Base)

Zero (207); Up to £10,000 (77); £10,001-£50,000 (141); £50,001-£100,000 (92); £100,001-£500,000 (177); More than £500,000 (158)


Ratio of benefits to costs l.jpg
Ratio Of Benefits To Costs

Ratio Of Benefits To Costs

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Mean

17.2

16.1

14.2

9.3

6.7

Ratio, net of non-additionality & halved for partial additionality (£)

Median

3.6

3.8

3.8

1.8

1.4

BPD

The rest

West Mids

7.7

10.9

2.0

1.2

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know/refused) – All figures shown to 1 d.p.

KTP (200, 26%); GIII (122, 22%); GRD (158, 25%); BPD (390, 17%); SFIE (185, 17%)

±

10.2

±

6.2

±

5.5

±

2.2

±

3.0

95% Confidence intervals


Confidence in accuracy of costs benefits l.jpg
Confidence In Accuracy Of Costs & Benefits

Extent To Which Costs & Benefits Information Provided Is An Accurate Assessment

Not at all confident of accuracy

Not very confident of accuracy

A reasonable ball-park estimate

An accurate assessment

KTP

GIII

GRD

BPD

SFIE

Base: All respondents providing a positive benefit figure (Base, Don’t know)

KTP (142, 0%); GIII (84, 0%); GRD (114, 0%); BPD (240, 0%); SFIE (148, 0%)

Base: All respondents providing a positive benefit figure (Base, Don’t know)

BDP – West Mids (125, 0%); The rest (115, 0%)


Confidence in accuracy of costs benefits130 l.jpg
Confidence In Accuracy Of Costs & Benefits

Extent To Which Costs & Benefits Information Provided Is An Accurate Assessment

Base: All respondents providing a positive benefit figure/All respondents providing cost or benefit data (Base – Wave 7, Wave 5)

KTP (142, 224); GIII (84, 222); GRD (114, 274); BPD (240, 83); SFIE (148, 97)


ad